Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Ramdhani Oraon & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.286 of 2006
Decided On : 15-01-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of possession of illegal firearms; mere recovery without proof of functionality is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:
(A) Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 - Conviction for possession of illegal firearms - The appellants were convicted under the Arms Act for possession of firearms without valid licenses, sentenced to two and five years of rigorous imprisonment respectively - The conviction was based on evidence from police officials, but witnesses were declared hostile and evidence of functional firearms was lacking. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 11)
(B) Standard of proof - The prosecution must establish possession of arms in contravention of law; mere recovery without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction - In this case, the evidence presented was inadequate to substantiate the charges against the appellants. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Appeal - The appeal against the conviction was allowed as the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence under the Arms Act, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged based on a police operation that resulted in the seizure of firearms from alleged extremists; however, key witnesses did not support the prosecution's claims.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction under the Arms Act and set aside the previous judgment.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the prosecution had adequately proven possession of illegal firearms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without credible evidence of possession and the functional state of the firearms, the conviction could not be upheld.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 04.02.2006 and order of sentence dated 06.02.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No. 317 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 25 (1-B) a, 26 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and R. I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences are directed to be run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the F.I.R. has been instituted on self-statement of Sub-Inspector Shiv Nandan Singh, the then, Officer-in-charge, Balumath Police Station on 03.02.1997. It has been alleged by the informant in the FIR that on 03.02.1997 at about 13:45 hours, he along with other police officials, on getting secret information, cordoned the village-Hisri and nabbed about 15-20 extremists, when they were fleeing towards the forest and in the course of search of those persons, fire arms, country made pistol loaded with .315 bore bullets, 12 bore bullets and explosive substance without valid licence were recovered and seized.
4. On the basis of self-statement, Balumath P. S. Case No. 05 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons on 04.04.1997 and after taking the cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, in which they have pleaded innocence and false implication.
6. During trial, altogether ten witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the seizure list witness, who have been declared hostile and not supported the seizure. P.Ws. 3 to 10 are the police officials, who have testified that the appellants were fleeing away and they have been nabbed and on search of their house, illegal firearms along with detonators have been recovered. On the strength of above evidence and recovery, the present appellants have been convicted under Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act. Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that one of the convict Janeshwar Mistry who has filed separate appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.206 of 2006 has been allowed and he was acquitted from the charge under Section 25(1-B)a and Section 26 of the Arms Act. The case of the present appellants also stands on similar footing and based on same evidence. Admittedly seizure list witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have totally denied from the occurrence or any seizure of firearm before them. Other witnesses are member of raiding party. The most important thing is that any firearm was in working condition has not been proved by the prosecution. The seized materials were also produced before the Court without seal and in open condition which also cast doubt on the prosecution story. The appellants have been acquitted from the charges under Section 3/4 of the Explosives Substances Act. Therefore, impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and appellants deserve acquittal from the charges levelled against them.
8. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the conv
