Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2004
(24.4.2025)
Jugal Kishore @ J.K. Sharma & Ors. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154 and 173 [Sections 173 and 193 of BNSS] – A police officer generally cannot conduct a raid if they lack territorial jurisdiction – However, there are exceptions – A police officer without territorial jurisdiction can still conduct a raid, if they have been specially authorized by a competent authority such as a senior officer to investigate a case within relevant jurisdiction, or if they are acting under a warrant or court order that extends their jurisdiction – Additionally, if a police officer is pursuing a suspect accused of a cognizable offence they may pursue and arrest that suspect even across jurisdictional lines. (Para 38)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 464 [Section 510 of BNSS] – Effect of framing of charge – Object of framing charge is to enable accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for, and accused is entitled to know certainty and accuracy of charge made against him – When charges are framed for a major offence conviction can still be awarded for an offence having lesser sentence. (Paras 48 and 57)
Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1) (A), 25(1-B)(i), 26(2) and 35 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 216, 293 and 294 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 56 – Operation of illegal gun factory – Conviction and sentence – FIR must be a prerequisite for investigation – However, search and seizure were conducted prior to registering of FIR and that too without any independent witnesses – All prosecution witnesses are police officials – Court is not obligated to take judicial note of every fact – Trial Court marked these documents through an Advocate Clerk who had no knowledge about contents of it – Offences are distinct from that of Section 35 of Arms Act – Section 216 of Cr.P.C. provides ample power to Court to alter charge, prior to pronouncement of Judgment – Trial Court failed to adopt procedure under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., even on the date of pronouncement of Judgment – Prejudice has been caused to appellant – Judgment and order of conviction set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 38, 42, 46, 58 and 59)
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J. – The appeal is arsing out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.04.2004 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1993/96 of 2000, arising out of Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 251 of 1991, GR Case No. 2128 of 1991 by which the Appellant No. 1 Jugal Kishore @ J.K. Sharma was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 25(1) (A) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(i) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act. Further, the Appellant No. 2/Bali @ Balram Narayan Sharma and Appellant No. 4/Dinesh Mistri were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-A) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(i) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 26(2) r/w Section 35 of the Arms Act.
2. The record reveals that all the appellants were released on bail, by this Court vide order dated 03.06.2004. During pendency of the criminal appeal, this Court called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda to verify the status of the appellants. Pursuant to it, this Court received the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda which disclose that Appellant No. 1/Jugal Kishore, Appellant No. 3/Dhananjay Sharma and Appellant No. 4/Dinesh Mistri died long back. However, Appellant No. 2/Bali @ Balram Narayan alone is alive. This Court has abated the criminal appeal against Appellant No. 1, Appellant No. 3 and Appellant No. 4 vide order dated 20.02.2025.
3. The case of the prosecution, as per the self-statement of the Sub-Inspector (SHO) of Murarpur Police Station dated 21.07.1991 at 12:30 noon, which was prepared at the house of Appellant No. 1/J.K. Sharma of Chhoti Pahari, Mansoor Nagar, Sohsarai P.S., is that at about 10:00 AM, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Biharsharif, Shri Md. M. Rahman, informed him that an illegal gun factory was being operated at the house of Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, located at Chhoti Pahari, Mansoor Nagar. Under the leadership of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Biharsharif, Sub-Inspector Shri Sant Kumar Singh (informant), Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Md. M. Rahman, and other police officials, namely S.I./Alakh Kumar Pandey (PW-5), ASI/Aftab Alam (not examined), Head Constable/Akil Ahmad (PW-2), Constable No. 378/Dwarika Pandey (Driver of the Deputy Superintendent of Police; not examined), Constable No. 407/Bharat Prasad (Bodyguard of the Deputy Superintendent of Police; not examined), Constable No. 127/Ramdhari Singh (not examined), Constable No. 837/Kamakhya Narayan Singh (Driver; not examined), Home Guard/Constable No. 4014-Brajnandan Prasad (not examined), Constable No. 3414/Rambalak Prasad (not examined), Constable No. 3975/Abhay Kumar (not examined), Constable No. 3647/Chamru Paswan (PW-3), Constable No. 3624/Vijay Kumar (PW-4), and Constable No. 1037/Dayashankar Prasad (not examined), (the police party) departed at about 10.30 a.m. from Murarpur Police Station towards Chhoti Pahari, Mansoor Nagar. The selfstatement of PW-1 (informant) further disclose that upon reaching Chhoti Pahari, Mansoor Nagar, at about 11:00 AM, the police party surrounded the house of Jugal Kishore Sharma (Appellant No. 1) and Dhananjay Prasad Sharma (Appellant No. 3). The informant attempted to locate independent witnesses to conduct the search, in accordance with law. However, as independent witnesses could not be found, on the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the search was conducted in the presence of PW-4, a Constable and resident of Rasulpur under Noorsarai P.S.,
The prosecution must prove unlawful possession of firearms beyond reasonable doubt, and minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not undermine the case if the overall evidence is credible.
Criminal prosecution requires solid evidence, and non-examination of key witnesses by the prosecution introduces a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt; absence of key witnesses and inadequate evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The conviction upheld under the Official Secrets Act, determining that discovery of significant offending material justifies charges of anti-national activities, with the reliability of police testim....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
