Patna High Court
BABLOO KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution evidence did not satisfy the stringent requirements for establishing guilt and that the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 IPC was untenable.
Summary
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Karu Gope under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and for a violation of Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC, and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a term of three years respectively. They appealed, contending that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, that key witnesses gave inconsistent statements, and that the investigating officer was never examined, rendering the theory of "last seen together" untenable. The High Court examined the testimonies of eight prosecution witnesses, noting material discrepancies, the absence of forensic corroboration of multiple gunshot injuries, and the failure to produce the seized weapon or the bullet. It also held that Section 27 of the Arms Act can punish only the person who actually used the firearm, making the charge read with Section 34 IPC improper. Applying the Supreme Court's principles for circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore set aside the conviction, acquitting all four appellants and ordering their release.
Issues considered
- The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the theory of "last seen together" is applicable in the present facts.
- Whether the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC is legally tenable.
- Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer and the lack of forensic linkage defeat the prosecution case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- acquittal
- Arms Act
- Section 27
- Section 302 IPC
- theory of last seen together
- evidentiary insufficiency
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.661 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2010 Thana- Bihar District-Nalanda
======================================================
Anjay Kumar, Son of Satyendra Singh, R/o Village-Khandakpar, P.S.-Bihar,
District-Nalanda (Bihar).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 687 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2010 Thana- Bihar District-Nalanda
======================================================
Md. Gulab, Son of Md. Siraj, R/o Mohalla-Aziz Ghat, P.S.-Bihar, District-
Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 760 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2010 Thana- Bihar District-Nalanda
======================================================
Babloo Kumar, Son of Rajendra Rajak, R/o Village-Sakunat, P.S.-Bihar,
District-Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 817 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2010 Thana-Bihar District-Nalanda
======================================================
Alok Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar, Son of Banke Lal Gupta, R/o Mohalla-
Qamaruddin Ganj, P.S.- Laheri, District-Nalanda.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
2/20
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 661 of 2019 and 760 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 687 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Prenshy, Adv.
Mr. Mudit Meet, Adv.
Mr. Shadab Akhter, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 817 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 08-07-2026
All the afore-mentioned four appeals have been
preferred by the four convicts/appellants for setting aside the
judgment of conviction dated 15.05.2019 and the order of
sentence dated 21.05.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘learned Trial Court’) in connection with Sessions Trial
No. 310 of 2011, arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 107 of 2010.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
3/20
2. By the judgment of conviction dated 15.05.2019,
the appellants, namely, Anjay Kumar [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 661
of 2019]; Md. Gulab [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 687 of 2019];
Babloo Kumar [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 760 of 2019] and Alok
Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 817 of 2019]
have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the ‘IPC’) and
Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. By
the order of sentence, they have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/-
each for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offences under Section 27 of the
Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. In default of
payment of the amounts of fine, they shall be further directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and three months
respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. It is not in dispute that on the night of 18 th/19th of
May, 2010, one Karu Gope was murdered, for which, a case
vide Bihar P.S. Case No. 107 of 2010 was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. On the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
4/20
basis of the statement made by one Upendra Narayan Bharti (the
informant), the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bihar Police Station,
stating, inter alia, that on 19th of May, 2010, he along with other
police personnel, namely, Om Prakash Chauhan, Mahendra
Ram, Kailash Paswan, and the driver of the vehicle, namely,
Uday Paswan, were on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of
the Police Station. While they were proceeding from Mohalla-
Khandak Par towards the Station, in front of Sharda Gas
Agency, they found an unknown person lying on the road. The
informant, namely, Upendra Narayan Bharti, stopped the vehicle
and examined the said person and noticed that he was lying
dead by gunshot injury on the back of his head. He informed
the incident telephonically to the Bihar Police Station and
immediately started preliminary inquiry and also preparing the
inquest report of the dead-body of the said unknown person. In
the meantime, another police personnel came to the spot and the
said Upendra Narayan Bharti (the informant) made a statement
before him. The statement made by aforesaid Upendra Narayan
Bharti was recorded an F.I.R., bearing Bihar P.S. Case No. 107
of 2010, under Sections 302/34 of the IPC was registered
against unknown persons.
