Arjun Swansi vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dated: 12^th August, 2026

By Court:-

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16^th August, 2008 and order of sentence dated 19^th August, 2008 passed in S.T. No. 81 of 2006 by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IX, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the appellant have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC with default stipulation and further R.I. for three years for the offence under Sections 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.07.2005, at about 20:50 hours, S.I. Sri Manoj Kumar Thakur was working in the police station and got information from a telephonic message that one miscreant having loaded pistol in his hand in Bidyapati Nagar Lohar Basti has come to commit heinous crime. The informant S.I. Sri Manoj Kumar Thakur made entry in the Station Diary and along with other police personnel proceeded and when they reached near the house of Kali Charan Swasi, they saw one youth having pistol who pointed the pistol on the police personnel and the police personnel retaliated, the accused fired the pistol but the same was missed. Then, the accused put the pistol on his waist and started to flee. He was chased by the police personnel and apprehended and the accused disclosed his name as Arjun Swansi and the police recovered one country made pistol from his waist loaded with .303 bore cartridge. The informant prepared seizure list of recovered pistol and live cartridge. The accused failed to show any document with regard to pistol.

On the basis of self statement of informant, Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 90 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. Later on Section 307 was also added. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused person and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.81 of 2006 was registered. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of the evidence available on record. It is alleged that appellant has fired upon the police personnel while they were on patrolling duty. The appellant who was allegedly apprehended with fire arm loaded with live cartridge of .303 bore cartridge has been acquitted from the charge under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act on the ground that it was produced for inspection by the expert in loose condition and seizure list was also not prepared at the spot and the seized material was also not sealed. There is no evidence that the said fire arm was used recently for firing rather the live cartridge has been produced while as against it the seizure list was prepared of a missed fire cartridge. There is no ballistic report showing that the recovered fire arm was used for firing at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that except the police personnel who are interested witnesses, no independence witnesses corroborates the factum of firing upon the police personnel by the present appellant. The appellant had no criminal background and not wanted in any case. He has been planted in this case by the police for reasons best known to the informant. The learned trial Court has committed serious error or law by ignoring the material evidence which is not sufficient to prove any fire at the relevant time of occurrence by the present appellant and mere bald statement of the police party and some witnesses that firing was made aiming to the police personnel but it was missed fire and no missed fire cartridge was also recovered to match which makes the prosecution story wholely unreliable. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the material evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant who had fired upon the police personnel and failed to show any document regarding the pistol which was recovered from his possession. There is no merit in this appeal and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses including two independent witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. P.W.-1 Pradhir Kumar Pathak who has been declared hostile by the prosecution having no knowledge regarding the occurrence.P.W.-2 Kali Charan Swansi has stated that the accused was not arrested before him and no fire arm and cartridge was recovered from the possession of the accused in his presence nor any seizure list was prepared in his presence and this witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are the informant party including police personnel who were involved in raiding and as per trend, all have supported the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has itself dealt minutely with the testimony of the P.W.-3, P.W.-6 and P.W.-5 and found contradiction on the point of sealing of the recovered arm and cartridge and found the prosecution story doubtful over the recovery of fire arm from the possession of the accused. The learned trial Court on the basis of contradiction and being the prosecution story doubtful has acquitted the accused person from the charge under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act, then, the question arises that how Section 27 of the Arms Act is applicable and similarly on the same ground of doubtful recovery of fire arm and having no evidence of firing has also convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC. It has also not come on record that recently the fire arm was used nor any missed fire cartridge was produced. Therefore, I find substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant which warrant interference in this appeal. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed gross error of law in finding the guilt of the appellant.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is allowed.

The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful.