1 2025:CGHC:41510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.462 of 2015 1 - Akshat Singh @ Solu S/o Chitranjan Singh Rajput Aged About 18 Years R/o Alpura, P.S. Sandesh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bhojpur Aara Bihar, 2 - Sunil Kumar @ Devendra Rai S/o Virendra Rai Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Purhara, Police Station - Chauri, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bhojpur Aara Bihar, District : Bhojpur, Bihar 3 - Neeraj Kumar S/o Tej Narayan Roy Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bardiha, P.S. - Charpokhali, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bhojpur Aara Bihar , District : Bhojpur, Bihar Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) CRA No.480 of 2015 1 - Bharat Das Mahant S/o Firat Ram Mahant Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Doma, PS Maalkharauda, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Prakash Das S/o Laxmi Das Mahant Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Doma, Ps Maalkharauda, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Appellants Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 599 of 2015 1 - Dolchand Patel S/o Sitaram Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kanwarpali, Police Station Saraipali, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Police Station Sarangarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (The cause title has been taken from the CIS Software) For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi and Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Afroj Khan, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 18/08/2025 1. Since the present batch of appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and same session trial number, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2015 passed by 3 the learned Upper Session Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in ST No.11/2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, RI for 5 years and RI for 2 years, respectively, with default stipulations. 3. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants Akshat Singh and Sunil Kumar have died, therefore, CRA No.462/2015 in respect of the said appellants has abated. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.02.2014 S.H.O. Gopal Dubey received secret information from the informant at Village - Salar 2 kg away on Saraipali road that two vehicle were standing, in which 8 person are there and they are having pistol, katta and knife and they are all like outsider and most probably they will commit some grievous incident, so on the basis of the said information the police registered the Roznamcha Sanha and prepared the notice under section 160 of Cr.P.C. and sent the constable No.114 namely Prem Sidar to call the witnesses and a report has been lodged in Roznamcha Sanha No.26 and constable no.114 went as a independent witness and on the basis of report Roznamcha Sanha No.28 was registered and after the information Ex.P-24 Mukhbir Panchnama was prepared and registered as Ex. P-25 Roznamcha Sanha and after completing the formalities they went along with crime branch team at spot and thereafter caught hold all the 8 persons and also searched them and prepared Talasi Panchnama Ex. P-25 4 and on the basis of memorandum one 9 mm pistol, 9mm empty magazine two mobile phone cash of Rs. 9550/-, one Tata Indigo mobile and one 12 bore country made pistol, 4 bullets and one Bolero bearing No.CG-12-R-2040, two knives and other articles were seized. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is no independent witnesses in the present case and all the witnesses are police persons, therefore, entire prosecution case is doubtful. The owner of vehicle has been examined and he also turned hostile before the Trial Court. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is totally erroneous and is based on the surmises and conjunctures. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the matter of Dilawar Singh vs State of Delhi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 641. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly 5 convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that as per prosecution story, all the appellants gathered with deadly weapons like pistol, katta, knives etc. and they were planning to commit any grievous offence like dacoity and as per prosecution story, one 9 mm pistol, two mobile phones, cash, one tata indico car, 12 bore country made pistol, bullets, one bolero car, two knives and other articles were seized from the possession of the appellants. 10. Neel Sagar Patel (PW-4) is the owner of Bolero car bearing Registration No.CG-12-R-2040. He stated that the accused Dolchand demanded vehicle from him on 03.02.2014 and on 05.02.2014 he returned the same. After some days, the Policemen came and asked him as to whom he gave his vehicle on rent then he stated that he had given his vehicle to Dolchand, 6 thereafter he took his vehicle from the Court on supurdnama, but in cross-examination he admitted that from 05.02.2014 to 10.02.2014, the said Bolero car was kept in his home and and the policemen came on 10.02.2012 and took his car. He also admitted this suggestion that the Police told him that he will have to take his car by supurdnama. 