NEWSLINKS US EDITION COLUMNISTS DIARY SPECIALS INTERVIEWS CAPITAL BUZZ REDIFF POLL THE STATES ELECTIONS ARCHIVES SEARCH REDIFF
Much to the Maharashtra government's displeasure, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of the underworld don Arun Gulab Gawli by a special court in Bombay.
In a criminal proceeding initiated by the state government against Gawli under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act read with Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act, the court had convicted and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and levied a fine of Rs 10,000 for possessing a Sten gun.
Allowing an appeal by Gawli against the verdict of the special court, a division bench comprising Justice U C Banerjee and Justice Brijesh Kumar of the Supreme Court held that the absence of signature or thumb impression of the accused on the recovery memo ran counter to the requirements of the Evidence Act, 1872.
''Something stands recovered at the instance of a person but neither the person from whom the recovery is made is asked to sign the recovery memo nor has the same been exhibited during the trial of the case,'' the judges observed.
The court noted that the fact of place of recovery and the person at whose instance it is recovered were rather sketchy and not a pointer to the credibility of the witnesses.
''Three different versions are available on record as to the place from where the Sten gun was recovered. Three different versions are available as to the items recovered and two versions are available as to the quantum of recovery. Can this evidence be termed to be an inspiring piece of evidence as to justify the conviction as has been relied upon by the TADA court? The answer however cannot but be in the negative,'' the judges observed.
The judges said, "Since we found that it is not very safe to rely upon the evidence relating to the alleged search and recovery, the appellant is thus entitled to the benefit of the doubt and on that score the conviction cannot be sustained." The judges therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, directing his release forthwith.
UNI
Back to top
Tell us what you think of this report
