Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 908
PATNA HIGH COURT
Anjana Prakash, J.
Amarnath Mahto
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 1994
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 266 of 1994
Decided On : MAY 02, 2011
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of evidence linking the accused to the alleged offense can lead to acquittal, despite the initial conviction.
Headnote:
Explosive Substance Act - Acquittal due to lack of evidence of manufacturing or possession of explosive substance
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants were convicted under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years for their suspected involvement in manufacturing bombs. However, the evidence only showed that the Appellants were injured at the place of occurrence, with no proof of their involvement in manufacturing or possession of explosive substance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a complete paucity of evidence on record to prove the Appellants' involvement in manufacturing or possession of explosive substance, leading to their acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of evidence linking the Appellants to the manufacturing or possession of explosive substance, despite their conviction under the Explosive Substance Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of evidence proving the Appellants' involvement in manufacturing or possession of explosive substance, leading to their acquittal.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence against the Appellants was set aside, discharging them from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
Key Points: - The appellants were convicted under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to RI for 3 years, but evidence showed only that they were injured at the place of occurrence, not their involvement in manufacturing or possession. (!) (!) - The court found a complete paucity of evidence proving that the appellants were involved in manufacturing or possessing explosive substances; this led to acquittal. (!) - The appeals were allowed; the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were discharged from bail bonds. (!) - Ram Prit Mahto, in whose house bombs were manufactured, was not examined during trial. (!) - The informant and witnesses schema indicate the only evident fact was the appellants being injured at the scene, with no proof of manufacturing/possession. (!) - The judgment was delivered by Anjana Prakash, J. (!)
What is the basis for acquittal due to lack of evidence linking the accused to manufacturing or possession of explosive substances?
What is the court's finding on the sufficiency of evidence against the appellants under Section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act?
What is the final decision and its effect on conviction and bail obligations?
Anjana Prakash, J.
1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in ST. No. 23 of 1984 by a judgment dated, 28th July, 1994.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13th July, 1982 at about 1 P.M. the Informant suddenly heard a bomb explosion from the house of one Ram Prit Mahto and when he went there he saw smoke coming and four persons were injured including the Appellants, who were suspected to have been involved in manufacturing bombs.
3. During trial the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Out of whom, PW. 13 and PW. 14 are formal. PW. 7 is tendered and PW. 8, PW. 9 and PW. 10 have been declared hostile. PW. 11 is the Informant, whereas the PW. 1, PW. 2, PW. 3, PW. 4, PW. 5 and PW. 6 are the material witnesses.
4. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, the only evidence that has transpired is that the Appellants had been seen injured at the place of occurrence. None of the witnesses stated that the Appellants had been seen manufacturing the bombs or were in possession of the same. Admittedly, Ram Prit Mahto, in whose house bombs were manufactured, has not been examined during trial.
5. In view of complete paucity of any evidence on record, which would prove the fact that the Appellants have indulged in manufacturing or were in possession of explosive substance, I am inclined to acquit the Appellants.
6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants on 28th July, 1994 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in ST. No. 23 of 1984 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
