NASIM MIAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 486 of 2009
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
07.05.2009/11.05.2009 respectively passed by learned 5th Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2005]
---------
Nasim Mian, son of Dakhlu Mian, resident of village-Vithra, P.S.-Jamtara,
District-Jamtara … … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
---------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
CAV On 02/09 /2026 Pronounced On 06/11/2026
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
learned A.P.P.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2009/11.05.2009 respectively
th
passed by learned 5 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara in
Sessions Trial No.31 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant
has been held guilty for the offence under sections 4 and 5 of Explosive
Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine
of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.03.2000 at about
19:10 hours, when the informant, S.I. Rajesh Kumar along with other
Page 1 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
police personnels were on patrolling duty and as they reached at Subash
Chowk, Karmtanr, a person started fleeing away seeing the police and
took shelter in the hotel of Shiveshwar Mondal. Upon chase, the police
caught him and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as Nasim Mian and he
is wanted accused in G.R. No.57 of 1983 under sections 4 and 5 of
Explosive Substance Act. It is further alleged that upon his search in
presence of two witnesses, 494 pieces of detonators, two bundles of fuse
wire was recovered and in this regard, the accused could not produce
any valid paper. Thereafter, the informant seized all the above
incriminating explosive substance and prepared a written information to
officer-in-charge, police station, Jamtara alleging the above facts.
4. On the basis of above information, Jamtara, P.S. Case No.27 of 200 was
registered under sections 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
appellant and he was sent up for trial.
5. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of
Sessions where S.T. No.31 of 2005 was registered.
6. The present appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and
claimed to be tried.
7. In course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1- Ranjeet Kumar Yadav
P.W.2 -Ayodhya Mondal
Page 2 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
P.W.3 -Nitai Rajwar
P.W.-4- Shivjor Ram
P.W.5 -Ram Pravesh Tiwary
P.W.6 -Hawaldar Ramcharitra Paswan
P.W.7 -Gayanender Nath Mishra
P.W.8- S.I. Rajesh Kumar (Informant)
8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary
evidences have been adduced by the prosecution.
Ext.1 -Fardbeyan
Ext.1/1 -Endorsement on fardbeyan
Ext.2- Formal FIR
Ext.3- Seizure List
Ext.4 -FSL report
Ext.5 -Sanction Letter
9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced
by the defence.
10. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.
11. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record
held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as
stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant:-
12. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been
Page 3 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
declared hostile by the prosecution and they have not supported the
recovery from the possession of the appellant and had stated that on the
next day, the police had taken their thumb impression on a plain paper.
It is further submitted that the Investigation Officer of this case has not
been examined by the prosecution, which caused serious prejudice to
the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant was arrested from
the hotel situated at Subash Chowk, but no independent witness has
been examined in this case, which casts a serious shadow of doubt over
the veracity of its case. It is further submitted that it is highly
improbable to carry the alleged articles in a small bag as mentioned in
the seizure list, which also falsify the prosecution case and the same fact
has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It is
further submitted that the appellant was in the business of selling fish
and when the police party demanded fish free of cost, which was
refused by the appellant, then, they falsely implicated him in this case
on the basis of planted recovery. There are many contradictions in the
statements of witnesses and they are not reliable and trustworthy in the
eye of law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal.
Submission on behalf of State:-
13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that there is no substance
in the points of arguments raised by the appellant. Learned trial court
Page 4 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
has very wisely and aptly considered the overall factual aspects of the
case, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in
this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
14. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
15. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “ as to whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of
law calling for any interference in this appeal? ”
16. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume
of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to
substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant.
The most important witness of this case is the informant
Rajesh Kumar , who has been examined as P.W.8 . According to his
evidence, on date of occurrence, he was appointed as Karmatar Police
Camp. He further states that he along with other police personnels was
on patrolling duty and as they reached at Subash Chawk, a person
started fleeing away seeing the police party and entered into a hotel of
Ayodhya Mondal. Upon chase, he was apprehended and disclosed his
Page 5 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
name as Naim Mian. From his possession, one bag containing 494
detonators and fuse wire were recovered and relating to which, no valid
document has been produced by him. He further states that the alleged
materials were seized and seizure list was prepared in presence of
independent witnesses and he has proved the seizure list as Ext.3. He
further states that he made a written information and sent it to officer-in-
charge, Jamtara, which has been marked as Ext.1.
P.W.1-Ranjit Kumar Yadav is the member of police
patrolling team. According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence,
he along with other police personnels were on patrolling duty and as
they reached at Subash Chawk, a person started fleeing away seeing the
police party and entered into a hotel. Thereafter, he was caught from the
said hotel. From the possession of the apprehended accused, one bag
containing about 494-495 pieces of detonator and fuse were recovered
and he failed to show any valid paper for having such contraband
material.
