Case Note & Summary
The case involved two appeals against convictions under the Arms Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appellants, Mohd. Ishtiaq and Aslam Parwez, were convicted by the Addl. Designated Court for possession of illegal arms and explosives. The prosecution's case was based on a raid conducted on 8.9.1987, where arms were allegedly recovered from a workshop. The police claimed to have witnessed the accused in the act of handling weapons. However, all public witnesses who were supposed to corroborate the police's account turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution's narrative. The court scrutinized the testimonies of police personnel and found them to be stereotyped and improbable, particularly noting the lack of bolting the door during the alleged recovery. The court also highlighted that the recovery of a revolver from an open area, as pointed out by Aslam Parwez months later, did not establish conscious possession as required under TADA. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and discharged the appellants from their bail obligations.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Possession of Arms - Requirement of Conscious Possession - Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 - The court held that mere recovery of arms from an open place does not establish conscious possession by the accused, especially when the area is accessible to others. The evidence did not support the prosecution's claim of exclusive possession by the accused. (Paras 45-46). B) Criminal Law - Reliability of Witnesses - Public Witnesses and Police Testimony - Not applicable - The court found that all public witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case, raising doubts about the reliability of police testimony. The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in such cases. (Paras 30-35). C) Criminal Law - Disclosure Statements - Legal Implications of Recovery - TADA, 1987, Section 5 - The court ruled that the recovery of a revolver based solely on a disclosure statement made after a significant delay does not suffice to establish possession under TADA, particularly when the recovery site was open and accessible. (Paras 50-52).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the convictions under the Arms Act and TADA.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the Designated Court, and discharged the appellants from their bail obligations.
Law Points
- Possession of arms
- Recovery of weapons
- Disclosure statements
- Public witness reliability
- TADA provisions
