Bihar DGP told to ensure sanction and firearm-expert reports before Arms Act charge-sheetsvetica

On 17 April 2017, the appellant allegedly visited the furniture shop of Subhash Singh, showed him obscene pictures on a mobile phone, and was scolded by him. The appellant allegedly left, returned shortly thereafter with a firearm, and shot Subhash Singh in the forehead from close range. Subhash was taken to the District Hospital, Supaul, where he was declared brought dead.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including five alleged eyewitnesses, and relied on the post-mortem evidence and the alleged recovery of a firearm from a pond pursuant to the appellant’s statement.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and three years’ imprisonment for the Arms Act offence.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the failure to seize the mobile phone, the admissibility and proof of the alleged disclosure leading to recovery of the firearm, and the absence of an arms-expert report regarding the firearm’s working condition and its connection with the recovered bullet.

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act could be sustained in the absence of previous sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act and an expert report regarding the firearm’s working condition?

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be sustained despite the alleged deficiencies relating to the mobile phone, the disclosure statement, the firearm recovery, and the absence of ballistic examination?

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC, which criminalises murder, and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning the use of arms or ammunition in contravention of the Act.

The Court relied on Section 39 of the Arms Act, which requires previous sanction of the District Magistrate before prosecution for an offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act can be instituted.

The Court also considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the admissibility of information supplied by an accused leading to the discovery of a fact, while observing that the alleged recovery was not essential to establish the murder charge.

The Court treated consistent ocular testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, as sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder even where the weapon of offence is not proved through expert or ballistic evidence.

The Court found that PW-1 to PW-5 consistently testified that the appellant returned to the shop with a firearm and shot Subhash Singh in the head from point-blank range.

Their evidence was corroborated by the post-mortem examination, which recorded skull fractures, intracranial bleeding, and a bullet embedded in the deceased’s cranial cavity. The presence of burning and tattooing around the wound further supported a close-range firearm injury.

Accordingly, the failure to seize the mobile phone, prove the disclosure statement, or obtain a ballistic report did not create a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s identity as the shooter or his intention to cause death.

However, the Court held that the Arms Act conviction could not stand because the prosecution had not obtained the mandatory sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act.

It further noted that the seized firearm had not been examined by an arms expert to determine whether it was functional.

These defects were fatal to the separate Arms Act charge, although they did not undermine the otherwise reliable eyewitness and medical evidence supporting the murder conviction.

The appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC were affirmed on the basis of consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence.

The conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of that charge because the requisite sanction under Section 39 was absent and the firearm had not been subjected to expert examination.

The Court also directed that its observations regarding obtaining sanction and expert reports be communicated to the Director General of Police, Bihar, for circulation to the police authorities.