Allowed¶78

Banti Vishwakarma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2026Cr.A(SJ)/57/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC criminal appeal allowed; conviction under Sections 399/402 IPC and Arms Act Sections 25(1-B)a/35, 26/35 quashed for no evidence; preparation for dacoity not proved; seizure list without date/time, prepared at Thana, articles unsealed; seized arms not test-fired; only official police witnesses; no independent witness or identification parade; Sessions Trial No.197 of 2016, Dhanbad; Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.433 of 2015; appellants discharged from bail bond; Rajesh Kumar, J.; decision dated 15.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed and disposed of: conviction (14.12.2018) and sentence (17.12.2018) quashed and set aside qua the appellants; appellants, being on bail, discharged from liability of bail bond. ¶78

Banti Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed and disposed of: conviction (14.12.2018) and sentence (17.12.2018) quashed and set aside qua the appellants; appellants, being on bail, discharged from liability of bail bond.

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether there was any evidence on record that the accused were making preparation for dacoity (Sections 399/402 IPC). +3 more

¶62

Court's answer

There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused were preparing for dacoity.

¶73

Ratio / Principle

This Court found it to be a case of no evidence and held the judgment of conviction to be bad in law.

¶19

Key takeaways

The seizure list does not contain date and time, as accepted by the Investigating Officer himself.ratio¶71
Whether the seized arms were capable of firing was not tested, as accepted by P.W.-7.ratio¶72
The judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge - XVI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.197 of 2016 are quashed and set aside so far as the present appellants are concerned.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeals (allowed) — Banti Vishwakarma, Raja Yadav and Arjun Kumar Hajra challenged their conviction under Sections 399/402 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a/35 & 26/35 of the Arms Act (Sessions Trial No.197 of 2016, District & Additional Sessions Judge - XVI, Dhanbad, arising out of Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.433 of 2015), founded on an alleged night-time preparation for dacoity near Jorapokhar railway gate in December 2015 with recoveries of bhujali, countrymade pistols and a sword. All eight prosecution witnesses were official police witnesses. Defects established on record: seizure list contained no date or time and was admittedly prepared at the police station; seized articles were not sealed or marked; no identification parade or independent witness; the weapons were never test-fired or examined for trigger pressure. Held: the case was one of no evidence and the conviction was bad in law; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were quashed and set aside qua the appellants, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were discharged from their bail-bond liability. Single judge: Rajesh Kumar, J. (15.06.2026).

¶1

2026:JHHC:17192

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.57 of 2019 With Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.60 of 2019 With

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.267 of 2019

¶4

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2018 and Order of sentence dated 17.12.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – XVI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.197 of 2016, arising out of Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.433 of 2015, corresponding to G.R No.6244 of 2015]

¶5

Banti Vishwakarma aged about 28 years son of Late Bhim Vishwakarma, resident of Bhoura 16No., P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Jorapokhar (Bhowra O.P), District – Dhanbad.

¶6

..... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.57 of 2019]

¶7

Raja Yadav, aged about 20 years, son of Binod Yadav, resident of Bhoura No.16, P.O. Bhoura, P.S. Jorapokhar ( Bhoura O.P), District – Dhanbad. ..... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.60 of 2019]

¶8

Arjun Kumar Hajra, aged about 23 Years, son of Sri Jai Chand Hajra, resident of Bhoura 16No., P.O. Bhaga, P.S. orapokhar ( Bhoura O.P), District – Dhanbad.

¶9

..... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.267 of 2019]

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent [in all the Cr. Appeals ]

¶12

PRESENT

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

For the Appellants : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.57 of 2019] Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.60 of 2019] Mr. R. C. Sahu, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.267 of 2019] For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P ---------

¶15

Order No.09/ Dated: 15th June, 2026

¶16

1. The captioned appeals arise out of a common

¶17

- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶18

2026:JHHC:17192

¶19

judgment, hence the same have been clubbed and heard together and being disposed of with a common judgment.

¶20

2. Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Mrs. J. Mazumdar and Mr. R. C. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

¶21

3. The present appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge - XVI, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.197 of 2016, arising out of Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.433 of 2015 (G.R. No.6244 of 2015), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 399/ 402 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC)and Sections 25(1-B)a/35, 26/35 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 399 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 402 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Sections 25(1B)a/35 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Sections 26/ 35 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶22

4. The prosecution story, in short, as per the informant

¶23

- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶24

2026:JHHC:17192

¶25

Sudama Prasad ASI Jorapokhar filed a written report stating inter alia that in intervening night of 24/25-122015, he along with police personnel were on night petrolling, in course of that at about 1:00 A.M. in night they reached in front of railway gate, Jorapokhar no.1, then they saw that two persons were coming. On ground of suspicion, he tried to interrogate them but on seeing police party, they started fleeing, however they were caught. On being interrogated, they disclosed their name as Raja Yadav and Arjun Kumar Hajra and on search one bhujali recovered from the waist of Arjun Kumar Hajra. Thereafter, seizure list has been prepared. On being interrogated, miscreants disclosed that they were making preparation of committing dacoity and their other associates stayed in Railway quarter situated at Bhaga Niche Kulhi. Thereafter, the said accused persons have been arrested. It is further alleged that the police party along with arrested accused persons reached at Bhaga Niche Kulhi at about 1:45 O'clock in the night and surrounded the quarter. Upon search, four miscreants were found present in the said quarter. On interrogation, they disclosed their name as Ainul Ansari, Shankar Verma @ Shankar Sonar, Banti Viswakarma and Ravi Kumar. On search one countrymade pistol from the waist of Ravi Kumar, one country made pistol with loaded cartridge from the waist of Ainul Ansari, and one sword from the possession of Banti Vishwakarma have been recovered. Thereafter, seizure list was prepared

¶26

- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶27

2026:JHHC:17192

¶28

and copy of it, was given to the miscreants. On being interrogated, they disclosed that they were making preparation for dacoity and for that Raja Yadav and Arjun Kumar Hajra were sent to Jorapokhar no.1 for watching (Recce). Thereafter, said accused persons have been arrested.

