1 2025:CGHC:61431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 104 of 2022 Bhuvanlal Baghel S/o Shri Lakhanlal Baghel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tumdikasa, Police Station- Manpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. At Present Banglapara Narayanpur Police Station And District- Narayanpur CG. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Benur, District Narayanpur CG. ... Respondent For appellant : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 11-12-2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21- 12-2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NIA Act/Scheduled Offence, Distt. Kondagaon in Special Case (NIA) No. 75/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act for violation of Section 3 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 3 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, during search of vehicles on 9-8-2020 at about 10 pm in front of Police Station Benoor, Distt. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.12.17 16:29:24 +0530 2 Narayanpur (CG), one Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-05/AH-3103 was stopped by the police, in which, the appellant/accused and one co-accused Ghasiram Salam were sitting. On being searched the vehicle, they were found in illegal possession of 55 electronic detonators, 5 non-electronic detonators, one country- made gun (Desi Katta 315 bore), Cordex Wire 10 mtr, 3 batteries, 06 bolts, 1 naxal uniform, 1 naxal literature, 20 pencil cell, soap etc. which were seized from joint possession of both the accused persons. Papers of the Scorpio vehicle were also seized from its owner Shailesh Singh vide seizure memo Ex. P-1. Memorandum statements of accused were recorded. Two mobile phones and Rs. 1,300/- were seized vide Ex. P-7. One mobile phone was seized from co-accused Ghasiram Salam vide seizure memo Ex. P-6. One Splendor motorcycle was seized from the appellant. Dehati Nalshi (Ex. P-9) for offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, ‘Act of 1908’), Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 10, 13(1)(2), 16(b) and 23(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (henceforth referred to as ‘UAPA Act’) was registered, subsequently numbered FIR (Ex. P-10) for aforesaid offence was registered against the accused persons in PS Benoor, Distt. Narayanpur. Sanction order to file charge sheet was obtained from competent authority vide Ex. P-2. The accused persons were arrested. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 4, 5 of the Act of 1908, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 10, 13(1)(2), 16(b), 23 of the UAPA was filed against the appellant and co-accused Ghasiram Salam before the Special Judge. 3 4. Learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, Section 4 of the Act of 1908, Section 16(1)(b), 23(1), 13(2) and 38(2) of the UAPA, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 11 witness and exhibited 17 documents. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. They have not examined any witness in their defence. 6. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Special Court acquitted the accused persons of the offence under Section 4 of the Act of 1908, Section 16(1)(b), 23(1), 13(2), 38(2) of the UAPA, but convicted them under Section 25(1-b) of the Arms Act and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that accused No. 2 Ghasiram Salam has already served the entire jail sentence and he has not preferred any appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that, appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 4 of the Act of 1908, Section 16(1)(b), 23(1), 13(2), 38(2) of the UAPA but on same set of facts, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, whereas it has not been proved by the prosecution that, after seizure of said country made pistol of 315 bore, it was sealed and sent to the Armour Hirendra Kumar Gendre (P.W. 11) and 4 FSL in sealed condition. Moti Nag (P.W. 6) and Vinod Netam (P.W. 7) are said to be independent witnesses of alleged memorandum and seizure, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and completely turned hostile. Hence, seizure of alleged country made pistol of 315 bore cannot be held proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the said charge. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record of the case including the record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 11. The appellant/accused has been acquitted by learned Special Court for the charge under Section 4 of the Act of 1908 holding therein that, it has not been proved by the prosecution that, alleged articles seized were explosives substance under the Act of 1908. It is also alleged that, one country made pistol of 315 bore was also seized from the appellant vide seizure memo Ex. P-4. This fact has been stated by Inspector Naresh Deshmukh (P.W. 5), Constable Mulchand Baghel (P.W. 2) and ASI Naval Kodopi (P.W. 10). Though Moti Nag (P.W. 6) and Vinod Netam (P.W. 7) are independent witnesses of search and seizure, but they have not supported seizure of alleged country made pistol. 12. Though it is not a rule of law that in absence of support of independent witnesses, deposition of police personnel must always be disbelieved, but in such situation, police ought to have proved the fact beyond 5 reasonable doubt. In instant case, Inspector Naresh Deshmukh (P.W. 5), Constable Mulchand Baghel (P.W. 2) and ASI Naval Kodopi (P.W. 10) have stated in their deposition that, one country made pistol 315 bore was seized from appellant vide seizure memo Ex. P-4, but they have not proved the fact that after alleged seizure, said country made pistol was kept in sealed condition. This fact has also not been mentioned in seizure memo Ex. P-4. 13. Constable Hirendra Kumar Gendre (P.W. 11) has stated in his deposition that, he examined the alleged seized country made pistol in which he found that it was functional and he suggested for FSL examination to determine whether this pistol had been fired or not vide his report Ex. P-17. Ex. P-16 is said to be FSL report in which, the country made pistol sent to it was found to be functional and it was fired earlier. But neither Constable Hirendra Kumar Gendre (P.W. 11) has stated in his deposition nor in FSL report, it has been mentioned that, alleged country made pistol was received by them in sealed condition. 14. As per FSL report (Ex. P-16), apart from country made pistol, 3 cartridges were also sent for FSL examination. But seizure of any cartridge from the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution. Then the question arises that from where said cartridges were obtained by the police and sent for FSL examination. 15. Thus, neither it has been proved that, after alleged seizure of country made pistol, it was kept in sealed condition nor it has been proved that it was received by the Armour (P.W. 11) and FSL in sealed condition. It has also not been proved that alleged 3 cartridges sent to the FSL 6 were seized from the possession of the appellant. Therefore, having considered aforesaid discrepancies, seizure of alleged country made pistol 315 bore from the appellant cannot be held proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Armour’s report (Ex. P-17) and FSL report (Ex. P-16) remain waste papers in instant case as the prosecution has failed to prove seizure of country made pistol from possession of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge is perverse to the evidence and against the law. Hence, it deserves to be set aside. 16. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant/accused under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act imposed upon him vide impugned judgment are set aside. He is acquitted of aforesaid charge. 17. Appellant is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 18. Record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-