An unproved confession and recovery from premises outside the accused’s control cannot sustain an Arms Act conviction.

The prosecution alleged that, following a disclosure by Akhilesh Singh while in police custody, a police team searched locked Quarter No. 59, Sidhgora, and recovered a 9 mm pistol and cartridges.

Five police personnel testified to the search and seizure; the trial court acquitted the respondent of the Arms Act charges, finding that the alleged confession had not been proved and that the premises were not shown to be under his control.

The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal.

1. Whether the alleged recovery of the pistol and cartridges, following the respondent’s disclosure, was sufficient to disturb the acquittal when the confession had not been proved.

2. Whether the recovery established the respondent’s connection to the arms when the premises searched were not shown to be under his control.

The prosecution proceeded under Sections 25, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act; the judgment refers to differing charge descriptions at different stages of the case.

The judgment cites no statutory provision governing proof of confession, no precedent, and no separate test for appellate interference with an acquittal.

The court accepted the trial court’s conclusions that the confession had not been proved and that the searched premises were not within the respondent’s control.

In the absence of a proved confession, the recovery could not establish the respondent’s connection to the arms and was therefore doubtful; the State’s appeal disclosed no merit.

It also rejected the application concerning limitation and dismissed the appeal.