[S.27 Arms Act] Mere Recovery Of Weapon Based On Accused's Confession Insufficient, Ballistic Expert Opinion Vital: Patna High Court

The division bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Chandra Prakash Singh held, “...the recovery of two country made pistols and two 315 bore live cartridges is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants regarding the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, there was no attempt made by the prosecution to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet could have been fired from the recovered weapon.”

“Thus, in light of the above discussions and in view of the serious doubt with regard to the identification of the appellants upon thorough application of the above-settled law on the facts of the present case, we hold that it is difficult for the court to ascertain whether the recovered weapon has been used by the appellant in the commission of the present offence and thereby, failure to examine the recovered weapon has caused serious infirmity to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the issue No. (V) is decided in negative,” the bench added.

The case revolved around an incident where Suman Devi, the wife of the informant-cum-appellant Naresh Barnwal, was fatally shot by two unidentified assailants while traveling with her family from Rajgir to Jamui, Bihar. The assailants also robbed the occupants of their belongings.

During the trial, the prosecution asserted that the appellant Naresh Barnwal, along with seven other accused appellants, conspired to commit murder.

After the trial, Sri Krishna Kumar Agrawal, Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Lakhisarai, delivered a judgment of conviction and issued sentencing orders. All the appellants were found guilty of offenses under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code. They were subsequently sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life and were fined Rs. 1,000 each.

The central question before the court revolved around whether the mere discovery of weapons, specifically pistols and cartridges, based on the confessions of the accused appellants, without the input of a ballistic expert, was enough to establish the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

In addressing this issue, the court found it crucial to consider that the case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence, given the uncertainty surrounding the identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses, as discussed in the aforementioned points.

Upon examining the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses, Rajiv Choudhary (PW 8) and Raj Bansh Singh (PW 12), the court noted that two locally made pistols and two live 315 bore cartridges were discovered based on the confessions of the appellants Jeetu Singh and Ranjay Singh.

In view of the findings arrived at on the issues formulated, the Court was of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants and, therefore, the judgment of conviction was not tenable.

It allowed the eight criminal appeals, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed earlier by Sri Krishna Kumar Agrawal, Adhoc Additional District, and Sessions Judge-V, Lakhisarai, in the Sessions Trial.

Counsel/s For the Appellant : Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 122

Case Title: Khusboo Kumari vs. The State of Bihar

Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.944 Of 2014 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment