2026:JHHC:14109 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 446 of 2019 ----- [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 15.02.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2016 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 765 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj] Bishnukant Pandey @ Vishnukant Pandey @ Sonu Pandey, Aged about 25 years, son of Sunil Pandey, resident of Village & PO: Tildag, PS & District- Garhwa --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 15.02.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2016 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 765 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Sections 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 2 months. The appellant has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine amount he should have to undergo S.I. for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on self-statement of 2026:JHHC:14109 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 Sanjay Kumar Malviya, Sub- Inspector, Officer –In-charge of Sadar (Town) P.S. made on 10.05.2016 at 11.45 hours at Ranchi Road, behind Bhagwati Hospital being Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016. The brief story as per the prosecution is that on 10.05.2016 he got secret information to the effect that some miscreants are residing as tenants in the house of one Mishrajee situated behind Bhagwati Hospital and those miscreants commit loot of motorcycle, money etc. in the area. Thereafter sanha was registered and after information to the superior officer, the informant along with other police officers and constables reached behind Bhagwati Hospital. On seeing police jeep, two boys started fleeing from one house, who on chase were caught by the police force and on inquiry, disclosed their name as Shubham Kumar and Bishnukant Pandey @ Sonu Pandey. On search in presence of Anup Sahu and Nandan Kumar Chandravanshi one loaded pistol of .315 bore and one mobile was recovered from the possession of Shubham Kumar. Similarly one loaded pistol with cartridge of .315 bore was recovered from the possession of Sonu Kumar Pandey. Both the accused persons did not give any satisfactory answer with regard to the seized materials. Thereafter, seizure list was prepared and accused persons were taken into custody. 4. On the basis of the self-statement of the informant, Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 was registered under Sections 25(1- b) a/26/35 of the Arms Act against two accused persons. 5. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet under Section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and thereafter cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M. for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)A/26/35 of the Arms Act. 6. The charge was framed under Sections 25(1-A) and 26 of the Arms Act on 11.04.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether twelve prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are 2026:JHHC:14109 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 as follows: I. P.W.1( Md. Arif Alam) – He is a member of the raiding party. He has stated that on 10.05.2016 he was posted as police constable in Town Police Station. Sanjay Kumar Malviya (P.W.6) was the Officer-in-charge on whose instructions they proceeded for Bhagwati Hospital, I.T Hostel at Ranchi Road where they saw two boys fleeing away from a building. Police force chased them and apprehended them, who disclosed their name as Shubham Kumar and Sonu Pandey. From the possession of Shubham Kumar, a country made pistol was recovered and from the possession of Sonu Pandey one country made pistol and a mobile phone was recovered. Thereafter seizure list was prepared and they brought the accused persons and seized articles to the police station. In his cross examination he has deposed that he cannot say which police constable caught which of the accused. II. P.W.2(Pandit Koutuk Kumar) – He was also a member of the raiding party who has supported the prosecution story III. P.W.3(Pramod Kumar) – He was also the member of raiding party. He has also narrated the same story as narrated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. He has further stated that in presence of two independent witnesses namely Anup Sahu and Nandesh Chandravanshi the apprehended persons were searched and the police recovered .315 bore loaded pistol and the accused could not show any valid paper. In cross examination he has stated that total 10 persons were involved in the raid. IV. P.W.4(Mukesh Kumar Singh) – He was also a member of the raiding party. He has also narrated the same incident. V. P.W.5(Chandrasekhar Kumar)- He was also a member of the raiding party and he has also narrated the same incident. VI. P.W.6 (Sanjay Kumar Malviya)- He is the informant of the case and has stated that on 10.05.2016 he was posted as 2026:JHHC:14109 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 Officer-in-charge of the Daltonganj Town P.S. and on secret information that some criminals are residing in the house of one Ramakant Mishra situated near Bhawati Hospital, Ranchi Road, Redma who used to make loot in the town area. After entering sanha, he proceeded for raid at the spot and found that two boys were fleeing away. Those miscreants were apprehended who disclosed their name as Shubham Kumar and Bishnukant Pandey @ Sonu Pandey. He has further deposed that in the presence of two independent witness Anup Sahu and Nandan Chandravanshi, they recovered one .315 bore