Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:8813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2022 and the order of sentence dated 28.02.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Session
Trial No.45 of 2015 arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No.31 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.778
of 2014.]
----
Mangal Laguri @ Mangal Singh Laguri, Aged about 28 years, son of Rameshwar Laguri, Resident of village Baihatu, P.O.+P.S.- Tonto, District -
West Singhbhum. .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent(s)
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Birat Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2022 and the order of sentence dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Session Trial No.45 of 2015 arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No.31 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.778 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a read with Sections 35 and 27(1) read with Sections 35 of the Arms Act and had been sentenced for one year six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a read with Sections 35 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 27 (1) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and further rigorous imprisonment for 2026:JHHC:8813 one year for the offence under Section 353/34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.12.2014 the appellant who is wanted in a case was roaming along with his friends and the informant along with the police officials went to apprehend the appellant but there was cross firing and after some time, when the firing stopped then the police party found some fired cartridges shell and one person namely Sandip Tanti was apprehended and he disclosed the name of the appellant as the person, who fired upon the police party and Sandip Tanti was apprehended and later on the appellant was also apprehended by the police.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the present criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being Tonto P.S. Case No.31 of 2014 dated 27.12.2014 under Sections 307, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a/35, 26/35, 27/35 of the Arms Act against the accused.
5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet under Sections 307/353/34 IPC and under Section 25(1-B)a, 26/35, 27/35 of the Arms Act on 25.02.2015 and the trial court had framed charges against the appellant and one Sandip Tanti under Section 307/353/34 IPC and under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26/35 and 27/35 of the Arms Act on 20.08.2015. Later on, Sandip Tanti had absconded and the case of the appellant was separated. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether twelve witnesses had been examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1 Girja Singh and P.W.2 Rajendra Paswan, had stated same version in their examination-in-chief. Both had deposed that one of the co-accused namely Sandeep Tanti was apprehended at the spot, who disclosed the name of the appellant.
In the cross-examination P.W.-1 could not identify the appellant and unaware of certain details regarding seizure, Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8813 including sealing and production of the weapon before the Court and P.W.-2 also stated that he did not know the appellant earlier.
P.W.3 Bamshankar Yadav (Informant), deposed that on 27.12.2014, while posted at Tonto P.S., he received secret information that wanted accused Mangal Singh Laguri was present with associates at village Baralisia. Acting on the information, he led a police party to the spot, where the accused persons fled and opened fire. Despite warning, firing continued, compelling the police to retaliate in self- defence.
After the incident, two empty shells, one country-made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered, and one accused, Sandeep Tanti, was apprehended, who disclosed the name of Mangal Singh Laguri. Subsequently, Mangal Singh Laguri was found injured nearby and sent for treatment. The informant prepared the seizure list at the place of occurrence and proved the seized articles in Court. He also proved the written report and formal FIR and identified the accused persons.
In cross-examination, he admitted that no firearm was recovered from Mangal Singh Laguri, no independent witness was present at seizure, the seized weapon was not sent for forensic examination, and certain procedural details regarding seizure and identification were not fully established.
P.W.4 Smt. Meena Hansda @ Jano Hansda and P.W.5 Jena Hembrom @ Somay Hembrom, had turned hostile.
P.W.6 Devilal Besra, deposed that on 27.12.2014, while posted as A.S.I. at Tonto P.S., he accompanied the police party led by P.W.3 on secret information regarding the Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8813 presence of wanted accused Mangal Singh Laguri at village Baralisia. On reaching the spot, 2-3 persons fled and opened fire on the police, which continued despite warning, leading to retaliatory firing by the police.
After the firing ceased, two empty shells, one country- made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered. One accused, Sandeep Tanti, was apprehended, who disclosed the name of co-accused Mangal Singh Laguri. Subsequently, Mangal Singh Laguri was found injured nearby and was arrested and sent for medical treatment. The witness identified the accused in Court. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not fire, only P.W.3 fired from the police side, no independent witnesses were present, and certain details regarding the occurrence and seizure were not clearly known to him.
P.W.7 Sukhram Hansda, deposed that he had no direct knowledge of the occurrence and had only heard that firing took place between police and criminals. He was not examined by the police during investigation. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not witnessed the incident, did not know who informed him, and had deposed only upon receiving Court summons. P.W.8 Karam Singh Munda and P.W.-9 Tanuj Kumar Ghorai, are constable and at the time of occurrence they were posted at Tonto Police Station. Both accompanied the police party. In examination-in-Chief, P.W.-8 and P.W.9 stated that after the firing ceased, one country made pistol, one live cartridge and empty shells were recovered. In the cross-examination, P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 specifically stated that no arms were recovered from the possession of the appellant.
Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8813 P.W.10 Anil Kumar Singh, stated in his examination-in- chief that he was posted as a Sergeant Major (प रचारी वर) at the Police Centre, Chaibasa. On 06.02.2015, he examined a sealed packet containing the seized articles at the Police Centre, Chaibasa, as per Court's order. Upon opening, he found one .315 bore country-made pistol, one live cartridge and two empty shells. He opined that the firearm was in working condition and prepared the examination report.
In cross-examination, he stated that he could not say what was written on the sealing cloth, whether any accused had signed on the exhibits, from whom the articles were seized, or whether the weapon was test-fired.
P.W.11 Gajendra Prasad Singh (Investigating Officer), deposed that on 27.12.2014, while posted as Officer-in- Charge, Tonto P.S., he took up investigation on the basis of the written report of P.W.3 and proved the FIR. He inspected two places of occurrence--first, where firing took place and from where one country-made pistol, one live cartridge and two empty shells were recovered; and second, where injured accused Mangal Singh Laguri was found and apprehended.
He recorded statements of witnesses, got the injured treated and sent to MGM Hospital, and sent the seized firearm for examination. After completing investigation and obtaining sanction, he submitted charge-sheet against both accused under relevant provisions of IPC and Arms Act. He identified the accused in Court.
In cross-examination, he admitted that the seized articles were recovered from the place of occurrence and not from the possession of any accused, no independent local witnesses were examined at the first place of occurrence, Page | 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8813 no articles were seized from the second place, and certain aspects of investigation were not verified. P.W.12 Dr. Tapas Mahto, deposed that he identified the discharge certificate of injured accused Mangal Singh Laguri, prepared by late Dr. A.K. Mishra on 21.01.2015, and proved the same.
In cross-examination, he stated that the certificate was not prepared in his presence and he had no knowledge of the nature of injury or treatment of the patient.
7. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the allegations were denied.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:
(i) The essential ingredients of Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act are not made out, as the alleged recovery is not from the conscious possession of any of the accused persons, nor from any place in their joint or exclusive possession.
(ii) There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the firing made by one and another accused.
(iii) The ingredients of Section 353 IPC is also missing as there is no allegation that the police personnel has anyhow been deterred in performance of duty.
(iv) As per the prosecution story, one of the accused was got injured from the service revolver of the informant but no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record regarding firing made by the service revolver save and except the bald statement of the informant.
(v) The seizure witness are the police personnel himself and the independent witness as produced has been declared hostile.
Page | 6 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8813
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence and it has been submitted that there was firing by the accused and two empty cartridges and fire arm have been recovered from the open place. There are fire arm injuries to this appellant.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that:
(i) The injury to the present appellant has not been explained or led any evidence by the prosecution.
(ii) The service revolver has neither been examined, nor has any material pertaining to firing from the said revolver been produced before the court.
(iii) There is no evidence suggesting that this appellant has made the firing.
(iv) There is no recovery of any fire arms from the conscious possession of this appellant.
11. Thus, all the necessary ingredients for conviction under Sections 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-B)(a) read with Sections 35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act are not made out in the present appeal. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the conviction under Sections 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-B)(a) read with Sections 35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. The appellant is already on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
14. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 30th March, 2026 Amar/NAFR Uploaded Page | 7 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.280 of 2022