Arms Act conviction is unsustainable when the accused is not arrested in possession of arms.

On 6 October 2001, the officer-in-charge of Gumla Police Station received information that several persons had assembled with a plan to commit a crime. A police party proceeded to the location and apprehended Basant Mahli and Abhimanu Singh, while other persons fled. Arms, ammunition, an explosive device and other weapons were allegedly recovered from Abhimanu Singh. A search of Vishnu Mahli’s house resulted in the recovery of an S.B.B.L. gun allegedly connected with an earlier dacoity case

Gumla P.S. Case No. 244 of 2001 was registered under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-B)(a) and other provisions of the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. After trial, the Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, sentencing him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for each IPC offence and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act, with all sentences to run concurrently

In appeal, the appellant primarily challenged the quantum of sentence, contending that he had not been found in possession of any weapon and had already undergone two years, six months and twenty-two days in custody. He also relied on the lapse of approximately twenty-five years since the occurrence.

The State defended the conviction but fairly acknowledged the period of custody undergone by the appellant.

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC was sustainable on the prosecution evidence?

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act was sustainable when he was not apprehended in possession of any firearm or other arm?

Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant ought to be reduced in view of the period already undergone and the substantial lapse of time since the occurrence?

The Court applied Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalise preparation for committing dacoity and the assembly of persons for the purpose of committing dacoity, respectively. It also applied Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act concerning unlawful possession or carrying of arms or ammunition.

The Court proceeded on the principle that an Arms Act conviction requires proof connecting the accused with conscious and unlawful possession of the prohibited arm; mere association with persons from whom arms were recovered is insufficient.

Regarding sentencing, the Court considered the period already undergone, the age of the case, and the prolonged agony of criminal proceedings as relevant mitigating circumstances.

The Court found that the appellant had not himself been arrested with any arms. Consequently, the conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act was held unsustainable and was set aside.

However, the Court concluded that the appellant’s involvement in the alleged assembly and preparation for committing the offence could not be ruled out on the prosecution case and therefore affirmed his convictions under Sections 399 and 402 IPC.

On sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had already remained in custody for more than two and a half years against the maximum five-year sentence imposed by the trial court, and that nearly two and a half decades had elapsed since the occurrence. Treating the period undergone as sufficient punishment, the Court reduced the sentence accordingly.

The sentence for the IPC offences was reduced to the period already undergone.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, and the trial court record was directed to be returned to the concerned court.