Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1273 (PAT)

Ram Agaya Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-09-10

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The sole appellant has been found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 353of 1997 / 256 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and the appellant has been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for each of the offences. It may be mentioned here that the appellant has remained in custody for three years and eight months during the pendency of this case. 2. The sanha was instituted on 26.2.1993 wherein it has been stated by the informant Vijay Singh was sitting out side his door at about 10 A.M when the appellant came out of his house carrying a gunny bag containing bombs, besides which he was carrying bombs in his hand which fell to the ground and exploded. The informant alleged that he received injuries on his back. This sanha was formally instituted on 14.5.94, thereafter the investigation was initiated in this case. 3. During the trial, five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution out of which four witnesses claimed to be the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. I shall begin with the evidence of PW 4 Vijay Singh, the informant. The informant has supported his case by stating that he was cutting the fodder in front of his house when he heard the explosion of bomb. When he went to the place where the bomb was exploded, he found the injured. He went to Mukhiya who advised him to institute a case. During the cross examination, he claims that Suresh, Ratan and Ramchandra are the immediate neighbours of the informant. None of these three persons have been examined during trial. This witness deviates from his first report by stating that he had gone to the door of the accused on hearing the sound of explosion, whereas in the sanha lodged by him he has stated that he was sitting just near the house of the informant. 4. PW 1 Jagdish Prasad Singh although not mentioned as a witness in the F.I.R, claims to have been reached on the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of the bomb explosion. In his cross examination, the witness states that he is on litigating terms with the appellant, inasmuch as, the appellant had filed a criminal case against him. 4. PW 1 Jagdish Prasad Singh although not mentioned as a witness in the F.I.R, claims to have been reached on the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of the bomb explosion. In his cross examination, the witness states that he is on litigating terms with the appellant, inasmuch as, the appellant had filed a criminal case against him. It is, therefore, rightly submitted on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of this witness should not be relied upon by the court. 5. PW 2 Ramcharitra Singh also claims that he is an eye- witness of the occurrence. In the cross examination,. it is mentioned that there is a title suit pending for a piece of land which was sold by Ramashish Singh ( son of PW 2) to the mother of the appellant. It has also been stated that the appellant has lodged a criminal case against PW2 under the Explosive Substance Act. At paragraph 6 PW2 states that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of this case. 6. Considering the facts, which have been revealed in the cross examination, this court finds that this witness would be termed as interested witness. 7. PW 3 Pandey Prasad Singh has been examined to prove the charge sheet that he was the officer who has been submitted the charge sheet in this case. PW 5 Geeta Prasad Singh is hearsay witness. 8. In the circumstances as stated above, this court has already held that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 do not aspire the confidence of the court as both of them are interested witnesses and are on litigating terms with the appellant, besides which they have not been mentioned as witnesses in the Sanha/ F.I.R nor has the informant stated or acknowledged their presence at the place of occurrence. The informant PW 4 has also given a go-bye to the case that he was an eye witness to the occurrence besides which, there is no injury report to support the case of the informant that he was injured during the occurrence. Exhibit 3 is the sanction order for the prosecution which has not been formally proved in this case. The informant PW 4 has also given a go-bye to the case that he was an eye witness to the occurrence besides which, there is no injury report to support the case of the informant that he was injured during the occurrence. Exhibit 3 is the sanction order for the prosecution which has not been formally proved in this case. It has also been argued that Section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act specifically provides that no court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence under this act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. The word District Magistrate has been inserted by Act 54 of 2001 which came into effect on 01.02. 2001 prior to 01.02. 2001. The sanction for prosecution was issued by the District Magistrate for prosecution. The sanction order discloses that it was issued in 1996, therefore, it would appear that the sanction is without any legal premises and therefore the prosecution under Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act would fall on this count as well. 9. Considering the facts aforesaid and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant this court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 3rd December 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 353 of 1997/ 256 of 1997 & acquits the appellant for the charges leveled against him. The appellant is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.