Prosecution Failed to Prove Weapon Was in Working Condition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man in Arms Act Case After 22 Years

“No Evidence Weapon Could Fire, Delay in Examination Unexplained”, In a judgment emphasizing the importance of evidentiary scrutiny under the Arms Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17th July 2025 acquitted Gurmail Singh, who had been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed glaring lapses in the prosecution’s case, including unexplained delay in ballistic examination, failure to test the recovered cartridge, and absence of verification of essential firearm mechanisms. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered weapon was a functional firearm.

The Court ruled: “The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The checking report fails to show the weapon was in working condition, especially in absence of firing pin verification.”

Gurmail Singh was apprehended on 02.11.2002, allegedly in possession of a .315 bore pistol and a live cartridge. He was convicted in 2007 and his appeal was dismissed in 2008. The revision petition came up for final adjudication after more than 22 years since FIR registration.

The key contention raised was the serious procedural lapses in the investigation, including a delay of more than two months in sending the weapon for examination and non-submission of the cartridge for ballistic testing.

Delay in Sending Weapon for Examination

The High Court criticized the unexplained delay between the recovery (02.11.2002) and its ballistic examination (15.01.2003).

“Such unexplained delay casts doubt on the integrity of the recovery and the continuity of evidence,” the Court remarked.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, where similar delays rendered the prosecution case doubtful.

Cartridge Not Sent for Examination

The Court also highlighted that the live cartridge recovered was not examined at all, which was fatal to the case: “Failure to examine the cartridge undermines the prosecution's claim and renders the recovery doubtful.”

Deficiency in Armourer's Report

Justice Bedi found the armourer’s report deficient in crucial aspects. It neither mentioned test firing nor verification of the firing pin — a vital component to establish whether a firearm is functional.

“In absence of firing pin verification, it cannot be conclusively said the weapon was capable of firing, which is the crux under Section 25 of the Arms Act.”

The Court referenced Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, where absence of firing pin verification was held to nullify the prosecution’s case.

Allowing the revision petition, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. Gurmail Singh was acquitted of all charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

“Resultantly, the present petition is allowed… the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him,” the Court concluded.

This judgment reiterates that under the Arms Act, mere recovery of a weapon without proof of its functionality is insufficient for conviction. The ruling emphasizes the need for prompt, transparent, and comprehensive forensic examination of recovered firearms.

Date of Decision: 17th July 2025