Case Note & Summary
The case involved two appeals against convictions for possession of arms and explosives. The appellants, Aslam Parwez and Mohd. Ishtiaq, were convicted by the Addl. Designated Court based on evidence of recovery of arms from a workshop. The prosecution's case was built on a raid conducted by police after receiving information about illegal arms manufacturing. During the raid, arms and explosives were allegedly recovered from the workshop, and a revolver was later recovered from a location pointed out by Parwez. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, including police and public witnesses, but all public witnesses turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution's claims. The defense argued that the police testimonies were unreliable and that the recovery from an open area did not establish possession. The court analyzed the evidence, emphasizing the lack of corroboration from public witnesses and the improbability of the police's account. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements of possession and the convictions were set aside, allowing the appeals and discharging 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 recovery is made from a location accessible to others. The testimonies of public witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, leading to doubts about the reliability of police testimonies (Paras 1-6). B) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Disclosure Statement - TADA, 1987, Section 5 - The court found that the recovery of a revolver based on the accused's disclosure statement was insufficient to prove possession, as the recovery occurred from an open area and lacked corroboration from public witnesses. The conviction under TADA was set aside (Paras 6-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the convictions under the Arms Act and TADA were justified based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the Designated Court, and discharged the appellants from bail obligations.
Law Points
- Possession of arms
- disclosure statement
- public witness reliability
- TADA conviction
- recovery from open place
