2026:CGHC:12662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 384 of 2017 Lallan Singh S/o Jaiprakash Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Manjholi, Police Station Nadi Nagar, District-

Aurangabad, Bihar.

... Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Appellant : Mr. SC Verma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. ML Sahu & Mr.

Naqeeb, Advocates.

For the State/Respondent : Mr. Suresh Tandon, PL.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

17.03.2026

1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment

dated 16.02.2017 passed in Session Trial No.76/2016 by which

learned Session Judge, Bilaspur, (CG), has convicted the

appellant for offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (B) of

the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for

03 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.04.2016 at about

6.15 p.m. present appellant and other 07 co-accused persons assembled with preparation for committing the Dacoity at village -Tikarikhar with weapons. The police on receiving aforesaid information from an informer raided the alleged spot and rounded up them, upon which, they admitted of having assembled there with preparation to commit the Dacoity and one sword (तलवा(cid:4)र) was also seized from the possession of present applicant. Based upon which, FIR was registered against the appellant alongwith co-accused persons.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and Section

25 (1-B)(B) of Arms Act.

4. In order to prove guilt of appellant-accused, prosecution examined total 12 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. After completion of trial and hearing both the parties, the

learned trial Court acquitted the appellant and other co-

accused persons from the charges under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, however, convicted and sentence the present appellant under Section 25 (1-B)(B) of Arms Act. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence/witnesses in accordance with law. Impugned judgment is passed on surmises and conjectures as the evidence laid by the prosecution to establish the charge against the appellant is not trustworthy and reliable as they suffers from the material contradiction and omission; there have been several lacunae making the prosecution story of occurrence highly unbelievable and incredible under the facts and circumstances of the case. Prosecution has absolutely failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing trustworthy and cogent evidence being capable of inspiring the confidence of the Court for bringing home the charges against the appellant. Learned Counsel further contended that prosecution has failed to prove and even produce the notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959. All the prosecution witnesses are the Police Officials and there is no any independent witness in this case, therefore, prosecution story is highly unreliable. Trial Court convicted the appellant only on the basis of evidence of the Police Officials, which is not acceptable in the eyes of law. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court