Single Judge revision allowed challenging conviction under Arms Act. Court set aside conviction and sentence as prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of impartial investigation and unchallenged recovery by prosecution.
Conviction and sentence set aside. Petitioner discharged from liability of bail bond.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.5 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- BEGUSARAI
| ========================= Bikash Yadav, Son of Indradeo Sahebpur Kamal, Distt.- Begusarai |
================================== Yadav, Resident of village Sabdalpur, P.S. .... .... Petitioner Versus |
|---|---|
| The State of Bihar ========================= |
.... .... Respondent ================================== |
| Appearance : | |
| For the Petitioner : |
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Ms. Nivedita Verma, Advocate |
| For the State : ========================= |
Mr. Ajay Kumar-I, APP ================================== |
| CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. ORAL JUDGMENT |
JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR |
| Date: 25-08-2017 |
The petitioner files this revision application against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2016, passed by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th , Begusarai whereby he has affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court holding the petitioner guilty under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also fine of Rs.500/- for committing offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and also awarded the same quantum of sentence for committing offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act however, directed that both sentences shall run concurrently and in case of non-payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.5 of 2017 dt.25-08-2017
2 /4
police party along with Dayanand Kumar, S.I. (PW1), informant of the case who apprehended the accused in this case with arms. A member of the police party was made I.O. of the case so he was interested in conviction of the accused. The fact that he was member of the raiding party is itself reflected from the written information of the informant and he places reliance on a decision by filing a copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, Bhulan Das @ Bhulan Ravidas vs. The State of Bihar passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.944 of 2011. In the case of Bhulan Das (supra) A Division Bench of the Court finding Investigating Officer in the said case a member of the raiding party, the Court held that in such circumstance the investigation made by him cannot be said to be above board.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.5 of 2017 dt.25-08-2017
3 /4
from possession of petitioner and all four prosecution witnesses are police personnel.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.5 of 2017 dt.25-08-2017
4 /4
I.O. of the case as the true and impartial investigation cannot be expected from a person who himself happens to be a member of the raiding party. In such circumstance the investigation made by him cannot be said to be above board. Even the seizure list witnesses were not examined by the prosecution instead the defence has examined these witnesses from their side and denied any such recovery so case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. The trial court has incorrectly held that burden shifted in the case to defence to prove innocence. The burden of proof lies on prosecution in view of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Real onus is on the prosecution to prove its case including the seizure beyond all reasonable doubt. So for aforesaid reason it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below to the petitioner/accused are hereby set aside. The petitioner is on bail so he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-
| AFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| UploadingDate | 11.09.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
11.09.2017 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction and sentence can stand when the Investigating Officer was a member of the raiding party and recovery was denied by defence witnesses.
Whether the prosecution conclusively proved recovery of arms beyond reasonable doubt considering the investigation agency's neutrality.
Whether the burden of proof shifted to the defence to prove innocence regarding the recovery of the illegal weapon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhulan Das @ Bhulan Ravidas vs. The State of BiharApplied¶6
Bhulan Das @ Bhulan Ravidas vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.944 of 2011
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bikash Yadav
The State of Bihar
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
