2026:JHHC:17696 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 971 of 2005 --------- Etwa Oraon, Son of Late Soharai Oraon, resident of village-Serengdag Harhapat, P.S.-Ghaghra, District-Gumla … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ----------- PRESENT PCORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ---------- Dated: 17th June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2005 and 05.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Gumla in S.T. No.143 of 2003 arising out of Ghaghra P.S. Case No.73 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No.586 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per self-statement of Ashok Kuamr is that on 02.09.2001, while he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Ghaghra P.S., District-Gumla, he was requested by the officer-in- 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 2 charge of Senha Police Station, Lohardaga to become a member of the raiding team to conduct a raid in the house of the accused in connection with Senha P.S. Case No.46 of 2001. Thereafter, being a member of raiding team, he along with other police personnels under the leadership of Officer-in-Charge, Senha Police Station, Shree Chetna Nand Singh, reached at village Serengdag limit Harhapat P.S. and came to know about concealment of country made pistol by the accused person in his own house. Acting upon this information, the informant along with police personnels and two local witnesses, Laxman Oraon and Birsu Oraon entered into the house of the accused and started searching the house of accused in his presence. During search, a single barrel country made gun kept concealed behind a box made of tin and ½ kg black color powder, 21 small pieces of iron and orange color powder kept in a paper packet were recovered from the kitchen. The accused failed to produce any valid paper in this regard. The seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses and one copy of the seizure list was handed over to the accused. 4. On the basis of self-statement of the informant, Ghaghra P.S. Case No.73 of 2001 was instituted for the offences under sections 25(1- b)(a)/26 of Arms Act and section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No.143 of 2003 was registered. The 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 3 appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial altogether, 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:- P.W.1-Birsu Oraon P.W.2-Laxman Oraon P.W.3-Maghain Orain P.W.4-Hav. Dawarika Mahto P.W.5-Const. No.195 Surya Tubid P.W.6-Ashok Kumar (Informant) P.W.7-Baliram Paswan P.W.8-Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal P.W.9-Parsuram Singh P.W.10-Ram Ratan Gope 6. Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has also adduced the following documentary evidence, which are as under:- Ext.1-Signature of Birsu Oraon on seizure list Ext.1/1- Signature of Laxman Oraon on seizure list Ext.2-Seizure list Ext.-3- Self-statement of Ashok Kumar (informant) Ext.4-Formal FIR Ext.5- Sanction order Ext.6-Examination report Ext.7-Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is completely denial form the occurrence and plea of innocence. 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 4 Submission on behalf of appellant:- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant and submitted that during trial and post- conviction, the appellant has remained in custody for more than 4 years, out of total imprisonment for 5 years. Considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The occurrence is of the year 2001 and more than two decades have been elapsed. The appellant is aged about 72 years, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant to jail custody for remaining period of sentence would not meet the ends of justice and disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. Submission on behalf of State:- 9. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial court on merits. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, she has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 2001 and the appellant has sustained custody of more than 4 years, hence, appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 5 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 11. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. Out of them, P.W.1, Birsu Oraon, P.W.2-Laxman Oraon and P.W.3-Maghain Orain have been declared hostile. P.W.7- Baliram Paswan is an assistant of legal section of Gumla and has proved sanction order in the signature of Sasi Ranjan Kumar, the then D.C., Gumla (Ext.5). In cross-examination, he has denied the signature made in his presence. P.W.9-Pasuram Singh is an advocate clerk and he has proved ballistic report (Ext6) in pen and signature of Lalan Prasad Singh, Parichari Prawar, Gumla. P.W.10-Ram Ratan Gope is an advocate clerk and formal witness. He has proved the chemical examination report issued from F.S.L., Ranchi (Ext.7). P.W.6-Ashok Kumar is the informant and has supported the contents of the FIR. He has recorded the self-statement of the accused person and proved the seizure list and formal FIR marked as Ext.2 and Ext.4 respectively in his pen and signature. 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 6 In cross-examination, he admits that the armed forces were deputed outside the house of the accused person, then he along with two independent witnesses and officer-in-charge, Chetna Nand Singh of Senha P.S. entered into the house of the accused person. He further admits that the recovered articles were not sealed rather he packed them and took the signature of the witnesses and accused on it. But this fact has not entered into the seizure list. The recovered gun was not sealed. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that no recovery was made from the house of the accused and he had not made search. P.W.4-Hawaldar Dawarika Mahto was a member of raiding team and on 02.09.2001, he along with informant and other police personnels raided the house of Etwa Oraon and from his house, one country made pistol, 1/2 kg black color gun powder and orange color powder were recovered from the behind a box. The accused failed to produce any valid papers with respect to the recovered articles. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he has entered into the house of the accused along with the informant (P.W.6). However, he is unable to say whether the seizure list witnesses Birsu Oraon and Laxman Oraon had entered into the house of the accused or not? There is nothing else in his testimony. P.W.5-Const. No.195 Surya Tubid is also a member of raiding party and under the leadership of the informant, Ashok Kumar, the house of the appellant was raided at village-Harhapat. He states that 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 7 from the house of accused, country made gun, black color powder, small pieces of iron were recovered. Thereafter, the seizure list was prepared and the accused was arrested on spot. In-cross examination, he admits that only police officials had entered into the house of the accused and he along with other police forces were outside of the house. He further admits that at the time of preparation of seizure list, he came to know about the seized articles. He denied the suggestion of the defence that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2001 and since then, more than two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for more than 4 years, out of 5 years of the total period of imprisonment as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant. 13. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him. 14. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 2026:JHHC:17696 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.971 of 2005 8 15. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 17/06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22/06 /2026