loaded country made pistol from the trouser of Shubham Kumar and Bishnukant Pandey @ Sonu Pandey. After seizure of the arms, seizure list was prepared wherein the witnesses have put their signatures marked as Ext.1 and Ext. 1/1. VII. P.W.7 (Tileshwar Pd. Mahto) – He was also a member of the raiding party. He has also narrated the same incident as narrated by other prosecution witnesses. VIII. P.W.8 (Sandesh Pal)- He was member of the raiding party and narrated the same incident. IX. P.W.9 (Birendra Khakha)- He is a formal witness and has stated that he has brought the material exhibits to the court on the direction of the court. X. P.W.10 (Mithilesh Kumar Pandey)-He was a member of the raiding party and reiterated the same incident. XI. P.W.11(Kaushlendra Kumar Singh)- He is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 10.05.2016 he was posted as Junior Sub Inspector and Sanjay Kumar Malviya, the informant, was the Officer-in- charge. He has identified the writing and signature of Officer-in-charge on the fardbeyan which is marked as Ext. 3. After getting charge of investigation, he entered the fardbeyan and seizure list in the case diary, recorded the 2026:JHHC:14109 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 confessional statement of the accused persons, restatement of informant and statement of other witnesses including the independent witness. After receiving supervision note of higher official, he has submitted the chargesheet. He also received the test report of firearms from Sergeant Major and entered it in the case diary. He has identified two country made pistol and two cartridges as material Ext. II and II/I. He has also identified two mobile phone which are marked as material Ext. III and III/I. He has received the sanction order from the Deputy Commissioner. He has also identified the signature of D.C, Palamau which is marked as Ext. 3. In cross examination he has stated that both the cartridges were defused. XII. P.W.12 (Samir Kumar)- He is the Sergeant Major who has stated that on 04.06.2016 he was posted as Sergeant major at Police Centre, Palamau and on that day he received sealed seized articles of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 for its test and on opening he found .315 bore two country made pistol and .315 bore two cartridges. He found the pistol effective. He also examined second pistol and cartridge which were also found effective. After examination he returned the material exhibits to the investigating officer in sealed cover. In his cross examination he has stated that material Ext. I was rusted from outside. He has defused material Ext. II and II/I. 8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary & material evidence as under: I. Exhibit -1 – Seizure list proved by P.W.5. II. Exhibit-1/1- Seizure list proved by P.W.5 III. Exhibit-2 –Self statement proved by P.W.6 IV. Exhibit-3- Signature and handwriting on fardbeyan proved by P.W.11 V. Exhibit-4- Report of Sargent Major proved by P.W.12 2026:JHHC:14109 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 VI. Exhibit -5- Sanction order of D.C. proved by P.W.11 Material exhibits I. Exhibit-I- One country made pistol- proved by P.W.12. II. Exhibit-I/I- One country made pistol- proved by P.W.12 III. Exhibit II & II/I- Two Cartridges- proved by P.W.12 9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although appellant has been charged on 11.04.2017 under Sections 25(1-A) and 26 of the Arms Act and as per the prosecution story, the sanction order has been granted under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 14.06.2016 but the appellant has been ultimately convicted under section 25(1B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act. 11. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record and the statement of witnesses, this Court finds that: I. Although, the independent seizure list witnesses were available and they have been taken into service but not examined. II. As per the statement of the member of raiding team, the seized arms have not been sealed at the place of seizure rather it has been sealed later on in the police station. III. There is no marking given on the seized weapon and the seized weapon are general in nature with no identification mark is there. IV. The sanction order has been given on 14.06.2016 under Section 25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act and charge has been framed on 11.04.2017 under different sections i.e, 25(1-A) and 26 of the Arms Act. 13. Thus, every person is confused regarding the nature of weapon seized and the identification of the weapon, coupled with the fact that neither seizure list witnesses have been examined nor identification 2026:JHHC:14109 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 446 of 2019 mark has been made. Thus, it is quite clear that seizure itself is doubtful and the seized articles are in doubt. In such a scenario, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 25(1B) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act is wholly unsustainable. 14. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 15.02.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2016 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 765 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The present criminal appeal is allowed and accordingly disposed of. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bond. 16. Let the Trial Court Record be sent to the concerned trial court. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 11th May, 2026 Uploaded ___/____/2026