Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.79 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Mast Ram on 10 September, 2004
Once again, the Supreme Court in State of Himanchal Pradesh vs. Mast Ram, AIR 2004 SC 5056 reiterated the legal proposition that the bullet recovered from the body of the victim need not be necessarily sent for ballistic examination or in case of failure, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn. Paragraph 7 of the judgement, which is relevant, is reproduced below :-
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surendra Paswan vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 November, 2003
The judgement in Sukhwant Singh case was considered by the Supreme Court in Surendra Paswan vs. State of Jharkhand, (2003) 12 SCC 360. The Supreme Court once again reiterated that Sukhwant Singh is not an authority for the proposition that whenever bullet is not sent for ballistic examination, the prosecution has to fail. In that case the victim was fired on the left eye. On receiving bullet injuries the victim fell down and was later declared dead. The Supreme Court after considering the oral and medical evidence held that there was only one injury on the body of the deceased which was fully explained by the doctor in his evidence and consequently, failure to send the weapon and the bullet for ballistic examination did not result in denting the prosecution version. The relevant observations are as follows :-
Prabhash Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 12 September, 2019
In a more recent judgement in Prabhash Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), (2019) 9 SCC 262, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the weapon of assault and the bullet were not even recovered. The issue was whether on the basis of eye witness account, the accused can be convicted. The Supreme Court dealt with the said issue in the concluding paragraph of the judgement as follows :-
Manish Dixit And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 October, 2000
As regards offence under the Arms Act, according to the prosecution version, a tamancha (an immitation firearm converted into firearm) and three live cartridges were recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. Concededly, the appellant was not having any licence in that behalf, as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. The seizure memo was duly proved by PW-9 and PW-11. The contention that in absence of public witness to the seizure memo, it cannot be relied upon, stands rightly discarded by the trial court relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Manish Dixit and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 1 SCC 596 and judgement of Delhi High Court in Ashraf Ali vs. State, (1991) 2 Crimes 226. Learned counsel for the appellant did not make any other submission relating to the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the court below in respect of commission of offence under the Arms Act. We have perused the statement of PW9 and PW11 and we fully endorse the findings recorded by the trial court in relation to commission of offence and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.
Ali Ashraf Quardri And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 November, 2020
As regards offence under the Arms Act, according to the prosecution version, a tamancha (an immitation firearm converted into firearm) and three live cartridges were recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. Concededly, the appellant was not having any licence in that behalf, as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. The seizure memo was duly proved by PW-9 and PW-11. The contention that in absence of public witness to the seizure memo, it cannot be relied upon, stands rightly discarded by the trial court relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Manish Dixit and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 1 SCC 596 and judgement of Delhi High Court in Ashraf Ali vs. State, (1991) 2 Crimes 226. Learned counsel for the appellant did not make any other submission relating to the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the court below in respect of commission of offence under the Arms Act. We have perused the statement of PW9 and PW11 and we fully endorse the findings recorded by the trial court in relation to commission of offence and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.