Arms Act | Mere Recovery Of Weapon Without Proof Of Conscious Possession Can't Establish Guilt : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13) observed that a mere recovery of arms from someone's house is not sufficient to hold a person guilty under the Arms Act, unless the conscious possession as well as dominion was not proved.

“The High Court was justified in observing that mere recovery of certain articles including the weapons from the house of the respondent/accused is not sufficient enough to hold the respondent/accused guilty for commission of offence unless the prosecution establishes that the articles were in the conscious possession of the accused and the accused had dominion over these articles.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale while upholding the acquittal of a tribal man who was convicted by the trial court under the Arms Act for recovery of a country-made stein gun from his house.

In August 2001, police and CRPF personnel conducted a raid in village Dora, Jharkhand, based on intelligence about the presence of extremists in the area. Four alleged extremists were in the house of respondent Jagdish Lakra at 4:00 a.m. When police arrived at 6:00 a.m., three fled, while one was apprehended. A search of the house revealed a country-made stein gun, cartridges, medicines, and extremist literature.

The trial court and appellate court convicted Lakra under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to three years and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. However, the High Court of Jharkhand acquitted him on revision, prompting the State's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the State's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Varale underscored that when it was an admitted fact that the Respondent kept the incriminating materials such as weapons in his house due to grave fear or threat of life, then “it cannot be said that such possession is a conscious possession and such coercive possession or possession under threat of life cannot be a sole criteria to accept the prosecution case and to record the finding of the guilt against the respondent.”

The Court endorsed the Bombay High Court decision in Francis Xavier Salemao v. State Through Public Prosecutor (2007), where it was observed:

"The possession of firearm must have an element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession and where he is not in actual physical possession, he has nonetheless a power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereof continues despite physical possession being in someone else."

“It seems that the Trial Court was swayed away by the mere recovery of articles, particularly, the firearm namely the country made stein gun, is ignoring the fact that there was no legal evidence to show that these articles were under conscious possession of Respondent.”, the Court said, while justifying the High Court's decision to acquit the Respondent.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1-B)(a) and Section 26 – Offence of possession of unlicensed firearms – Requirement of Conscious Possession – Mere recovery of firearms and incriminating articles from the house of the accused is not sufficient to establish guilt unless the prosecution proves that the accused had conscious possession and dominion over the articles – Coercive possession or possession under threat of life cannot be termed as "conscious possession” – Held - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment which set aside the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court against the house owner - The prosecution established that four extremists took shelter in the respondent's house at 4:00 a.m., and upon a police raid at 6:00 a.m., three of them fled, leaving behind a country-made stein gun, ammunition, and other articles - The respondent offered an explanation that he had no option but to allow the articles under pressure and threat to life from the extremists - Accepting this explanation, the Supreme Court observed that if incriminating material is kept in a house due to grave fear or threat to life, it cannot be deemed as "conscious possession." - Coercive possession under threat cannot form the sole criteria to record a finding of guilt. [Relied on Francis Xavier Salemao vs. State Through Public Prosecutor, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1261; Paras 10-12]

Cause Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND VERSUS JAGDISH LAKRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 674

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Ms. Megha Gaur, Adv.