P.W.2-Ayodhy Mondal and P.W.3-Nitai Rajwar have been
declared hostile by the prosecution and have stated that nothing has
been seized in their presence rather they put their thumb impression on a
blank paper on the next day at police station.
P.W.4-Shivjor Ram is the second Investigating Officer of
this case. According to his evidence, on the date of incident, S.I. Rajesh
Kumar has made a written information which this witness identified and
Page 6 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
the same is marked as Ext.1. He has also proved the Formal FIR marked
Ext.2. He further states that he has sent the detonators and fuse wire for
forensic test. Thereafter, he was transferred.
In his cross-examination, he admits that nothing has been
recovered in his presence and no seizure list was prepared. There is
nothing else in his cross-examination to cast doubt in his above
testimony.
P.W.5-Ram Pravesh Tiwary was also a member of the
patrolling party. According to his evidence, he states that while he was
on patrolling duty along with other police personnels and as they
reached at Subash Chawk, one person seeing the police party fled away
from there and entered into a hotel. They followed and apprehended him
and from his possession, one bag containing many detonators and fuse
wire were recovered. Thereafter, the contraband materials were seized
and seizure list was prepared.
P.W.6-Hawaldar Ramcharitra Paswan was also a member
of patrolling party and has reiterated the same prosecution story as
narrated by P.W.5 Ram Pravesh Tiwary. There is nothing in his cross-
examination, which creates doubt in his testimony.
P.W.7-Gayendra Nath Mishra was posted at Assistant in
Meso Office, Jamtara. He has identified the writing and signature of the
then District Magistrate on sanction letter marked Ext.5.
Page 7 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
17. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses. It
appears that the seizure list witnesses i.e. P.W.2 Ayodhya Mondal and
P.W.3 Nitai Rajwar have been declared hostile and expressed their no
knowledge about any recovery from the possession of the appellant in
their presence. It further appears that the seizure list (Ext.3) also goes to
show that the place of seizure is the hotel of Shiveshwar Mondal and the
seized materials are described as 494 pieces detonators kept in a cream
color bag containing pink strips, two white bundles, one 43 1/2 haath
length and another containing 34 haath length and 10 bundles blue color
fuse, the length of five bundles was 20 haath and the rest 5 bundles
measuring length 21 haath . It further transpires that in the FSL report
(Ext.4), the seized materials were sent in two packets marked ‘A’ and
‘B’ containing detonators and fuse, it reveals that ‘A’ contained 10
aluminum coil (each length 3 to 7 cm x 0.6 cm). The paper packet
marked ‘B’ contained following articles (i) one coil safety fuse(length 9
meters) having blackish powder substance, (ii) one coil white plastic
cover detonating fuse (length 2.25 meters) having white powdery
substance. It further transpires that the prosecution case as depicted in
the FIR is that the present appellant was carrying these articles in a
cream color bag and seeing the police personnels, he started fleeing
away and he was chased and apprehended, when he has affected his
entrance in the hotel of Shivshwar Mondal. It is inherently impossible
that the person having such a long strips of detonators and fuse will be
Page 8 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
able to flee away seeing the police party. It also appears that one of the
seizure list witnesses, P.W.2 Ayodhya Mondal, who is the worker of the
said hotel, has stated that when the accused was sitting in the hotel and
asked for his food. In the meantime, the police arrived and apprehended
him but nothing was recovered from his possession. Another seizure list
witness i.e. P.W.3 Nitai Rajwar has also stated that the seizure memo
was prepared in the police station in the next day morning and nothing
was recovered rather his thumb impression was obtained by the police.
Therefore, the above story as projected by the prosecution clearly
indicates it to be false and suppression of some material facts relating to
the alleged crime. Moreover, the entire case of the prosecution solely
rests upon the testimony of the informant and the official witnesses,
without any corroboration from local, independent witness. The seized
materials have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was
seized from the possession of the appellant.
18. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial
court has not taken into consideration the very objects seized in this case
and the manner in which the appellant was apprehended along with
alleged explosive substance. Therefore, the impugned judgment is based
upon non-consideration of the evidence available on record in proper
manner and the impugned judgment appears to be illegal and erroneous.
Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
th
07.05.2009/11.05.2009 respectively passed by learned 5 Additional
Page 9 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009
2026:JHHC:32767
Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2005 is,
hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled
against him. This appeal is allowed
19. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond
and sureties are also discharged.
20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back
to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:-06 /11 /2026
Pappu /-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06 /11 /2026
Page 10 of 10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.486 of 2009