Mandatory death penalty under the Arms Act struck down for denying individualized sentencing and judicial discretion.

The acquittal was not disturbed because the evidence showed material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, doubts over custody of the accused and weapon, and incomplete recovery of ammunition and bullets; no perversity in the High Court's appreciation of evidence was found, so the benefit of doubt was maintained. Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 was also struck down because it imposed a mandatory death sentence for death caused by use of prohibited arms or ammunition, even in accidental or unintentional cases, and left no room for individualized sentencing, mitigating circumstances, or judicial discretion. The provision was held ultra vires and void as arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondent on the evidence required interference; and (ii) whether Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, which prescribed mandatory death penalty where use of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition resulted in death, was constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondent on the evidence required interference.

Analysis: The High Court had found material inconsistencies in the prosecution case regarding custody of the accused and the weapon, as well as serious doubt arising from the recovery of only a part of the alleged ammunition and the absence of recovered bullets. The appellate court found no perversity or improper appreciation of evidence in the acquittal and saw no ground to disturb the benefit of doubt granted by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Interference with the acquittal was not warranted, and the acquittal was maintained.

Issue (ii): whether Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, which prescribed mandatory death penalty where use of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition resulted in death, was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: Section 27(3) was examined against the background of the Arms Act scheme, which distinguishes between prohibited arms and other arms, and against the constitutional limitations imposed by Articles 13, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The provision was held to be excessively wide because it mandated death even where the use of prohibited arms or the act in contravention of Section 7 may have been accidental or unintentional, leaving no room for individualized sentencing, mitigating circumstances, or judicial discretion. The reasoning drew support from the settled principle that a mandatory death sentence is incompatible with fairness, reasonableness, and the judicial function in sentencing.

Conclusion: Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 was declared ultra vires the Constitution and void.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the respondent's acquittal stood affirmed, and the impugned mandatory death-penalty provision was struck down as unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision imposing a mandatory death sentence without individualized sentencing or consideration of mitigating circumstances is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and cannot stand where it excludes judicial discretion in capital sentencing.

---