LI Network
Published on: October 8, 2023 at 13:41 IST
The Patna High Court has overturned the convictions of eight individuals in a murder case, stating that the mere discovery of weapons, including pistols and cartridges, based on the confessions of the accused, without the input of a ballistic expert, is insufficient to establish the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
A division bench comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Chandra Prakash Singh held that “the recovery of two country-made pistols and two .315 bore live cartridges is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants regarding the commission of the alleged offense. Moreover, there was no attempt made by the prosecution to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet could have been fired from the recovered weapon.”
The case centered around an incident in which Suman Devi, the wife of the informant-cum-appellant Naresh Barnwal, was fatally shot by two unidentified assailants while traveling with her family from Rajgir to Jamui, Bihar. The assailants also robbed the occupants of their belongings.
During the trial, the prosecution alleged that appellant Naresh Barnwal, along with seven other accused appellants, conspired to commit murder. However, the central issue revolved around whether the mere discovery of weapons, specifically pistols and cartridges, based on the confessions of the accused appellants, without the input of a ballistic expert, was sufficient to establish the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
In addressing this issue, the court emphasized that the case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence due to uncertainty surrounding the identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses.
Upon examining the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses, Rajiv Choudhary (PW 8) and Raj Bansh Singh (PW 12), the court noted that two locally made pistols and two live .315 bore cartridges were discovered based on the confessions of the appellants Jeetu Singh and Ranjay Singh.
The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against them. Therefore, it set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, allowing the eight criminal appeals.
