2026:JHHC:18903 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 549 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 549 of 2009 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2009 and sentence dated 27.05.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2005 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra.] 1. Sheodeo Turi, S/o. Late Bifa Turi; 2. Dipan Ganjhu, S/o. Late Sahadeo Ganjhu,. Both are R/o. Vill.- Hurnali, P.S.- Simariya, Dist.- Chatra. 3. Nema Ganjhu, S/o. Sri Jibal Ganjhu, R/o. Vill.- Kanukhap, P.S.- Simaria, Dist.- Chatra. ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. -------- J U D G M E N T Dated: 29th June, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2009 and sentence dated 27.05.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2005 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 06.12.2004, A.S.I., Awdhesh Kumar Singh alongwith other police personnel were patrolling in the locality when at 5:00 A.M., he was informed about assembly of 5 to 7 miscreants with different arms to commit dacoity and then they went near 20 mile bridge in Hurnali forest area at Chatra-Hazaribag road and there at about 100 yards away from the said bridge, they apprehended these appellant including 2026:JHHC:18903 2 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 549 of 2009) one co-accused Prem Ganjhu while others succeeded in escape. On search, country made loaded guns were recovered from each of the apprehended accused persons. The accused could not show any document with regard to possession of respective gun. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, Simariya P.S. Case No. 131 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Sections 399/402 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-B)/26/35 of the Arms Act. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the above named accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2005 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 6. It appears that altogether thirteen witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: - P.W.-1 Dilip Kumar Pandey P.W.-2 Mahesh Kumar P.W.-3 Awdhesh Kr. Singh P.W.-4 Niranjan Uraon P.W.-5 Ilaka Pandey P.W.-6 Baban Ram P.W.-7 Saryu Paswan P.W.-8 Sant Kumar Ram P.W.-9 Uriya Kachhap P.W.-10 Dharmnath Jha P.W.-11 Shankar Kamti P.W.-12 Lakhan Ram P.W.13 Premlal Ganjhu Apart from the oral evidences, following documentary evidences have also been adduced on behalf of the prosecution, i.e.:- (i) Exhibit-1: Seizure list. (ii) Exhibit-2: Written report (iii) Exhibit-2/1: Formal F.I.R. 2026:JHHC:18903 3 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 549 of 2009) (iv) Exhibit-3: proved report of R.S.M. (v) Exhibit-4: sanction order of Deputy Commissioner (vi) Exhibit-5: signature of witnesses on seizure list On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. Submissions on behalf of the appellants:- 7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the appellants has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and maximum imprisonment of three years has been awarded to the appellants. It is further submitted that motive for occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. itself i.e., on 06.12.2004, the appellants were found in possession of gun with a motive to commit dacoity. The occurrence is of the year 2004 and at that time, minimum sentence for the aforesaid offence was one year which may be extended up to three years. All the appellants have remained in custody for about one year and they have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. The appellant are having no criminal background. The appellants have sustained the agony of trial since more than two decades and have also undergone substantial period of imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the extent of the imprisonment already undergone by them instead of the sentence of three years awarded by the learned Trial Court. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits but so far the sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, it is submitted that the matter is of the year 2004 and more than two decades have passed. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed dismissing this appeal on merits. Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction and 2026:JHHC:18903 4 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 549 of 2009) order, it appears that the evidence on record proves that all the accused persons were found in possession of country made guns and these were recovered by the police from their possession at the place of occurrence on the date and time of occurrence. Therefore, on merits there is no material to intervene in the impugned judgment. 10. So far quantum of sentence of the appellants is concerned, the appellants have already remained in custody for about one years out of maximum sentence of three year and minimum sentence is one year for alleged offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The occurrence is of the year 2004 and more than two decades have elapsed and the appellant has also sustained the agony of trial remaining considerable period of custody. 11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find that the appellants have been sufficiently punished for their guilt. Accordingly, in ends of justice, altering/modifying the sentence of the appellants, they are awarded the sentence of imprisonment already undergone as against the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as mentioned above. 13. The appellants are on bail. As such, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 14. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 29th June,.2026 Rahul- NAFR Uploaded on: 02/07/2026