Rajendra Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1063

B. V. NAGARATHNA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Rajendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Amicus Curiae Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh , AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Mahndiyan, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Akshay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abbas B, Adv. Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Shruti Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Debasis Jena, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Vineet Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania Aor, Adv. Mr. Sushil Tomar, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. Mrs. Neelakshi Bhadouria, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. K.m. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.k. Singhania, Adv. Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Mohd. Irshad, AAG Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv. Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Adv./AOR Mr. Nishant Patil, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Sarat, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv. Mr. Bijender Chaudhry, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv. Ms. Deepti Hooda, Adv. Mr. Manider Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document primarily focuses on the regulation of unlicensed firearms, the menace posed by illegal arms, and the measures undertaken by the authorities and courts to curb this issue. It emphasizes the importance of strict enforcement of the Arms Act, amendments to enhance penalties, and the formation of committees to oversee compliance and enforcement efforts.

Regarding the specific legal query about whether social media videos alone, without a link to a recovered prohibited arm or criminal intent, are sufficient for a conviction, the document does not explicitly address this issue. The emphasis throughout is on the regulation, enforcement, and monitoring of firearms, as well as the importance of tangible evidence such as the possession or recovery of prohibited arms and the demonstration of criminal intent.

There is no indication in the document that social media videos by themselves, without a connection to a prohibited firearm or evidence of criminal activity, would suffice for establishing guilt or conviction. The focus remains on concrete evidence related to firearms and their illegal possession or use, rather than on purely visual or digital evidence such as social media videos.

In summary, based on the provided document, it can be inferred that social media videos alone, without a link to a recovered prohibited arm or criminal intent, are generally considered insufficient for a conviction under the laws and enforcement measures discussed. The legal framework and court directions stress the importance of corroborative evidence linking the alleged offense to tangible items or clear criminal intent.

ORDER

By order dated 28.02.2023, this special leave petition [SLP(Crl.) No.12831/2022] was permitted to be withdrawn. However, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the aspect regarding the menace of the unlicensed fire arms and passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that 12 witnesses out of

15 have already been examined and only three remain. He would seek time, however, to find out whether any of the witnesses has given evidence about the involvement of the petitioner in the incident and if so, in what manner.

List the matter on 28th February, 2023.

Petitioners will be at liberty to file rejoinder in the meantime.

It is again one of those cases where we find that according to the prosecution case, an unlicensed fire arm was used in commission of the offence involving Section 302 IPC also. We have come across cases where there is this phenomenon of use of unlicensed fire arms in the commis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 1063

B. V. NAGARATHNA, PANKAJ MITHALRajendra Singh – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Related Judgments

Rajendra Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1063

Rajat Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 837

Nahida Fatima Alias Naheed Fatma VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1545

Vaijnath s/o Sitaram Phad VS State of Maharashtra The Collector/District Magistrate

Aman Ullah vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Home Lko - 2026 Supreme(All) 257

RAGHUVEER SINGH vs COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS - 2020 Supreme(Online)(All) 45

Sambit Padhy @ Padhi vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 1170

Ram Pal vs Commissioner Lucknow Div. Lucknow - 2026 Supreme(All) 358

Lal Abhay Nath Sahdeo @ Lal Abhay Nath Shahdeo VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 981

S. K. Shukla VS State Of U. P. - 2005 7 Supreme 581

B. V. NAGARATHNA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Rajendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent