IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 901 of 2025 ….

Munshi Mahto …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..… Respondent -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -----

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey , A P. P.

……

I. A. No. 13962 of 2025

05/15.01.2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2025 and sentence dated 19.09.2025 passed by Sri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar (Mufassil) P. S. Case No. 1220 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 4423 of 2015 [S. T. No. 58 of 2016] by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections - -

25(1 A)/35 and 25(1 B)a/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven (7) years and to pay the fine of - -

Rs. 10,000/ for the offence under Section 25(1 A)/35 of the Arms Act and R.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay the - -

fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence under Section 25(1 B)/a35 of the Arms Act.

However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. I. A. No. 13962 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 430 (1) of BNSS for the suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal.

-

3. As per the FIR, on the disclosure of the appellant Munshi Mahto that all the accused persons involved in the murder of one Nirmal Mahato are coming at Milan Hotel, -

Demotand. Thereafter, a raid was conducted by the Officer In charge, Birju Ganjhu at Milan Hotel, Demotand and on seeing the police party, the accused persons started fleeing away, however, the police personnel had apprehended Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao and who was identified on the disclosure of the appellant. It is submitted that a loaded country made pistol with four (4) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Samsung Mobile had been - -

recovered from the possession of co accused Bhuneshwar Mahto, whereas a loaded country made pistol with two (2) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Mobile phone had been - -

recovered from the possession of co accused Pradeep Mahto -

and one mobile phone from the accused Jageshwar Mahto and -

one mobile phone from the accused Prakash Sao had been recovered.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case by the Informant. It is submitted that on the disclosure of the appellant, the police had apprehended the other accused persons namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao and from the - -

possession of co accused Bhuneshwar Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with four (4) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Samsung Mobile had been recovered and from the possession - -

of co accused Pradeep Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with two (2) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Mobile phone had been recovered and one mobile phone from the -

accused Jageshwar Mahto and one mobile phone from the -

accused Prakash Sao had been recovered.

6. It is submitted that the appellant was in police custody and as such, no firearms was recovered from the possession of the appellant, rather recovery had been made from the -

possession of the other co accused namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao and the trial of other accused namely Jageshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao were separated.

7. It is submitted that during trial, the appellant was in custody from 17.10.2015 to 12.04.2019 i.e. for around three (3) years and six (6) months and after co