( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1110 of 2008 Teka Ram son of Late Charitar Ram resident Village Tandwa P.S. Tandwa, District Chatra … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ….. Oral Judgment in Court Order No. 07/ Dated: 02.09.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2008 and sentenced dated 21.07.2008 passed by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II. Chatra in S.T Case No. 429 (C) of 1996 by which appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 402 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/- . 2. The prosecution case ,in brief , is that on 11.08.1996 the informant police officer received secret information at about 05.00 pm that some unknown criminal are assembled at Dobhi road in village Larkuwa near Koyala Bhattha Bridge and they are taking wine and making prepration and plan to commit road dacoity who are 7-8 in numbers. Then informant police officer entered and information in the station diary and proceeded along with S.1. Kedar Nath Singh, A.S.I. Irshad Alli, Probationar S.I. Nalin Kumar Mishra (P.W.1) and Thana reserve armed police forces comprising Hav. Sachin Kumar Thapa, Hav, Robin Khatri, ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 2 Cont. 123 Pravin Gurung (P.W.7) Cont, No. 391 Abhaya Rana, Cont. No. 393 Ganesh Sonar (P.W.5), Const. 551 Dil Bahadur Tapa, Const. No. 715 Pradip Khatri (P.W.4), Const. No. 910 Min Bahadur Gurung (P.W.6), Const. No. 913 Kshtra Bahadur Nehar, Const. No. 118 Amar Tamga (Amar Singh Rana) (P.W.3), to verify the information, Chowkidar. Ramdeo Bhuian was also with him. The police party reached village Larkua at about 18 hours (06.00 p.m.) and stopped about one k.m. away from Koyala Bhattha Bridge Chowkidar was sent to verify and watch the situation. He returned with information that that 7-8 criminals are assembling and taking wine . He identified the accused Jethu Ganjhu as one amongst them but cannot identify the rest. The police party raided the place, Then criminals started flying away . However, the accused Jethu Ganjhu, Naresh Pasvan, Butan Dom and Teka Ram were apprehended who disclosed their name as aforesaid upon interrogation. They were searched in presence of two witnesses Jubali Tirkey and John Toppo. And toy pistol was recovered from Butan Dom, a pistal was recovered from Jethu Ganjhu alongwith live cartridges loaded in the pistol and one kept in pocket. A country made pistol waş also recovered from accused Teka Ram along with loaded cartridges and a knife was recovered from Naresh Paswan. The police officer claimed that aforesaid persons were have assembled and making preparation to commit dacoity and forwarded the self statement to police station for instituting police case and himself took up the investigation. ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 3 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Courts below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the allegation against the appellant. It is submitted that this is case of no evidence. It is submitted that nothing was seized from the possession of the appellant. It is submitted that none of the prosecution witness have supported the prosecution case during trial and hence the appellant may be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, learned Special PP has vehemently opposed and submitted that the appellant has been named in the FIR alongwith other accused persons for making preparation to commit dacoity and two pistols and one kid pistol and others Bullets were recovered. It is submitted that the P.W. 1 and the P.W. 2 were the seizure list witnesses who have proved their signature on the seizure list and they have supported the prosecution case . It is submitted that P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are members of police party and they have also supported the recovery of fire arms from the appellant and other co-accused persons for which no explanation has been furnished by the appellant and hence this appeal may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It appears that the Informant i.e. A.S.I. namely Parmeshwar Shukla had lodged the FIR given case No. ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 4 Sadar P.S. Case No. 120 of 1996 against the appellant Teka Ram and three others namely Jethu Ganjhu , Naresh Paswan and Butan Dom for the offences under section 399,402 of the IPC and under section 25(1-b), 26 and 35 Arms Act on 11.08.1996. One desi pistol of length 4” and barrel length 6”and live cartridge of 315 bore was recovered from the possession of the appellant whereas other fire arms were recovered from the other Co-accused. 8. It transpires that police, after investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet against the five persons i.e the appellant and co-accused and one Arun Kumar Pathak on 24.10.1996 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Chatra under section 399/402 of the I.P.C. and under section 25(1-b), 26 and 35 Arms Act . Thereafter then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Chatra had taken cognizance under section under section 399/402 of the I.P.C. and under section 25(1-b), 26 and 35 Arms Act against the appellant vide order dated 18.11.1996. 9. After supplying the police papers to the appellant charges were framed against the appellant under section 399/402 of the I.P.C. and under section 25(1-b), 26 and 35 of Arms Act on 14.01.2008 by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha , then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chatra and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 10. It reveals that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was modified and corrected vide order sheet dated 30.04.2008 for correction of the serial number by the trial Court. ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 5 11. It reveals that during the trial proceeding of the other persons has been separated and the trial proceeded against the appellant and the Co-accused. 12. The prosecution in support of its case got examined seven (07) witnesses who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Johan Toppo, (ii) P.W.2 is Jubail Tirkey, (iii) P.W.3 is Amar Singh Rama, (iv) P.W.4 is Pradip Khatri, (v) P.W.5 is Ganesh Sonar, (vi) P.W. 6 is Min Bahadur Gurum and (vii) P.W.7 is Pravin Gurung 13. The prosecution in support of case got marked the following as the Exhibits as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1 and Exhibit 1/1 are signature of seizure list witness P.W.1 and P.W.2 namely John Toppo and Jubail Tirkey respectively , (ii) Exhibit-2 is formal FIR drawn on the basis of self statement of the informant. 