Prosecution must provide corroborative evidence, especially in firearm offences; mere accusations without substantiating proof cannot sustain a conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-02-2026 The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Kanhaiya Yadav, against the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2014 and the order of sentence dated 09.07.2014 passed by the court of the learned Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Lakhisarai, in Sessions Trial No. 27A of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and Section 27 of the Arms Act . The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and to undergo imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act . In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo one month’s imprisonment additionally. Both the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently by the trial court.

Prosecution Story:

2. The substance of the prosecution story, as appearing from the FIR, is as follows:

As per the informant, on 14.08.2005, in the evening at about 4:00 PM, he and his brother, Bale Yadav, were sitting and interacting with each other at the door of their house. At that time, their villagers, namely Kanhaiya Yadav (the appellant) and co-accused Sahendra Yadav, came there and started abusing him and his brother, Bale Yadav. In the course of abusing, they took out a pistol and started firing. In the said firing, his brother Bale Yadav sustained injuries on account of splinters scratching his body, touching his right hand and going towards his shoulder, resulting in his falling down on the ground.

As per the informant, after the firing, he started screaming and tried to run away, but the appellant, Kanhaiya Yadav, chased him and fired at him as well. Thereafter, upon hearing the commotion and hulla, several villagers gathered, chased both the accused, and managed to catch hold of them after surrounding them. From the hand of the appellant, one country- made pistol was recovered, and from the pocket of his pant, one unused bullet and one shell of a used bullet were recovered after he was apprehended. From the apprehended co-accused, Sahendra Yadav, two bullets were recovered from the pocket of his shirt.

As per the informant, after apprehending both the accused, when the villagers were about to proceed to the police station, the police arrived at the place of occurrence in a jeep. Thereafter, both the accused were handed over to the police along with the recovered firearms and a charger, which was also recovered from the accused. As per the informant, his brother, Bale Yadav, was taken to the hospital by the villagers for medical treatment. During the course of apprehending the accused persons, the villagers assaulted them, owing to which they sustained injuries.

3. In the FIR, the informant alleged that the appellant and his companion, Sahendra Yadav, fired at him and his brother with the intention to kill them, but somehow they succeeded in saving their lives by sheer luck. The reason behind the occurrence was a monetary transaction between the appellant and one Pankaj Yadav, son of Bale Yadav, which had taken place prior to the alleged occurrence. Owing to a dispute arising out of the said money transaction, the accused had earlier attacked Pankaj Yadav.

4. The informant, Uma Shanker Yadav (PW-4), recorded his fardbeyan before the Sub-Inspector of Surajgarha Police Station on the same day of the alleged occurrence at about 17:30 hours near the house of one Dewan Yadav in his village, describing the above-mentioned prosecution story. On the basis thereof,