SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
Kola Mani - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2009
Decided On : 28-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
D.Ramaswamy Reddy, Advocate, Devakumar Salikiti, Advocate, N.Sravan Kumar, Advocate

Headnote:

Explosive Substances Act - Criminal Appeal - Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C - Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992 - [Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's failure to establish the identity of the seized substance, the delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis, and the lack of proof of the chain of custody. The judgment highlighted the flaws in the prosecution's case and concluded that the conviction was not sustainable.]

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the possession of explosive substances by the accused. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the seized substance and the chain of custody. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992, but found guilty of the charge under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused not guilty of the charge under Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992, and acquitted her. However, the court found her guilty of the charge under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, convicted her, and sentenced her to imprisonment and a fine.

Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution proved the accused's possession of explosive substances and whether the judgment was sustainable under law and facts.

Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the seized substance, the chain of custody, and the delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis, leading to serious flaws in the case. The court concluded that the conviction was not sustainable.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the charge under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to her.

JUDGMENT

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. - Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dtd. 7/4/2009, in Sessions Case No.331 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole (for short, 'the learned Sessions Judge') where under the learned Sessions Judge found the Accused/Appellant guilty of the charge under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, 'the SCs and STs Act'), convicted her under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C. and after questioning her about the quantum of sentence, sentenced her to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused of the charge under Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992 (for short, 'the APPS Act')

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The Sessions Case No.331 of 2008 arose out of the committal order in PRC No.49 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur pertaining to Crime No.84 of 2003 of Giddalur Police Station registered for the offences under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sec. 8(1) of the APPS Act.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur Police Station is that on 7/7/2003 at 11:00 p.m. the SI of Police, Giddalur along with his staff near Diguvametta side during night rounds found the accused proceeding by walk. On suspicion, they stopped her and found one polythene bag. On search of it, on further suspicion, they found 6 gelatin sticks. As there were no mediators, the Police seized the gelatin sticks and arrested the accused under the cover of Police proceedings. Basing on the Police proceedings, a case in Crime No.84 of 2003 on the file of Giddalur Police Station was registered and investigated into. Accused was forwarded to the Court for remand. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur granted permission to defuse the 6 gelatin sticks by the Expert. On 1/8/2003, the Expert, RSI, DAR, Guntur defused 6 gelatin sticks and preserved a small quantity of the substances for sending to FSL, Hyderabad. On 9/12/2005, the preserved substance liquid was sent to FSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report. On 13/2/2006, the FSL, Hyderabad gave a report that that the substance is of highly explosive. After obtaining due sanction of prosecution of the accused from the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, charge sheet is filed.

5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offence under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sec. 8(1) of the APPSC Act and numbered it as PRC No.49 of 2008 and, after completing the formalities under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Sessions Court and thereupon it was numbered as Sessions Case No.331 of 2008.

6. On appearance of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge, charges under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sec. 8(1) of the APPS Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined PWs.1 to PW.5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and MO.1. In Ex.P-3 series, Ex.P-3(1), Ex.P-3(2) and Ex.P-3(3) were marked. Further, Ex.C-1, Ex.C-1(1) and Ex.C1(2) were marked by the Court. No documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which she denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that she has no defence evidence. She put forth a version during her 313 Cr.P.C examination t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top