Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 July, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.636 of 2010
======================================================
1.Ranjeet Kumar
2.Brajesh Kumar.
3.Ajit Kumar.
All are sons of Baikunth Mahto, resident of village- Arma, P.B-
Kajra(Surajgarha)Dist-Lakhisarai ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 682 of 2010
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar S/O Jageshwar Mahto R/O Vill- Arma , P.S.Kajra Surajgarha ,
Disttk- Lakhisarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 636 of 2010)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Parmanand Pd.Nr.Sahi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra, App
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 682 of 2010)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Girish Pd.Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra, App
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2026
Heard Mr. Parmanand Pd.Nr.Sahi along with
Mr.Girish Pd.Gupta, learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State.
2. These two criminal appeals, Criminal Appeal
No.636 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2010, are arises
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
2/24
out of the common judgment of conviction dated 18.06.2010
and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Lakhisarai in Sessions
Trial No.415 of 2007 arising out of Surajgarha (Kajra) P.S. Case
No.326 of 2006 (G.R. No.1029 of 2006). By the said judgment,
the learned Trial court convicted the appellants, namely Brajesh
Kumar, Ajit Kumar, Ranjeet Kumar (son of Baikunth Mahto)
and Ranjeet Kumar (son of Jageshwar Mahto), for the offence
punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year along with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment
of fine, each of the appellants was further directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the
appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sections 26, 35
and other allied provisions of the Arms Act. Being aggrieved by
and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeals
before this Court which are heard together.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
11.12.2006
at about 6:00 P.M. that while the informant posted as
Sub-Inspector of Police at Kajra Police Station, he had received
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
3/24
a secret information regarding indiscriminate firing in Village
Arma arising out of a land dispute between the groups of
Baikunth Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto. After making a station
diary entry, he, along with the police force, proceeded to the
village and conducted searches at the houses of both factions in
the presence of independent witnesses. During the search of the
house of Baikunth Mahto, accused Brajesh Kumar, Ajit Kumar
and Ranjeet Kumar (son of Baikunth Mahto) were apprehended,
from whose possession one country-made loaded pistol with
live and empty cartridges, another country-made pistol with two
live cartridges and a magazine, and two live point 315 bore
cartridges, were allegedly recovered. Thereafter, the police
searched the house of Jageshwar Mahto and apprehended
Ranjeet Kumar (son of Jageshwar Mahto), from whose
possession one country-made loaded pistol along with one live
cartridge and one empty cartridge were recovered. As none of
the accused could produce any valid licence, the arms and
ammunition were seized and the seizure lists were prepared at
the spot in presence of two witnesses.
4. On the basis of the written report of the
informant, Surajgarha (Kajra) P.S. Case No.326 of 2006 was
instituted under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26(1) and 35 of the Arms
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
4/24
Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused persons, cognizance was taken,
and after commitment, charges were framed to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and upon conclusion of the trial the
appellants were convicted leading to the filing of the present
appeal.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence suffer from serious legal and factual
infirmities and are liable to be set aside. The defence case is that
the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged recovery of
firearms and ammunition beyond reasonable doubt belong the
appellant. The entire prosecution case rests solely on the
testimonies of police officials, whereas the two independent
seizure witnesses, P.W.11 and P.W.12, have not supported the
prosecution case and have categorically deposed that no search
or seizure was conducted in their presence and that their
signatures were obtained on blank papers. It was further
submitted that, despite the alleged raid having been conducted
in a densely populated village, no independent local resident
was examined to corroborate the prosecution version. Learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
5/24
counsel further argued that the evidence of the police witnesses
suffers from material contradictions with regard to the manner
of search, seizure and preparation of the seizure lists, and in the
absence of reliable independent corroboration, such interested
testimony cannot safely form the basis of conviction.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the
prosecution case itself discloses that the alleged incident arose
out of a long-standing land dispute between the families of
Baikunth Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto, which leads to strong
motive of false implication. It was contended that the
prosecution has failed to establish the conscious and exclusive
possession of the alleged firearms and ammunition by the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and that the mandatory
safeguards governing search and seizure under the Arms Act
and the Code of Criminal Procedure were not strictly complied
with. It was argued that the learned Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the material contradictions, the hostile
attitude of the independent seizure witnesses and the
deficiencies in the prosecution evidence, and erroneously
recorded the conviction solely on the basis of official witnesses.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
6/24
be acquitted of all the charges.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
7. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of
the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and
submitted that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated
the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. It was
contended that the prosecution has successfully proved that,
acting on secret information, the police party conducted
searches at the houses of the rival factions in the presence of
witnesses and recovered unlicensed firearms and live cartridges
from the conscious possession of the appellants. The evidence
of the informant, the Investigating Officer and the other
members of the raiding party is consistent and cogent with
regard to the manner of search, seizure and recovery, and there
is no material contradiction affecting the core of the prosecution
case.
