Arms Act case: SC says recovery of weapon alone can’t prove offence, upholds Jharkhand man’s acquittal
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA New Delhi, July 16: The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of Jagdish Lakra in an Arms Act case,…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
New Delhi, July 16: The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of Jagdish Lakra in an Arms Act case, ruling that the mere recovery of a firearm from a person’s house is insufficient to secure a conviction unless the prosecution proves that the accused was in conscious possession of the weapon.
Dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale on July 13 affirmed the Jharkhand High Court’s 2023 judgment, which had set aside Lakra’s conviction under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.
The case dates back to August 2001, when a joint team of Jharkhand Police and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) launched an anti-extremist operation in Latehar district after receiving information that members of the banned Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) were hiding in villages in the area.
During a raid at Jagdish Lakra’s house in village Dora, security personnel recovered a country-made sten gun, ammunition, extremist literature and other materials. Police alleged that Lakra had sheltered extremists and charged him under various provisions of the Arms Act and other laws.
The trial court convicted Lakra, and the conviction was later upheld by the appellate court. However, the Jharkhand High Court overturned the conviction in 2023, prompting the State government to approach the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court questions Patna HC’s ‘rarest of rare’ view in Anand Mohan remission case
Conscious possession is essential: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that the prosecution had failed to establish Lakra’s conscious possession or control over the seized firearm.
The Bench observed that criminal liability under the Arms Act cannot rest solely on the recovery of a weapon from an accused’s premises. The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly possessed and exercised dominion over the firearm.
Court accepts possibility of coercion by extremists
The Bench noted that, according to the prosecution itself, the extremists had arrived at Lakra’s house around 4 a.m., while the police reached the premises about 6 a.m., indicating that the extremists had remained there for only about two hours.
Lakra had consistently maintained that the extremists had forcibly entered his house and compelled him to allow them to keep their belongings there because he feared for his life.
The Supreme Court found this explanation plausible, particularly in light of the State’s own submission that villagers in extremist-affected areas are often reluctant to cooperate with authorities due to fear and intimidation.
The judges observed that possession obtained under coercion or threat to life cannot automatically be treated as conscious possession under the Arms Act.
High Court’s view found legally sound
The Supreme Court held that the Jharkhand High Court had properly appreciated the evidence and adopted a plausible legal view while acquitting Lakra.
The Bench also relied on an earlier Bombay High Court judgment, which held that possession of a firearm requires not only physical custody but also knowledge, control and dominion over the weapon.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the State of Jharkhand’s appeal and upheld Lakra’s acquittal.
