Supreme Court Acquits License Holder in Arms Act Case: Tarlochan Singh vs State of Punjab (29 March 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 279

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J, Hima Kohli, J

Can a person be held liable under the Arms Act if their licensed firearm is used in a crime without their knowledge or consent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a licensed gun owner was convicted for offenses under the Arms Act after his gun was used in a murder. The court examined whether the prosecution had adequately proven that the gun owner willingly gave his firearm to the person who committed the crime. This judgment clarifies the extent of responsibility a license holder has over their firearm.

Case Background

On August 10, 2007, Gurdeep Singh was murdered. His wife, Sukhjit Kaur, reported to the police that two men on a motorcycle had approached and shot her husband. Initially, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against unknown persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 24 of the Arms Act. However, the investigation took a turn when Jit Singh, a former village head, informed the police that Sukhjit Kaur was involved in the murder with her friend Gurpreet Singh @ Titu and one Sukhjinder Singh.

The police arrested Sukhjit Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, and Sukhjinder Singh. Gurpreet Singh disclosed that he had hidden an empty cartridge and the murder weapon (a Double Barrel 12 bore Gun) at his farmhouse. Further investigation revealed that the gun was licensed to Tarlochan Singh, the appellant. Tarlochan Singh was subsequently arrested and, in his disclosure statement, stated that he had kept the gun license at his house.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Rupnagar, where charges were framed against the accused. The Trial Court convicted Sukhjit Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, and Sukhjinder Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120-B of the IPC, among other charges. The Trial Court also convicted Tarlochan Singh under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act.

Tarlochan Singh appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court set aside his conviction under Section 120-B of the IPC, but upheld his conviction under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. The High Court reasoned that Tarlochan Singh, as the license holder, had a responsibility to keep his firearm safe and that he had failed to do so. Aggrieved by this decision, Tarlochan Singh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 29 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for purchasing arms from an unlicensed person or delivering arms to a person not entitled to possess them. Specifically, Section 29(b) states:
  
  “delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the same; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 [three years, or with fine, or with both].”
• Section 30 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for contravention of a license or rule. It states:
  
  “Whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [six months], or with fine which may extend to [two thousand] rupees, or with both.”
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the crime was committed without his knowledge. Gurpreet Singh had taken the Double Barrel 12 Bore Rifle from their co-owned farmhouse without his consent.
• Although the appellant was the license holder, he did not willingly give his rifle to Gurpreet Singh. He had no part in the conspiracy to murder Gurdeep Singh.
• The High Court itself had observed that the appellant could not have willingly handed over his licensed rifle for the murder, as that would contravene the license rules under the Arms Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellant, as the license holder, had a duty to keep his firearm safe.
• The appellant did not report the theft of the firearm, which shows his negligence in handling it.
• The State argued that the appellant had not placed on record any document or evidence confirming that the farmhouse was co-owned by the appellant and Gurpreet Singh.

Additional Points:

• The appellant’s counsel submitted the Jamabandi of the farmhouse, proving that it was co-owned by the appellant and Gurpreet Singh. The appellant argued that he failed to file this document before the Trial Court because he was unaware of its importance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the primary issue was:

1. Whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 29 of the Arms Act when there was no evidence that he willingly delivered the firearm to the co-accused.
2. Whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act when there was no evidence of willful violation of any condition of the license or rule.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any previous cases or books in its judgment. The Court primarily relied on the interpretation of the provisions of the Arms Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court interpreted Section 29 of the Arms Act* to mean that the prosecution must prove that the firearm was willingly handed over to the co-accused. Since there was no such evidence, the conviction was set aside.
• The Court interpreted Section 30 of the Arms Act* to mean that there must be a willful violation of the conditions of the license or the Act. Since there was no evidence of such violation, the conviction was set aside.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the lack of evidence to prove that the appellant had willingly handed over his firearm to the co-accused. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had any knowledge or involvement in the crime. The court also noted that the High Court had already acquitted the appellant of the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC. The Court’s reasoning focused on the interpretation of Section 29 of the Arms Act, stating that the prosecution must prove the delivery of the firearm was deliberate and knowing. Additionally, the Court highlighted that Section 30 of the Arms Act requires a willful violation of the license conditions, which was absent in this case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments and evidence presented and found that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof required to convict the appellant under the Arms Act. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had to prove that the appellant had willingly handed over the firearm to the co-accused, which they failed to do. The Court also noted that the appellant had been acquitted of the charge of criminal conspiracy by the High Court.

The Court stated, “There is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the fire arm was handed over to the co-accused Gurpreet Singh by the appellant.” The court further observed, “it appears that the co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Titu illegally took the licensed fire arm of the appellant without his permission and knowledge and used the said weapon to murder the deceased.” Additionally, the Court noted, “Since there is no evidence to establish any willful violation by the appellant of any of the conditions of the Act or conditions of a licence or any provision of the Act or any rule, he is liable to be exonerated from the offence of Section 30 as well.”

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a person cannot be held liable for the actions of another unless there is clear evidence of their direct involvement or willful negligence. The Court rejected the argument that the appellant was negligent in handling his firearm, as there was no evidence that he willingly parted with it. The Court also clarified that the mere fact that the appellant was the license holder of the firearm was not sufficient to convict him under the Arms Act.

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A licensed gun owner cannot be convicted under Section 29 of the Arms Act unless the prosecution proves that the gun owner willingly handed over the firearm to the person who committed the crime.
• A licensed gun owner cannot be convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act unless there is evidence of a willful violation of the conditions of the license or any provision of the Act.
• The mere fact that a person is the license holder of a firearm is not sufficient to convict them under the Arms Act if the firearm is used in a crime without their knowledge or consent.
• This judgment clarifies the responsibility of a license holder and emphasizes the need for the prosecution to prove willful involvement in the crime.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be acquitted of all charges under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a licensed gun owner cannot be held liable under the Arms Act if their firearm is used in a crime without their knowledge or consent. This judgment clarifies that the prosecution must prove willful delivery of the firearm for a conviction under Section 29 of the Arms Act and willful violation of the license for a conviction under Section 30 of the Arms Act. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but provides further clarity on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Arms Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Tarlochan Singh and set aside the High Court’s judgment convicting him under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that Tarlochan Singh had willingly handed over his firearm to the co-accused, Gurpreet Singh, and that there was no evidence of willful violation of the conditions of the license or any provision of the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of proving a direct link between the license holder and the commission of the crime for a conviction under the Arms Act.