2026:JHHC:16666 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.86 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.122 of 2018, arising out of Jaldega P.S. Case No.69 of 2017 (G.R. No.530 of 2017)] --------- Lal Mohan Kachhap aged 42 years, S/o - Late Kamal Kachhap, Resident of Vill – Tingena Chirotanr Toli, P.O & P.S – Jaldega, District - Simdega. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P --------- Order No.10/ Dated: 10 th June, 2026 1. Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.122 of 2018, arising out of Jaldega P.S. Case No.69 of 2017, corresponding to G.R No.530 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26(2) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with default clause for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and for the offence under Section - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 26(2) of the Arms Act, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) with default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the self statement of S.I Samuel Linda, Officer-in-Charge, Jaldega Police Station recorded on 30.11.2017 at 1:30 P.M at village Lamboi near Bazar Tand, stating that on 29.11.2017 at about 20.00 hours, he along with other police officials had moved for investigation of Jaldega P.S. Case No. 68/17 towards village Lamboi Bartoli. On 30.11.2017 while he was returning he reached near Lamboi Bazartanr, he saw one person was fleeing, riding on his green-white colour scooty towards Eastern side. He was chased by police force and caught with the help of armed force. On query, he disclosed his name as Lalmohan Kachhap, R/o village Tingina tola-Chirodar, P.S. Jaldega, Since there was no independent witnesses then in presence of officials witnesses, search was made and one country made pistol and four cartridges of 9 mm was recovered from his back side of his waist. On further search when Dicky of the scooty was checked, owner book of scooty, Aadhaar Card and driving license in the name of Lal Mohan Kachhap was also seized. On demand, no valid paper was produced by the apprehended person regarding keeping of prohibited pistol and cartridges. Thereafter entire things were seized after preparing of seizure list and copy of the seizure list - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 was supplied to the accused person. On the basis of above information of the informant, Jaldega P.S. Case No.69 of 2017, under Sections 25 (1-B)a / 26(2) of Arms Act has been registered against the accused- appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 25 (1-B)a /26(2) of Arms Act to which cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed for trial under the same section. The trial court has framed the charge on 25.07.2018 under Sections 25(1-A) and 26 (2) of Arms Act. 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. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 05 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Samuel Linda, is the informant of the case and has supported the case. He has stated that as there was no nearby house to the place of occurrence, he has conducted search upon the accused and made the members of the raiding team namely, Arjun Toppo and Simon Patras Dhan as independent witnesses. He has recovered country made pistol with four 9 mm cartridges and one scooty having registration No.JH-20-C-0843. He has stated that the arms were seized on the spot and the seizure list has been prepared before the independent - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 witnesses and that was also signed by the accused. On cross-examination, he has admitted that as the pistol and ammunition was singe and as such no marking has been made on the same. 6. P.W.-2, Jogeshwar Mahto, is the police constable and the member of the raiding party. He has also supported the prosecution story. He has deposed that due to night, the officer-in-charge made Arjun Toppo and Simon Partas Dhan, both police personnel, as independent witnesses and started the search. One country made pistol and four 9 mm cartridges were recovered from the waist of the accused and on demand he has not produced any paper. On cross-examination, he has admitted that the seized articles were in possession of the officer-in-charge. 7. P.W.-3, Sona Ram Soren, is the sergeant who has conducted inspection upon the sized arms and ammunitions. He found one piece of .38 inch country made pistol and four pieces of 338 inch cartridges in a transparent plastic bags. This was a prohibited arms. On the barrel of the pistol “only army” and “made in USA No.3” was marked. He has stated that the arms and ammunitions were effective. On cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of test firing, no independent witnesses were present there. 9. P.W.-4, Baleshwar Pandey, A.S.I, is also the member of the raiding team and has supported the - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 prosecution story. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused was caught by the guards where the scooty was stopped. 10. P.W.-5, Bidya Nand Mahato, is the investigating officer of the case. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has taken the charge on 30.11.2017. He has admitted that he was present with the Sergeant when the testing of arms was going on. 11. The defence has also examined three witnesses to the effect that this accused-appellant has been taken away from the house and on enquiry, it has been stated that after some enquiry, he will be released. 12. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-A) and 26 (2) of Arms Act and sentenced him, as stated above. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed judgment of conviction on the following grounds :- (i) the seizure list is doubtful for the reasons that :- (a) the seizure list witnesses, although the members of the raiding party namely, Havldar Arjun Toppo and Havldar Simon - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 Patras Dhan, but they have not been examined. (b) although it has been submitted that the sealing of the arms has been done on the spot, but the date of sealing, as disclosed by P.W.-3, has been shown as 30.11.2017. Thus, there is mismatch of the dates. (c) the description of arms is also mismatched with the seizure list, deposition of the investigating officer, the prosecution sanction order, issued by the District Magistrate and the report of P.W.-3 and above facts clearly suggest that there was no marking on the seized arms and ammunition, which creates doubt over the prosecution story and the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused-appellant. (ii) and when the sanction order is under Sections 25 (1-B)a /26(2) of Arms Act, then the trial and conviction under Section 25 (1-A) /26(2) of Arms Act, is also bad in law. Thus, on the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 sentence and it has been submitted that the witnesses have clearly stated, regarding the seizure of the arms and it was also effective and further sanction has been granted. The ballistic report clearly suggest that it was prohibited arms and as such the charge has been framed under the prohibited arms and accordingly the appellant has been convicted rightly and no prejudice has been caused to the accused. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (A) neither the seizure list witnesses have been examined nor there was any marking on the seized arms and ammunition. (B) P.W.-3, the alleged ballistic expert, has stated that when test firing was done, none was present there, but this fact has been contradicted by the investigating officer, stating that he was present, at the time of test firing. (C) the alleged seizure list witnesses, who were members of the raiding party, namely, Havldar Arjun Toppo and Havldar Simon Patras Dhan, have also not been examined. (D) the description of arms disclosed by the different persons i.e. members of the raiding party, the investigating officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Ballistic Expert, creating doubt regarding the prosecution story. - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16666 17. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the evidencing of the prosecution story is faulty rather full of doubt and it is settled principle of law that if area of doubt is there, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. 18. In that view of the matter, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.122 of 2018 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 20. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 21. 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 10th June, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 15.06.2026 - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.86 of 2019