The Supreme Court has upheld an order of acquittal in an Arms Act case after noting that the Trial Court was swayed away by the mere recovery of articles, particularly, the firearm ignoring the fact that there was no legal evidence to show that those articles were under conscious possession of the accused.

The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal arising out of a judgement passed by Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court whereby the conviction rendered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court under the Arms Act, 1959 was set aside.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale stated, “The High Court was justified in observing that mere recovery of certain articles including the weapons from the house of the respondent/accused is not sufficient enough to hold the respondent/accused guilty for commission of offence unless the prosecution establishes that the articles were in the conscious possession of the accused and the accused had dominion over these articles. It seems that the Trial Court was swayed away by the mere recovery of articles, particularly, the firearm namely the country made stein gun, is ignoring the fact that there was no legal evidence to show that these articles were under conscious possession of Jagdish Lakra.”

Advocate Kumar Anurag Singh represented the Appellant while AOR Parmanand Gaur represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case was registered on the basis of a statement of the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station. A special drive of nabbing extremists was organised by the police, and raids were being made with the help of Central Reserve Police Force. On receiving a secret information that certain extremists had left village Torar and proceeded to village Dora under the shelter provided by one Jagdish Lakra, the police force rushed to the village and cordoned off the house of Lakra. It was further revealed that four extremists tried to escape from the spot, but one of them was successfully nabbed by the police force whereas the other three accused persons, namely Nakuljee, Shiv Kumar Sahu and Umesh Kumar, were successful in fleeing from the spot.

One of the extremists, namely Birendra Oraon, who was nabbed at the spot, stated before the police that the other accused persons, though they fled away from the spot, had left their belongings, such as a money bag, uniforms, medicines and weapons like a Sten gun in the house of Lakra. House owner, Jagdish Lakra, supported the statement of Birendra Oraon. House of Jagdish was searched by the police in the presence of independent witnesses and in that search, the police found certain incriminating articles, namely, the weapons, such as country made stein gun, some literature and some medicines. Birendra Oraon made a statement before the police and stated that the accused Nakuljee used to carry these medicines, and another accused, Anil Kumar Pandey, used to provide aid and assistance to the accused Nakuljee in his treatment.

After the investigation, Jagdish Lakra, Chatru Oraon, Birendra Oraon and Anil Kumar Pandey were charged under Section 25 (1-B)a, 26,35 of the Arms Act and 116 IPC and 17(i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, whereas the investigation was kept pending against accused Nakuljee. Subsequently, Nakuljee was arrested and his remand was obtained. After adducing the evidence, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court came to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the respondent and ordered his conviction. Being aggrieved, only the respondent, namely, Jagdish Lakra, the house owner, preferred a revision before the High Court. The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant, State of Jharkhand, approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the High Court was justified in observing that mere recovery of certain articles including the weapons from the house of the respondent/accused was not sufficient enough to hold the respondent/accused guilty for commission of offence unless the prosecution established that the articles were in the conscious possession of the accused and the accused had dominion over these articles.

The Bench found that the other accused, claimed as extremists by the prosecution, were in the house of Jagdish Lakra for merely two hours. The Bench took note of the explanation offered by the respondent that under pressure from the extremists, the respondent had no other option but to keep those articles in his house. “If it is admitted that the incriminating material was kept in the house due to grave fear and or threat of life, then certainly, it cannot be said that such possession is a conscious possession and such coercive possession or possession under threat of life cannot be a sole criteria to accept the prosecution case and to record the finding of the guilt against the respondent”, it added.

Thus, holding that the view adopted by the High Court was a plausible view on the just and proper appreciation of evidence, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: The State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 686)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Kumar Anurag Singh, AOR Shantanu Sagar, Advocates Anil Kumar, Anshula Verma, Abhishek Kumar Gupta

Respondent: AOR Parmanand Gaur, Advocates Megha Gaur, Jamshed Bey, Vibhav Mishra

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: