2026:JHHC:25835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 731 of 2017 -------- Md. Saddam, S/o Md. Kallu, resident of Purani Basti Road, P.O. & P.S.- Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ----- P R E S E N T CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. -------- C.A.V. on 21.07.2026 Pronounced on 27/08/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.05.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No. 1356 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1- B)a & 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and six months along with fine of Rs.1000/- each with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision as per self-statement of the informant, Vijay Kumar, Police Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of 2026:JHHC:25835 2 Jugsalai Police Station, is that on 18.05.2012 at about 18:30 hours, he along with S.I. H.N. Singh, departed from the police station for the investigation of Jugsalai P.S. Case Nos. 177/12 and 178/12 and also for Law and Order duty. They reached near Dukhu Market, where, at about 17:45 hours, he received information that two robbers had looted an ornaments shop at Chowk Bazar and had been caught by the public, who were assaulting them. On receiving the said information, the informant along with S.I. H.N. Singh and armed constables, proceeded from Dukhu Market towards Chowk Bazar. At about 20:00 hours, they reached Chowk Bazar and found that near Hotel Kanishka, towards Sona Patti Line, a crowd had gathered and was raising a hue and cry, shouting, “Maro-Maro.” The informant, along with the police party, proceeded towards the spot and found two persons sitting on the ground and whom people were beating with their legs, fists and danda. The police force rescued them from further assault. On seeing the police party, the crowd dispersed. In the presence of local witnesses, namely Arun Kumar Gupta and Satya Narayan Prasad Saraf, the police asked the two persons their names, and they disclosed their names as Md. Saddam and Md. Roni. The police then came to know that the said two persons had allegedly looted three gold chains from the ornaments shop of Arun Kumar Gupta at the point of a pistol. It was further alleged that, while fleeing from the place of occurrence, they had also fired a shot, but were caught by members of the public. Thereafter, in the presence of the independent witnesses, search of both the accused persons was conducted. One .32-bore pistol, containing one live 2026:JHHC:25835 3 cartridge, was recovered from the possession of Md. Saddam. It was alleged that he was holding the pistol in his hand and had concealed it behind his thigh. On the bottom of the cartridge bore the marking K.F. 7.65 was written, while the magazine of the automatic pistol bore the marking made in U.S.A. From the right pocket of the full pant by Md. Saddam, one gold chain, allegedly looted from the ornaments shop, was also recovered. From the right pocket of the full pant by the other accused, Md. Roni, two live cartridges were recovered on which 7.65 was written on the bottom. From the left pocket of his full pant, one Nokia mobile phone containing Airtel SIM No. 9572922316 was recovered. Two gold chains, allegedly looted from the shop of Arun Kumar Gupta, were also recovered from his possession. Further, near the place of occurrence, one fired khokha of 7.65 was recovered. A motorcycle bearing registration No. BR-16D/3184 was also recovered from the spot. All the recovered articles were seized by preparing a seizure list, on which the witnesses put their signatures. On the basis of above self-statement, Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 181 of 2012 dated 18.05.2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 25(1-B) a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act against the accused persons. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken for the same offence. 5. One accused Md. Shadab @ Roni was declared juvenile and his case record was split up and sent to the Court of Principal Magistrate, 2026:JHHC:25835 4 Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur for inquiry. 6. Charge was framed against the accused, Md. Saddam which was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and several documentary as well as material evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. 8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. 9. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above, which was upheld by learned Appellate Court against which this criminal revision has been assailed. Submissions on behalf of petitioner: - 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are bad in law, perverse, contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not produce any independent witness in support of its case, particularly Arun Kumar Gupta, the shopkeeper in whose shop the alleged robbery was committed, who was admittedly a material witness but was not examined during trial, thereby creating a serious doubt over the entire prosecution story. It is also submitted that the petitioner was allegedly apprehended by local inhabitants and the seizure list was prepared in their presence and the signatures of the shopkeeper and one Satnarayan 2026:JHHC:25835 5 Prasad Saraf were also obtained thereon, however, neither of them was examined by the prosecution during trial, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. In alternative, it is also submitted that there are material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence with regard to the description and calibre/markings of the firearm and ammunition. Such discrepancies, coupled with the absence of independent corroboration, render the prosecution version doubtful and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 26(1) of the Arms Act because the required essential of secret contravention has not been proved to find him guilty, therefore it is submitted that conviction of the petitioner under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act should be set aside. Learned counsel has further submitted that the occurrence is of year 2012 and more than fourteen years have elapsed since the date of occurrence and the petitioner was granted bail during pendency of this revision vide order dated 13.11.2017 and the petitioner has remained in custody for about one year during trial and post conviction, therefore, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. It is therefore prayed that the substantive sentence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act should be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case. Submissions on behalf of State: - 11. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the learned 2026:JHHC:25835 6 courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 who have consistently supported the recovery of the loaded pistol from the petitioner, while P.W.3 found it effective. Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal, particularly as the petitioner had concealed the pistol behind his thigh. Therefore, the impugned judgment calls for no interference and this revision is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 12. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 13. It appears that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 is consistent regarding recovery of the loaded pistol from the possession of the petitioner, which is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and the test report showing the firearm to be effective. Though the independent witnesses were not examined, such non-examination, by itself, does not render the otherwise reliable evidence of the police witnesses unacceptable. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is upheld. 14. However, for conviction under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act, the prosecution had failed to prove the secret contravention of provisions of Arms Act. Mere possession of arms is not enough to hold him guilty under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act. Therefore, the conviction under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 2026:JHHC:25835 7 15. So far as sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence under which the offence was committed by petitioner and also considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2012 and more than 14 years have elapsed and out of two years and six months’ imprisonment, he has already undergone about one year in custody, therefore, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, his sentence is reduced from two years and six months of R.I. to imprisonment already undergone by him. 16. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above. 17. The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 18. Pending I.A.s, if any stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 27/08/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 28/08/2026