Conviction Under Section 7 of Arms Act Requires More Than Assumption – It Requires Ballistic Proof: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man of Graver Arms Charge Due to Lack of Evidence

"When a Firearm Isn’t Proven Prohibited, Section 7 Cannot Be Invoked by Presumption", - Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur delivered a pivotal judgment where it set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish that the recovered firearm qualified as a “prohibited arm”. Justice Farjand Ali held that the conviction was legally unsustainable in the absence of scientific and ballistic evidence,and instead convicted the appellant under the lesser offence of Section 3 read with Section 25, granting him relief for time already served.
The case stemmed from an incident on 3 March 2016, when police allegedly recovered a country-made revolver from the possession of the appellant, Nirmal alias Mota, near a Pipal tree and Shiv Mandir in Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. An FIR under Section 5/25 of the Arms Act was registered, later altered to Section 3/25, and eventually, the trial court convicted him under Section 7/25, treating the weapon as a prohibited arm based on a District Magistrate’s report.
The Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar, sentenced the appellant to seven years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with an additional three months’ imprisonment in case of default.
“Conviction under Section 7 of the Arms Act requires evidence—specifically, scientific, ballistic, and categorical evidence”
The High Court noted that although a recovery was effected, the prosecution failed to produce any ballistic report or expert opinion that the recovered revolver satisfied the statutory definition of a prohibited arm.
“No ballistic expert report has been brought on record, nor have any technical specifications or documentation regarding the nature of the recovered weapon been submitted.”
Justice Farjand Ali was critical of the trial court for basing the conviction under Section 7 without such evidence:
“To convict an accused under Section 7, concrete scientific evidence—such as report from a ballistic expert or a certified laboratory—must be produced to establish that the seized article meets the criteria of a prohibited arm as defined under Section 2(1)(i).”
The Court reiterated that under Section 2(1)(i) of the Arms Act, only automatic firearms or such weapons as notified by the Central Government can be treated as “prohibited arms.”
Flawed Expert Testimony:
The prosecution relied on PW-5 Rajendra Prasad, a Field Constable serving as an armourer, who examined the revolver. However, the Court found his testimony inadequate:
“He is merely an F.C. (Field Constable)… He did not give any opinion that the seized article qualifies as a prohibited arm.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the revolver was a prohibited arm, making the conviction under Section 7 unsustainable in law.
Conviction Modified to Section 3/25:
While setting aside the conviction under Section 7, the Court held that the recovery of the firearm without license was well established. Accordingly, the appellant was held guilty under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.
“The appellant’s act of possessing a firearm without a valid license constitutes an offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.”
“He Was Just 21 When Arrested, Has No Prior Record”: Court Grants Relief Under Probation Principles
In a reformative tone, Justice Ali observed: “Section 361 Cr.P.C. imposes a duty on the court to explain why the benefit of probation cannot be granted in cases where the punishment does not exceed seven years.”
Considering that:
•    The appellant was only 21 years old at the time of the incident,
•    Had no prior criminal antecedents,
•    And had already undergone 2 years and 4 months in custody,
the Court held: “Sentence already undergone would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.”
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement and trial courts that serious charges under Section 7 of the Arms Act demand rigorous proof, especially when higher sentences are involved.
“A conviction under Section 7 cannot be sustained… in the absence of any definite findings or a special description of the ammunition.”
The judgment not only corrects a misapplication of the Arms Act but also affirms the Court's commitment to reformative justice, procedural fairness, and probation principles in appropriate cases.
Date of Decision: 8 April 2025