2026:JHHC:10185 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.39 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2018 and Order of sentence dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – XVI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2018, arising out of Sudhamdih P.S. Case No.34 of 2016 (G.R. No.3113 of 2016)] --------- Shubham Yadav @ Shubham Kumar Yadav, aged about 21 years, son of Nepali Yadav, Resident of Village – Bhoura no.13, P.O + P.S. - Sudamdih, District - Dhanbad. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Ms. Rita Kumari Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P --------- Order No.08/ Dated: 09 th April, 2026 1. Heard Ms. Rita Kumari Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – XVI, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2018, arising out of Sudhamdih P.S. Case No.34 of 2016 (G.R. No.3113 of 2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26(2) of the Arms Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10185 offence under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the informant, namely, Nilesh Kumar. S.I. has filed a written report stating inter alia that on 05.08.16 the S.S.P., Dhanbad has received a confidential information that one Shubham Yadav was possessing large number of fire arms in his house with intent to commit crime. Upon that, a raiding team was constituted including him by the S.S.P Dhanbad. It is further alleged that on getting information about the said fact he along with his team proceeded to spot and about 06.50 A.M. they reached at the house of Subham Yadav situated at Bhowra 13 No., PS Sudamdih, Dist. Dhanbad and surrounded the house of accused. On seeing police party nearby people assembled. It is further alleged that the house of accused was searched and in course of search it was found that one person was sleeping on bed, on being interrogated he disclosed his name as Shubham Yadav and at his instance one ash colour ladies bag was recovered under the bed sheet of his bed and one country made pistol loaded with .315 bore cartridge, one country made pistol made up of iron and wood loaded with two live cartridge, one country made pistol made up of iron and fibre loaded with four live cartridge recovered from said bag. It is further alleged that one maroon colour small bag - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10185 containing 6 live cartridge of 9mm, two live cartridge of . 315 bore, two live cartridge of 7.55 bore and one empty magazine has also been recovered. On being asked about the recovered arms and cartridge, accused has neither produced any valid paper nor given any satisfactory answer, thereafter seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses and the copy of the seizure list was given to accused who put his signature on it. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. On the basis of above written report of the informant, the criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Sudamdih P.S Case No. 34/16 under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26 of the Arms Act. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed charge under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26 of the Arms Act against the present appellant. 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 08 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Vimlesh Kumar Pandey, is a seizure list witness and he has been declared hostile. 6. P.W.-2, Naresh Kumar, is also a seizure list witness and he has also been declared hostile. - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10185 7. P.W.-3, Sammi Ahmad Khan, P.W.-4, Krishna Yadav and P.W.-5, Dinesh Kumar, all are police personnel and the members of the raiding party. In the cross-examination, they have not even supported the prosecution story. They have stated that they were not aware regarding the ownership of the house and further, the seized materials have not been shown when the alleged witnesses have been examined. 8. P.W.-6, Nilesh Kumar, is the informant of the case and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. He has also admitted that no photography, videography was conducted of the bed under which the alleged arms were recovered. He has also admitted that the place of occurrence is within Sudamdih Police Station, but he had not given any information to any official of that Police Station regarding the search and seizure. 09. P.W.-7, Anand Mashih Hereng, is the Investigating officer of the case and he has proved the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seized the articles. Further, the seized material was not presented before him. He has also admitted that he was not a member of the raiding party. 10. P.W.-8, Ravindra Prasad, is the Sergeant Major and he has examined the seized arms. - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10185 11. The defence has also produced two witnesses, i.e., D.W.- 1 Rajesh Kumar Pandey and D.W.-2 Santosh Sahish. 12. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, cross-examination, and the statement of the accused person, has convicted the appellant under Sections 25(1-A)/ 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as stated above. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds : (i) The alleged recovered arms have not been sealed at the place of occurrence, which is a mandatory requirement, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 Sup (3) Supreme Court Cases 217. (ii) The local police were not informed and the entire search and seizure has been made by the outside police. (iii) None of the witnesses have supported in clear terms, regarding the search and seizure, rather they have given a vague statement. In cross- examination, they have not supported the prosecution story, rather doubt has been created. 15. On the above basis, it has been submitted by the - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10185 learned counsel for the appellant that it not only creates arena of doubt, rather it falls under the category of no evidence. Accordingly, prayer has been made that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, be quashed and set aside. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, stating that there was a raiding party and the witnesses have clearly suggested that there was some recovery. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears to this Court that :- (a) the seizure list witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.-1 & 2 have been declared hostile. (b) The raiding party witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.-3, 4 & 5 have clearly stated that the seized article has not been shown to them in the court and as such they are not in position to say as to whether the seized article is the alleged article or not. (c) No local police has been informed regarding the search and seizure. (d) The raid has been conducted on a secrete information of the S.S.P., Dhanbad, but that has also been denied, rather it has been submitted that the raid has been done at the request of S.S.P., Dhanbad, but no call detail has been produced. Further, what was the reason for raid, that has - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10185 also not been disclosed. (e) Even the seized article has not been sealed, rather it has been sent for forensic test, after 12 days, as has been admitted by the investigating officer himself. Thus, the prosecution has failed to rule out the chance of manipulation. (f) The evaluation of witnesses, in a case where all are official witnesses, requires close scrutiny. In the present case, on close scrutiny, none of the witnesses have been found reliable, rather they are not even trustworthy at all. 18. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant is totally unjustified and accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – XVI, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2018 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 20. The appellant is on the bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 21. 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 09th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026 - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.39 of 2019