'Witnesses To Raid Denied Presence, Seizure Highly Doubtful': Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In 36-Yr-Old Arms Act Case

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under the Arms Act in a 36-year-old case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove lawful recovery of arms after every independent seizure witness disowned the alleged raid, rendering the alleged recovery “highly doubtful” and the conviction legally unsustainable.

Justice Prasenjit Biswas, allowing the appeal filed by Jogesh Barman @ Doro Barman, ruled that a conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony when all independent witnesses deny participation in the search and seizure. The Court underscored that proof of conscious and lawful recovery is the sine qua non for sustaining offences under the Arms Act, and once seizure witnesses themselves deny witnessing the recovery or preparation of the seizure list, the very foundation of the prosecution collapses.

Observing that “when the very witnesses who were purportedly present at the time of raid deny their presence and participation, the prosecution story regarding the conduct of the raid becomes highly doubtful and unsafe to rely upon,” the Court held that the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

According to the prosecution, the incident dated back to January 1983, when police allegedly conducted a late-night raid near a riverbank in Jalpaiguri upon receiving secret information about armed miscreants. An exchange of fire reportedly took place, during which the appellant was apprehended with injuries. Police claimed to have recovered a pipe-gun, a fired cartridge, a live cartridge and a torch from his possession. He was subsequently chargesheeted under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, and in 1990, the Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.

However, the High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with fatal inconsistencies. Crucially, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6, who were projected as members of the raiding party and seizure witnesses, categorically denied being part of the raid. Some of them admitted that although they had signed the seizure list, they had not witnessed any recovery and that the document had already been prepared when their signatures were obtained. Another witness (PW5) disowned any knowledge of the incident and was not even declared hostile by the prosecution, thereby binding the prosecution to his testimony. In these circumstances, the Court noted that there was no independent corroboration whatsoever of the alleged recovery.

The Court reiterated that while the testimony of police personnel cannot be rejected merely because of their official status, greater caution is required where independent witnesses contradict the prosecution's version. Accepting the official version without such corroboration, it held, would be “wholly unsafe and contrary to settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Sanjeet Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Deomuni Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, the Court concluded that when seizure and recovery are not proved through reliable evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, especially since lawful recovery is central to offences under the Arms Act.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the 1990 conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant and discharged him from his bail bonds, while also recording its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae.

Case Title: Jogesh Barman @ Doro Barman v. The State of West Bengal

Case No.: C.R.A. 304 of 1990