4. The police took up the case for investigation and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
5/20
finally submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants under
Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
5. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is
exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the case
was committed from the Court of learned Magistrate to the
Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar
Sharif. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif
for trial and disposal, which was registered as Sessions Trial No.
310 of 2011.
6. The learned Trial Court framed charge against the
accused persons/appellants under Sections 302/34 of the IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC
as they pleaded not guilty. When the charge was read over and
explained to the accused persons/appellants, the trial of the case
commits.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether eight (8) witnesses. The accused persons/appellants
were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
8. However, no witness on behalf of the defence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
6/20
was examined, whereafter, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to
pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, referred to above, against the accused
persons/appellants.
9. The same is challenged by the appellants
separately vide aforementioned four appeals.
10. Since all the aforesaid four appeals arise out
from a common judgment and order, we proposed to dispose of
the same by passing a composite judgment, taking all the
appeals together for hearing.
List of the Prosecution Witnesses:
P.W. 1 Kailash Paswan;
P.W. 2 Adra Devi;
P.W. 3 Kanti Devi;
P.W. 4 Anita Devi;
P.W. 5 K.K. Kshitiz;
P.W. 6 Mahendra Yadav;
P.W. 7 Rajendra Yadav; and
P.W. 8 Bare Yadav
11. P.W. 1, namely, Kailash Paswan, is a police
constable and claimed to be the member of the patrolling party;
P.W. 2, namely, Adra Devi, is the mother of the deceased; P.W.
3, namely, Kanti Devi, is the maternal aunt of the deceased; P.W.
4, namely, Anita Devi, is the cousin sister of the deceased, P.W.
5, namely, K.K. Kshitiz, is the Doctor/Autopsy Surgeon; P.W. 6,
namely, Mahendra Yadav, is the neighbour of the deceased; P.W.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
7/20
7, namely, Rajendra Yadav, is the grandfather of the deceased
and P.W. 8, namely, Bare Yadav, claimed to be a friend of the
deceased.
12. P.W. 1, namely, Kailash Paswan, being a
member of the patrolling party, corroborated the statement made
in the FIR, stating, inter alia, that on 19th of May, 2010 at about
12:45 A.M., they found a dead-body lying on the road near a
godown of L.P.G. Gas at Khandak Par.
13. P.W. 2, namely, Adra Devi, who is the mother of
the deceased, asserted in her evidence that her youngest son,
namely, Karu Gope, was in his house with her. He was lying on
a bed and at about 06:00 P.M., he received a phone call. She has
stated that it was the phone call of Gulab Miyan, who was
calling the deceased to come to play some games. Karu Gope
(the deceased) denied such call of Gulab Miyan as his mother
was there in the home. She has further stated that after about
half an hour, 8-9 young men came to her house and insisted
Karu Gope to come to play and, thereafter, they all took him to
some place in order to play. Amongst them, there were Gulab
Miyan, Anjay Kumar/Kahar, Alok, Babloo Rajak, Pappu, Sunil,
Ranjan and Amit. Subsequently, the deceased did not return and
P.W. 2 along with her sister and sister’s husband left the house
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
8/20
to conduct a search. In paragraph 4 of her examination-in-chief,
P.W. 2 has stated that she found her son lying smeared with
blood on the southern side of Khandak Par at Bihar Sharif on
the road and Gulab, Alok, Ranjan, Anjay, Babloo, Pappu, Sunil
and Amit were fleeing away with pistol in their hands. Seeing
this, she became unconscious and regained her sense on the next
day. Thereafter, she went to the local hospital to receive the
dead-body of her son, but police denied to handover the dead-
body as it was an unclaimed dead-body.
