Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.

Case Brief: Nirmal @ Mota v. State of Rajasthan

Citation and Court

Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 116/2024, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, decided on 08-04-2025. (!) (!)

Facts

On 03.03.2016, police received secret information about the appellant possessing a country-made revolver near a pipal tree and Shiv Mandir. A search led to recovery of the revolver from the appellant's right pants pocket, resulting in FIR No.99/2016 under Sections 5/25 of the Arms Act. Investigation initially proceeded under Section 3/25, but charges were framed under Section 7/25 based on a District Magistrate report classifying the ammunition as prohibited. Trial court convicted under Section 7/25, sentencing to 7 years SI and Rs.10,000 fine. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Recovery was corroborated by witnesses including Sub-Inspector Bhoop Singh (PW-7), Narpat Singh, and Jogendra Singh (PW-8). Recovery memo (Ex.P1) and arm structure report (Ex.P2) were produced, but the arm was not sent to a ballistic expert. (!) (!)

Armourer PW-5 (Rajendra Prasad) confirmed it as a rusted 0.38 bore revolver qualifying as a firearm but not as prohibited. (!)

Issues

1. Whether conviction under Section 7 Arms Act was sustainable absent proof that the firearm was prohibited. (!) (!) (!)
2. Appropriate charge and sentence upon setting aside Section 7 conviction. (!) (!)

Court's Analysis and Holdings

Prosecution's Burden for Section 7 Conviction:
Section 2(1)(i) defines "prohibited arms" as firearms designed for automatic discharge until trigger pressure is removed or magazine empties, or other specified weapons. (!) (!) (!) (!) Section 7 prohibits acquisition/possession of such arms without Central Government authorization. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Prosecution must adduce scientific/cogent evidence (e.g., ballistic expert report) proving the firearm meets this definition. Mere recovery and non-expert opinions insufficient; no such evidence here, rendering Section 7 conviction unsustainable. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Alternate Conviction under Section 3:
Section 3 prohibits possession of any firearm without license, punishable under Section 25. Recovery proved unlicensed possession, justifying conviction under Section 3/25. (!) (!) (!)

Sentence:
Appellant (21 years old at offense, no priors) underwent ~2 years 4 months custody over 9-year trial. Section 3/25 maximum does not exceed 3 years; Sections 360/361 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act Sections 4/5 applicable. Sentence reduced to period already undergone; appellant released forthwith. (!) (!) (!)

Result

Appeal partly allowed: Section 7/25 conviction set aside; convicted under Section 3/25 with sentence as time served. (!) (!)