The State Of Jharkhand vs Jagdish Lakra

NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 686

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 4978 OF 2024)

THE STATE OF JHAKHAND …….APPELLANT (s)

VERSUS

JAGDISH LAKRA ……RESPONDENT (s)


J U D G M E N T

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and
th
order dated 9 May 2023 passed by Single Judge of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.
Signature Not Verified
285/2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the conviction
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2026.07.13
16:56:07 IST
Reason:
rendered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court to
1

undergo R.I for three years for the offences u/s 25-1B(a) of the
Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’) to further
undergo R.I. for one year for the offence u/s 26 of Arms Act, was
set aside and the said criminal revision application was allowed
by the High Court.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The factual matrix is that the instant case was registered on
the basis of the statement of Chetnanad Sinha, Officer-incharge
of Senha Police station. A special drive of nabbing extremists was
organised by the police, and raids were being made with the help
of Central Reserve Police Force. On receiving a secret information
that certain extremists are staying in a village namely, village
Torar, the police force rushed to village Torar. The further
information revealed that the extremist left village Torar and
proceeded to village Dora under the shelter provided by one
Jagdish Lakra. Accordingly, the police force rushed to village
Dora, the police force then cordoned house of Jagdish Lakra and
on verification of information, it was further revealed that four
extremists tried to escape from the spot but one of them was
successfully nabbed by the police force whereas, the other three
accused persons namely, Area Commander Nakuljee, Shiv Kumar
2

Sahu and Umesh Kumar were successful in fleeing away from the
spot. Jagdish Lakra stated before the police that the extremists
initially took rest in the house of one Jatru Oraon and then
arrived at the house of Jagdish Lakra at 4.00 a.m. and on
hearing the sound of vehicles, they fled away/escaped from the
spot. One of the extremists namely, Birendra Oraon who was
nabbed at the spot stated before the police that the other accused
persons, though fled away from the spot, they have left their
belongings such as money bag, uniforms, medicines and
weapons like a stein gun in the house of Jagdish Lakra. House
owner, Jagdish Lakra supported the statement of Birendra
Oraon. House of Jagdish Lakra was searched by the police in
presence of independent witnesses and in that search, police
found certain incriminating articles namely, the weapons, such
as country made stein gun, some literature and some medicines.
Birendra Oraon made statement before the police and stated that
the accused Nakuljee used to carry these medicines and another
accused Anil Kumar Pandey used to provide aid and assistance
to the accused Nakuljee in his treatment.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against Jagdish Lakra, Chatru Oraon, Birendra Oraon and Anil
3

Kumar Pandey, were charged under section 25 (1-B)a, 26,35 of
the Arms Act and 116 I.P.C. and 17(i) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, whereas the investigation was kept pending
against accused Nakuljee. Subsequently, Nakuljee was arrested
and his remand was obtained. Charge-sheet was separately
submitted against the accused Nakuljee for commission of
offences under Sections 116, 384, 378 of the I.P.C and 25(1-B)a,
26 of the Arms Act. The original record and the supplementary
case record were amalgamated vide order dated 27.07.2006. The
trial which had earlier commenced after framing of charges on
03.06.2002 in the original case, recorded the testimony of six
witnesses, five of them turned hostile and P.W. 6 Rajendra
Prasad was again cross-examined after the joint trial.
5. The prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary
evidence in support of its case. After adducing the evidence, both
the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court
have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the
respondent herein and ordered for his conviction. Being
aggrieved, only the respondent herein namely, Jagdish Lakra, the
house owner, preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No.
285/2009 before the High Court.
4

6. On appreciation of evidence in record, the High Court vide
its judgement dated 09.05.2023, allowed the Criminal revision
filed by the respondent herein and set aside the judgement of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court
below as the Court was of the view that both the learned Trial
Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had come to an
erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the respondent herein
under section 25 (1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, which is highly
perverse.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the
appellant i.e. State of Jharkhand is before us.

CONTENTIONS
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shantanu Sagar
vehemently argued that the High Court failed to properly
appreciate the consistent and reliable evidence adduced by the
prosecution regarding the raid, arrest and seizure conducted on
12.08.2001 by the police and CRPF patrolling party. It was
submitted that P.W.9, the informant, had clearly narrated the
manner in which the raid was conducted and stated that after
the house of respondent Jagdish Lakra was surrounded, four
5

persons attempted to flee from the back door, out of whom one
Birendar Oraon was apprehended and disclosed the names of the
remaining accused persons who escaped from the spot. It was
further submitted that the search conducted in the house in
presence of independent witnesses led to recovery of
incriminating articles including rucksacks, ammunition pouch,
extremist literature, a country-made stein gun and live
cartridges, all of which were duly seized under seizure memo and
produced before the Court as material exhibits. Learned Counsel
submitted that the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 fully
corroborated each other on all material particulars relating to the
raid, arrest and seizure and despite lengthy cross-examination,
no material contradiction could be elicited by the defence.
Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution had duly
proved the seizure list, confessional statement, arms examination
report, written report, sanction order and material exhibits
through competent witnesses and the same clearly established
the prosecution case. It was also argued that merely because
some independent witnesses turned hostile, the recovery and
seizure cannot be disbelieved, particularly when the official
witnesses and the Investigating Officer have consistently
6

