2026:JHHC:19696 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.288 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.10 of 2017, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No.53 of 2016 (G.R. No.201 of 2016)] --------- Ganesh Gagrai, Aged about 35 years, son of Late Mangal Singh Gagrai, Resident of village Parsa, P.O and P.S Sonua, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P --------- Order No.14/ Dated: 06 th July, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.10 of 2017, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No.53 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.201 of 2016, 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 six years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and for the offence under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the self statement of the informant (P.W.-2) Digvijay Singh, Sub- inspector -cum- Officer-in-charge, Muffasil Chaibasa Police Station that the accused Ganesh Gagrai was arrested in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 52/2016, dated 04-06-2016, under section 387/34 of the I.P.C and he has admitted his guilt in his confessional statement (Ext.-6) that he is a member of P.L.F.I. squad, whose Area Commander was Ajay Munda @ Ajay Purty. He kept a bag having a carbine and 10 cartridges of 9 mm in the house of Dulu Banra of village Chandmari Tonto where he resided on rent. He lodged a sanha with respect to this and gave the information of occurrence to the Superior Police Officers. By the order of Superior Police officers, he along with accused Ganesh Gagrai, Sub-inspector Gautam Kumar (P.W.3), Sub- inspector P.W.1 Nitin Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge of Pandrasali O.P. and armed forces posted in Muffasil and Pandrasaali O.P. proceeded from police station at 5.10 O' Clock and reached at about 5.25 O' Clock at the house of Dulu Banra situated at Chanmari Tonto, where in presence of two witnesses, rented house of the accused Ganesh Gagrai was searched and a plastic bag of white colour - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 recovered at his instance in which a carbine and cartridges were kept. The said bag was opened in presence of independent witnesses in which a carbine has been found having magazine in which 10 live cartridges of 9 mm were loaded. He produced no authority regarding the recovered carbine and cartridges. On the basis of above information of the informant, Muffasil P.S. Case No.53 of 2016 dated 05.06.2016, under Sections 25 (1-A) /26(2) of Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A 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/ (1-A) /26 (1) & (2) of Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act, The trial court has framed the charge on 27.01.2017 under Sections 25(1-A)/ 25(1-B)a/ 26(1) and 26(2) of Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA 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, Nitin Kumar Singh, S.I, is the member of raiding party. He has deposed in examination-in-chief that at the instance of accused the rented house was searched in presence of two witnesses and seized the alleged - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 weapon and ammunitions. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the land- lord of the accused was not present at the place of occurrence. 6. P.W.-2, Digvijay Singh, S.I, is the informant of the case and a member of raiding party. He has supported the prosecution story. In examination-in-chief he has deposed that he has prepared the seizure list in presence of independent witnesses and took the signature of accused and witnesses on the seizure list (Ext.-1). In cross-examination, he has stated that there was neither P.S case number nor initial of ACJM was mentioned on magazine. Apart of 9 mm there was something other written on the recovered ammunitions, but the same has not been described in the seizure list. He had not taken signature of witnesses on seized cartridges. Further, the signature of accused was neither on the carbine nor on cartridges. He has deposed that no specific mark or identification was made on the seized articles. 7. P.W.-3, Gautam Kumar, S.I, is the members of raiding party. He has supported the case. In cross-examination, he has stated that the I.O had taken his statement and the seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence. He does not remember whether he had put his signature on seizure list or not. 8. P.W.-4, Rajendra Singh, is Sergeant Major, who has examined the seized arms and ammunitions. - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 In cross-examination, he has admitted that the examination report does not bear seal of his office. He has also admitted that length of trigger and the length of spring attached with trigger have not been mentioned in his report. He has also admitted that the length of magazine has also not been mentioned in his report. 9. P.W.-5, Anil Kumar Yadav, A.S.I, is the investigating officer of the case. He has deposed that after getting charge, he mentioned self statement of the informant and search-cum-seizure list in the case diary. He has taken the restatement of the informant and statements of other witnesses. He has also made application to the District Magistrate, Chaibasa, for sanction order (Ext.-5). In cross-examination, he has admitted that no statements were taken by any independent witnesses during course of investigation. He has deposed that he has not recorded the statements of the seizure list witnesses. 10. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 17 CLA Act, and found him guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26(2) of the Arms Act and sentenced him, as stated above. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the following facts of the case :- - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 (i) the sanction order, issued by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, is under Sections 25(1B)(a)/ 1(A)/ 26(1)(2) of the Arms Act, while the punishment is under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26(2) of the Arms Act. (ii) the seizure list witnesses have not been examined. (iii) there is dispute regarding seal, as has been admitted by the witnesses itself and further, there is no identification mark upon the seized carbine or the cartridges. (iv) even the number mentioned at the cartridges has not been mentioned. Thus, there is no identification. (v) neither the land lord has been examined nor there is evidence to suggest that the house, in question, was in possession of this appellant. (vi) no independent witness has been examined in this case. Thus, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of no evidence and on the above basis, acquittal of the appellant has been prayed, by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence stating that there is accusation and the official - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (A) there is no identification of the seized arms and ammunitions. (B) the independent seizure list witnesses have not been examined. (C) there is nothing on record which suggests that premises, from where seizure has been made, was either in possession or in control of this appellant. (D) the ballistic examination does not suggest that the seized carbine was effective or rather capable of firing of 9 mm cartridge, as mentioned. (E) even the identification of the cartridges has not been disclosed. 15. Thus, it is clear that it is a case of no evidence. 16. In that view of the matter, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated dated 19.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.10 of 2017, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No.53 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.201 of 2016 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 18. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019 2026:JHHC:19696 19. 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 06th July, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 09.07.2026 - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.288 of 2019