8. Learned APP further submitted that the
prosecution has also proved the ballistic examination report
through P.W.15, which establishes that the seized firearms were
in working condition and the live cartridges were capable of
being fired. The sanction for prosecution under Section 39 of the
Arms Act was duly proved through P.W.14, thereby establishing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
7/24
compliance with the statutory requirements. It was, therefore,
argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
the conscious possession of unlicensed firearms and
ammunition by the appellants, and the learned Trial Court has
rightly convicted them under the relevant provisions of the
Arms Act. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeals be
dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
be affirmed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. Heard the parties.
10. I have perused the lower court records and
proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
11. The learned trial court, on the basis of materials as
collected during the course of investigation, passed the
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated dated
18.06.2010 for the offences under Section 25(1B)A of the Arms
Act.
12. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether fifteen witnesses, namely:
P.W.1 – Ram Pratap Rai – Member of the SAP
(Special Armed Police) raiding party.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
8/24P.W.2 – Nand Bihari Singh – Member of the SAP
raiding party.
P.W.3 – Sheo Badan Singh (also referred to as Shiv
Bachan Singh in parts of the record) – Member of the SAP
raiding party.
P.W.4 – Anil Kumar – Member of the SAP raiding
party.
P.W.5 – Ram Binay Singh – Member of the SAP
raiding party.
P.W.6 – Shivakant Tiwari – Member of the SAP
raiding party.
P.W.7 – Gayasuddin Ansari – Member of the SAP
raiding party.
P.W.8 – Gagan Kumar Sudhakar – Informant and the
then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kajra Police Station; leader of the
raiding party who conducted the search and seizure.
P.W.9 – Subhash Prasad Yadav – Member of the SAP
raiding party.
P.W.10 – Dhirendra Kumar Ram – Member of the
SAP raiding party.
P.W.11 – Harkhu Mahto – Seizure list witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
9/24(declared hostile).
P.W.12 – Pramod Kumar – Seizure list witness
(declared hostile).
P.W.13 – Manoj Kumar Singh – Investigating Officer.
P.W.14 – Gopal Krishna – Reader/Peshkar in the
office of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai; proved the sanction
order under Section 39 of the Arms Act.
P.W.15 – Rajendra Thakur – Sergeant Major (Ballistic
Expert), who examined the seized firearms and ammunition and
proved the ballistic examination report.
13. The prosecution has also relied upon following
document exhibited during the course of trial:-
Exhibit-1 – Seizure list relating to the recovery
from the house of Baikunth Mahto.
Exhibit-1/1 – Seizure list relating to the recovery
from the house of Jageshwar Mahto.
Exhibit-2 – Written report submitted by the
informant.
Exhibit-3 – Charge-sheet.
Exhibit-4 – Sanction order under Section 39 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
10/24
Exhibit-5 – Ballistic/Sergeant Major’s examination
report.
Material Exhibit-I, I/1 and I/2 – Three seized
country-made firearms.
Material Exhibit-II – Seven live cartridges.
Material Exhibit-III – Two empty cartridges.
Material Exhibit-IV – One magazine/charger.
