The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that mere recovery of firearms or other incriminating articles from a person’s house cannot, by itself, sustain a conviction under the Arms Act unless the prosecution establishes conscious possession and dominion over the weapon. Dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand, the Court upheld the Jharkhand High Court’s decision acquitting a villager who was convicted after a country-made sten gun and other articles allegedly belonging to extremists were recovered from his house.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale held that possession under the Arms Act necessarily requires an element of knowledge, control, and dominion over the weapon. The Court observed that where incriminating articles are kept in a person’s house under coercion or threat from extremists, such possession cannot automatically be treated as conscious possession for the purpose of criminal liability.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The prosecution case originated from a police operation conducted in August 2001 during a special anti-extremist drive involving the local police and the Central Reserve Police Force. Acting on secret information, the police initially raided a village where extremists were allegedly hiding. Subsequent intelligence suggested that the extremists had shifted to another village and had taken shelter in the house of Jagdish Lakra.
The police surrounded the house, where four suspected extremists allegedly attempted to flee. While one individual was apprehended, three others escaped. During interrogation, the apprehended extremist informed the police that the fleeing persons had left behind their belongings, including a country-made sten gun, ammunition, medicines, uniforms, and extremist literature inside the house. A search of the premises resulted in the recovery of these articles.
Following investigation, charge sheets were filed under various provisions of the Arms Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act against several accused, including the house owner. The Trial Court convicted Jagdish Lakra under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment. The conviction was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court.
Lakra challenged his conviction before the Jharkhand High Court through a criminal revision petition. The High Court found that both the Trial Court and the appellate court had erred in concluding that the accused was guilty solely because prohibited arms were recovered from his house. It held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the recovered weapon was in the accused’s conscious possession and accordingly set aside the conviction.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Jharkhand approached the Supreme Court.
The State argued that the High Court had overlooked consistent evidence of the police officials regarding the raid, seizure, and recovery of incriminating articles from the respondent’s house. It contended that the testimony of official witnesses sufficiently established the prosecution case and that the recovery could not be disbelieved merely because several independent witnesses had turned hostile.
The State further argued that in cases involving extremist activities, local residents often refuse to support the prosecution out of fear, and therefore hostile witnesses should not weaken otherwise credible official evidence. It also submitted that the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction by overturning concurrent findings of conviction recorded by two courts.
The respondent contended that members of the banned extremist organisation had forcibly entered his house and compelled him to provide shelter. It was argued that the recovered weapon belonged to the extremists and was never under his voluntary control or possession.
The defence further highlighted the realities prevailing in extremist-affected regions, where villagers are often compelled under threats of violence to provide shelter and food to armed groups. In such circumstances, the mere presence of arms inside a person’s house could not establish conscious possession under the Arms Act.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredient of conscious possession.
The Bench observed that the evidence itself showed that the extremists had arrived at the respondent’s house around 4 a.m., while the police reached approximately two hours later. Thus, the extremists had occupied the premises only briefly before fleeing upon noticing the police.
Importantly, the respondent had consistently explained that the extremists had compelled him under threat to keep the articles in his house. The Court found this explanation consistent with the State’s own submission that villagers in extremist-affected areas often act under fear and intimidation.
The Court held that if incriminating articles are kept in a house because of coercion or threat to life, such possession cannot be regarded as conscious possession capable of attracting criminal liability under the Arms Act.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the Supreme Court observed that recovery of a firearm alone is insufficient for conviction. The prosecution must additionally prove that the accused exercised knowledge, control, and dominion over the weapon.
The Bench endorsed the High Court’s reliance on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Francis Xavier Salemao v. State Through Public Prosecutor, which held that possession under the Arms Act necessarily includes an element of consciousness and the ability to exercise control over the weapon, even where it is not in the person’s physical custody.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court concluded that the acquittal represented a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, it dismissed the State of Jharkhand’s appeal and affirmed the respondent’s acquittal.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
