Conviction Under The Arms Act Cannot Rest Solely On Police Testimony When Independent Witnesses Turn Hostile: Calcutta High Court - 2026-01-29

Justice After Three Decades: High Court Acquits Appellant in Arms Act Case

In a significant ruling addressing the evidentiary standards in criminal trials, the Calcutta High Court has overturned the 1990 conviction of Jogesh Barman (alias Doro Barman) under the Arms Act. Justice Prasenjit Biswas delivered the judgment, emphasizing that the prosecution cannot secure a conviction based solely on police testimony when the independent witnesses tasked with corroborating the recovery of illicit arms turn hostile.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case dates back to the early hours of January 18, 1983, when police allegedly conducted a raid in the village of Ja-Chandrapur. The prosecution claimed that a group of individuals opened fire on a police party, leading to an exchange of fire. Following the incident, the police arrested Jogesh Barman, claiming they recovered a pipe-gun, ammunition, and an electric torch from his possession.

While two other individuals—Baktiar Mia and Fuleswar Roy—allegedly died during the encounter, the appellant faced trial. In 1990, the Trial Court convicted him under Sections 25 (1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Conflict of Evidence

Representing the appellant, Amicus Curiae Ms. Monami Mukherjee argued that the prosecution's foundation was deeply flawed. Crucially, the witnesses cited as members of the raiding party—PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW6—all contradicted the state's narrative during trial.

These witnesses denied their involvement in the raid, testified that they did not see any seizure occurring, and explicitly stated they had signed the seizure list at the mere direction of police officers without knowing its contents. Furthermore, the evidence of PW5, who was supposedly a member of the raiding party, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the prosecution, despite his testimony that he had no knowledge of the event.

Legal Analysis: The Burden of Proof

Justice Prasenjit Biswas centered his analysis on the necessity of corroboration. The Court observed that while police testimony is not inherently untrustworthy, it must be scrutinized with "greater caution and circumspection" when independent witnesses—who were specifically cited to substantiate the recovery—uniformly refuse to support the prosecution’s version.

The Court drew heavily on the Supreme Court precedents in * Sanjeet Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh * and * Deomuni Sharma vs. State of Jharkhand *, which establish that when the independent link in the chain of evidence is broken by the denial of the witnesses, the official version of recovery becomes suspect.

Key Observations

The Court’s critical assessment of the trial proceedings revealed the core of the judicial failure:

• "When the very witnesses who were purportedly present at the time of raid deny their presence and participation, the prosecution story regarding the conduct of the raid becomes highly doubtful and unsafe to rely upon."
• "In prosecutions under the Arms Act, proof of conscious, lawful and proved recovery of arms from the accused is the sine qua non for sustaining a conviction."
• "The non-declaration of PW5 as a hostile witness has serious legal consequences, as his evidence, having remained unchallenged, binds the prosecution and cannot be brushed aside or selectively ignored."
• "The failure to prove the constitution of the raiding party, coupled with the denial of participation by all independent witnesses and the unchallenged testimony of PW5, renders the prosecution case wholly unreliable."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the 1990 conviction. The appellant, who was on bail, has been discharged from his bond.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder to prosecuting agencies regarding the importance of meticulous documentation and the danger of relying on "interested" police witnesses alone when independent civilian corroboration disappears. By prioritizing the requirement of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" over procedural shortcuts, the Court has reinforced the rights of the accused against potentially fabricated recoveries.