Laallu Kumar Yadav Alias Lallu Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:11616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.06 of 2019

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 06.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.200 of 2017, arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No.64 of 2016 (G.R. No.518 of 2016)]

¶4

Laallu Kumar Yadav @ Lallu Kumar Yadav @ Lalu Kumar Yadav, Aged about 28 Years S/o Badri Yadav @ Badri Yadaw, R/o Chorpahara P/O Hussainabad P/S Hussainabad Distt. Palamu, Jharkhand.

¶5

Krishna Yadav @ Jhari Yadav Aged about 24 Years S/O Lallu Yadav R/O Amhi P/O Hussainabad P/S Hussainabad Distt. Palamu. ….. Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

For the Appellants : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P ---------

¶11

Order No.06/ Dated: 21st April, 2026

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned A.P.P.

¶13

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No.200 of 2017, arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No.64 of 2016 (G.R. No.518 of 2016), whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 25(1-b) A/ 26/ 35 of the Arms Act, and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each

¶14

- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶15

2026:JHHC:11616

¶16

for the offence under Section 25(1-b) A/ 35 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they have further been directed to undergo S.I for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶17

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Hussainabad P.S. Case No.64 of 2016 under Sections 25(1-b)A/ 26/ 35 of the Arms Act.

¶18

The prosecution story, in short, is that the informant Vyas Ram, S.I., has alleged that on 31.3.2016, he was on patrolling and raid regarding selling of illegal liquor, along with Umakant Tiwary, ASI, Hussainabad P.S. and team of armed force consisting of Ajit Kumar, Shravan Ram, Rakesh Kr. Singh and Rajendra Baitha all police personnel was there. At about 14:00 hours, he received information that Bhanja of dreaded nuxali Ajay Yadav namely, Jhari Yadav is sitting near Shisham tree. Thereafter he proceeded towards Hurhi River Shmashan ghat at about 02.20 P.M and saw that on seeing police party two boys started to flee away but on chase they were apprehended. The apprehended persons disclosed their names as Lallu Yadav and Krishna Yadav @ Jhari Yadav. In presence of two witnesses, namely, Ajit Kr. Ravi, constable and Chotu Kumar Chandravanshi, search was made upon their body and one country made pistol loaded with live cartridge of 12 bore and one live cartridge of 12 bore from right pocket

¶19

- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶20

2026:JHHC:11616

¶21

of pant recovered from the possession of accused Krishna Yadav @ Jhari Yadav and from the possession of second accused Lallu Yadav two live cartridges were recovered. The accused persons could not produce any paper regarding the seized arms and ammunition. Thereafter in presence of aforesaid independent witnesses, the informant prepared seizure list of the said articles and seized, upon which both independent witnesses put their signatures and copy of the said seizure list was handed over to the accused persons also. On the basis of aforesaid self statement, the instant case was registered as Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 64/16, under Sections 25(1-b)A,26 and 35 of Arms Act against the accused persons.

¶22

The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge under Sections 25(1-A)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act against the present appellants. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

¶23

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

¶24

5. P.W.-1, Shravan Ram , is a member of the raiding party and supported the case of the prosecution.

¶25

In cross-examination, at para – 17, he has stated that when the Officer-in-Charge was searching the accused, no

¶26

- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶27

2026:JHHC:11616

¶28

one was present there and the search of the officer-incharge was not done.

¶29

6. P.W.-2, Md. Rahbar Khan , is also a member of the raiding party and he has supported the case of the prosecution.

¶30

He has stated that when officer-in-charge was searching the accused, he was about 20 meter away from the place of search.

¶31

7. P.W.-3, Ajit Kumar Ravi, is also a member of the raiding part and he has stated that the officer in-charge has seized the arms, but he has not been checked by any of the persons before seizure.

¶32

8. P.W.-4, Umakant Tiwary is also a member of the raiding party.

¶33

In his cross-examination, he has stated that no case was pending against both the apprehended persons.

¶34

9. P.W.-5, Vyas Ram, is the informant of the case.

¶35

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had made search upon the accused persons and before search he was not searched.

¶36

P.W.-6, Samir Kumar, is the Sergeant Major and he has stated that he has received the articles in a sealed condition and after test returned in sealed with cloth.

¶37

In cross-examination, he has stated that on the 12 bore country made pistol, there is no signature of independent witness or police witness but bears the signature of officer-in-charge. He has stated that on the

¶38

- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶39

2026:JHHC:11616

¶40

basis of his experience, he has written his report so far as the seized ammunition is concerned.

¶41

11. P.W.-7, Mithileshwar Ojha, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has identified and proved the endorsement of official marked as Ext.-4.

¶42

In cross-examination, he has admitted that signature of any independent witnesses or the family members of the accused persons is not there on the arrest memo. He has also stated that he had not mentioned the name of the persons in the case diary who had disclosed the place of occurrence to him. He has also admitted that the accused persons have no criminal antecedent.

¶43

12. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has recorded the finding that though they have been charged for the offence under Sections 25-1A/ 35 and 26(2)/ 35 of the Arms Act and being a lessor offence, they have been punished under Sections 25(1B)(a)/ 35 and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced them as stated above.

¶44

13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

¶45

14. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds :

¶46

(i) There is no sealing of the arms at the place of occurrence and further, there is no marking on the seized articles.

¶47

- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶48

2026:JHHC:11616

¶49

(ii) The witnesses have clearly stated that the person, who has seized the arms, has not been checked by any of the persons.

¶50

(iii) There is no independent witness in this case.

¶51

(iv) All the witnesses have clearly stated that they are not the witnesses to the seizure, rather they were at some distance.

¶52

(v) Even the Sergeant Major has stated that on the basis of his experience, he has written his report so far as the seized ammunition is concerned.

¶53

15. Referring to the above statements of the witnesses, it has been submitted that in fact, it is a case of no evidence. The possibility of false seizure and manipulation has not been ruled out by the prosecution and for that purpose he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 1995 Sup (3) Supreme Court Cases 217.

¶54

On the above basis, prayer has been made that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, be quashed and set aside and the appellants, be acquitted.

¶55

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, stating that although there is no independent witnesses, but the police witnesses are there and they have supported the seizure of the arms and appellants could not produce any document to justify the keeping of the arms.

¶56

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶57

- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶58

2026:JHHC:11616

¶59

from perusal of the records, it appears to this Court that :-

¶60

(a) It is quite clear that the seizure has been made by one single person and he has not been searched which is sine qua non . Thus, the evaluation of witnesses clearly suggests that the prosecution has not ruled out the false implication of the appellants by P.W. -5, i.e., the informant.

¶61

(b) Neither sealing of the arms has been made at the spot, nor no marking has been made. Thus, the possibility of manipulation cannot be ruled out. (c) The prosecution story has been started with the prohibited arms, but it was not even the prohibited arms.

¶62

(d) The ammunition seized has not been even tested, as has been stated by the Sergeant Major. Thus, this Court finds that the entire prosecution story is full of doubt and on such doubtful consideration, no person can be convicted.

¶63

18. In view of above discussion, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No.200 of 2017 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶64

19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶65

20 . The appellant is on the bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

¶66

- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.06 of 2019

¶67

2026:JHHC:11616

¶68

21. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

¶69

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)