Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 645

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J
Jahurul Jamadar – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA/197/2006

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. Biplab Mitra, Ms. Trina Mitra
For the State: Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Avishek Sinha, Mr. Mainak Gupta

Prosecution must establish the recovery of firearms beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimony compromised integrity of the case.

Headnote:(A) Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1)(a) - Conviction under the Arms Act - Appellant sentenced to five years imprisonment based on prosecution's claims that firearms recovered during a raid; however, evidence from prosecution witnesses turned hostile, compromising the case's integrity. Court emphasized the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish possession and link evidence. (Paras 6, 15, 16)

(B) Presumption of Innocence - The principle demands that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused. Given the numerous inconsistencies and the failure to produce adequate evidence, the conviction was not justified. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Prosecution must prove possession and link evidence beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) . - Evidence from prosecution witnesses turned hostile compromised case integrity (!) (!) . - Court emphasized presumption of innocence and doubt must favor accused (!) (!) . - Seizure list witnesses denied presence during seizure, creating doubt (!) (!) . - No adequate evidence linking seized articles to appellant (!) (!) . - Conviction not justified due to insufficient credible evidence (!) (!) . - Appeal allowed and conviction set aside (!) (!) .

What is the burden of proof required to convict under the Arms Act?

How to determine if a witness is hostile and its impact on the case?

What standard of proof must be met for seizure evidence to support conviction?

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and the conviction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defense arguments highlighting inadequacies in prosecution evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. assessment of prosecution's evidence and witness credibility. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
4. emphasis on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence. (Para 12 , 13)
5. final conclusion and allowing the appeal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

CHATTERJEE DAS, J.:-

1. This instant appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated January 31, 2006 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track, 3rd court, Diamond Harbour in Sessions Case NO.84(12) 2003, Sessions Trial number 2 (5) 2004/ S.T No.1(6) 2004/8(7) 2005, against the appellant under Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 , sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of ₹1000 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

Brief facts

2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the prosecution case was launched on the strength of a Suo Motu complaint, lodged by the Officer-in-Charge Diamond Harbour Police Station on March 6, 2002 alleging an attack on the police personnel who on secret information constituted a raiding team along with SI Abdul Rahman the officer in charge Usthi P.S with his force, namely 1) C/1359(DAP) Kuddus Mondal C/2152. C/2152 DAP ,Ponchu Ray C/1055 Mohan Mondal C /2203 Sanjeev Banerjee all of Usthi PS, S.I Malay Kumar Mukherjee C/1345 D.A.P Krishna Padam Mandal C /1860 Jayanta Vakil DAD C/1867 Swapan Sardar DAP C/2049 Gopal Das D.A.P all posted at diamond harbour, PS and C/1259, Sunil Biswas C/1394 Amol Biswas C/1876 Tapas Dash C/521 Dhananjay Pal and C/1886 ,Samu Islam all at DAP camp at Dakshin Sherdah went to the house of Anwar Jamadar and arrested 5 miscreants namely , 1) Matal, Jamar @, Zakir HussainJamadar, son of Chhayrab Jamadar , 2 ) Rafiqul Shaikh @ Kulay son of Rahul Amin,3) Bablu Halder.@ Sk Sattar @ Lalua son of Sk. Abdul Qadir 4) Obaidulla Jamadar @ Balu, son of Lt. Najrul Jamadar ,5) Johurul Jamadar. They also recovered arms and ammunition from the arrested persons and while returning they were attacked by 50/60 persons being armed with deadly weapon at Dakshin Seardah who were the sympathiser of the arrested, dacoits tried to snatch those arrested persons from the hands of police and made a chaos. Despite giving warning, they paid no heed and began to open fire, aiming at police and also some of them where hurling bombs as a result, five policeman, including the complainant, O/C Usthi PS injured .The complainant ordered Ukil and Swapan both of DAD to fire one round each from their service rifle number 344 and 361 respectively. The complainant and OC. Usthi PS also opened fire of one round each for saving life of the force and also of the Public in general. The complainant further stated that after the mob retracted, on search one person from the mob found lying with severe injury and was shifted to Diamond Harbour Hospital by the villagers and police personnel where he was declared brought dead with the history of Bomb injury and was identified as Habib Jamdar. At the time of the arrest of the dacoits on February 5, 2002 between 1.45 and 14:30 hours the team also recovered one improvised shorter fire arms loaded with one empty cartridge of .303 bore and two live cartridges from the possession of Rafikul Sk @ Kulay ,6 Rounds of .12 Bore from Bablu Halder Lalula @ Sk Sattar ,6 Round…. ,12 live cartridges from Jahurul Jamadar and 5 live bombs from Obaidullah Jamader @ Babu .They also found some remnants of exploded bombs and two. 303 empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. On the basis of this complaint the Diamond Harbour PS case number 40 dated 6.3.2002, under Sections 147/148/149/353/332/186/326/307IPC and 25/27 Arms act and 4/5 E.S Act started and on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against 29 accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document