Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2765 OF 2025
KARIYA.
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Jafar Khan- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Mishra- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
RESERVED ON : 12/08/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25/08/2025
_______________________________________________________________
ORDER
This revision was finally heard on 12/8/2025 and today the order is
being pronounced.
2. This criminal revision arose from the judgment dated 18.6.2025
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bairasiya District Bhopal in Criminal
Appeal No.81/2024 affirming the judgment dated 8.11.2024 passed by the trial
Court in Criminal Case No.501026/2017 whereby the petitioner/accused has been
convicted under section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short "Act, 1959")
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default stipulation.
3. The prosecution case before the trial Court, in nutshell, is that on
30.4.2017, when Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) was on patrolling along with
Constables Neeraj Dangi and Ranjeet Bhanoriya, on receiving information,
recovered a country made pistol Katta and a cartridge from the petitioner/accused
on his personal search near Main Road, Village Surajpura. The seizure was made in
the presence of two witnesses namely Bhura @ Shivraj (PW1) and Ramswaroop
(PW2). The seizure memo (Ex.P.1) was prepared and petitioner/accused was
arrested and brought to the Police Station, Nazirabad along with seized articles. An
FIR vide Crime No.96/2017 under Sections 25/27 of the Act, 1959 was registered.
After completing the investigation, sought sanction for prosecution from the
District Magistrate, Bhopal as required under section 39 of the Act, 1959. The final
report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bairasia.
4. The petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty before the trial Court.
5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the solitary evidence of Sub
Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) held that the firearm Katta and the cartridge were in
unlawful possession of the petitioner/accused, thus, convicted and sentenced him as
mentioned above. On preferring appeal against the same, the learned appellate
Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that none
of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The prosecution
withheld other witnesses. It is further submitted that sanction for the prosecution is
not valid for want of application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority. It is also
submitted that the firearm was not properly examined by the Arms Expert and it
was examined long after the date of recovery. It is submitted that the police has
registered a false case against the petitioner/accused by planting Desi Katta and a
cartridge.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has
submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out that
the petitioner/accused has a criminal past. Hence, instant criminal revision be
dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
9. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses to establish
the guilt of the petitioner/accused before the trial Court. Hiralal (PW4) has deposed
about the examination of seized firearm Desi Katta and a live cartridge of 315 bore
as per his examination report (Ex.P.9). Harish Sheetlani (PW5), being subordinate
employee to the District Magistrate at relevant time, stated about the prosecution
sanction (Ex.P-10) accorded by the District Magistrate, Bhopal. The examination
report of the firearm and the prosecution sanction are not sufficient to prove the
alleged offence against the petitioner/accused unless the seizure of the prohibited
articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt, that is incumbent on the prosecution.
10. Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) is the main witness. He has stated
that at the relevant point of time and place, he was on patrolling along with
Constables Neeraj Dangi and Ranjeet Bhanoriya. He further stated that accused
after seeing the police had tried to run away from the place of occurrence, but he
caught him. Thereafter he seized firearm Desi Katta 315 bore and a live cartridge
on personal search of the petitioner/accused in the presence of Bhura @ Shivraj
(PW1) and Ramswaroop (PW2).
11. As per Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3), witnesses of seizure memo
(Ex.P1) viz. Shivraj (PW1) and Ramswaroop (PW2) are the chance witnesses. In
their examination before the trial Court, both witnesses have not supported the
prosecution story and expressed their complete ignorance of the incident. However,
both have admitted their signature on the relevant documents i.e. seizure memo
(Ex.P1) and arrest memo (Ex.P2) but, stated that they signed these documents at
the instance of police. Nothing appears in their examination that why they are
disinterested in prosecution case or having any interest in acquittal of the
petitioner/accused.
12. Further, it was the duty of the prosecution to produce other witnesses
i.e. Constables Neeraj Dangi and Ranjeet Bhanoriya, who were also said to be
present at the time of search and seizure. Had it been so, the petitioner/accused
would have an opportunity to cross-examine over those witnesses to unfold the
truth of search and seizure. Even after the witnesses examined turned hostile,
withholding of other eye witnesses is a serious lacuna on the part of the
prosecution.
13. It is revealed from the note of the learned trial Court appended to the
deposition dated 14.3.2024 of Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) that the seized
articles Katta (Art. A-1) and cartridge (Art. A-2) produced from the Malkhana
found covered by white cloth and sealed with Chapra and a paper slip contains
crime no., date and time of seizure, description of articles and bearing signature of
the accused, witnesses and recovery officer also found fastened therewith. As per
the prosecution, articles were sealed on the spot immediately after recovery from
the petitioner/accused and later sent to Hiralal (PW4) for examination. But, Sub
Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) in his examination no where stated that he had sealed
the seized articles after the recovery of the same on the spot.
