Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 922 (JHR)

Manoj Sinku v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-22

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2007, passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Session Judge. Singhbum West at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 224 of 2006, Trial No. 69/07, convicting the appellant under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for the period already served in jail. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26th January 2006 (Republic Day), when the police party was on law & order duty, they found that one man was coming on a motorcycle without registration number. It was tried to be stopped. The motorcycle was speed up but it was stopped by force. The rider disclosed his name as Manoj Sinku (the appellant), who disclosed that he was technician in Gua Company. On search, in presence of two seizure witnesses-Sona Ram Swami and Dua Swami (not examined), it was found that in the bag hanging on the handle of the motorcycle, huge quantity of explosives was found, but no paper for that was produced. The appellant disclosed that explosive substance was given to him by Biru Das (since deceased) who instructed him to hand over the same to Hurdu Chakia. 3. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the said seizure list witnesses have not been examined in this case, nor F.S..L. report has been produced and therefore the prosecution has not proved recovery of explosive substance from the possession of the appellant. He further submitted that all the witnesses are police personnels and there is no independent witness. 4. Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submitted that only because the witnesses are police personnels, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. The defence had full opportunity to cross-examine them. He further submitted that it is true that the said seizure list witnesses have not been examined and F.S.L. report was not brought on record but all the 11 prosecution witnesses consistently said that the appellant was found carrying explosive substance on his motorcycle which was not even having registration number and then on the tip given by the appellant, police interrogated Biro Das (now dead) who said that he brought explosive substance from Md. Kayum Hussain, on which recovery of 129 pieces of jelletin and 52 bundles of septic fuses was made from the house of Md. Kayum Hussain and therefore the High Court has rightly found that the appellant and Md. Kayum Hussain had close link along with co-accused Biro Das. 5. It is true that the seizure list witnesses have not been examined in this case and F.S.L. report has not been brought on record but it appears that the appellant did not dispute the recovery of hug quantity of explosive substance, rather he explained that it were given to him by other co-accused Biro Das for handing it over to co-accused Kayum Hussain, It further appears that from the possession of the appellant, 25 mm x 125 g O Rica Power Gel-901 Brand-15 tubes & 2 tubes with 801 marks, total 17 explosive tubes manufactured by Indian Explosives Ltd. Gomia along with 34 pcs, of explosives tubs manufactured by Solar Explosive Limited. Nagpur were recovered from the bag hanging in the motorcycle of the appellant and that too on the eve of Republic Day i.e. on 26th January when there was a "band call" by C.P.I.(M). The prosecution witnesses have fully proved the recovery. Only because they are police personnels, the prosecution case can not be brushed aside. 6. After hearing the parties and carefully going through the records, it is not possible to to hold that there was no recovery of huge quantity of explosives substance from the possession of the appellant as rightly held by the learned trial Court. 7. In the circumstances, in my opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2007, passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge. Singhbum West at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 224 of 2006, Trial No. 69/07, against the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.