14. It would be apposite to discuss the
oral/documentary evidences. The evidence of the prosecution
witnesses (PWs) can be summarized as follows:
P.W.1 – Ram Pratap Rai: A member of the SAP
force, who participated in the raid. He supported the prosecution
case regarding the raid conducted at the house of Baikunth
Mahto. In his cross-examination, he stated that the seizure list
was not prepared in his presence as the same was prepared
inside the house.
P.W.2 – Nand Bihari Singh: Another SAP jawan
who accompanied the raiding party. He corroborated the
prosecution case regarding the raid and arrest of the accused
persons. He also admitted in cross-examination that the seizure
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
11/24list was prepared inside the house and not before him.
P.W.3 – Sheo Badan Singh: He was also a
member of the raiding party. He supported the prosecution
version regarding the search and arrest but stated that he did not
witness the actual preparation of the seizure list.
P.W.4 – Anil Kumar: An SAP jawan who deposed
regarding the raid conducted by the police. His testimony
substantially supports the prosecution case regarding the
recovery of arms from the accused persons.
P.W.5 – Ram Binay Singh: He also participated in
the raid and supported the prosecution version. Like the other
police personnel, he admitted that the seizure list had been
prepared inside the house.
P.W.6 – Shivakant Tiwari: He corroborated the
prosecution case regarding the raid, search and arrest of the
accused persons. Nothing substantial could be elicited in his
cross-examination to discredit his testimony.
P.W.7 – Gayasuddin Ansari: Another member of
the SAP force. He supported the prosecution case and stated that
the accused persons were apprehended during the raid.
P.W.8 – Gagan Kumar Sudhakar (Informant):
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
12/24He was the then Sub-Inspector of Kajra Police Station and the
informant of the case. He deposed that on receiving secret
information regarding firing arising out of a land dispute
between Baikunth Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto, he entered the
information in the station diary and proceeded to Village Arma
with the SAP force. He stated that after observing all legal
formalities relating to search, the house of Baikunth Mahto was
searched, where Brajesh Kumar, Ajit Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar
(son of Baikunth Mahto) were apprehended and country-made
firearms and live cartridges were recovered from their
possession. Thereafter, the house of Jageshwar Mahto was
searched, where another Ranjeet Kumar (son of Jageshwar
Mahto) was apprehended and one loaded country-made pistol
along with live cartridges and an empty cartridge were
recovered from his possession. He proved both seizure lists as
Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1 and also proved the written report as
Exhibit-2.
P.W.9 – Subash Prasad Yadav: A member of the
SAP force who participated in the raid and supported the
prosecution version regarding search and recovery.
P.W.10 – Dhirendra Kumar Ram: Another SAP
jawan who also supported the prosecution case regarding the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
13/24
raid and seizure.
P.W.11 – Harkhu Mahto (Seizure Witness): He
identified his signature on the seizure list but did not support the
prosecution case regarding recovery. He stated that no seizure
was effected in his presence and that the police had obtained his
signature on a blank paper. He was declared hostile.
P.W.12 – Pramod Kumar (Seizure Witness): He
also identified his signature on the seizure list but did not
support the prosecution version regarding the seizure and stated
that his signature had been taken on a blank paper. He too was
declared hostile.
P.W.13 – Manoj Kumar Singh (Investigating
Officer): He conducted the investigation and proved the charge-
sheet as Exhibit-3. He also produced before the Court the
seized firearms, seven live cartridges, two empty cartridges and
one magazine, which were marked as Material Exhibits I, I/1,
I/2, II, III and IV respectively.
P.W.14 – Gopal Krishna: He was the Peshkar in
the office of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. He identified
the signature of the then District Magistrate on the sanction
order under Section 39 of the Arms Act, which was marked as
Exhibit-4. The District Magistrate himself was not examined
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
14/24
during trial.
P.W.15 – Rajendra Thakur (Sergeant Major):
He examined the seized firearms and ammunition and proved
his ballistic examination report as Exhibit-5. He deposed that
two of the country-made pistols were in working condition and
the third firearm could also be made functional by replacing the
trigger spring. He further stated that the seized live cartridges
were capable of being fired and were dangerous to human life.
15. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,
the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
16. It would be apposite to discuss the
oral/documentary evidences as available on record to re-
appreciate the evidences for just and proper disposal of the
present appeal.
17. The provision of Section 25(1-B)A of Arms Act
provides that :-
“Whoever-(a)acquires, has in his possession or
carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of
section 3; or….”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
15/24
I. ON THE POINT OF SANCTION UPON
SATISFACTION OF AUTHORITY
18. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the
sanction order through the evidence of P.W.-14 Gopal Krishna,
the Reader in the office of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai,
who identified the signature of the then District Magistrate, Shri
Narsingh Upadhyay, on the sanction order, which has been
marked as Ext. 4. The prosecution has thus brought on record
the sanction granted under Section 39 of the Arms Act by the
competent authority before institution of the prosecution.
Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.-14 to
cast any doubt upon the genuineness or validity of the sanction
order, nor has any material been placed on record to suggest that
the sanction was accorded mechanically or without due
application of mind. In the absence of any such challenge, Ext. 4
constitutes sufficient prima facie proof of a valid sanction under
Section 39 of the Arms Act. It is also to be presumed that, while
granting such sanction, the competent authority had applied its
mind to the materials placed before it and formed the requisite
“reason to believe” for according approval. A principle which
finds support in the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, reported in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
16/24
(2004) 11 SCC 576, wherein of “reason to believe” has been
construed which is as under:
“9. Under IPC, guilt in respect of
almost all the offences is fastened either on the
ground of “intention” or “knowledge” or “reason
to believe”. We are now concerned with the
expressions “knowledge” and “reason to believe”.
“Knowledge” is an awareness on the part of the
person concerned indicating his state of mind.
“Reason to believe” is another facet of the state of
mind. “Reason to believe” is not the same thing as
“suspicion” or “doubt” and mere seeing also
cannot be equated to believing. “Reason to believe”
is a higher level of state of mind. Likewise
“knowledge” will be slightly on a higher plane than
“reason to believe”. A person can be supposed to
know where there is a direct appeal to his senses
and a person is presumed to have a reason to
believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same.
Section 26 IPC explains the meaning of the words
“reason to believe” thus:
“26. ‘Reason to believe’.–A person is said
to have ‘reason to believe’ a thing, if he has
sufficient cause to believe that thing but not
otherwise.”
10. In substance, what it means is that a
person must have reason to believe if the
circumstances are such that a reasonable
man would, by probable reasoning, conclude
or infer regarding the nature of the thing
concerned. Such circumstances need not
necessarily be capable of absolute
conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if
the circumstances are such as creating a
cause to believe by chain of probable
reasoning leading to the conclusion or
inference about the nature of the thing.
These two requirements i.e. “knowledge”
and “reason to believe” have to be deduced
from various circumstances in the case.”