11. Subhash Patel (PW-5), Ksheedsagar Patel (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them but they denied all suggestions of prosecution. 12. Tapeshwar Sharma (PW-8), owner of Bolero bearing No.CG-13- C-5339 stated that on 05.02.2014 he had sent his car for Village Sariya, then near Mahanadi bridge, two people demanded lift and sat on the car, thereafter they got smell something to my driver Udayram Sahu and thereafter took his car, thereafter he lodged the report to the concerned police station. He did not identify all accused persons before the learned Trial Court. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 13. Udayram Sahu (PW-13) complainant in other Session Trial also did not identify all the accused persons and stated that he took Bolero car bearing No.CG-13-C-5339 to Village Sariya, then near Mahanadi bridge, two people demanded lift and sat on the car, thereafter they got smell something to him and thereafter took car by leaving him in forest, thereafter he lodged the report to the 7 concerned police station. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 14. Prem Singh Sidar (PW-11) stated that the Investigating Officer recorded memorandum statement of the accused Dolchand Patel and he admitted his signatures on seizure memo from Ex-P/8 to Ex-P/15 and admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same and also admitted his signatures on seizure memo from Ex-P/16 to Ex-P/23 on A to A part as well as on Mukhbir Soochna panchanama (Ex-P/24) and search memo (Ex-P/25) on A to A part of the same. In para 10 of cross-examination, this witness stated that at the time of preparing seizure memo, the materials e.g. pistol, katta, knives etc. described in the seizure memo were kept on the table of inspector without there being any seal. 15. The independent witness Pradeep Upadhyay (PW-14) admitted his signatures on seizure memo from Ex-P/6 to Ex-P/15 and Ex- P/24 & Ex-P/25 and arrest memo from Ex-P/16 to Ex-P/23 on B to B part of the same. He also did not identify the accused persons and also not identified the prosecution witnesses and denied any seizure before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 16. The Investigating Officer PW-23 Inspector Gopal Dhurwe stated that on 10.02.2014 after getting information from the informant, white bolero was searched where the accused persons were 8 trying to commit dacoity. He recorded memorandum statement of Dolchand Patel which is Ex-P/6 and he seized 9 mm pistol from Dolchand Patel and prepared seizure memo (Ex-P/7). He prepared Arms mulahiza report vide Ex-P/2. From the accused Akshat Singh, he recovered one pistol in working condition and from accused Neeraj Kumar, 12 bore countrymade pistol was recovered. As per seizure memo (Ex-P/9), sharp knives were recovered from the accused Bharat Das, Prakash Das and Sunil Kumar and recorded dehati nalisi vide Ex-P/37 and registered FIR (Ex-P/38). In the cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that it is true that in other Crime No.58/2014, he is also the Investigating Officer and he denied this suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused persons. He admitted in para 28 that it is true that two bolero cars and one indica car were seized. He also admitted that in mukhbir panchanama, the description of only two cars one Bolero and one Indica has been done. He self stated that on his direction, report was lodged. 17. Close scrutiny of the statement of all witnesses makes it clear that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the complainant Tapeshwar and complainant Udayram of another Session Trial have also not supported the prosecution case. The independent witnesses of memorandum and seizure have also not supported the prosecution case. Even police constable PW-11 Prem Singh admitted this suggestion that at the 9 time of seizure, all the articles were kept on the table of the inspector without there being any seal. The Investigating Officer has also admitted this fact that other criminal case is also registered against the accused persons and he denied the suggestion that Crime Branch had caught the accused persons. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also documents prepared by the prosecution, it is clear that at the same time, two cases were registered against the appellants and before the learned Trial Court, independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to prove this fact that all the appellants gathered/assembled and were planning to commit dacoity or any other grievous offence. The prosecution has also failed to prove seizure of any deadly weapon from the appellants, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 18. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 19. The appellant Neeraj Kumar is reported to be in jail, whereas all other appellants are on bail. The appellant Neeraj Kumar be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other offence. 10 20. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, all the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with 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 thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. The copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala