2026:JHHC:10611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.92 of 2019 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.432 of 2018/T.R. No.238 of 2018] ---- 1. Sunil Oraon, aged about 23 years, son of Bishwa Oraon 2. Ranthu Oraon, aged about 20 years, son of Begal Oraon 3. Bablu Oraon, aged about 22 years, son of Sukra Oraon All are residents of Village – Hurhuri, P.O.+P.S.- Ratu, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Sanjeet Nayak, Adv. Ms. K. Pragati R. Narayan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. ---- By Court: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.432 of 2018/T.R. No.238 of 2018, arising out of Ratu P.S. Case No.132 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3284 of 2017, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-A) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and Section 26(2) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five (05) years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-A) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. They have been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five (05) 2026:JHHC:10611 Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.92 of 2019 years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 26(2) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.06.2017 at about 21:00 hours, near Hazi Chowk, Simaliya, the informant, along with other police personnel, was engaged in vehicle checking. During the course thereof, they noticed three persons were riding on a scooty bearing registration no. JH- 01CB-9423. On being signalled to stop, the said persons attempted to flee, but were apprehended by the police after due chase. Upon interception, they disclosed their identities as Sunil Oraon, son of Bishwa Oraon; Ranthu Oraon, son of Bigal Oraon; and Bablu Oraon, son of Sukra Oraon, all residents of Village Hurhuri, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi. On search of the scooty, two country-made pistols, six live cartridges, one pistol magazine, and a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in cash were recovered from the dicky of the vehicle. Thereafter, in presence of two independent witnesses, namely Phagu Oraon and Arjun Lohar, a seizure list was duly prepared. On being asked, the accused persons failed to produce any valid document in respect of the seized firearms. Consequently, they were taken to the police station, where a formal First Information Report, being Ratu P.S. Case No. 132 of 2017, was instituted under Sections 25(1-b)(a) and 26/35 of the Arms Act. 4. On the basis of the self-statement of the Officer-in-Charge, the present criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being Ratu P.S. Case No.132 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017 under Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act against the appellants. 5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet on 05.11.2019 under the aforesaid sections and the trial court had framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act on 18.08.2018, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, altogether eight witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Sanjay Kumar (ASI), P.W.3 Hari Kisku, P.W.4 Mangal Chand Tudu, and P.W.6 Krishnandan Ray, who were 2026:JHHC:10611 Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.92 of 2019 members of the police party, have consistently supported the prosecution version regarding interception of the scooty carrying three accused persons, their attempt to flee, and recovery of two country-made pistols, live cartridges, cash amounting to Rs. 80,000/-, and other articles from the dicky of the scooty in presence of independent witnesses, followed by preparation of seizure list. P.W.7 Amod Narayan Singh, the informant and Officer-in- charge, has fully corroborated the prosecution case and proved the self- statement, seizure list, arrest memos, and material exhibits produced before the Court. P.W.2 Tushar Kant Jha, Sergeant Major, who examined the seized materials and has proved the report (Ext.-1) and opined that the seized firearms were in working condition, the cartridges were live, and one of the pistols fell under the category of prohibited arms. P.W.5 Andrias Malto has proved the sanction order (Ext.-2), while P.W.8 Sunil Kunwar, the Investigating Officer, has detailed the steps of investigation, including recording of confessional statements, obtaining sanction, and submission of charge-sheet. During cross-examination, certain discrepancies have emerged, such as delay in calling independent witnesses, absence of distinctive marks initially on seized arms, and non-production of seized materials in Court at certain stages. Some witnesses have also admitted that nothing was recovered from the personal search of the accused and that the seizure list was prepared at the police station. However, the witnesses have denied the suggestion of false implication or planting of the seized articles, and the core prosecution case regarding recovery of arms and ammunition from the possession of the accused persons remains consistent. 7. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the allegations were denied. 8. The description of the seized articles is as follows:- “जɑ सामानों का िववरण : अिभयुƅगण— सुनील उरांव, रंथु उरांव एवं बबलु उरांव, सभी िनवासी Ťाम 2026:JHHC:10611 Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.92 of 2019 ŠरŠरी, थाना रातू, िजला रांची— के कɥे से िनɻिलİखत सामान बरामद िकए गएः 1. एक ˋू टी (Yamaha Ray Z) कं पनी की, सफे द एवं ɰू रंग की, िजसका िनबंधन संƥा JH-01CB-9423 है, चेिचस संƥा ME1SE7787G0080392 तथा इंजन संƥा E3N6E0133079। 2. लोहे का एक देशी िपˑौल, िजसके बैरल की लंबाई लगभग 4.5 इंच, बॉडी की लंबाई लगभग 3.5 इंच तथा बट की लंबाई लगभग 3.5 इंच है। 3. लोहे का एक अɊ देशी िपˑौल, िजसके बैरल की लंबाई लगभग 5 इंच, बॉडी की लंबाई लगभग 3.5 इंच तथा बट की लंबाई लगभग 3.5 इंच है। 4. 8 एम.एम. के तीन िजंदा कारतूस। 5. 7.62 बोर के तीन िजंदा कारतूस। 6. कु ल नकद रािश ₹80,000/- (अˣी हजार Ŝपये माũ), िजसमŐ ₹2,000 के 24 नोट (₹48,000) एवं ₹500 के 64 नोट (₹32,000) सİʃिलत हœ। 7. तीन मोबाइल फोन, िजनका िववरण इस Ůकार है— (i) OPPO कं पनी का एक मोबाइल, िसम संƥा 8051128497, (ii) Micromax कं पनी का एक मोबाइल, िसम संƥा 7361910126, (iii) Samsung कं पनी का एक मोबाइल, िसम संƥा 8298187112। 8. लोहे का एक िपˑौल मैगजीन।“ 9. The seizure was allegedly made in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely Phagu Oraon and Arjun Lohar; however, they have not been examined before the trial court. P.W.1 has deposed that the seized articles were sealed at the place of occurrence, whereas P.W.3 has stated that the sealing was done at the police station. P.W.2, the Sergeant Major, has described the seized arms produced before him as follows: “जांच के दौरान जɧ ŮदशŘ मŐ एक 9 एम.एम. का देशी िपˑौल मैगजीन सिहत, एक .315 बोर का देशी िपˑौल, कु ल छह िजंदा कारतूस (िजसमŐ 7.62 एम.एम. के तीन तथा .315 बोर के तीन कारतूस) पाए गए। दोनों देशी िपˑौलों के सभी कलपुजő सही एवं कायŊशील अव˕ा मŐ थे। िपˑौलों के बैरल के अंदर काबŊन कण पाए गए, िजससे ˙ʼ Šआ िक उनसे हाल ही मŐ फायįरंग की गई थी। परीƗण के दौरान दोनों िपˑौलों से सफल फायįरंग की गई, िजससे वे पूणŊतः कारगर पाए गए। जɧ 9 एम.एम. का देशी िपˑौल Ůितबंिधत ŵेणी का पाया गया।“ 10. Thus, prima facie, there appears to be a clear discrepancy in the description of the arms as allegedly seized and those produced before the expert. Further, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence regarding sealing at the place of occurrence, the possibility of interpolation or tampering cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the independent seizure witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:10611 Page | 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.92 of 2019 11. It further transpires that the description of the arms, as disclosed by P.W.2, does not clearly fall within the definition of “prohibited arms” but rather appears to be within the ambit of restricted arms. 12. From the overall analysis of the evidence available on record, it appears that the seizure of the arms is doubtful, particularly in view of the absence of any distinctive marking, inconsistency regarding sealing, and non-examination of the seizure witnesses. The nature of the arms, as described by the Sergeant Major, also does not justify conviction under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act. Furthermore, there is no material on record to establish that the co-accused, namely Ranthu Oraon and Bablu Oraon, had knowledge of the alleged arms concealed in the dicky of the scooty. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds that there exists an area of doubt which requires favourable judgment in favour of the accused. 14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail and as such they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 15th April, 2026 Amar/NAFR Uploaded on 18.04.2026