14. Hiralal (PW4) has stated that after examination, Desi Katta and live
cartridge were sealed and handed over to Constable Haroon along with
examination report (Ex.P9), however, in cross-examination he admitted that he has
not affixed on his report (Ex.P9) a specimen of the seal used for resealing the
articles. Thus, sign of resealing by Hiralal (PW4) should have been present there on
the sealed packet produced before the trial Court. Hiralal (PW4) in his cross
examination, admitted that the said firearm received by him on 3.5.2017 and he
examined the same on 5.6.2017, but he could not give proper explanation for the
delay caused in examination of the seized firearm. The evidence of Sub Inspector
M.L.Yadav (PW3) and Hiralal (PW4) is cloudy with regards to the examination of
seized articles sent in a sealed condition.
15. Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3), who not only recovered the
firearm but also after registering an FIR, investigated into the matter, has stated that
during the investigation, he recorded the statements of Bhura @ Shivraj (PW1) and
Ramswaroop (PW2) as per their narrative, but both witnesses straightway denied
from their police statements (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) respectively. On going through the
statements (Ex.P1 & Ex.P2), it is found that the statements of both the witnesses
recorded by the Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) are verbatim having the same
comma and full stop. It is humanly impossible that two people narrated about the
incident in such a similar pattern. Although, the police statements are not
substantial evidence, same can only be used for the purpose of contradiction and
omission, but here, worthy of considering to indicate the credibility of search and
seizure followed by investigation conducted by Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3).
16. In a catena of decision of the Supreme Court, the legal position is
settled that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a police officer
who recovered the prohibited articles and investigated into the matter, of course
subject to the quality of evidence of such police officer.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Tahir Vs. State of Delhi, AIR
1996 SC 3079 has held that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police
officials, merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of law or
evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of
the police officials if found reliable unless corroborated by some independent
evidence. The rule of prudence, however, requires a more careful scrutiny of their
evidence since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected
by them. Similarly, in the case of Anil Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC
2943, the Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of law that the evidence of
police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity.
Prudence, however, requires that the evidence of the police officials who are
interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized
and independently appreciated.
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Girja Prasad Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 7 SCC 625, has held that "there is no rule of law which
lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials
even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence
may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced
that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on
such evidence." In the case of Govindaraju Vs. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722 it has
been held that "it cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a
sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given
case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly
corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, then the statement of such
witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may
have some interest in success of the case."
19. The observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Som Prakash
Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 989 is precisely relevant in the present context.
The same reads as thus;
"that the demanding degree of proof traditionally required in a
criminal case and the devaluation suffered by a witness who is
naturally involved in the fruits of his investigative efforts, suggest
the legitimate search for corroboration from an independent or
unfaltering source-human or circumstantial to make judicial certitude
doubly sure. Not that this approach casts any per jorative reflection
on the Police Officer's integrity, but that the hazard of holding a man
guilty on interested, even if honest, evidence may impair confidence
in the system of justice."
20. The Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 has held as under:-
"..........the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely
on the ground that they belonged to the police force, and are either
interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency. However,
as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material
particulars, should be sought.
Further, held that;
"there is no absolute rule that the testimony of a police officer
cannot be the sole basis of conviction. It may sustain conviction
provided the testimony is reliable, inspires confidence, is not shown
to be mala fide or inherently improbable, and the court has carefully
scrutinized the record (including seizure memos, contemporaneous
documents and the surrounding facts). Corroboration is desirable but
not mandatory; failure to examine available independent witnesses
may attract adverse inference if the prosecution has withheld them
mala fide."
21. The principle deducible from the decisions of the Supreme Court can
be recurred as the evidence of a police officer in a case like this is found to be a
trustworthy, reliable and unimpeachable so as to a conviction can safely be based
thereupon would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case disclosing
the entire method and manner of search and seizure. Further, the investigation into
the matter by the same police officer must also free from any iota of doubt.
22. In the present case, as discussed above, the evidence of Sub
Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) does not appear of a sterling character and same does
not inspire confidence and is not found to be trustworthy so as to make the basis of
conviction upon his sole testimony. The sealing of seized articles on the spot and its
examination is also not proved beyond dubiety. The statements of witnesses
recorded during the investigation founds wholly unreliable impeaching the
credibility of investigation done by Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3). Withholding
of other eye witnesses is a serious lacuna on the part of the prosecution. In entirety
of the facts and circumstances of the present case, uncorroborated evidence of Sub
Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) is not sufficient to convict the petitioner/accused
safely.
23. It is revealed from the record, as urged by the learned counsel for the
respondent/State, that as many as seven crimes, including present one, were
registered against the petitioner/accused. But there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner/accused has been ever convicted in any of such offences. The
criminal past of petitioner/accused would not justify the conviction of the
petitioner/accused dehors of the settled principle of proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The conviction must be lawful. Law does not recognize a moral
conviction.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court of the considered
opinion that the conviction of petitioner/accused does not appears to be legal and
correct, therefore, an interference is warranted in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court.
25. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned
judgments passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside. The
petitioner/accused is acquitted of offence under Section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Arms
Act, 1959.
26. At present the petitioner/accused is in jail. It is directed that he be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
27. A copy of this order along with the record of the Courts below be
sent back.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
Date: 2025.08.25 17:54:46 +05'30'
Ansari
