Failure To Send Recovered Weapon For FSL Examination & Verify Workability Fatal To Conviction Under Section 25 Arms Act: Allahabad High Court

"It is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish whether the recovered 12-bore tamancha, along with three 12-bore cartridges, was used in the commission of the alleged crime or not." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 10, 2026, held that a conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained if the prosecution fails to send the recovered weapon for expert forensic examination or verify its functional status.

A bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that such procedural lapses create an unbreakable gap in connecting the weapon to the alleged crime.

The case arose from a 1995 incident where a businessman was robbed of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs and shot dead near the Moradabad Railway Station. While the Trial Court had convicted the appellants for murder and robbery in 2008, the High Court was called upon to re-evaluate the evidence, particularly concerning the recovery of an illegal firearm from one of the accused.

The primary question before the court was whether the conviction under the Arms Act could stand in the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The court also examined if the testimony of police witnesses alone was sufficient to uphold convictions for murder and robbery when all independent fact witnesses had turned hostile.

Hostility Of Informant Does Not Render FIR Irrelevant

The Court noted that although the informant (PW-2) and other fact witnesses turned hostile, the sanctity of the First Information Report (FIR) remained intact. Citing the Supreme Court precedent in Goverdhan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the bench emphasized that an FIR does not lose its evidentiary value merely because the maker resiles from their statement during cross-examination.

The bench observed that the FIR was duly proved by the police personnel who registered it in the normal course of duty. The court found that the witness likely turned hostile due to fear or intimidation, but his initial written report, which named the accused and described the red-handed capture, provided a reliable foundation for the prosecution's narrative regarding the robbery and murder.

"It is a settled proposition of law that the FIR by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it certainly is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the investigating agency."

Police Testimony Sufficient If It Inspires Confidence

Addressing the challenge to the testimonies of police officials, the High Court reiterated that there is no rule of law requiring the rejection of police evidence solely due to their official status. Relying on Girja Prasad v. State of M.P. (2007), the bench held that the credibility of a witness must be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness, not their profession.

The Court found the testimonies of SHO Hemant Kumar Mishra (PW-1) and other police officers to be consistent and creditworthy. Since the appellant, Dharmendra Singh, was caught red-handed with the looted suitcase containing marked currency notes immediately after the crime, the police version was deemed highly reliable despite the lack of independent public witnesses to the recovery.

"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force. If the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence."

Absence Of FSL Report Fatal To Arms Act Conviction

Focusing on the procedural importance of forensic evidence, the Court highlighted a critical failure in the investigation of Case Crime No. 613 of 1995 under the Arms Act. The Investigating Officer (PW-9) admitted during trial that the recovered 12-bore tamancha (country-made pistol) and cartridges were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination.

Furthermore, the IO explicitly admitted that he did not personally test whether the recovered firearm was in a workable condition. The High Court observed that without an FSL report or a workability test, the prosecution failed to prove that the object recovered was a "firearm" within the legal definition or that it was the weapon used in the commission of the murder.

"The recovered tamancha and cartridges could not be connected with the alleged crime. On this ground, we find that the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act is bad in the eyes of law and contrary to settled legal principles."

Benefit Of Doubt Extended To Co-Accused

Regarding the second appellant, Charan Singh, the Court noted that unlike Dharmendra Singh, he was not arrested at the spot, and no incriminating material was recovered from his possession. The bench found his presence at the scene of the occurrence to be highly doubtful and based primarily on the statements of hostile witnesses.

Consequently, the Court held that the Trial Court had misappreciated the evidence against Charan Singh. While the evidence against Dharmendra Singh for murder and robbery was overwhelming due to his red-handed arrest, the case against Charan Singh lacked the necessary corroboration to sustain a conviction for heinous offences.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal of Dharmendra Singh, affirming his conviction and life sentence for murder (Section 302/34 IPC) and robbery (Section 394 IPC) but acquitting him of the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court fully allowed the appeal of Charan Singh, setting aside his conviction and directing his immediate release. The ruling underscores that while police testimony can sustain a conviction, procedural mandates like FSL reporting in arms cases are non-negotiable for proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Date of Decision: 10 July 2026