14. In paragraph 9 of the evidence, P.W. 2 has
clearly stated that police did not record any statement of her or
her other relatives. She filed a protest petition in the Court
through a learned Advocate. However, the said protest petition
was not exhibited during trial. The examination-in-chief was
contradicted during her cross-examination. In cross-
examination, she has stated that on 18th of May, 2010 at about
12:00 noon, the driver of the tractor of Karu Gope informed
about some mechanical disorder in the tractor and her son left
the house with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for repairing of the tractor
and returned home at about 05:00 P.M. In the meantime, her
son received a phone call and left the house, saying his mother
that he would be coming within five minutes. After some time
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
9/20
of his departure, P.W. 2 heard a sound of firing, first she thought
that it was the sound of some fire crackers. Thereafter, her son
did not return back during the said night and as it was dead-
hours of night, she did not leave the house to find out her son.
If the statement of P.W. 2 in the cross-examination is believed,
then her claim in examination-in-chief that on the very date of
the occurrence she saw her son lying in pool of blood on the
southern side of the gas godown at Khandak Par and the
accused persons were fleeing away with pistol in their hands, is
found to be a false statement. Secondly, she further has further
stated in her cross-examination that she came to know in the
next morning that Karu was murdered by gunshot injury.
Thirdly, she heard that Suraj and Basiya Saran took him to some
unknown place on the date of occurrence and she told that her
son was murdered by Suraj Gope. There is absolutely no
evidence as to how P.W. 2 came to know about the involvement
of Suraj Gope. The cross-examination belies the statement
made by her during examination-in-chief. According to her, her
statement was not recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Again, she, in paragraph 18 of the cross-examination, has stated
that she conducted a search for her son along with her relatives.
She left her house at about one and half hours after her son left
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
10/20
the house. She did not go to the place where the gas godown is
situated and, therefore, she did not have any occasion to see the
dead-body of the deceased/victim.
15. Now, if such evidence is accepted by this Court,
it is absolutely an absurd proposition that the accused persons
will wait for about two to three hours after allegedly causing
murder of the deceased/victim, for P.W. 2 to see that they were
fleeing away with pistol in their hands.
16. P.W. 3, namely, Kanti Devi, has also stated that
Karu was murdered by Gulab, Anjay, Babloo, Alok, Ranjan,
Pappu and Sunil. She also told that she heard the sound of
firing at about 08:45 P.M. and her sister left the house to find
out her son towards the eastern side of the house where the
godown was situated. She also followed her and identified
Babloo, Gulab, Alok, Sunil and Ranjan. She has also stated that
she did not find the deceased on the date of the occurrence.
However, she identified the accused persons under the street
light.
17. It is important to note here that the
informant/P.W. 1 has stated that the place of occurrence was
dark and they found the dead-body under torch light and, thus,
there is a discrepancy between the statements of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
11/20
informant/P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 with regard to source of light. It is
also found from the evidence of P.W. 3 that her statement was
not recorded by police. Again, in paragraph 5 of the cross-
examination, she has stated that she made a statement to the
police that Karu was murdered by Gulab, Ajay/Anjay, Babloo
and Sunil. In paragraph 3 of the cross-examination, she has
stated that she met one Mukesh and Sharda Gope after two
months of the incident and came to know about the names of the
assailants of the deceased/Karu.
18. Thus, it is absolutely not safe to rely on the
evidence of P.W. 3 because she went on making different
statement at different points of time regarding her knowledge
about the death of Karu and the name of the assailants.
19. P.W. 4, namely, Anita Devi, who is the cousin
sister of the deceased, unequivocally admitted in her
examination-in-chief that she did not see anybody assaulting or
causing injury by gunshot to Karu. However, other witnesses
saw Gulab and Anjay running away with pistol in their hands.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that after two days of
the occurrence, she came to know from her maternal aunt that
the victim was murdered. Therefore, her claim that she saw
Gulab and Anjay fleeing away with pistol in their hands, cannot
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
12/20
be accepted as a true version of the incident.
