2026:JHHC:21621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.169 of 2021 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – VII -cum- Special judge SC/ST, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.659 of 2016 & S.T No.667 of 2016, arising out of Nagri P.S. Case No.89 of 2016 (G.R. No.3932 of 2016)] --------- Panchanand Kumar @ Panchanand, aged about 24 years, Son of Late Bodho Sahu, Resident of Pundag, P.S. - Pundag, P.O. - Pundag, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. B. M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P --------- Order No.09/ Dated: 22 nd July, 2026 1. Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – VII -cum- Special Judge SC/ST, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.659 of 2016 & S.T. No.667 of 2016, arising out of Nagri P.S. Case No.89 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.3932 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 - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause 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 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the fardbeyan of the informant, Aanchi Horo (P.W.-10) wife of the deceased stating therein on 08.07.2016 at about 8.00 P.M. while the informant was ready for dinner with her family members including the deceased, suddenly after receiving a phone call her husband (deceased) left home with assurance to come back soon. In whole of the night the deceased Manoj Kumar Munda did not return, but on the very next morning at about 10.00 A.M. one Herman Khalkho informed the informant that the dead body of her husband is found at a distance near Anas Dhaba and his scooty is also lying. The informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband in the bushes with three gun shots on his temple. His cloth was full of blood and tongue was coming out. She found the Scooty of her husband bearing registration number JH-01- BM-1676 at a distance of 350 meter south ring road near Anas Dhaba and the number plate of the Scooty was turned down. The informant made suspect to Raman Sahu, Ashok Sahu, Anand Sahu, Herman Khalkho and Ramchandra - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 Mahto. On the basis of above information of the informant, Nagri P.S. Case No.89 of 2016, under Sections 302/ 201/ 120B of the IPC read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act has been registered against five named accused persons. As per written statement of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 247/2016, during investigation of Nagri P.S. Case No. 89/2016, the officer-in-charge received a secret information on 17.07.2016 that the deceased Manoj Kumar Munda had a land dispute with accused Panchanand (present appellant). Accordingly, police raided to the house of accused Panchanand Kumar. During interrogation, he confessed and disclosed one of his aid namely, Kishan Bauri of Bokaro. The police seized a mobile bearing No.9709226113 and a bike from the house of the accused and thereafter, the accused was arrested and he confessed his guilt. Accordingly, his confessional statement was recorded and on the basis of his confessional statement from a Nala situated near D.A.V. Alok, in presence of two independent witnesses, Nand Kishore Munda (P.W.-2) and Prem Munda (PW.-1), two country made pistols were recovered. The officer-in-charge has also recovered a fired empty cartridge from a pistol and from the other pistol a live cartridges of 9 mm. After that in presence of both independent witnesses, seizure list was prepared. On the basis of written statement of officer-in-charge of Nagri P.S. regarding recovery of above fire arms and ammunition, - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 247/2016 dated 18.07.2016 was registered against the accused Panchanand Kumar and Kishun Bauri for the offence under the Arms Act. After due investigation of Nagri P.S. Case No. 89/2016, the police has submitted charge-sheet no.135/2016 dated 13.10.2016 against sole accused Panchanand Kumar. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the sole accused on 14.10.2016 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and Section 27(II) of the Arms Act. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the case record was committed on 25.11.2016 to the court of Sessions registered as S.T. Case No. 667/2016. Further after due investigation in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 247/2016, the I.O has submitted the charge-sheet No. 113/2016 dated 30.10.2016 against the sole accused namely, Panchanand Kumar under Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. On the basis of material available on record, cognizance was taken under Sections 25(1- b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. As the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, found the case related to the Prohibited ammunition, the same was committed on 23.11.2016 to the court of Sessions, registered as S.T. Case No. 659/2016. In S.T. Case No. 659/2016 charge under Sections 25(1-A)/26(2) of the Arms Act has been framed against the sole accused. 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 - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 has commenced. 4. It appears that the present appellant has been roped in during investigation on the ground that on his confession, weapon of crime has been recovered i.e. fire arms. On that basis, he has been charged for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and Sections 27(II) and 25(1-A)/26(2) of the Arms Act. The trial has proceeded and ultimately, the appellant has been convicted only for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/26(2) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced, as stated above. Thus, the present appellant has been acquitted from the main charges for which the trial has been commenced i.e. murder and he has been convicted for an independent crime and for proving the same, only four witnesses are relevant, who are P.Ws.