Jarnail Singh vs State Of Punjab
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 126
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 321
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a firearm of the type known as a "Mujhal" or "Toredar" gun is found in the possession of an accused person, and police officers trained in handling guns testify that the mechanism of the weapon is in order, no expert evidence or test firing is necessary to establish that the weapon is in working condition; the testimony of such trained police officers is sufficient to permit the court to reasonably infer that the weapon is capable of being fired, and such inference supports conviction under the Arms Act.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The appellant has been convicted by the Designated Court, Sangrur, in Special Sessions Case No. 75 of 1992 (Sessions Trial No. 265 of 1994) under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 1987. He has filed this appeal Challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed against him.
What is held proved by the Designated Court against the appellant is that he was found in possession of a Double Barrel Gun bearing No. 294 without a permit/licence to possess the same. The Designated Court believed the evidence of Head Constable Mall Singh (P.W. 2) and A.S.I. Baldev Singh (P.W. 3) both of whom were the members of the police party which had intercepted the appellant and had found the appellant in possession of the said gun. They have stated in their evidence that the gun was in working condition. It was that type of gun in which gun powder is required to be filled in first before it could be fired. They were not cross-examined as regards working condition of the gun.
What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the identity of the gun was not established and no evidence of an expert was led to prove that it was in working condition by test firing the same, the appellant ought not to have been convicted for the offences alleged against him. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention because the type of gun which was found from the appellant was 'Mujhal or 'Toredar' gun. As we have pointed out earlier this type of gun can be fired by first filling it with gun powder. In respect of such a weapon no further test firing was necessary in order to find out whether it was in a working condition or not. Once it was found by the Police Officer that the mechanism was in order. It could be reasonable inferred that it was in working condition. Therefore, even in absence of any evidence of an armourer or an expert of that type evidence of a Police Officer who is trained in handling guns can be accepted. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and order of sentence passed against him. The appeal is dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free