14. Thereafter the appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 16.06.2008 and who denied the circumstances put forth before him. 15 Neither the any defence witness was examined nor any document marked as the Exhibit on behalf of the defence i.e. the appellant. 16. Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 402 of I.P.C. 25(1-b),26 and 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 6 four years to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/- , hence this appeal has been filed. 17. P.W. 1 John Toppo who is witness of the seizure list proved the signature as Exhibit-1, however during cross – examination, he stated that he was not aware that what was written on seizure list and he put signature on the seizure list after instruction of the police. Thus, P.W. 1 has not supported the prosecution case. 18. P.W. 2 Jubail Tirkey who is also a seizure list witness and who proved his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1/1 . During cross-examination he stated that he was not aware what was written on the paper, he signed the seizure list on instruction of police. Thus P.W.2 has also not supported the prosecution case. 19. P.W.3 is Amar Singh Rana is police constable and a member of the raiding party and stated that he alongwith police parties had seen that several extremists were fled away and four (04) extremists had apprehended but he does not remember their name. However, the accused persons were searched , two desi pistol , some live cartridge and knife were recovered. However he does not remember their name. During cross-examination he stated that he does not remember , from whom what was recovered . He could not say about the boundary of the place of occurrence. 20. Thus , from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.3, it is evident that he is not able to remember the names of the apprehended persons and he could not say about the recovery of any fire arms from the appellant, however, evidence of ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 7 P.W. 3 is contradictory to evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence the evidence of P.W. 3 is not reliable. 21. P.W. 4 is Pradip Khatri and a member of raiding parties of the patrolling team and stated that they were apprehended four (04) extremists and who disclosed his name Bara Babu. But he does not remember there names and has supported the recovery of two (02) Desi Pistol ,three (03) live cartridge and knife . He further stated that he can not identify the said four(04) apprehended persons. During cross-examination he stated that nothing was seized during his presence . 22. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 4 , it is evident that he has not supported the prosecution case against the appellant. Hence the evidence of P.W. 4 is not reliable. 23. P.W. 5 is Ganesh Sonar who was also member of raiding party alongwith Officer –In charge of the police station He stated during his evidence that four (04) persons were apprehended but he does not remember their name. He stated about recovery of two (02) Desi pistol, live cartridges and knife but he stated that he could not identify any apprehended persons. During Cross –examination he stated and admitted that he was not aware what was seized from whom. He was also not aware as to how they came to know that the apprehended persons were an extremist. 24. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.5, it is evident that he has not supported the prosecution case and had not idenfied the appellant and his evidence is not reliable. 25. P.W. 6 is Bahadur Gurung who is also a member of ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 8 raiding party and stated during his evidence that four (04) out of five persons were apprehended by the police party and he is not aware of the name of appellant. He stated regarding recovery of fire arms and also stated that he is not able to identify any of the apprehended persons. During cross-examination he stated that the seizure list was prepared by the Office-In-charge of the police station and he had not apprehended any persons . 26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.6 , it is evident that the evidence of P.W. 6 is not reliable as he had not identified the appellant. 27. P.W. 7 is Praveen Gurung who also a member of raiding party and stated that four (04) persons were apprehended by the police patrolling party and stated about recovery of fire arms however he stated that he cannot identify the apprehended persons . During cross-examintion he stated that he is not aware of the occurrence. 28. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 7 , it is evident that the evidence of P.W.7 has not supported the prosecution case and hence the evidence of P.W. 7 is also not reliable. 29. It further transpires that the Informant namely Parmeshwar Shukla has not been examined in this case before the learned Trial Court , which has caused prejudice to the appellant . 30. It further transpires that I.O. of this case also has not been examined and this has also caused prejudice to the appellant. ( 2025:JHHC:30517 ) 9 31. It further reveals that seized fire arms does not produced before the learned Trial Court. Hence he was acquitted under section 25(1-b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. 32. It is evident that none of the prosecution witnesses examined by the appellant during trial claimed to identify the accused except P.W. 3 , however the evidence of P.W. 3 is contradictory of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 . 33. In view of the of this case the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2008 and sentence dated 21.07.2008 passed by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II. Chatra in S.T Case No. 429 (C) of 1996 is set- aside and the appellant namely Teka Ram is acquitted for the offence under section 402 of the I.P.C and the appellant is also discharged from the liability of his respective bail bonds. 34. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1110 of 2008 stands allowed. 35. Let the Original Lower Court Record be sent to the learned Court below at once by the office. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/