HC acquits man after police fail to prove pistol was in working condition

The high court bench of justice JS Bedi took note of the statement of a policeman who in his report had only referred to the examination of the trigger and in his cross-examination had categorically stated that he had not checked the “firing pin” nor mentioned anything in that regard in his report.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has acquitted a Faridkot man, 22 years after he was booked in an Arms Act case, as the court found that it could not be proved whether firearm was in working condition.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has acquitted a Faridkot man, 22 years after he was booked in an Arms Act case, as the court found that it could not be proved whether firearm was in working condition. (Getty Images/iStockphoto/ Representational image)

The high court bench of justice JS Bedi took note of the statement of a policeman who in his report had only referred to the examination of the trigger and in his cross-examination had categorically stated that he had not checked the “firing pin” nor mentioned anything in that regard in his report.

“….. (in view of this) it cannot be said that the weapon allegedly recovered was a firearm in a working condition designed to discharge a projectile,” the bench recorded while quashing the trial court orders.

The court was hearing a plea from one Jagtar Singh convicted by the chief judicial magistrate, Faridkot, in November 2006 and awarded two-year jail to him in an arms seizure case. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the additional sessions judge, Faridkot, in April 2008. It was against this order that he had approached the high court contending that the pistol allegedly recovered from him had not been proved to be in working condition in the absence of it having been test fired.

The court referred to various judgments passed in this regard and recorded that test firing is not required where the weapon has been examined and found to be in working condition.

However, it further added that the argument about the firing pin not checked at the time of seizure would be useful in the case in hand.

“Apparently, when the trigger is pulled, it releases a hammer or a pin which then strikes the percussion cap at the base of the cartridge which propels (fires) the same. Thus, in the absence of checking for a firing pin, it cannot be ascertained that a shot could be fired and, therefore, the weapon cannot be stated to be a firearm in working condition,” it noted and resultantly quashed the conviction judgment.