¶29

On the basis of above information of the informant, Jorapokhar P.S Case No.433 of 2015 dated 25.12.2015 has been registered under Sections 399/ 402 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act, against the present appellants and others and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons and others and the charge has been framed under Sections 399/ 402 IPC and 25(1-B)a/ 35 & 26/35 of the Arms Act against the appellants.

¶30

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.

¶31

5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses, who are all official witnesses, and their depositions, in brief, are as follows:-

¶32

6. P.W.-1, Kumar Shambhu Saran, Head Constable,

¶33

is the member of the police party and he has supported the prosecution case. He has deposed in chief examination that the seizure list was prepared before him and he has put his signature on the same.

¶34

- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶35

2026:JHHC:17192

¶36

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the seizure list was prepared at the police station and he cannot say that who had prepared the same. He has further stated that the date, time and case number were also not mentioned in the seizure list. The alleged seized articles were seized from whom that has also not been mentioned in the seizure list.

¶37

7. P.W.-2, Anil Tigga, A.S.I, is also member of the police party and he has also supported the case.

¶38

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the seized articles were not sealed and no identification mark was put on the same. He has further deposed that no date as well as time was written in the seizure list. He has also admitted that no identification parade has been conducted.

¶39

8. P.W.-3, Jalendra Bhuihar, Constable, is also

¶40

member of the police team. He has put his signature on the seizure list (Ext.-1/2).

¶41

In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Sudama Prasad Yadav told him that the articles were recovered from possession of accused persons. He has also deposed that he could not say whether the same was sealed or not?

¶42

9. P.W.-4, Shankar Kumar Gope, is Home Guard and member of the police party and he has also supported the prosecution case.

¶43

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the statement of any independent witness was not taken at the place of occurrence. He has further admitted that the

¶44

- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶45

2026:JHHC:17192

¶46

seized articles were not sealed at his presence.

¶47

10. P.W.-5, Rajesh Rajwar, Constable , is also member

¶48

of the police party. He has put his signature on the seizure list (Ext.-1/2) as witness.

¶49

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the date and time of seizure was not mentioned in the seizure list. Further, the seizure list was not signed by any local witnesses as it was night. The seized articles were sealed before him, but the same was not marked.

¶50

11. P.W.-6, Sudama Prasad, A.S.I., is the informant of the case and has supported the prosecution case.

¶51

In cross-examination, he has admitted that no date and time was mentioned in the seizure list. He has admitted that the seized articles were not sealed.

¶52

12. P.W.-7, Ravindra Prasad , Dy. S.P., is the Sergeant Major and he has examined the seized articles..

¶53

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not done test fire of the seized weapon. He has not examined the accuracy of the trigger pressure. He has not made any mark upon the tested articles and also not sealed the same after examinatiom.

¶54

13. P.W.-8, Pradeep Sawaiya , A.S.I., is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has recorded the statement of the accused as well as the informant.

¶55

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the date, time and day were not written on the seizure list.

¶56

14. On consideration of above materials on record, the

¶57

- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶58

2026:JHHC:17192

¶59

trial Court has found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 399/ 402 of the IPC and Sections 25(1B)a/35, 26/35 of the Arms Act, and sentenced them, as stated above.

¶60

15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, only three accused persons namely, Banti Vishwakarma, Raja Yadav and Arjun Kumar Hajra have preferred the present appeals.

¶61

16. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, has submitted that :-

¶62

(i) so far as preparation of dacoity is concerned, there is no evidence on record.

¶63

(ii) so far as recovery of arms is concerned that has not been sealed and the seizure list has been prepared at the Thana itself, as per the statement of the witness i.e. P.W. - 2 namely, Anil Tigga, A.S.I. (iii) the seizure list is blank, neither the date nor the time is written on the same, which has been admitted by the investigating officer itself.

¶64

(iv) whether the seized arms were capable of firing or not, even that has not been examined, as has been accepted by P.W.-7. Neither pressure has been checked nor it has been fired.

¶65

On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of no evidence and the conviction of the appellants is bad in law.

¶66

- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶67

2026:JHHC:17192

¶68

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, by referring to the statement of the witnesses made in the main examination, it has been submitted that the witnesses have stated that the accused have committed the crime, but she could not point out, who has said that the accused were preparing for dacoity neither she can point out any material to suggest that the seizure list was having date and time.

¶69

18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :-

¶70

(i) it is a case of no evidence as is evident from perusal of the record.

¶71

(ii) the seizure list itself, does not contain date and time, as has been accepted by the investigating officer himself.

¶72

(iii) the seized arms were capable of firing or not, that has not been tested, as has been accepted by P.W.-7.

¶73

(iv) there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused were preparing for dacoity .

¶74

19. Thus, this Court finds that it is a case of no evidence and as such, the judgment of conviction is bad in law. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge - XVI, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.197 of 2016, arising out of

¶75

- 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2019 with analogous cases

¶76

2026:JHHC:17192

¶77

Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.433 of 2015 (G.R. No.6244 of 2015) is, hereby, quashed and set aside, so far as the present appellants are concerned.

¶78

20. In the result, the appeals stand allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶79

21. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond.

¶80

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