Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, J
Upendra Bishwarkama, son of Sri Yadunandan Bishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 01.08.2006 passed in Session Trial No.231/1997, G.R. Case No. 2919 of 1996 arising out of Topchanchi P.S. Case No.133 of 1996 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad, Jharkhand whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under section 25(1) and 26/27 of Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default one-year S.I. under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default one-year S.I. under Section 26 of the Arms Act and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of one-year S.I. under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.9.1996 one Sri Padma Nath Upadhyay, S.I. of Topchanchi police station lodged information to the o/C.Topchanchi P.S. that on that day at 9.30 A.M. secret information was received that Upendra Biswakarma sells country made pistol after making it to criminals. It was also informed that half
Prosecution must provide substantive evidence, including technical expertise, to prove charges under the Arms Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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.
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.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Section 25 upheld due to credible direct witness testimony and supporting evidence, despite challenges to forensic integrity.
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