-1, 2, 13 and 14, whose depositions, in brief, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Prem Munda, is the seizure list witness. He has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. 6. P.W.-2, Nandkishore Munda, is also the seizure list witness and he has supported the prosecution story. He has proved his signature on the seizure lists (Ext.-1, 1/1, 2 & 2/1). During cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused handed over the pistols to the police after getting it from the water. He has also admitted that the arms were not sealed at the spot. He has also admitted that the police - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 has not given his own talashi to anybody at the spot. He has also admitted that both the pistols were of the same size. 7. P.W.-13, Tusharkant Jha, is the Sergeant Major and he has proved the Arms Examination Report (Ext.-11). In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not find any mud on the pistol. He has further admitted that he did not check the report (Ext.-11) after fire. However, in chief examination he has deposed that the seized pistols were efficient and capable of firing causing damage to life. At para-10 of the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not tested the second pistol. He has also admitted that he does not remember the malkhana number on the material exhibit. 8. P.W.-14, Ajay Kumar Singh, A.S.I, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that the accused has confessed his involvement in the alleged crime and on his confession, two pistols one loaded with cartridge and another with fired cartridge were recovered under a stone in river from mud in the presence of two independent witnesses. In cross-examination, at para -17, he has admitted that it has not been mentioned in the seizure list that the pistol was seized in the presence of accused. Further he has stated that there is no description about sealing of the arms in the seizure list, but he had sealed the arms. 9. On consideration of above materials on record, the - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 trial Court has found the accused-appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-A) and 26 (2) of Arms Act and sentenced him, as stated above. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 11. Referring to the above materials available on record, learned senior counsel for the appellant has assailed judgment of conviction on the following grounds :- (i) there is no confession on the record, while the recovery of the arms have been shown on the basis of confession of the appellant. (ii) Even the seizure list witness, i.e. P.W.-1 has been declared hostile and further, the sealing of the arms has not been done, which is fatal for the prosecution and for that purpose he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2417. (iii) the identity of the seized arms is always in doubt, as is evident that the sanction order is under Sections 25 (1-B)a /26/ 25 of the Arms Act, while the appellant has been convicted for the offence under 25(1-A)/26(2) of the Arms Act, (iv) Even the Sergeant Major (P.W.-13) has not tested so far as the second pistol is concerned. He has also admitted in his deposition that no malkhana number/ MR number was mentioned on - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 the seized arms. On the basis of above materials, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the recovery of the arms and the identity of the arms is under doubt which is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 25(1- A)/26(2) of the Arms Act and as such the appellant deserves the judgment of acquittal. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that although the appellant has been convicted for an independent crime, but there is material to suggest that he was aware of the fact that the arms were kept beneath the mud near river situated near D.A.V Alok, Pundag and the appellant was aware regarding the existence of the weapons. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (A) the alleged recovery of weapons was on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant, but that confession has not been proved. (B) the seizure list has not been prepared at the spot and further, there is no sealing of the seized weapons. (C) the identity of the seized weapons is in dispute and further, the description of the arms is also different, as has been disclosed by the I.O., the Sergeant Major and the authority, who has - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021 2026:JHHC:21621 granted sanction order. 14. Thus, it is a case of doubtful evidence and in that view of the matter, the appellant deserves the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – VII -cum- Special Judge SC/ST, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.659 of 2016 & S.T. No.667 of 2016, arising out of Nagri P.S. Case No.89 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.3932 of 2016 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 15. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 16. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 17. 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 22nd July, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 28.07.2026 - 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2021