2026:JHHC:14824 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.519 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 22.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No.397 of 2018, arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 (G.R. No.1690 of 2014)] --------- Ravinder Singh @ Hunny @ Ravinder Singh Honey aged about 25 years, Son of Late Ajit Singh, Resident of Hindu Bastee, Golmuri, P.O and P.S – Golmuri, District – East Singhbhum. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P --------- Order No.04/ Dated: 14 th May, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, East Singhbhum, in Sessions Trial No.397 of 2018, arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 (G.R. No.1690 of 2014), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26 of the Arms Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) with default - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14824 clause for each offence. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 dated 24.05.2014 under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26/35 of the Arms Act against the present appellant along with one another accused person. The prosecution story, in short, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on on 24.05.2014 at about 11:20 A.M the informant, who is the Officer-in-charge of Sitaramdera P.S. received an information that a quarrel was taken place in the court premises, on that he reached to Civil Court premises Jamshedpur. He found that one person was lying in an injured condition in the court building premises towards the eastern gate and a pistol was in his hand. The persons who were present there told that the name of said person is Sarabjeet Singh @ Chhabu. He made a search of said Sarabjeet singh @ Chhabu and recovered one country made loaded pistol of 7.62 mm bore along-with one live cartridges in its barrel and four live cartridges in the magazine. A seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses. He further found that one person was also lying in injured condition in front of the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur. The name of said injured is Ravinder Singh @ Hunny. On search, the informant recovered one live cartridges of 8 mm from his pocket. A seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses. During course of inquiry, the - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14824 informant got knowledge that miscreants namely, Sarbjeet Singh and Ravindra Singh @ Hunny alongwith some another miscreants came with an intention to commit the murder of Akhilesh Singh. Sarabjeet Singh shot fired on Akhilesh Singh, but the cartridge was not fired. Thereafter, he arrested both the accused persons. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26 of the Arms Act on 12.12.2018 against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. Due to non-appearance of the co-accused namely, Sarabjeet Singh @ Chhabu, applicant's case record was split-up. So far as the present appellant is concerned, only one cartridge of 8 mm from his pocket has been recovered. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Hawaldar Triveni Singh, has stated that he was deputed in prisoner escort on the date of occurrence. He heard the sound of firing thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence and saw one person in an injured condition. In cross-examination, he has admitted the fact the - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14824 seized article was sealed by the officer-in-charge. 6. P.W.-2, Upendra Kumar Rai, has also deposed the same as P.W.-1 because he was also deputed in the escort. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not remember that any mark of identification was put by the officer-in-charge on the seized articles. 7. P.W.-3, Anmol Kumar, was also deputed in the escort party. In chief he has deposed that after the occurrence, the officer-in-charge had prepared the seizure list. He has identified the accused in the court. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had told the I.O regarding sealing of the articles after keeping it in the box. 8. P.W.-4, Vijay Kumar Mahato, has also reiterated the same fact. In cross-examination, he has deposed that no any document was prepared by the officer-in-charge before him at the place of occurrence. 9. P.W.-5, Rajiv Kumar, is the Sergeant Major who has proved the examination report (Ext.-3). In cross-examination, he has deposed that no any separate mark of identification was given on the seized arms and ammunition. He has deposed that the pistol was country made and the cartridge was factory made. 10. P.W.-6, Murari Krishna, has supported the prosecution story. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14824 remember any mark of identification on the seized articles. 11. P.W.-7, Sunil Kr. Choudhary, is the informant of the case and has supported the prosecution story. He has proved the seizure list (Ext.-2 & 2/1), memo of arrest (Ext.- 3), written report (Ext.-4), forwarding (Ext.-4/1), endorsement (Ext.-4/2) and formal F.I.R (Ext.-5). In cross-examination, he has stated that after the occurrence, the seizure list was prepared and the injured was sent hospital for treatment. Separate F.I.R was lodged for the occurrence. For identification, he stuck the paper after obtaining signature of the witnesses on the seized arms and ammunition, but that has not been mentioned in the seizure list and fardbeyan. Thus, he is not the witness to the seized articles. Thus, he is not the witness to the seized arms. 12. P.W.-8, Nityanand Upadhyay, is the formal witness. 13. P.W.-9, Babujan Baski, has produced the seized articles, marked as Ext.-3, 4, 5 to 5/5. In cross-examination, he has stated that seized articles were not kept in a plastic box rather same was kept in white cloth. 14. P.W.-10, Birendra Yadav, is also a formal witness. 15. P.W.-11, Mukesh Upadhyay, has supported the prosecution story. He has deposed that two seizure lists were prepared and he has proved the same. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has put his signature on white cloth in which weapons were sealed. - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14824 He has put his signature on paper in the police station. 16. P.W.-9, Sambhu Prasad Gupta, is the investigating officer of the case. He has proved the place of occurrence as well as the sanction report (Ext.-8). He has taken re- statement of the accused as well as of the witnesses. After investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the witnesses of the seizure list was not mentioned in the case diary. In para -15, he has stated that the witnesses of the seizure list have not stated before him that seized arms and ammunition were sealed at the place of occurrence. In para -31, he has stated that no any mark of identification was given on the seized arms and ammunition, as stated by the witnesses. He has stated that he did not know that the articles were sealed or not? 17. On culmination of trial, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him, as stated above. 18. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, from perusal of the records, it appears that :- (a) the seized cartridge, recovered from this appellant, was neither sealed nor any marking was made on it, as would be evident from the depositions of the witnesses, especially, the Sergeant Major. - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14824 (b) as per the deposition of the P.W.-5 i.e. the Sergeant Major, the said cartridge has not been even tested by him. Thus, it has not been ascertained as to whether the said cartridge was functional or not. (c) there is no identification mark on the recovered cartridge and it is general in nature. 20. Thus, since there was neither any marking nor any sealing of the cartridge at the place of occurrence, possibility of manipulation cannot be ruled out. In such a scenario, the conviction of the appellant for the offence Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26 of the Arms Act, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, East Singhbhum, in Sessions Trial No.397 of 2018, arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 (G.R. No.1690 of 2014), is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 21. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 22. The appellant is on the bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 23. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 14th May, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 18.05.2026 - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.519 of 2019