Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Bibek Chaudhuri
Upendra Yadav @ Barhu Yadav Son of Late Bhana Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2024 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad whereby and whereunder the First Appeallate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad in G.R. No.774/2023, Trial No.1266/2024, arising out of Pali P.S. Case No.85/2023 convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a and imprisonment of two years with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Arms Act. It was directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrent.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Balvir Kumar Singh, SHO, Pali Police Station was conducting evening patrolling duty on 06.07.2013 at about 05:15 p.m. with the members of the force attached to the police station. At about 5:40 p.m., when they reached near Serthu village, the SHO received
The prosecution failed to prove the charge of illegal possession of firearms due to inconsistencies in evidence, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
The recovery of firearms from the petitioner's shop and the consistent evidence of official witnesses were crucial in upholding the conviction. Additionally, the court's consideration of the time ela....
The conviction was overturned due to unreliable evidence and procedural irregularities in the search and seizure process, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions related to possession of prohibited arms under the Arms Act.
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.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to adhere to legal standards and evidentiary requirements can result in acquittal.
Prosecution must provide substantive evidence, including technical expertise, to prove charges under the Arms Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Conviction under the Arms Act requires independent corroboration of evidence, especially from police witnesses; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