20. P.W. 5, namely, Dr. K.K. Kshitiz, has conducted
the post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the
deceased and found the following injuries:-
“A lacerated wound margin inverted and
charred scar having size 1.5” x 1.5” cranial cavity
deep on occipetal region of scalp i.e. wound of entry.
The injury is anti-mortem in nature.
On Dissection- Skull-Occipetal bone was
fractured. Brain & meninges were lacerated and
foreign body of size 1¼” spherical lodged in left frontal
……….(illegible) was recovered ……….(illegible)
bullet.
Thorax- Both lungs intact & pale. Heart- All
chambers were empty. Abdomen- Stomach contained
about 3 ounce food material. U.B. empty. All other
Viscera are intact & pale.
In my opinion, death occurred due to
hemorrhage & shock due to above noted injury on
Scalp caused by firearms weapon.”
21. P.W. 6, namely, Mahendra Yadav, is the
neighbour of the deceased and P.W. 2. It is asserted from his
evidence that he also took part in conducting search of the
victim and in course of search, he found Gulab, Anjay, Alok and
Babloo, who are fleeing away with pistol in their hands. P.W. 6
heard the sound of firing even prior to identifying the above-
named accused persons. However, he also did not find out the
dead-body. In cross-examination, he has clearly stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
13/20
victim/deceased did not receive gunshot injury in his presence
and he cannot say as to who fired at the victim/deceased.
22. P.W. 7, namely, Rajendra Yadav, is the
grandfather of the deceased. According to him, the incident
took place on 12th of May, 2010 at about 07:00 P.M. Though
according to the fardbeyan, the incident took place during the
night of 18th/19th of May, 2010. P.W. 7 has also stated that he
saw Gulab and Anjay running away with pistol in their hands.
In paragraph-5 of the cross-examination, he has stated that he is
deposing for the first time in Court, meaning thereby, he was not
examined by the I.O. during the investigation of the case. He
has also stated that he came to know in the hospital that his
grandson was murdered, so he did know prior to 19 th of May,
2010 that his grandson was murdered.
23. P.W. 8, namely, Bare Yadav, who claimed to be
the only eye-witness to the occurrence, has stated, on oath, that
on 18th of May, 2010 at about 09:00 P.M., he was proceeding
towards his house from Bihar Sharif Railway Station by a
motorcycle and when he reached near the gas godown, he saw
Gulab Miyan, Anjay, Babloo and another person with pistol in
their hands. Gulab Miyan and Anjay opened fire at the deceased
and all of them fled away towards the northern side of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
14/20
locality. He did not state the matter to anybody due to fear.
From his cross-examination, it is asserted that the
victim/deceased was murdered at a distance of about 15 - 20
meters away from his house and he was shot from a distance of
about 20 - 25 feet. This fact also cannot be believed in view of
his own statement in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination,
wherein, he has stated that the accused persons fired at him,
touching a firearm on the back side of his head. If the
victim/deceased was murdered, there must be blackening and
tattooing around the wound of the deceased, but the post-
mortem report does not suggest any such evidence with respect
of the injury of the victim/deceased.
24. The learned Trial Court held the appellants’
guilty on the theory of last seen together. According to him, the
evidence of the witnesses was consistent that all the
appellants/accused persons called the victim over phone to come
with them to play and when he denied the same, they came to
their house and took him away. Thereafter, the victim was
murdered. Therefore, the theory of last seen together is
applicable against the accused persons and it was within the
special knowledge of the accused persons to explain the death of
the deceased. Failure on their part would prove the culpability
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
15/20
of the appellants in the instant case.
25. Before we embark upon the theory of last seen
together, it is important to note that neither the informant nor the
Investigating Officer were examined in this case and, therefore,
both the prosecution and the defence could not ascertain the
veracity of contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses
against the appellants. Under such circumstances, when there
are material contradictions with regard to the identification of
the accused persons as well as the time when the witnesses saw
the deceased, examination of the I.O. was absolutely necessary.
