IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of weapons – Coercive possession or possession under threat of life is not a conscious possession and cannot be a sole criteria to record finding of guilt against accused.

JUDGMENT :

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 9th May 2023 passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 285/2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the conviction rendered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court to undergo R.I for three years for the offences u/s 25-1B(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’) to further undergo R.I. for one year for the offence u/s 26 of Arms Act, was set aside and the said criminal revision application was allowed by the High Court.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual matrix is that the instant case was registered on the basis of the statement of Chetnanad Sinha, Officer-in-charge of Senha Police station. A special drive of nabbing extremists was organised by the police, and raids were being made with the help of Central Reserve Police Force. On receiving a secret information that certain extremists are staying in a village namely, village Torar, the police force rushed to village Torar. The further information revealed that the extremist left village Torar and proceeded to village Dora under the shelter provided by one Jagdish Lakra. Accordingly, the police force rushed to village Dora, the police force then cordoned house of Jagdish Lakra and on verification of information, it was further revealed that four extremists tried to escape from the spot but one of them was successfully nabbed by the police force whereas, the other three accused persons namely, Area Commander Nakuljee, Shiv Kumar Sahu and Umesh Kumar were successful in fleeing away from the spot. Jagdish Lakra stated before the police that the extremists initially took rest in the house of one Jatru Oraon and then arrived at the house of Jagdish Lakra at 4.00 a.m. and on hearing the sound of vehicles, they fled away/escaped from the spot. One of the extremists namely, Birendra Oraon who was nabbed at the spot stated before the police that the other accused persons, though fled away from the spot, they have left their belongings such as money bag, uniforms, medicines and weapons like a stein gun in the house of Jagdish Lakra. House owner, Jagdish Lakra supported the statement of Birendra Oraon. House of Jagdish Lakra was searched by the police in presence of independent witnesses and in that search, police found certain incriminating articles namely, the weapons, such as country made stein gun, some literature and some medicines. Birendra Oraon made statement before the police and stated that the accused Nakuljee used to carry these medicines and another accused Anil Kumar Pandey used to provide aid and assistance to the accused Nakuljee in his treatment.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Jagdish Lakra, Chatru Oraon, Birendra Oraon and Anil Kumar Pandey, were charged under section 25 (1-B)a, 26,35 of the Arms Act and 116 I.P.C. and 17(i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, whereas the investigation was kept pending against accused Nakuljee. Subsequently, Nakuljee was arrested and his remand was obtained. Charge-sheet was separately submitted against the accused Nakuljee for commission of offences under Sections 116, 384, 378 of the I.P.C and 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms Act. The original record and the supplementary case record were amalgamated vide order dated 27.07.2006. The trial which had earlier commenced after framing of charges on 03.06.2002 in the original case, recorded the testimony of six witnesses, five of them turned hostile and P.W. 6 Rajendra Prasad was again cross-examined after the joint trial.

5. The prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of its case. After adducing the evidence, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the respondent herein and ordered for his conviction. Being aggrieved, only the respondent herein namely, Jag