Conviction under Section 326 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act upheld on corroborated evidence.

On 11 March 1995, after casting his vote in an M.L.A. election, the informant, Baleshwar Prasad Yadav, was allegedly questioned by the appellant about his voting preference.

Upon learning that the informant had voted for the candidate represented by the “Panja” symbol, the appellant allegedly abused him and fired a shot, which struck the middle toe of the informant’s right foot and caused a grievous firearm injury.

The informant was taken to Sadar Hospital, Nawada, where his fardbeyan was recorded, leading to registration of Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 1995 under Sections 307, 341, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the matter proceeded to trial.

The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the injured informant, supporting eyewitnesses, the examining doctor, and a formal witness who proved the FIR and police papers.

The doctor opined that the injury was grievous and caused by a firearm.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act on 20 April 2018.

During the appeal, the State reported that the appellant was alive, residing at Hudrahi More, and earning his livelihood by running a small shop.

It was further reported that he had completed his five-year sentence and had been released from jail on 17 February 2025 after payment of the fine.

Consequently, the appeal survived only in respect of the conviction.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused a grievous firearm injury to the informant, thereby making him liable under Section 326 of the IPC?

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was sustainable on the evidence on record?

Whether the conviction required appellate interference on account of any illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence?

The Court applied Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, including firearms, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which penalises the use of arms or ammunition in contravention of the Act or the applicable licence conditions.

The Court applied the general criminal law principle that the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It further recognised that consistent testimony of the injured witness, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, may establish the prosecution case.

The Court also applied the appellate principle that interference with a conviction is justified only where the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence is illegal, perverse, or otherwise unsustainable.

The Court found that all material prosecution witnesses supported the allegation against the appellant, including the injured informant, who corroborated the occurrence and attributed the firearm injury to the appellant.

The medical evidence independently corroborated the prosecution version: the doctor found the injury to be grievous and caused by a firearm.

On this evidentiary basis, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the ingredients of Section 326 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were established.

The Court found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s assessment warranting appellate intervention.

The appellant’s completion of sentence affected the practical status of the appeal but did not undermine the validity of the conviction.

The judgment of conviction dated 20 April 2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Nawada, in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1998 was upheld.

Since the appellant had already completed his five-year sentence and had been released, the appeal was disposed of without granting any further relief.