P&H HC Acquits Uncle Of Arms Act Charge After Independent Witness Denies Rifle Recovery And FIR Alleged A Country-Made Pistol

In brief

The question

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the firearm and cartridges were recovered at the appellant’s instance and were in his conscious, unauthorised possession, so as to sustain his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and acquitted the appellant of that charge by extending the benefit of doubt.

01Facts

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal.

¶ 1

He and two co-accused had been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that, following the appellant’s disclosure statement, police recovered a .12-bore firearm and cartridges. The FIR, however, described the weapon used in the incident as a country-made pistol.

¶ 2, 4, 8, 13

The independent witness to the alleged disclosure and recovery denied that either had occurred in his presence and said police had obtained his signatures on blank papers.

¶ 7, 14

The appellant also denied the recovery in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶ 8, 15

02Issues

i.Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the firearm and cartridges were recovered at the appellant’s instance and were in his conscious, unauthorised possession, so as to sustain his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act

¶ 15–17

ii.Whether the discrepancy between the firearm described in the FIR and the firearm allegedly recovered, considered with the independent witness’s denial, created reasonable doubt as to the alleged recovery

¶ 13–17

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 25 of the Arms Act, requiring the prosecution to prove the foundational facts of the accused’s possession of the firearm and the relevant unauthorised possession beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 16

It also considered the requirement of sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act; however, proof of sanction, proper sealing and transmission, or the firearm’s working condition does not by itself prove recovery or possession.

¶ 10, 16

The Court recognised that police-official testimony is not to be rejected merely because the witnesses are official, and may support a conviction if reliable and trustworthy.

¶ 15

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307 Section 34

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Section 39

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 173 Section 313

04Reasoning

The prosecution’s evidence concerning sanction, chain of custody and the firearm’s working condition did not establish that the weapon had been recovered at the appellant’s instance or that he had possessed it.

¶ 16

The alleged recovery was undermined by the mismatch between the country-made pistol described in the FIR and the .12-bore firearm later said to have been recovered, as well as by the independent witness’s categorical denial of both the disclosure statement and recovery.

¶ 13–14

The appellant’s denial and the absence of another independent witness supporting the recovery further contributed to reasonable doubt.

¶ 15, 17

The Court therefore found the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 17

05Holding

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and acquitted the appellant of that charge by extending the benefit of doubt.

¶ 18–20

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF