Dismissed¶¶44

Lallu Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Arms Act – conviction under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 affirmed

Jharkhand HC1 Jul 2026Cr.Rev./271/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lallu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand, Cr. Revision No. 271 of 2017, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J., decided 01.07.2026 (2026:JHHC:19149) — Arms Act Sections 25(1-B)a and 26; Barkakana Rail P.S. Case No. 33 of 2008; G.R. Case No. 2228 of 2008; conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds and sureties discharged.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to the period already undergone; petitioner discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds and sureties discharged; pending I.A(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶¶44

Lallu Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Sentence modified to the period already undergone; petitioner discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds and sureties discharged; pending I.A(s), if any, disposed of accordingly.

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, as affirmed by the learned appellate Court, calls for interference — noting that learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the merits of the conviction. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court is affirmed, the petitioner having been found in possession of an effective and functional pistol and cartridges produced by P.W.-10 Bilfred Lakra and inspected by P.W.-13, Sergeant Major Naveen Kumar Lakra, the ballistic expert.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since the occurrence is of the year 2008, near about two decades have elapsed, the petitioner is now leading a normal life, has suffered the long agony of the trial and has remained in custody for 9 months, no useful purpose would be served by sending him again to jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

The sentence of the petitioner is modified to the extent of the period already undergone by the petitioner.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arms Act — conviction under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 affirmed — recovery of effective and functional pistol and cartridges from train bogey No. EC06437 proved through P.W.-10 and ballistic expert P.W.-13; revision not pressed on merits. Sentence, however, modified to the period already undergone (petitioner in custody about 9 months), as the occurrence of 2008 is nearly two decades old and the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial — criminal revision dismissed on merits with modification of sentence; petitioner and sureties discharged from bail bonds; pending I.A(s) disposed of.

¶1

2026:JHHC:19149

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 271 of 2017

¶4

------

¶5

Lallu Singh, Son of Guna Singh, Resident of Village-Aan, P.O. & P.S.-Chandwa, Dist. Latehar, State-Jharkhand

¶6

… .... …. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. ----------PRESENT

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS

¶10

----------

¶11

Dated:01^st July, 2026

¶12

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State.

¶13

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 18^th August, 2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.46 of 2013 by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Latehar, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2013 in Barkakana Rail P.S. Case No. 33 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2228 of 2008 (T.R. No. 410 of 2013) passed by Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj directing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 25 (1-B)a of Arms Act and further R.I. for 1 year and fine Rs. 1000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act, has been upheld. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently, with default stipulation.

¶14

Factual Matrix:-

¶15

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that on 29.12.2008

¶16

at 7:00 AM, the informant received secret information that

¶17

2026:JHHC:19149

¶18

some miscreants have boarded the train to commit robbery. Thereafter, the informant along with 11 other police personnel encircled the bogey No. EC06437 and apprehended one person namely Lallu Singh (present petitioner) and on search, the police recovered some arms and ammunitions including pistol and cartridges and seizure list was prepared and petitioner was arrested.

¶19

On the basis of the written report of Informant, Barkakana Rail P.S. Case No. 33 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of Arms Act against the present petitioner.

¶20

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance was taken and charge for the aforesaid offence was framed against the accused person, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶21

In the course of trial, altogether 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence.

¶22

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated.

¶23

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 271 of 2017

¶24

¶25

2026:JHHC:19149

¶26

The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of Arms Act which was also affirmed by learned Appellate Court.

¶27

Submissions on behalf of petitioner: -

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and the petitioner has already remained in custody for 9 months. It has further been submitted that since the occurrence is of the year 2008, the case has become stale one and the petitioner has also faced the agony of the trial of this case, therefore, the petitioner has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, it is submitted that by taking lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice.

¶29

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶30

Per contra, Learned APP has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that this case is stale one, of the year 2008 and the petitioner

¶31

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 271 of 2017

¶32

¶33

2026:JHHC:19149

¶34

has remained in custody for about 9 months, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice.

¶35

: Analysis, reasons and decision

¶36

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

¶37

It appears from the evaluation of testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence as exhibited in this case that Lallu Singh (present petitioner) was in possession of effective and functional pistol and cartridges which were produced before the Court during evidence by P.W.-10 Bilfred Lakra and the same has been inspected by P.W.-13, Sergeant Major Naveen Kumar Lakra being Ballistic Expert. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby affirmed.

¶38

So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2008 and since then, near about two decades have elapsed and the petitioner is now leading a normal life who has suffered long agony of the trial and has remained in custody for 9 months, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment.

¶39

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 271 of 2017

¶40

¶41

2026:JHHC:19149

¶42

Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioner.

¶43