supported the prosecution version. Reliance was placed on
settled principles of law that evidence relating to recovery need
not be discarded solely on account of hostile seizure witnesses if
the testimony of official witnesses is trustworthy and convincing.
It was further submitted that in cases involving extremist
activities, reluctance of local witnesses to support the
prosecution is not uncommon due to fear and intimidation
prevailing in the area and, therefore, adverse inference ought not
to have been drawn on that account. Learned counsel for the
appellant lastly submitted that the High Court gravely erred in
exercising revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the
concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial
Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, without assigning
cogent reasons for differing from the findings concurrently
arrived at by both Courts below. It was contended that the
impugned judgment suffers from non-consideration of material
evidence on record and is therefore liable to be set aside.

9. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent but the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.
Paramanand Gaur orally argued that members of the banned
extremist organization MCC had forcibly taken shelter in his
7

house and he had no voluntary role in harbouring them. It was
also submitted that the recovered stein gun belonged to the
extremists who had come to the house and was not under the
respondent’s conscious possession or control. Mere recovery of a
firearm from his house was insufficient to establish guilt under
the Arms Act unless conscious possession and dominion over the
weapon were proved. Learned counsel for the respondent further
contended that the social realities in Jharkhand where extremists
often forcibly occupy villagers’ houses, compel them to provide
shelter and food, and retaliation could expose villagers to grave
danger. It was therefore argued that there was no evidence
showing that the respondent voluntarily sheltered extremists or
exercised dominion over the seized weapon, and consequently the
conviction under Sections 25-(1B)a and 26 of the Arms Act was
unsustainable.
ANALYSIS
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused
relevant documents on record and the judgments passed by the
Trial Court, Appellate Court and High Court.
8

11. Though at the first blush, the submission of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/State of Jharkhand looks very
attractive, but we are unable to accept these submissions of
learned counsel for the reason that the High Court, in our
opinion, had appreciated the evidence brought before the Trial
Court in its proper perspective and by assigning justifiable
reasons passed the judgment and order reversing the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court
and further uphold by the Appellate Court. The High Court was
justified in observing that mere recovery of certain articles
including the weapons from the house of the respondent/accused
is not sufficient enough to hold the respondent/accused guilty for
commission of offence unless the prosecution establishes that the
articles were in the conscious possession of the accused and the
accused had dominion over these articles. It seems that the Trial
Court was swayed away by the mere recovery of articles,
particularly, the firearm namely the country made stein gun, is
ignoring the fact that there was no legal evidence to show that
these articles were under conscious possession of Jagdish Lakra.
It is admitted position of the prosecution case that initially the
information received by the police force was all the extremists are
9

staying in one village Torar. When the police force rushed to
village Torar, the further information disclosed that the
extremists left village Torar and then rushed to village Dora. The
material further disclosed that the accused persons arrived at the
house of Jagdish Lakra at 4.00 a.m. As per the FIR, the police
force reached at the house of Jagdish Lakra at 06.00 a.m. and
when the police force reached the house on hearing the sound of
vehicles, three of the accused persons fled away from the spot.
Thus, the record clearly indicates that the other accused claimed
as extremists by prosecution were in the house of Jagdish Lakra
for merely two hours. Now, on the backdrop of these facts if we
peruse the statement of respondent Jagdish Lakra made before
the police, it reveals that the respondent offered an explanation
for finding these incriminating articles in his house and the
explanation is that under pressure of the extremists, the
respondent had no other option but to keep those articles in his
house. Even the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant/State, referred to above, is that ‘in cases involving
extremist activities, reluctance of local witnesses to support the
prosecution is not uncommon due to fear and intimidation
prevailing in that area in a way supports the explanation offered
10

by the respondent/accused.” If it is admitted that the
incriminating material was kept in the house due to grave fear
and or threat of life, then certainly, it cannot be said that such
possession is a conscious possession and such coercive
possession or possession under threat of life cannot be a sole
criteria to accept the prosecution case and to record the finding
of the guilt against the respondent. The High Court was also
justified in placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of
Francis Xavier Salemao vs. State Through Public Prosecutor
as reported in 2007 SCC online Bom 1261, wherein it was

held:

"that the possession of firearm must have an element of
consciousness or knowledge of that possession and where
he is not in actual physical possession, he has nonetheless a
power or control over that weapon so that his possession
thereof continues despite physical possession being in
someone else. In any disputed question of possession
specific facts admitted or proved will alone establish the
existence of the factual relation of control or the dominion of
the person over it necessary to determine whether that
person was not in possession of the thing in question"



12. On this count only, we are of the opinion that the view
adopted by the High Court was a plausible view on the just and
proper appreciation of evidence. We are unable to find either any
illegality or any perversity of the judgment impugned in the
11

present appeal. The appeal thus being devoid of any merit
deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed.


........................................J.
[SANJAY KAROL]



.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;
JULY 13, 2026.

12