Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 358 (RAJ)

Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2000-03-16

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated 18.12.1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1988. 2. The accused appeal (sic. appellant) was tried by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 307, 436, Indian Penal Code and Section 9B(l)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. After trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused appellant under Sections 436 and 326/511, Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. The charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was, however, not held to be proved against the accused appellant. 3. The prosecution case was that on 13.9.1977 at about 7.30 a.m. one Mishri Lal has reported that last night when he was sleeping in his house, at about 3.30 a.m. an explosion took place in the house of his nephew Sampatlal on which he woke up and saw from the house that the accused was running from the scene of occurrence. One detonator has also been found near the bed. Another witness Kailash Chand has said that he has seen a detonator lying near his bed which was thrown by the accused. The allegation of Kailash Chand is that the detonator was thrown by the accused for causing his death and his family members. Therefore, offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is made out. 4. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the witnesses have deposed that when they heard the detonator exploding Mishri Lal saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence and thereby it is established that the explosion has been caused by the accused. The Trial Court has further held that in the process the accused has also thrown a detonator near the bed of Kailash Chand and since the detonator has been recovered and the accused has been seen to have been running away from the scene of occurrence around that time the accused was responsible for throwing the detonator. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant while arguing the appeal urged that merely by seeing the accused running from the place of occurrence it cannot be said that it was the accused who alone was responsible for planting the detonator at the place where the explosion look place. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant while arguing the appeal urged that merely by seeing the accused running from the place of occurrence it cannot be said that it was the accused who alone was responsible for planting the detonator at the place where the explosion look place. 6. The further argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that all the prosecution witnesses except Mishri Lal have stated that they have heard that when the explosion took place Mishri Lal woke up and he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, they say that it was the accused who had planted the detonator at the place where it was exploded. 7. Her further case is that Mishri Lal in his Court statement has said that he was sleeping on the roof but in his police statement he said that he was sleeping in the house and he woke up after explosion. Once he heard the explosion then his sleep was broken and he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. There is material contradiction in the statement of Mishri Lal about his position at the time when the explosion took place. If Mishri Lal was in the house then there was no occasion for him to have seen the accused running from the scene of occurrence by the time he came at the roof. He could not have seen the accused running away from the scene of occurrence because there was sufficient time lag in between the two situations. Thus, there was no occasion for Mistri Lal to have identified the accused in the darkness of the dead of the night. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has stressed that few other detonators have been recovered from the house of the accused. The accused has taken gold and silver and had not paid the money and, thus he wanted Mishri Lal to suffer for it. He having been seen by Mishri Lal at the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence it should be deemed that it was the accused alone who caused the explosion. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the record. 10. What is admitted is that no body has seen the accused planting the detonator. He having been seen by Mishri Lal at the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence it should be deemed that it was the accused alone who caused the explosion. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the record. 10. What is admitted is that no body has seen the accused planting the detonator. The finding of implication of the accused is based on the evidence that the accused was seen running away from the scene of the occurrence after the explosion. Firstly, by merely running from the scene of occurrence it cannot be said that it was the accused alone who was responsible for planting the detonator. Further the evidence of Mishri Lal on this count does not inspire confidence because he has deviated from his police statement in the statement given by him in the Court. According to the statement given by him to the police he was sleeping in his house and on hearing explosion he came on the roof after explosion but in the Court statement he deposed that he was sleeping on the roof and from there he saw accused running from the scene of occurrence after explosion. This improvement goes to the root of the matter because had the accused made his escape good after the explosion then there was hardly any time available for Mishri Lal who was suddenly awaken from sleep to have seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence more particularly when his first version that he was sleeping in the house is accepted. Therefore, on this count it can safely be said that none of the witnesses including Mishri has seen the accused running from the scene of the occurrence. It is on the saying of Mishri Lal that the other witnesses have said that Mishri Lal has seen the accused running from the scene of the occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was seen running from the scene of occurrence after the incident of explosion or making his escape good. This finding excludes the implication of the appellant so far as the offences under Sections 326/511, Indian Penal Code are concerned. 11. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was seen running from the scene of occurrence after the incident of explosion or making his escape good. This finding excludes the implication of the appellant so far as the offences under Sections 326/511, Indian Penal Code are concerned. 11. As regards the offence under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act is concerned, the learned Counsel for the accused appellant has drawn my attention towards the statement of the Expert who had come to examine the detonators. According to the Expert, he had arrived at the police station on 12.12.1987. The recoveries were made on 14.9.1987. The wireless was sent for summoning him on 1.10.1987. The Expert has stated that when he reached the police station he saw the detonators without seal. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant stressed that the detonators were not kept in safe custody. They were lying open even in the month of December. In this view of the matter it cannot be stated that the detonators which were recovered from the accused were subject-matter of inspection and test by the Expert. 13. There is considerable force in the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the recoveries cannot be held to be proved because the Expert has clearly stated that he has seen the detonators lying at the police station in unsealed condition and that too in the month of December, 1987 and the detonators were supposed to be sealed in September, 1987. Therefore, in this back-ground, the Expert's evidence takes away rigour of Section 9-B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act from the accused. Consequently, the charges framed against the appellant fail and the accused is acquitted of the charges for which he has been convicted by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, his sentences are also set aside. 14. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. Since the accused appellant is on bail, therefore, he needs not to surrender.Appeal allowed. *******