2026:JHHC:14376 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 475 of 2019 ----- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2019 and order of sentence, dated 13.03.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2015 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 274 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2730 of 2014 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih] 1.Sanjay Kumar (Age about 30 years) S/o Sri Dudheshwar Choudhary resident of village- Lembua, P.O. & P.S. Aamas, District- Gaya (Bihar) 2.Uday Bhuiyan (Age about 36 years) S/o Laxman Bhuiyan resident of Village- Khurparsanwan, P.O. & P.S. Gurwa, District- Gaya (Bihar) 3.Ram Badan Choudhary (Age about 46 years) S/o Late Daroga Choudhary 4.Sindhu Kumar ( Age about 26 years) S/o Late Kameshwar Choudhary 5.Dharmendra Kumar (Age about 26 years) S/o Ramadhar Choudhary Appellants No. 3 to 5 are resident of Village- Lembua, P.O. & P.S.- Aamas, District- Gaya (Bihar) --- --- Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellants : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, 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 appellants and learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2019 and order of sentence, dated 13.03.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2015 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 274 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2730 of 2014 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a/35 and Section 26(i)/35 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 25(1B)a of the Arms Act. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 2026:JHHC:14376 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 years with a fine of Rs. 15000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 8 months under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on giving self- statement by S.I. S.K. Singh, Officer-In-charge of Bagodar Police Station on 03.09.2014 at Bagodardih G.T. Road near Airtel Tower at 21.00 hours being Bagodar P.S. Case No. 274 of 2014. The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant had received secret information on 03.09.2014 at about 21.00 Hours that some miscreants have come on a pickup vehicle and are making preparation to commit docoity near the Airtel tower. The informant constituted a police team and proceeded to verify the news. ASI Rajendra Singh (P.W.4), ASI Durga Thakur (PW7), Police 1334 Sarfuddin Ansari (P.W.3), Police 628 Suman Kumar (P.W.6), Police 899 Sanjay Kumar Singh (P.W1), Police 24 Abdul Kalam, Police 836 Shiv Shankar Prasad (P.W.2) and Police 1115 Ajay Kumar Das (PW5) were members of the Police team. It is alleged that the police team found a white colour pickup vehicle standing at Bagodar G.T. road near the Airtel Tower. When the police party approached near the vehicle, persons sitting in the backside of vehicle started fleeing away but the police chased and caught five persons on the spot, who disclosed their names as Sanjay Kumar, Uday Bhuiyan, Ram Badan Choudhary, Sindhu Kumar and Dharmendra Kumar ( accused in this case). In the presence of two independent witness namely Chotan Yadav and Manjar Ansari, accused persons were searched and Police recovered, one country made ‘Katta’ loaded with .315 bore cartridge, concealed in the left waist and one .315 bore cartridge concealed in the pocket of the pant of Sanjay Kumar. The police found that a thin rope was tied in the 'Katta'. The police recovered a black color Nokia mobile set bearing SIM No 9973149636 from the possession of Sanjay Kumar. The police also found and recovered a country made 'Katta' loaded with .315 bore cartridge, concealed in the waist of Uday Bhuyian. The police found blank color whistle from pocket of Uday 2026:JHHC:14376 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 Bhuyian. The police recovered one Bhujali and one torch from the possession of Ram Badan Chaudhary. The police have recovered one .315 bore cartridge from pocket of Sindhu Kumar. The police has also found one Samsung mobile bearing SIM no.90062528843 and a torch from the possession of Sindhu Kumar. The police recovered one .315 bore cartridge from pant pocket of Dharmendra Kumar and one Samsung mobile and torch from the possession of Dharmendra Kumar. The police found a bag in the pick-up vehicle having red, green, black and white color caps and 4 pieces of rinches. It has been alleged that the miscreants disclosed that they had come to a hotel situated at Ghanghri and were making plan of dacoity. The miscreants also stated that earlier they have committed dacoity. The police has seized arms, ammunition and other articles and Mahendra pick up vehicle bearing registration no. BR26E/3853 by preparing seizure list. Recovered articles were sealed on the spot in presence of witnesses. 4. On the basis of the self-statement of the informant Bagodar P.S. Case no. 274/14 was registered u/s 399/402 of the IPC, Section 25 (1- b) a/ 26/ 35 of the Arms Act against above named five accused persons. 5. The cognizance was taken on 05.11.2014 and vide order dated 07.02.2015 the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge was framed on 13.05.2015 against the accused persons under Section 399/402 of the IPC and Section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. The content of the charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1(Sanjay Kumar Singh) – He is a member of the raiding team and proved the prosecution story. In cross examination he has stated that many people gathered at the place of occurrence and he does not know their name. The 2026:JHHC:14376 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 place of occurrence was dark. II. P.W.2(Police 836 Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh) – He is another member of the raiding team. He has reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R. In his cross examination at para 9 he has stated that the seized articles were neither sealed in front of him nor they were covered. At para 10 he has further stated that seizure list was prepared in the police station wherein he has put his signature as a witness. III. P.W.3(Sarfuddin Ansari) – He is also the member of the raiding team and reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R. In his cross examination at para 7 he has stated that he told the Police that one bhujali has been recovered from accused Rambadan Bhuiyan and another from the accused Dharmendra. IV. P.W.4(Rajendra Singh) – He is also member of the raiding team. He has also reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R and by the above witnesses. In his cross examination at para 5 he has stated that there were 5-10 villagers at the place of occurrence and he does not know their names. In para 7 of his cross examination, he has stated that there is no village witness of the seized articles. However, he has stated about two independent witnesses, one is Chotan Yadav and he does not remember the name of other witness. In para 11 of his cross examination, he has stated that there are 500 houses at Bagodar and the place of occurrence comprising 100-200 yards is a remote area. V. P.W.5(Police 1115 Ajay Kumar Das)- He is a member of the raiding team and reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R. In his cross examination at para 5, he has stated that basti (the place of occurrence) comprises 200 houses. There are houses on both sides of the road at the place of occurrence. At para 9, he has stated that before the search operation at the place of occurrence, they were neither 2026:JHHC:14376 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 searched nor did he ask for search. VI. P.W.6 (Police 628 Sumant Kumar)- He is member of the raiding team and reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R. In his cross examination at para 6 he has stated that the recovered articles are not before him. He has also stated that the pickup van, which was searched, is at a distance of 500 yard from the police station. There were around 30-40 people at the place of occurrence. VII. P.W.7 (Durga Thakur,) – He is the member of the raiding team and reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R. In his cross examination at para 3, he has stated that the two accused are before him in dock and the recovered articles are not there. While the accused were being apprehended, about 5-7 people gathered at the place of occurrence. He cannot say the name of any person. Out of those persons gathered there, two were made as witnesses. He has not put his signature in the seizure list. VIII. P.W.8 (Surendra Kumar Singh, S.I.)- He is the Informant of the case and on his direction the raid was conducted. He has reiterated the statement made in his self-statement in the F.I.R. In his cross examination at para 8, he has stated that there was no marking of case number on the recovered ‘Bhujali’. There was no label on the torch. There was label in another two torches but there was no signature on them. At para 9, he has stated that there was no case number marked on the seizure list and column no. 3 of seizure list is vacant. Nobody has identified the thumb impressions of accused Uday Bhuiyan and Rambadan Choudhary. At para 11 he has stated that at the time of incident except the raiding team, witness Chotan Yadav and Manjar Ansari and the accused persons, nobody was present. Seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence. IX. P.W.9-(Vimleshwar Paswan)-He is the Investigating 2026:JHHC:14376 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 Officer of the case. He has stated that after taking charge of the investigation, the informant handed over the accused persons and seized articles to him. He thereafter recorded the statement of the witnesses. He visited the place of occurrence and submitted the chargesheet finally. X. P.W.10(Jai Prakash Nag)- He is the Sergeant Major, who has examined the seized articles. In his cross examination at para 9, he has stated that he has not tested the seized weapons. XI. P.W.11(Sadhan Kumar Mukherjee)-He is the Head Clerk in the legal section of the office of Dy. Commissioner, Giridih. He has proved signature of District Magistrate on sanction order as Ext.6 7. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as under: I. Exhibit -1 – Seizure list regarding arms, ammunition and other articles. II. Exhibit-2- Self recorded statement of informant. III. Exhibit-3 –Formal FIR IV. Exhibit-4 and 4/1- confessional statement of accused Uday Bhuiyan and Sanjay Kumar V. Exhibit-5- report of Sergeant Major regarding effectiveness of the alleged arms. VI. Exhibit 6- prosecution sanction of District Magistrate, Giridih. 8. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are many discrepancies in the whole procedure of seizure of articles. 10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and has submitted that there is enough material to convict the appellants. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds the following: 2026:JHHC:14376 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 I. As per the prosecution evidence there were so many independent witnesses present and the seizure list has been prepared with two independent witnesses but they have not been examined. II. The sealed weapons have not been sealed at the place of occurrence rather where the same was sealed has not been disclosed by the prosecution. III. The prosecution witnesses have themselves stated that they have not searched each other before making search of the accused persons. IV. The place of seizure is near a village having 40-50 persons but not a single independent witness has been examined. V. Even as per the Sergeant Major, who is the P.W.10, weapons in question have not been tested as is evident from the question put by the Court itself. VI. There is no marking on the seized weapons and thus manipulation of the weapons cannot be ruled out. Even the seized weapons including ‘Bhujali’ etc. does not contain the case number. VII. As per the prosecution story, recovery is mainly from the accused Sanjay Kumar and Uday Bhuiyan and rest of the appellants have been roped in on the basis of Section 35 of the Arms Act, which is otherwise not permissible. 12. Thus, from the above discussion it is evident that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges under Section 25(1-B)a/35 and 26(i)/35 of the Arms Act. 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2019 and order of sentence, dated 13.03.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2015 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 274 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2730 of 2014 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih is hereby quashed and set aside. 2026:JHHC:14376 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 475 of 2019 14. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 15. Since, the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of the bail bond. 16. Let the Trial Court Record be sent to the concerned Trial Court below. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 12th May, 2026 Uploaded ___/____/2026