1. Appeal against conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act following acquittal for an offense under Section 307 of the IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10246 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2024
Important Points
Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained where material discrepancies exist in the testimonies of recovery witnesses and the primary offense (Section 307 IPC) is not proved, as expert ballistics reports cannot override unreliable evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal and Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
Arms Act - Conviction Appeal - Recovery Discrepancy
Fact of the Case:
The appellant seeks to overturn the judgment of the High Court whereby the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act was confirmed, while the appellant was acquitted under Section 307 of the IPC. The discrepancy in testimonies of recovery witnesses and the FSL report were crucial points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the testimonies of the recovery witnesses and the FSL report. All eye-witnesses turned hostile, and the recovery under the circumstances was of great importance. The court was inclined to set aside the impugned order and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: Discrepancy in testimonies of recovery witnesses, importance of recovery under the circumstances, and the credibility of the FSL report.
Ratio Decidendi: The discrepancies in testimonies and the FSL report led to the acquittal of the appellant, as the recovery under the circumstances was crucial and the expert opinion in the FSL report was not given due credence.
Final Decision: The appeal stands allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Daya Krishan Sharma, D.K. Sharma, Rohit Vats, Sunita Sharma, Ankit Bhanot, Yashdeep.
For the Respondents: Birender Bikram, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Daya Krishan Sharma, D.K. Sharma, Rohit Vats, Sunita Sharma, Ankit Bhanot, Yashdeep.
For the Respondents: Birender Bikram, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges recovery evidence due to witness discrepancies; State relies on FSL report correlating the recovered weapon with the crime scene. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Material contradictions in recovery witness testimonies and the lack of proof for the primary offense undermine the reliability of the weapon recovery and expert reports. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Expert ballistics evidence cannot sustain a conviction under the Arms Act when the recovery of the weapon is doubtful and the primary offense is not proved. (Para 6 )
5. Impugned order set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Does a ballistics report alone sustain a conviction under the Arms Act if the primary offense is not proved?
No, the report of a Ballistics Officer, being an expert view, cannot be given due credence if the primary offense has not been proved and the recovery of the weapon is doubtful. (Para 6 )
7. How do contradictions in recovery witness testimonies affect a conviction under the Arms Act?
Material discrepancies between recovery witnesses regarding the circumstances of the recovery—such as the state of the premises and the presence of witnesses—undermine the prosecution's case and can lead to acquittal. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant seeks to overturn the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRA-S-2446-SB-2012 (O&M) dated 03.07.2023 whereby the conviction rendered against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act was confirmed. Though the appellant was also charged under Section 307 of the IPC, he was acquitted by the Trial Court itself.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there were two confessional statements which were recorded from the appellant. In pursuance to the first statement, he was taken to Meerut on 25.10.2010. Having not found the weapon, in pursuance to the second statement, a recovery was made at Hayatpur, Gurgaon-10 km away from the police station on 28.10.2010. The recovery witnesses in both the cases were the same. There is a clear discrepancy in the testimonies of the recovery witnesses namely PW-3 and PW-13.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the FSL report substantiates the case of the prosecution as there is a co-relation between the empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence and the weapon available as per the report. The weapon was also found to be in a working condition.
5. In the case on hand, the appellant was rightly acquitted as all the eye-witnesses turned hostile. The only issue for consideration before us is on the charge proved followed by conviction of sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Recovery under those circumstances seems to be of great importance.
6. It is strange to find that though an attempt was made to recover the weapon on two occasions, of which the second one was the actual recovery, the very same witnesses have been taken to sign as recovery witnesses despite the availability of the others witnesses as disposed by PW-13. There is a clear discrepancy in the evidence deposed by PW-3 and PW-13. PW-3 has stated that the room of the tube-well was closed but not locked, while PW-13 has stated that there was no door at all for the said room. PW-3 once again has stated that there was nobody present and PW-13 has stated that there were five persons present. The report of the Ballistics Officer being the view of the expert, cannot be given due credence especially when the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has not been proved.
7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
8. The appeal stands allowed.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
