Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 442 (PAT)

Subedar Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2002-04-04

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He has been further convicted under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that informant, Inderdeo Singh gave his Fardbeyan at Tekari State Dispensary on 23.10.84 at 8.45 P.M. before the police of Tekari P.S. that on the same day at 6.30 P.M. he was going from his house to the shop of Bifan Sao for purchasing tobacco and as soon as he reached near the shop of Mahendra Sao, he found Lakhi Chand Mallah, Pyare Kandu and and appellant Subedar Paswan who were quarrelling with Mahendra Sao for cigarette. In the mean time Lakhi Chand Mallah and his two companions went to the house of Subedar Dusadh and brought bombs and exploded it in front of the shop of Mahendra Sao which caused injuries in his chest and to Chhatrabali Sao and Sunita Kumari who were standing there. It has been further alleged that three bombs were thrown. Mahendra Sao, Tuleshwsr Yadav and Naresh Singh are said to have seen the occurrence. On the basis of the Fardbeyan formal F.I.R. was drawn up and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial which concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sunita Kumari, P.W. 2 is Mahendra Sao, P.W. 3 is Chhatrabali Sao, P.W. 4 is Naresh Singh, P.W. 5 is Indradeo Singh, the informant, P.W. 6 is Sheo Kumar Sinha, a formal witness, P.W. 7 is Dr. Ram Naresh Singh and P.W. 8 is Baldeo Singh, a formal witness who has proved signature and writing of Ram Chandra Sharma, Officer Incharge, Tekari. 4. P.W. 5 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his Fardbeyan. According to him, one day prior to Dipawali at 6.30 P.M. he was going to the shop of Bifan Sao for purchasing tobacco. 4. P.W. 5 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his Fardbeyan. According to him, one day prior to Dipawali at 6.30 P.M. he was going to the shop of Bifan Sao for purchasing tobacco. When he reached in front of the shop of Mahendra Sao (P.W. 2) he saw accused Subedar Paswan, Pyare Kandu and Lakhi Chand Mallah were quarrelling for cigarette with Mahendra Sao. They were demanding cigarettes free of cost. When Mahendra Sao refused to give cigarette free of cost, the appellant rushed to his house saying that he will teach him a lesson and from his house he brought a bomb and exploded it in front of the shop of Mahendra Sao, which caused injury on his chest and also P.Ws. 1 and 3 were injured. Thereafter they were taken to State Dispensary Tekari where the police came and his Fardbeyan was recorded in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. The other injured P.Ws. 1 and 3 have also supported the version of the informant. P.W. 1 has stated that she received injury in her leg, P.W. 3 has stated that he received injury on his leg. 5. P.W. 7, Dr. Ram Naresh Singh examined the injured at Tekari State Dispensary on 23.10.84 and found the following injuries : Chhatrabali Sao. (i) Lacerated injury with burn margin on the back of left middle finger 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4", (ii) Lacerated injury with burn margin on the back of left middle finger 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" (iii) Lacerated injury with burn margin on the back of right palm 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4". According to the doctor, the injuries found on the person of Chhatraball Sao were simple in nature caused by crackers. Indradeo Singh.Lacerated injury on the right of the chest on the upper portion with burn margin. The injury was simple in nature caused by Padaka. Sunita Kumari.One lacerated injury 1/2" x 1/4" on the right leg in the middle. The injury was simple caused by hard blunt substance. The doctor has also stated that such injuries are possible by bomb blast. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants had no intention to kill the injured persons, as such, the case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The injury was simple caused by hard blunt substance. The doctor has also stated that such injuries are possible by bomb blast. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants had no intention to kill the injured persons, as such, the case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It has been further submitted that the injuries were simple in nature and the I.O. of this case has not been examined which has prejudiced the case of the defence. He has also submitted that the alleged date of occurrence was one day prior to Dipawali and children of nearby houses were throwing and exploding crackers and the injured persons might have received injuries by such crackers and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. From the deposition of the witnesses it is evidently clear that the occurrence took place for demand of cigarettes free of cost from the shop of Mahendra Sao (P.W. 2) and on refusal the appellant gave threatening of dire consequences and soon thereafter he came out with explosive substance and exploded the same near the shop of Mahendra Sao which did not hit him but his sister Sunita Kumari (P.W. 1), Chhatrabali (P.W. 3) and Indradeo Singh, informant (P.W. 5) sustained injuries on their persons. They were taken to Tekari Dispensary where they were treated. The doctor who examined the injured persons P.Ws, 1, 3 and 5 found simple injuries on their person. He did not find injury on the person of P.W. 1, Sunita caused by explosive blast. However, injuries on the persons of Chhatrabali and Indradeo were having burnt mark which shows that it was caused by explosion of cracker or bomb. Though the appellant had no intention to kill these injured persons but certainly he exploded explosive causing injury to the injured as supported by Dr. (P.W. 7). It is also true that these explosives were not containing splinters as such it cannot be said to be country made bomb but certainly he caused hurt to the injured with knowledge that the act he was doing was likely to cause hurt to. the persons standing nearby. As such the act of the appellant certainly attracts offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly his conviction under section 307 is altered to section 324 the Indian Penal Code. the persons standing nearby. As such the act of the appellant certainly attracts offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly his conviction under section 307 is altered to section 324 the Indian Penal Code. Though the appellant has also been convicted under section 3/ 4 of the Act but the learned counsel has submitted that the nature of explosive as defined in section 4 the Act could not be proved. In this case investigating officer was not examined nor the prosecution could examine any witness in support of the fact that the substance exploded was really a country made bomb and not a cracker which is used on the occasion of Dipawali. It is true that if the I.O. had been examined he could have given the material finding of the place of occurrence and he could have also stated about the nature of explosive substance. There is no denial of the fact that it was the occasion of Dipawali and crackers were readily available in the market. There is possibility that the appellant only with a view to scare away the people and show his supremacy exploded the cracker and by chance the injured persons sustained injuries. As such, case under Section 3/4 of the Act is not made. Accordingly, appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 3/4 of the Act. 8. However, coming to the question of sentence learned counsel has submitted that the occurrence took place in 1984 about seventeen years ago and since then the appellant has been amply punished and harassed during the prolonged litigation. It has been further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against him. Moreover he has remained in jail for some time, as such, it requires consideration on the point of sentence. Having regard to the subrnission and in the facts and circumstances of the case now it will not be proper to send the appellant in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence after such a long time. In my view it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. In my view it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1500/- to be deposited by him within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is made clear that the amount of fine if and when realised, it will be distributed amongst the injured P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5, namely, Sunita Kumari, Chhatrabali Sao and Indradeo Singh (informant) equally. The appeal is partly allowed.