Chattisgarh High Court
Aashish (Deleted) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:34898
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 785 of 2008
1 - Aashish (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-04-2025.
2 - Jagram (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-04-2025.
3 - Munna Singh @ Anil Singh S/o Virendra Singh Bhadoriya Aged
About 35 Years R/o Gadhi, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind
(M.P.)
4 - Manoj Singh S/o Ramratan Singh Bhadoriya Aged About 35 Years
R/o Gadhi, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.)
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Marwahi, District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment on Board
22-07-2025
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.8.2008 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Pendraroad in ST
No.494/2001 whereby the appellants stand convicted under Section
25(1-B) sub-clause (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI
for two years, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to suffer
additional RI for three months.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.7.2001 the police
of Police Station-Marwahi received a secret information that some
suspicious persons are roaming around in the Khodababa forest.
Thereupon the police proceeded for the spot and found accused
Mangilal, Ashish, Jagram, Munna Singh and Manoj Singh in suspicious
condition and enquired from them. At their instance, country made
pistol, firing pistol 315 bore, live cartridge and one casing of the
cartridge were seized. Thereafter, Dehati Nalishi was prepared and
based on it FIR was registered. During investigation, spot map was
prepared, the seized pistols and cartridges were got examined,
statements of witnesses were recorded and permission from the
District Magistrate was obtained for prosecution. After completing usual
investigation, charge sheet under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was filed before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 399, 402 of
IPC and Sections 25(1)(C) and 27 of the Arms Act against the accused
persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial.
04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 08
witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence
and false implication. In their defence, they examined one Narayan
Singh as DW-1.
05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned above.
06. During the course of trial, one of the accused namely Mangilal
passed away and during pendency of this appeal, accused/appellants
No.1 & 2 namely Aashish & Jagram also expired. As such, the present
appeal in respect of appellants No. 1 & 2 stood abated and it now
survives only in respect of accused/appellants No. 3 & 4 namely
Munna Singh @ Anil Singh & Manoj Singh.
07. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on
record. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the seizure of
arms at the instance of the accused/appellants whereas the seizure
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are
contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses but learned trial Court did not appreciate it. The prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges by
extending them benefit of doubt.
08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that in view of oral and
documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being
without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the
appellants were charged under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and Sections
25(1)(C) and 27 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced
them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
11. Learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove
its case under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25(1)(C) of
the Arms Act. However, on the basis of statement of PW-7 TR Sahu,
Investigating Officer, convicted the appellants under Section 25(1)(B) of
the Arms Act.
12. It is clear from the records that memorandum and seizure
witnesses namely PW-1 Gyanchand Jaiswal and PW-2 Amardas have
not supported the prosecution case and they only admitted their
signatures on the documents. The prosecution declared them hostile
and cross-examined where they denied all the suggestions of the
prosecution.
13. PW-4 Anand Kumar Jaiswal states that five persons were caught
in the forest who disclosed about the hidden cartridges and pistols and
on their production, five cartridges and pistol were seized. In para 2 he
clearly states that at the time of their arrest, nothing was seized from
them. However, he admits his signature on seizure memos Ex.P/1 to
P/8. In para 7 he admits that he did not read the memorandum
statement and as the police told him that they are making seizure of
the articles seized, he signed the documents without reading. He
states that he does not remember as to what statement was given by
the accused to the police. He volunteers that as the incident is five
years old, therefore, he does not remember now.
14. PW-7 TR Sahu, investigating officer, states that he recorded
memorandum statements of all the accused persons and consequently
seized pistols and cartridges. In cross-examined he admits that the
place from where the articles were seized does not belong to the
accused persons.
15. Learned trial Court in para 16 of the impugned judgment
observed that at the time of arrest, no weapon was seized from the
accused persons and the prosecution failed to prove that they gathered
in the forest for commission of any dacoity and on this ground,
acquitted them of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.
However, on the basis of statement of the investigating officer, learned
trial Court found that the pistols and the cartridges were seized from
the accused persons whereas the memorandum and seizure witnesses
(PW-1 and PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case and denied
the suggestion that any seizure was made at the instance of the
accused persons. Further, PW-4 Anand Kumar Jaiswal, an
independent witness, has also not identified the accused as the
persons who were caught in the forest with arms and he only states
that five persons were caught at that time. Thus, in view of the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be said
that the prosecution has proved its case against the
accused/appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge under Section 25(1-B)
of the Arms Act.
16. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed and
the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 25(1-
B) of the Arms Act. The impugned judgment stands modified to the
above extent.
The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in
view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, each of them is also
directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be
effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the
event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or
for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon
shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment
be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance
and necessary action.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Digitally
signed by
MOHD
MOHD AKHTAR
AKHTAR KHAN
Date:
KHAN 2025.07.23
16:42:02
+0530
Judge
Khan
