1 2026:CGHC:1137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 436 of 2005 1. Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Rajendra Shrivastava, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation Labourer, R/o Village – Budhapur, Police Station - Himatgarh, Varanasi (U.P.). At present Aadarsh Nagar, Kunkuri, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Vinod Kumar Gupta, S/o Banwari Gupta, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation Business, R/o Village Bajrang Nagar, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Topchand @ Topsingh @ Dhuran Ram, S/o Bali Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rengari, Police Station Narayanpur, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG). ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Ananya Tiwari, Adovcate appears on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J ) Judgment on Board 08/01/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2005 passed by learned Upper RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.01.15 11:34:49 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (henceforth referred to as ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 47/2004, whereby the learned trial Court, after holding the appellants/accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced each of them in the following manner :- Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 399, IPC RI for 10 years Rs.1000/- RI for 1 year 402, IPC RI for 7 years Rs.1000/- Imprisonment for 1 year 25 of the Arms Act RI for 1 year Rs.500/- Imprisonment for 6 months 27 of the Arms Act RI for 1 year Rs.500/- Imprisonment for 6 months All the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 24.02.2003, the town inspector P.C. Rai (PW-5) received secret information from informer that 5-6 persons have been gathered near Eb river at village Pharsapani and were preparing to commit dacoity. Higher officials were informed about the information. Four teams were constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, District Jashpur. The team headed by the town Inspector P.C. Rai of Police Station Kunkuri caught appellants and two other co-accused persons near Eb river and seized various arms and ammunition from their possession. One sixer countrymade pistol, 4 live cartridges, 5 handmade bombs (explosive) and 2 packets chilly powder were seized from appellant Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava vide seizure memo Ex.P-1; one countrymade pistol, 1 live cartridge and 1 torch were seized from appellant Vinod Kumar Gupta vide seizure memo Ex.P-2; one countrymade pistol and 2 live cartridges were seized from appellant Topchand @ Topsingh @ Dhuran Ram vide seizure memo Ex.P-3; one countrymade pistol and 2 3 live cartridges were seized from co-accused Jashwant Vadi (Gond) vide seizure memo Ex.P-4; and one sword was seized from co- accused Lavkumar alias Seetan vide seizure memo Ex.P-5. Panchnama (Ex.P-6) was prepared after defusing alleged bombs by dipping it in the water. Reports vide Ex.P-7, P-8, P-9 & P-10 from armorer were obtained about the seized arms and ammunition. Earlier Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P-13) was registered, based on which, an FIR (Ex.P- 14) was registered in Police Station Kunkuri. Spot map (Ex.P-15) was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Sanction for filing a charge sheet was obtained from the concerned District Magistrate vide Ex.P-11. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet under Sections 399 & 402 of the IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (for short “Arms Act”) and Sections 3 & 7 of the Explosives Act was filed against the appellants and two other co-accused persons namely; Jashwant Gond and Lavkumar showing accused Bablu @ Shyam Bihari Singh @ Dilip Singh absconder, before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Upper Sessions Judge (trial Court). 3. Learned trial Court discharged the appellants/accused persons for the offence under Sections 3 & 7 of Explosive Act, but framed charges against them for the offence punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, who abjured their guilt and entered into trial. 4. So as to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Statements of the appellants/accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were 4 recorded, in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. They have not examined any witness in their defence. 5. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all five accused persons as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been assailed by three appellants in instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants informed the Court that two other co-accused persons namely; Jashwant Gond and Lavkumar have preferred separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.421/2005, in which, they have been acquitted by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 22.10.2024. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that though 4 countrymade pistol, various numbers of cartridges, a sword including alleged handmade bombs were said to be seized from possession of accused persons but seizure witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. She would further submit that neither any Rojnamcha sanha regarding entry of secret information has been proved by the prosecution nor any order of Superintendent of Police, Jashpur has been proved regarding constitution of four teams. She next submitted that even none of the members of team of town Inspector P.C. Rai (PW-5) have been examined by the prosecution. Sanction (Ex.P-11) has also not been duly proved. She lastly submitted that on similar set of facts, co-accused Jashwant Gond and Lavkumar have been acquitted by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 22.10.2024 5 passed in CRA No.421/2005, hence, she prays that instant appeal may be allowed and appellants may be acquitted of all the charges. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment would submit that huge number of countrymade pistol, cartridges and sword were seized from possession of appellants and other co-accused persons, therefore, only in absence of support of independent seizure witnesses, seizure of aforesaid arms and ammunition cannot be disbelieved. She further submitted that the impugned judgment is passed on well appreciation of evidence, hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the trial Court. 10. As per the case of prosecution and deposition of town Inspector P.C. Rai (PW-5) of Police Station Kunkuri, secret information from informer was received to him, which was informed to the higher officials, thereafter, 4 teams were constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur. But neither such Rojnamchasanha has been proved, in which, said information was recorded nor any order of SP, Jashpur regarding constitution of 4 teams has been proved. 11. In instant case, total five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Bhawani Shankar Khatri (PW-1) and Vishnu Gupta (PW- 2) are said to be seizure witnesses, but except, accepting their signatures in seizure memo (Ex.P-1 to P-5), they have not supported the fact that alleged arms and ammunition were seized from possession of appellants in their presence. Thus, they have turned 6 hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Even in suggesting question taken by learned public prosecutor, they have denied all the suggestions taken by him. 12. Amar Tigga (PW-3) is said to be armorer, who examined the seized countrymade pistols and cartridges, in which, he opined vide his reports Ex.P-7 to P-10 that except first and second countrymade pistols, sent to him, two other countrymade pistols were in operating position and cartridges were also live cartridges. 13. Vijay Patel (PW-4) was posted as Steno in office of Collector, Jashpur. He has only identified signature of the then District Magistrate, Jashpur, Dr. B.S. Anant present in the sanction order (Ex.P-11), but while recording his deposition, it does not appear from his deposition sheet that he had brought note-sheet file pertaining to the alleged sanction given by the District Magistrate, Jashpur. He has also stated in his deposition that between which period to which period, he worked with the said District Magistrate and how he identified his signature. Various stenographers are posted in the Office of Collector, but only on this count, it cannot supposed that every stenographer identify the signature of the Collector. Alleged sanction (Ex.P-11) also does not contain stamp of office of District Magistrate, Jashpur, therefore, only on the basis of vague statement, sanction order (Ex.P-11) cannot be held proved. 14. As per deposition of Inspector of Police Station Kunkuri P.C. Rai (PW- 5), he received secret information, which was informed by him to the higher police officials and thereafter, four teams were constituted by the 7 SP, Jashpur and the team leading by him has caught appellants. But, except him, none of the officers leading other three team and their members or members of team headed by Inspector P.C. Rai has been examined by the Police. 15. Though there is no such law that in absence of support of deposition of independent witnesses, deposition/evidence of police officials cannot be relied upon. But when in any trap proceeding, various officials had involved, then statement of other police officials/members of team also ought to have been recorded. But in instant case, neither statement of any other officers, who were heading the team, have been recorded nor statement of members of any team have been recorded. Even none of such officials have been listed as witness in charge-sheet. In such situation, only on the basis of deposition of Inspector P.C. Rai (PW-5), it cannot be held proved that alleged arms and ammunition were seized from possession of the appellants vide seizure memo Ex.P-1 to P-3. Not examining any such witnesses by the prosecution and even not listing them in the witness list of charge-sheet raise grave suspicion about the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. 16. Thus since seizure of alleged arms and ammunition is not found proved, therefore, armorer’s reports with regard to said arms and ammunition have no worth in instant case. 17. In view of above discussion, it is found that learned trial Court without any valid evidence has convicted appellants. Further, two other co- accused persons have already been acquitted by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 22.10.2024 passed in CRA No.421/2005, 8 hence, I feel inclined to allow instant appeal. 18. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2005 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) is hereby set aside/quashed. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 19. The appellants/accused are on bail. They need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by each of the appellants/accused shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar