Jharkhand High Court

Ramdhani Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2025

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.286 of 2006

     1. Ramdhani Oraon
     2. Deolal Oraon
        Both Sons of Saruwa Oraon, Residents of Village Hisri, P.S.
        Balumath, District Latehar.
                                               ...      Appellants

                                    Versus

     The State of Jharkhand
                                                        ...   Respondent

                                    ------
     For the Appellant        : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
     For the State            : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.
                                    ------

                          PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

                               JUDGMENT

Dated- 15.01.2025

By Court:- Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants as well as Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu,

learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 04.02.2006 and order of sentence dated

06.02.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in

Sessions Case No. 317 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the

appellants have been convicted for the offences under

Sections 25 (1-B) a, 26 of the Arms Act and has been

sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years with a fine of Rs.

2000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section

25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and R. I. for five years with a fine

of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation for the offence under

Section 26 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences are directed to

be run concurrently.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the F.I.R.

has been instituted on self-statement of Sub-Inspector Shiv

Nandan Singh, the then, Officer-in-charge, Balumath Police

Station on 03.02.1997. It has been alleged by the informant in

the FIR that on 03.02.1997 at about 13:45 hours, he along with

other police officials, on getting secret information, cordoned

the village-Hisri and nabbed about 15-20 extremists, when

they were fleeing towards the forest and in the course of

search of those persons, fire arms, country made pistol

loaded with .315 bore bullets, 12 bore bullets and explosive

substance without valid licence were recovered and seized.

4. On the basis of self-statement, Balumath P. S. Case No.

05 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of

the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act. On

completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted

against the accused persons on 04.04.1997 and after taking the

cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

Charges were framed under Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the

Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, to

which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of

the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded,

in which they have pleaded innocence and false implication.

6. During trial, altogether ten witnesses have been

examined by the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the seizure

list witness, who have been declared hostile and not

supported the seizure. P.Ws. 3 to 10 are the police officials,

who have testified that the appellants were fleeing away and

they have been nabbed and on search of their house, illegal

firearms along with detonators have been recovered. On the

strength of above evidence and recovery, the present

appellants have been convicted under Sections 25 (1-B) a and

26 of the Arms Act. Sections 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms

Act.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

one of the convict Janeshwar Mistry who has filed separate

appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.206 of 2006 has been allowed

and he was acquitted from the charge under Section 25(1-B)a

and Section 26 of the Arms Act. The case of the present

appellants also stands on similar footing and based on same

evidence. Admittedly seizure list witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and

P.W.2 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have

totally denied from the occurrence or any seizure of firearm

before them. Other witnesses are member of raiding party.

The most important thing is that any firearm was in working

condition has not been proved by the prosecution. The seized

materials were also produced before the Court without seal

and in open condition which also cast doubt on the

prosecution story. The appellants have been acquitted from

the charges under Section 3/4 of the Explosives Substances

Act. Therefore, impugned judgment and order is liable to be

set aside and appellants deserve acquittal from the charges

levelled against them.

8. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the

aforesaid contentions and defended the conviction and

sentence of the appellants.

9. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid

contentions raised on behalf of both sides and also perused

the impugned judgment and order along with materials

available on record.

10. In order to arrive at definite conclusion, the relevant

provision of law involved in this case is required to be

discussed. Sections 2 (e) (i) and 25(1-B) a of the Arms Act are

quoted hereinbelow:

"2. Definitions and interpretation.― (e) "firearms"

means arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes--

(i) artillery, hand-grenades, riot-pistols or weapons of any kind designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other such thing,

25. Punishment for certain offences.― (1B) Whoever--

(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or

(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or

(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturer's number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by sub-section (2) of

Cr.A(SJ) No.286 of 2006 Page | 5 section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub- section (1) of that section; or

(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-

clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or

(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or

(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or

(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or

(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 21; or

(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that the Court may for any adequate and

Cr.A(SJ) No.286 of 2006 Page | 6 special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than two years."

11. Thus, law is clear that if a person in possession or

carries arms in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act,

then only offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a can be

said to be committed. Admittedly in the present case, seizure

list witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been declared

hostile by the prosecution and no manufacturing items have

been recovered from the house of the appellants. As per the

cross-examination of P.W.7 Mahendra Paswan, he has

admitted that 12 pieces of detonators were found, pistol,

which is rusted, was not in condition for use and cartridge of

.12 bore could not be loaded in the pistol of 0.315 bore. As

such there is no evidence on record to suggest that the

appellants were in possession of any arms. In the absence of

any material evidence constituting the offence under the

Arms Act, conviction of the appellants is not sustainable.