Furthermore, his/her examination was necessary because the
witnesses have stated that Gulab and Anjay fired at the victim.
If that be so, there must be two injuries on the person of the
deceased. However, the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 5) found only
one bullet injury on the body of the deceased. The I.O. did not
take any attempt to recover the seized weapon. The recovered
bullet was not produced before the Trial Court. It was not
consented with the Autopsy Surgeon to ascertain his view as to
whether the bullet was sufficient to cause the death of the victim
in ordinary and natural course of business. Absence of such
evidence, remains to be fatal for the prosecution
26. With regard to the circumstantial evidence, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
16/20
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in (1984)
4 SCC 116 held in paragraphs 153 and 154 as follows:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision
would show that the following conditions must
be fulfilled before a case against an accused can
be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
It may be noted here that this Court
indicated that the circumstances concerned
'must or should' and not 'may be' established.
There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved' and "must
be or should be proved" as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra where the following observations
were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807 SCC (Cri) p.
1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle
that the accused must be and not merely may be
guilty before a court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
17/20
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence
so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in
all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say
so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a
case based on circumstantial evidence.”
27. In the instant case, there is absolutely no
evidence as to who actually committed murder of the
victim/deceased. The evidence is also absent on the point as to
when the deceased was allegedly taken by the accused persons
away from his home and as to when he was murdered. His
dead-body was found by the informant (P.W. 1) at about 12:45
A.M. on 19th of May, 2010. Thus, there was a considerable time
gap between his leaving the house and finding him dead. There
is no evidence that, in the meantime, where the deceased had
met with another person; in other words, the theory of last seen
together is applicable when the deceased is found in association
with the appellants soon before his death. There must be close
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
18/20
proximity between last seen together and the death. The
evidence on record is absolutely absent on this point.
28. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is found
that they were fleeing away. However, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and others
started searching out the victim about 2-2½ hours of his
departure from his house. It is not reasonably possible that after
committing the offence, the appellants will wait for 2-2½ hours
only to afford the opportunity to the witnesses to see them
fleeing away.
29. Last but not the least, the evidence on record,
contains glaring contradictions, adds to the destruction of the
prosecution case by non-examination of the Investigating
Officer.
30. Surprisingly enough, though the Investigating
Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 27 of the Arms
Act read with Section 34 of the IPC, but there cannot be any
charge-sheet under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with
Section 34 of the IPC, in view of the fact that Section 27 of the
Arms Act is applicable only against the person who used the
firearm to commit the offence.
31. Section 27 of the Arms Act reads as hereunder:-
“[27. Punishment for using arms,
etc.―(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
19/20
in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms
or prohibited ammunition in contravention of
section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms
or prohibited ammunition or does any act in
contravention of section 7 and such use or act
results in the death of any other person, shall be
punishable with death.]”
32. Therefore, the charge under Section 27 of the
Arms Act read with Section 34 of the IPC shall also fail.
33. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not
find any merit in these appeals and, therefore, we set aside the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence referred to above
and acquit the appellants, namely, Anjay Kumar [Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 661 of 2019]; Md. Gulab [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 687 of
2019]; Babloo Kumar [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 760 of 2019] and
Alok Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 817 of
2019] of the charges levelled against them.
34. The appeals stand allowed.
35. The appellants, above-named, are said to be in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
20/20
custody; therefore, they are directed to be released forthwith, if
their custody is not required/wanted in any other matter.
36. Let the Trial Court Records and a copy of this
judgment be sent immediately to the learned Trial Court and the
concerned Jail authority for information and needful
compliance.
37. The interlocutory application(s), if any, in all the
four appeals stands disposed off accordingly.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Praveen-II/Saurabh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10/07/2026
Transmission Date 10/07/2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.