Patna High Court
Kranti Sharma and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The convictions are set aside due to insufficient evidence, and the appellants are discharged.
Summary
Kranti Sharma and Ravi Sharma were arrested on 30 November 2012 after a police raid that recovered detonators, cartridges, and firearms, leading to their conviction under Sections 25(1-AA), 26(i), 26(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act and a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution’s case relied solely on police witnesses, none of whom were independent, and that crucial seized articles and forensic reports were never produced before the trial court. The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to meet the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, noting the absence of independent testimony and the non‑production of seized items and expert reports. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, discharged the appellants, and allowed the appeal. The decision underscores the necessity of reliable, independent evidence and full disclosure of material seized in arms cases.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of police witnesses, who are interested parties, to sustain a conviction without any independent testimony.
- Whether the failure to produce seized articles and forensic reports (Sargent Major, FSL) defeats the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the standard of proof required in criminal cases was satisfied in the present prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-AA), 26(i), 26(ii), 35
Subjects
- Arms Act
- illegal arms seizure
- police witnesses
- independent evidence
- reasonable doubt
- burden of proof
- criminal appeal
- conviction set aside
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.170 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2012 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
======================================================
1. Kranti Sharma S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Sharma
2. Ravi Sharma, S/o Badal Sharma Both are resident of Village- Bicha Gaon,
P.S.- Kasim Bazar, Distt- Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the
State.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2016 and order of sentence
25.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5 th,
Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2013
arising out of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 217 of 2012 whereby
and whereunder these three appellants have been convicted for
committing offence under Sections 25(1-AA), 26(i), 26(ii) and
35 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.170 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
2/7
Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each
under Section 26(i) of the Arms Act and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under
Section 26(ii) of the Arms Act. All sentences have been directed
to run concurrently and in case of default of payment of fine,
appellants are directed to further undergo simple imprisonment
for 45 days.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on
30.11.2012, on the basis of secret information that Appellant
No. 2, namely Ravi Sharma, is engaged in supplying illegal
arms and ammunition to Naxalites, a raid was conducted and
these two appellants were apprehended while they were trying
to flee away and from their house, 35 detonators and live
cartridges of AK-47, country made pistol, semi-made revolver
and parts of fire arms were recovered.
4. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of these
accused-appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether
nine witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Arun Kumar; P.W. 2, namely
Safdar Ali; P.W. 3, namely Shankar Prasad Tuddu; P.W. 4,
namely Ganesh Kumar; P.W. 6, namely Sudarshan Prasad and
P.W. 8, namely Shiv Murat Singh are members of the raiding
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.170 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
3/7
team. P.W. 5, namely Mukesh Kumar, is the informant of the
present case. P.W. 7, namely Rambalak Paswan, is Investigating
Officer of the case. P.W. 9, namely Awadh Kishore Prasad, who
is a formal witness and has proved the sanction report. The
prosecution has also adduced documentary evidences, which are
marked as:-
Exhibit 1/1 Signature upon seizure list
Exhibit 2 Seizure list
Exhibit 3 Written report
Exhibit 3/1 Endorsement
Exhibit 4 Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 5 Memo of Arrest
Exhibit 6 Sanction Report
5. On the other hand, the defence has not produced
any oral or documentary evidence.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted these appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in
the opening paragraph of this order.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails
the order of conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. He
contends that in this case, conviction is solely based on
interested police witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses are
police officials. P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are members of the
raiding party. P.W. 5 is informant of the present case and is a
police official. P.W. 9 is also a police official and has proved
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.170 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
4/7
sanction report. Seizure list witnesses are also police constables.
One of the seizure list witnesses, namely Madan Singh, has not
been examined by the prosecution. Perusal of testimony of the
witnesses would suggest that a large number of independent
witnesses were present at the place of seizure, however, they
have all been withheld by the prosecution and no independent
witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to
prove the case. In absence of testimony of independent witness,
the testimony of related and highly interested witnesses cannot
be relied upon. It is further contended that deposition of the
prosecution witnesses suffers from serious infirmity and,
therefore, they are unreliable and not trustworthy. The witnesses
are not consistent about the place of occurrence and the manner
in which the seizure was effected and the recovery was made.
Even the seizure was not carried down in accordance with the
law and procedure laid down. He further contends that even the
Sargent Major has not been examined on behalf of the
prosecution. He further contends that as a matter of fact, only
semi-prepared parts of the revolver were recovered from the
room of the house. No manufacturing equipment was found or
seized by the police. Prosecution has failed to produce report of
Sargent Major or the F.S.L. report and even the seized articles
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.170 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
5/7
have not been produced before the learned Trial Court which
goes to the root of the prosecution case. He further submits that
in this case, investigation of the case has already commenced
much prior to institution of the F.I.R.. Thus, without producing
the report of the Sargent Major or the F.S.L. and even without
producing the seized articles before the learned Trial Court and
in absence of any independent witness, the conviction of the
appellants is unsustainable. The prosecution has failed to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubts and the trial court has
wrongfully convicted these appellants ignoring material
contradictions and hence, the appellants are fit to be acquitted.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State submits that the evidence on record unmistakably
points to the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution could prove
that it was these appellants who were involved in supplying
illegal arms and ammunition. Charges against the appellants was
proved by the prosecution witnesses beyond all reasonable
doubt and, therefore, the learned Trial Court was fully justified
in convicting the appellants under Sections 25(1-AA), 26(i),
26(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act and imposing the sentence, as
indicated above.
9. On going through the rival submissions, evidences
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.170 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
6/7
and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this
case, all the prosecution witnesses are police officials and are
highly interested witnesses. Prosecution has failed to examine
any independent witness. Moreover, the prosecution has not
produced the seized articles before the learned Trial Court and
has also failed to bring on record report of the Sargent Major or
the F.S.L. report.
10. It is settled law that in criminal cases, since life
and liberty of the accused are involved, a strict standard of proof
is required as to prove the guilt of the accused. It is not the
preponderance of the probabilities that establishes the guilt of
the accused. It is necessary that the evidence on record must
prove it beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction cannot be based
on the consideration that the prosecution story may be true. The
accused can only be convicted if the court reaches the
conclusion that the prosecution story must be proved. The
burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the
prosecution. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of these appellants beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the
appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 22.02.2016 and order of sentence 25.02.2016
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.170 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
7/7
passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2013 arising out of
Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 217 of 2012 are hereby set aside
with respect to these appellants only.
12. In that view of the matter, appellants, above
named, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds in
connection with this case.
13. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
14. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date 13.05.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.