II. ON THE POINT OF POSSESSION OF THE
ARMS
19. It is settled that the word ‘possession’ as
mentioned in Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 would simply
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
17/24
mean physical/constructive possession or ‘conscious possession’
has already been the subject matter of many judicial decisions
and the law on the subject is no longer res integra. This court
deems it profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1972) 2
SCC 194, wherein, while reading into the word ‘possession’, the
Constitution Bench has held there has to be an element of
intention, consciousness or knowledge. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereinunder:-
“5. What is meant by possession in the context of
this section? Is it that the person charged should be
shown to be in physical possession or is it sufficient
for the purposes of that provision that he has
constructive possession of any firearm or
ammunition in contravention of Section 3 which
prohibits him to be in such possession without a
licence. It may be mentioned that under Section 19
of the Arms Act, 1878, an offence corresponding to
Section 25(1)(a) is committed if a person had in his
or under his control any arms or ammunition in
contravention of Sections 14 and 15 of that Act. The
word “control” under Section 25(1)(a) has been
omitted. Does this deletion amount to the
Legislature confining the offence only to the case of
a person who has physical possession or does it
mean that a person will be considered to be in
possession of a firearm over which he has
constructive possession or over which he exercises
the power to obtain possession thereof when he so
intends? If the meaning to be given to the word
“possession” is that it should be a physical
possession only, then certainly the charge as framed
on the facts of the prosecution case will not be
sustainable but if the meaning to be given to the
word “possession” is wider than that of actual or
physical possession then it is possible, if the
evidence produced by the prosecution is such as
would sustain a finding, that he had constructive
possession on September 17, 1966, when he handed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
18/24it over to Miroo and Miroo handed it over to
Chhaganlal because if it was not seized from
Chhaganlal, the appellant could have at any time
got back the physical possession of the revolver
through Miroo. The possession of a firearm under
the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the
element of consciousness or knowledge of that
possession in the person charged with such offence
and secondly where he has not the actual physical
possession, he has nonetheless a power or control
over that weapon so that his possession thereon
continues despite physical possession being in
someone else. If this were not so, then an owner of a
house who leaves an unlicensed gun in that house
but is not present when it was recovered by the
police can plead that he was not in possession of it
even though he had himself consciously kept it there
when he went out. Similary, if he goes out of the
house during the day and in the meantime some one
conceals a pistol in his house and during his
absence, the police arrives and discovers the pistol,
he cannot be charged with the offence unless it can
be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon
being placed in his house. And yet again if a gun or
firearm is given to his servant in the house to clean
it, though the physical possession is with him
nonetheless possession of it will be that of the
owner. The concept of possession is not easy to
comprehend as writers of Jurisprudence have had
occasions to point out. In some cases under Section
19(1)(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that
the word “possession” means exclusive possession
and the word “control” means effective control but
this does not solve the problem. As we said earlier,
the first precondition for an offence under Section
25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness
or knowledge with which a person possessed the
firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence
and secondly that possession need not be physical
possession but can be constructive, having power
and control over the gun, while the person to whom
physical possession is given holds it subject to that
power and control. In any disputed question of
possession, specific facts admitted or proved will
alone establish the existence of the de facto relation
of control or the dominion of the person over it
necessary to determine whether that person was or
was not in possession of the thing in question. In
this view it is difficult at this stage to postulate as to
what the evidence will be and we do not therefore
venture to speculate thereon. In the view we have
taken, if the possession of the appellant includes the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
19/24constructive possession of the firearm in question
then even though he had parted with physical
possession on the date when it was recovered, he
will nonetheless be deemed to be in possession of
that firearm. If so, the charge that he was in
possession of the revolver on September 17, 1966,
does not suffer from any defect particularly when he
is definitely informed in that charge that he had
control over that revolver. It is also apparent that
the words “on or before” were intended to bring
home to the accused that he was not only in
constructive possession of it on September 17, 1966,
but that he was in actual physical possession of it
prior to that date when he gave it to Miroo. It is
submitted, however, that the word “on or before”
might cause embarrassment and prejudice to the
defence of the accused because he will not be in a
position to know what the prosecution actually
intends to allege. From a reference of Form XXVIII
of Schedule 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the mode of charging a person is that he “on or
about”… did the act complained of. In view of the
forms of the charge given in the Schedule to the
Code, we think that it would be fair to the appellant
if the charge is amended to read ‘on or about’
instead of ‘on or before’ which we accordingly
order.”
20. Subsequently, in case of Sanjay Dutt v. State
Through CBI, Bombay (II) reported in (1994) 5 SCC 410, a
Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court elucidated the meaning
of possession to be conscious possession and not mere custody,
lacking any knowledge or intention to use. It was observed, as
hereunder:-
“19. The meaning of the first ingredient of
„possession‟ of any such arms etc. is not disputed. Even
though the word ‘possession’ is not preceded by any
adjective like ‘knowingly’, yet it is common ground that in
the context the word ‘possession’ must mean possession with
the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession
and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of
such possession. There is a mental element in the concept of
possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of ‘possession’ in
Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
20/24This is how the ingredient of possession in similar context
of a statutory offence importing strict liability on account of
mere possession of an unauthorised substance has been
understood. (See Warner v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, (1969) 2 A.C. 256 and Sambasivam v. Public
Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya, (1950) AC 458.”
III. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS
ESTABLISHED THEIR CASE BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT?
21. Upon an independent re-appreciation of the
entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this
Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the
charge under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act against all the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to
10, who were members of the raiding party, including the
informant (P.W.8), consistently establishes that, acting upon
credible secret information regarding indiscriminate firing
arising out of a land dispute, the police party proceeded to
Village Arma, conducted searches at the houses of the rival
factions after observing the requisite formalities, and recovered
unlicensed firearms and live cartridges from the conscious
possession of the respective appellants. Their testimonies are
consistent on the material particulars relating to the search,
seizure, recovery and arrest, and nothing substantial has been
elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
21/24
to establish any motive for false implication.
22. The mere fact that P.W.11 Harkhu Mahto and
P.W.12 Pramod Kumar, the seizure list witnesses, did not
support the prosecution case and were declared hostile does not,
by itself, render the prosecution case doubtful. It is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of official
witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they belong to
the police force, if their testimony is otherwise found to be
reliable, cogent and trustworthy. In the present case, the
evidence of the police witnesses stands duly corroborated by the
Investigating Officer (P.W.13), who produced and proved the
seized firearms, cartridges and magazine before the Court as
material exhibits. The ballistic expert (P.W.15) has categorically
opined that two of the seized country-made pistols were in
working condition and the third firearm could also be rendered
functional by replacing the trigger spring, while the live
cartridges were capable of being fired and were dangerous to
human life. The prosecution has further proved the sanction for
prosecution through P.W.14 by exhibiting the sanction order
(Ext.4), thereby, satisfying the mandatory requirement under
Section 39 of the Arms Act. No material has been brought on
record to suggest that the sanction suffered from any legal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
22/24
infirmity.
23. The defence plea of false implication on
account of a land dispute also does not inspire confidence.
Except making a bald allegation, the appellants have not
produced any cogent evidence to probabilise their defence. The
defence witness has not witnessed the alleged search and
seizure, and their testimony is insufficient to discredit the
otherwise reliable prosecution evidence. Likewise, the hostility
of the seizure witnesses cannot outweigh the consistent and
convincing testimony of the official witnesses, particularly
when there is no suggestion of previous enmity between the
members of the raiding party and the appellants. This Court,
therefore, concurs with the finding recorded by the learned Trial
Court that the prosecution has proved conscious and
unauthorised possession of firearms and ammunition by the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the
judgment of conviction dated 18.06.2010 and the order of
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court-IV, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 415 of 2007
(arising out of Surajgarha (Kajra) P.S. Case No. 326 of
2006/G.R. No. 1029 of 2006), whereby the appellants have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
23/24
been convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The
conviction of all the appellants under the aforesaid provision is,
accordingly, affirmed.
25. However, so far as, the sentence is concerned,
this Court takes into consideration that the occurrence is of the
year 2006, the appellants have faced the agony of criminal
prosecution for nearly two decades. The appellants have also
remained in custody for a substantial period during investigation
and trial. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances,
while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to the appellants
is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by
them. The sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/- each, along with the
default sentence, shall remain unaltered. While maintaining their
conviction under section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act, 1959 this
Court grants the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, to the present appellants upon their
executing bonds to maintain peace and good behaviour for a
period of one year. I find that the appellants have already been
released by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2010 in Cr. App.
(SJ) 636 of 2010 and 08.09.2010 in Cr. App.(SJ) 682 of 2010
and no adverse report against the appellants is placed before this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.636 of 2010 dt.10-07-2026
24/24
Court, they are accordingly directed to be released.
26. Accordingly, both the appeals, namely
Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.
682 of 2010, stand partly allowed to the extent indicated
above.
27. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned
District Court forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 06.07.2026 Uploading Date 10.07.2026 Transmission Date 10.07.2026
