Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Kumar, J.
Laallu Kumar Yadav @ Lallu Kumar Yadav @ Lalu Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.06 of 2019
Decided On : 21-04-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P
Failure to observe mandatory procedural safeguards, including the personal search of the seizing officer and the immediate sealing of recovered evidence, compromises the integrity of the investigation and creates reasonable doubt, rendering a conviction untenable.
Headnote:(A) Arms Act - Sections 25(1-b)A, 26 and 35 - Prosecution for illegal possession of firearms - Requirement of personal search of the seizing officer - Where the person conducting the search is not searched himself, the integrity of the recovery is compromised - Absence of independent witnesses and failure to seal or mark seized articles at the place of occurrence provides substantial grounds for doubt - Prosecution must prove the seizure beyond reasonable doubt; failing which, the possibility of manipulation cannot be ruled out. (Paras 14, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under the relevant law regarding the illegal possession of firearms. The prosecution’s case was initiated based on the seizure of a country-made firearm and ammunition from the apprehended individuals during a patrol. No independent witnesses were present at the time of the alleged recovery, and the officer conducting the search was not subjected to a prior personal search, nor were the seized items sealed or marked at the site.
Findings of Court:
The court found the entire prosecution narrative to be plagued by doubt. The failure of the informant to undergo a search prior to conducting the recovery, combined with the lack of immediate sealing of the evidence at the scene, created significant uncertainty regarding the authenticity of the seized items.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the conviction could be sustained despite critical procedural lapses, specifically the failure to search the seizing officer, the absence of independent witnesses, and the failure to secure seized articles through proper sealing or marking.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be secured upon a doubtful case. The omission of fundamental procedural safeguards, such as the personal search of the seizing officer and the proper securing of evidence at the place of occurrence, creates a reasonable possibility of fabrication or manipulation, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial history, evidence recorded, and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. appellants contentions regarding chain of custody and evidentiary reliability. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. requirement for search, transparency, and the benefit of doubt in criminal prosecution. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. final acquittal and discharge from bail obligations. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
Rajesh Kumar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned A.P.P.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-
5. P.W.-1, Shravan Ram, is a member of the raiding party and supported the case of the prosecution.
In cross-examination, at para – 17, he has stated that when the Officer-in-Charge was searching the accused, no one was present there and the s
