1 2025:CGHC:34898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 785 of 2008 1 - Aashish (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-04-2025. 2 - Jagram (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-04-2025. 3 - Munna Singh @ Anil Singh S/o Virendra Singh Bhadoriya Aged About 35 Years R/o Gadhi, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.) 4 - Manoj Singh S/o Ramratan Singh Bhadoriya Aged About 35 Years R/o Gadhi, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 22-07-2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.8.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Pendraroad in ST No.494/2001 whereby the appellants stand convicted under Section 25(1-B) sub-clause (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for three months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.7.2001 the police of Police Station-Marwahi received a secret information that some suspicious persons are roaming around in the Khodababa forest. Thereupon the police proceeded for the spot and found accused Mangilal, Ashish, Jagram, Munna Singh and Manoj Singh in suspicious condition and enquired from them. At their instance, country made pistol, firing pistol 315 bore, live cartridge and one casing of the cartridge were seized. Thereafter, Dehati Nalishi was prepared and based on it FIR was registered. During investigation, spot map was prepared, the seized pistols and cartridges were got examined, statements of witnesses were recorded and permission from the District Magistrate was obtained for prosecution. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and 3 Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(C) and 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 08 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined one Narayan Singh as DW-1. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned above. 06. During the course of trial, one of the accused namely Mangilal passed away and during pendency of this appeal, accused/appellants No.1 & 2 namely Aashish & Jagram also expired. As such, the present appeal in respect of appellants No. 1 & 2 stood abated and it now survives only in respect of accused/appellants No. 3 & 4 namely Munna Singh @ Anil Singh & Manoj Singh. 07. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on 4 record. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the seizure of arms at the instance of the accused/appellants whereas the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but learned trial Court did not appreciate it. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges by extending them benefit of doubt. 08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellants were charged under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(C) and 27 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5 11. Learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25(1)(C) of the Arms Act. However, on the basis of statement of PW-7 TR Sahu, Investigating Officer, convicted the appellants under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. 12. It is clear from the records that memorandum and seizure witnesses namely PW-1 Gyanchand Jaiswal and PW-2 Amardas have not supported the prosecution case and they only admitted their signatures on the documents. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined where they denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. 13. PW-4 Anand Kumar Jaiswal states that five persons were caught in the forest who disclosed about the hidden cartridges and pistols and on their production, five cartridges and pistol were seized. In para 2 he clearly states that at the time of their arrest, nothing was seized from them. However, he admits his signature on seizure memos Ex.P/1 to P/8. In para 7 he admits that he did not read the memorandum statement and as the police told him that they are making seizure of the articles seized, he signed the documents without reading. He states that he does not remember as to what statement was given by the accused to the police. He volunteers that as the incident is five years old, therefore, he does not remember now. 6 14. PW-7 TR Sahu, investigating officer, states that he recorded memorandum statements of all the accused persons and consequently seized pistols and cartridges. In cross-examined he admits that the place from where the articles were seized does not belong to the accused persons. 15. Learned trial Court in para 16 of the impugned judgment observed that at the time of arrest, no weapon was seized from the accused persons and the prosecution failed to prove that they gathered in the forest for commission of any dacoity and on this ground, acquitted them of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. However, on the basis of statement of the investigating officer, learned trial Court found that the pistols and the cartridges were seized from the accused persons whereas the memorandum and seizure witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case and denied the suggestion that any seizure was made at the instance of the accused persons. Further, PW-4 Anand Kumar Jaiswal, an independent witness, has also not identified the accused as the persons who were caught in the forest with arms and he only states that five persons were caught at that time. Thus, in view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused/appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the 7 appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. 16. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed and the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 25(1- B) of the Arms Act. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, each of them is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.07.23 16:42:02 +0530