[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Siprian Topno @ Sipriyan Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:9991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.23 of 2019
[Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.12.2018 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2018]
----
1. Siprian Topno @ Sipriyan Topno, aged about 23 years, son of Late
Ishaque Topno
2. Shantial Topno @ Shantiyal Topno, aged about 24 years, son of Soma
Topno
Both residents of Village - Amba Banai Toli, P.O.+P.S.-Torpa,
District - Khunti. .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent(s)
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Adv.
Mr. Trisha Sagar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for
the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2018, whereby the appellants have
been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
of two years with fine of Rs.5000/- under Sections 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act
and rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.3000/- each under
Sections 26/35 of the Arms Act and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.03.2017 at about 6:30
p.m; upon telephonic information regarding assemblage of some miscreants
in Banabira forest, the informant along with police team proceeded towards
the forest area and they saw four persons who started fleeing away from the
2026:JHHC:9991
bushes However, after hectic chase, they could apprehend the appellants. On
search, a country made pistol with live cartridges and mobile with SIM were
recovered from the possession of the appellant No:1 and two cartridges with
mobile were recovered from the possession of the appellant No:2. However,
both of them had failed to produce any document in support of those
incriminating materials. Accordingly, seizure list was prepared and the
appellants were taken into custody.
4. On the basis of self-statement of the officer-in-charge of Rania Police
Station, the criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being
Rania P.S. Case No.04 of 2017 dated 29.03.2017 under Sections 399 and
402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the
Arms Act.
5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet under Sections
399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of
the Arms Act, thereafter cognizance has been taken and the trial court had
framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Sections 399 and
402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the
Arms Act. The case has been committed to the Sessions Court to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether seven witnesses have
been examined by the prosecution examined seven witnesses, all of whom
consistently supported the case regarding the raid and recovery. P.W.1
Binod Ram, the informant and Officer-in-Charge of Rania P.S., deposed that
on 29.03.2017, acting on source information received from the SP, Khunti, a
raiding team was constituted and, under the leadership of SDPO Torpa,
conducted a raid near Banabira jungle, where two persons, namely Siprian
Topno and Shantial Topno, were apprehended while two others escaped;
from their conscious possession, a country-made pistol, live cartridges of
7.62 bore, and mobile phones were recovered, for which no valid documents
were produced, and a seizure list (Ext-1) and self-statement (Ext-2) were
prepared on the spot. P.W.2 Jitendra Oraon, P.W.3 Subhit Kujur, P.W.4
Sudarshan Guria, and P.W.5, Hawaldar, Suresh Toppo, all members of the
Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.23 of 2019
2026:JHHC:9991
raiding party, corroborated the version of P.W.1 regarding the raid,
apprehension of two accused, recovery of arms and ammunition, and
preparation of seizure list, with minor variation that P.W.5 did not mention
the names of the accused. P.W.6 Navin Kumar, the Investigating Officer
conducted entire investigation and proved the formal FIR (Ext-3), described
the place of occurrence, recorded statements of witnesses, obtained the
sanction order from the District Magistrate (Ext-4), and submitted
chargesheet under Sections 399/402 IPC and 25(1-B)a/26/35 Arms Act, also
producing the seized materials before the Court. P.W.7 Alok Hemrom who
is Sergeant Major, examined the seized arms and ammunition and submitted
his report (Ext-5), confirming that the weapons were functional and capable
of causing harm. Thus, all witnesses consistently establish the raid,
apprehension of accused persons, and recovery of illegal arms and
ammunition from their possession.
7. The defence has also produced defence witness to the effect that the
police has arrested them from the house and nothing has been recovered
from their conscious possession. D.W.1 Dharam Das Singh deposed that on
29.03.2017, between 9:00 to 10:00 AM, while he was sitting near his house,
he saw police personnel taking Siprian Topno and Shantial Topno on a
motorcycle. D.W.2 Salomi Topno stated that both the accused persons were
known to her and on the same day they had come to her house and both of
them engaged as manual labourer at her house, on that day three police
personnel arrived on motorcycles, apprehended them and took them away
towards Rania P.S. Thus, both defence witnesses attempted to suggest that
the accused persons were apprehended from a place other than the alleged
place of occurrence and at a different time, thereby disputing the prosecution
version of arrest and recovery.
8. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of
the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the
allegations were denied.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of
conviction mainly on the following grounds:
Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.23 of 2019
2026:JHHC:9991
(i) Arms and ammunitions, in question, has not been sealed at
the place of occurrence which is sine qua non and this makes
the conviction unsustainable and for this purpose he has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
1995 SUPP (3) SCC 217 in the case of Amarjit Singh @
Babbu versus State of Punjab. The relevant paragraph nos.5-
8 are quoted hereinbelow:-
5. According to the learned counsel though this weapon was
seized on 27-6-1990 but was tested by PW 4 only on 28-8-
1990 i.e after about 2 months and there is absolutely no
explanation for the delay in testing the weapon. The second
infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel is that PW 3 after
seizing the weapon never sealed the weapon at the spot. The
third infirmity pointed out is that the Sub-Inspector of Police
instead of sealing the weapon handed over it to one Chhabra
Chunilal who had not been examined and who according to
PW 3 used to visit the police station. The fourth infirmity is
that Exs. P-2 and P-3 admittedly have not been sent to the
armoury.
6. After going through the evidence and the records, we see
much force in the submissions made by the learned counsel.
Leave apart the recovery, the evidence is not inspiring
confidence that the material objects Exs P-1 to 3 were
recovered in the manner as spoken to by the PWs.
7. The entire prosecution case, thus, is clouded with number
of infirmities which compel this Court not to accept such an
unworthy evidence. These infirmities have been brushed
aside by the Designated Court by observing that since the
model number of the revolver was noted down, the non-
sealing of the revolver or the handing over of the same to
some other police official or a private person, who has not
been examined are of no consequence. We are unable to
agree and subscribe to this view in a case of this nature. The
non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity
because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot
be ruled out. The report of PW 4 that the weapon is capable
of being fired is insignificant since it cannot be said with
certainty as to what was the condition of the weapon at the
time of the recovery, apart from the evidence of PW 4 that he
did not test-fire the revolver.
8. For all the observations made above, we hold that the
prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. On the other hand the circumstances appearing in this
case militate the evidentiary value of the witnesses. In the
result, the conviction and sentence are set aside, the appeal is
allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty, if not
wanted for any other cause.
Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.23 of 2019
2026:JHHC:9991
(ii) The sanction which is mandatory requirement under
Section 39 of the Arms Act has not been taken and this also
makes the trial unsustainable and the judgment of conviction
required to be quashed and set aside on that ground also.
(iii) All are the official witnesses and there is no independent
witnesses.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction stating that merely all the witnesses are the official
witnesses and that cannot be a ground for acquittal. At best, their evidence
requires to be proved, but so far as the seizure and the sanction is concerned,
the learned counsel for the State could not give any satisfactory reply.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the records, it appears that the arms and ammunitions has not been seized at
the place of occurrence and this makes the trial unsustainable as per the
mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted hereinabove.
12. In the absence of proved sanction, the entire prosecution has to fail.
13. In view of above technical difficulty which is mandatory in nature as
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the judgment of
conviction is not sustainable, accordingly, the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 13.12.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The present criminal appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
15. The appellants are on bail and as such they are discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds.
16. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
17. 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: 08th April, 2026
Amar/NAFR
Uploaded on 17.04.2026
Page | 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.23 of 2019
