Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Uchit Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondents
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.691 of 2007
Decided On : 30.06.2015
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence and Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
Explosives Substances Act - Conviction under section 4 of the Indian Explosives Substances Act, 1908 - sections 212, 216, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1908 - The court discussed the evidence, including the seizure list, forensic report, and consent order of the District Magistrate, and highlighted the lack of proper documentation, contradictions in witness statements, and failure to obtain consent for prosecution under the Act of 1908. The court found the trial proceedings to be without jurisdiction and illegal, and the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 4 of the Act of 1908 for possession of explosive substances. The case involved a raid on the appellant's house based on information about sheltering terrorists, leading to the recovery of detonators and electric wire. The prosecution alleged that the seized articles were components of high power country-made bombs and used in mines for blasting purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial proceedings were without jurisdiction and illegal due to the lack of consent from the District Magistrate for prosecution under the Act of 1908. It also highlighted the prosecution's failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, citing contradictions in witness statements, lack of proper documentation, and unreasonable delay in sending articles for examination.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the trial proceedings without the District Magistrate's consent, the reliability of witness statements, the adequacy of documentation, and the delay in sending articles for examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction and legality in the trial proceedings, failure to obtain consent for prosecution under the Act of 1908, contradictions in witness statements, lack of proper documentation, and unreasonable delay in sending articles for examination.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the court below convicting and sentencing the appellant were set aside. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. R.P.Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vivekanand Singh 1, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court –IV), Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2005. By the impugned order, the sole appellant has been convicted under section 4 of the Indian Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act of 1908’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for one year.
2. P.W.7 Anup Kumar, S.H.O., Baheri Police Station recorded his self statement at 6.10 a.m. on 9.4.2004 pursuant to which Baheri P.S.Case No.35 of 2004 was registered under sections 212, 216 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (for short ‘the CLA Act’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1908.
3. In the FIR, it has been alleged by the informant that on 8.4.2004 at 8.30 p.m., the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Dilnawaj Ahmad, directed him to reach at Sonki police outpost. In obedience to the direction, he reached at the Sonki police outpost at about 9.30 p.m. along with Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mudrika Yadav and Police Constables, namely, Bhushan Prasad Singh, Akhileshwar Yadav, Kari Lal Yadav, Rajeshwar Rai, Shankar Prasad Singh and Mustafa Kamal and said that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Sub Inspector-cum-Officer Incharge Kewati police station, S.A.Hashmi, Incharge Sonki police outpost, Sub Inspector Ajay Kumar, Constable Sunil Kumar, A.S.I. of CISF, Ravi Lochan Mandal and other police personnel were present there from before. The Deputy Superintendent of Police told them that as per information some extremists of banned terrorists organization Moist Communist Centre (for short ‘MCC’) have assembled at the house of the appellant Uchit Mahto in village Arhargot. Under his instruction, a raiding party was constituted to nab the miscreants. Accordingly, the police team proceeded towards village Arhargot. When the police team reached near the house of the appellant, at about 2 a.m., some stray dogs started barking and some persons started running away. Though others managed to escape, but one of them was overpowered by the raiding party. On seeing the police party, some residents of the locality arrived there and in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Parmeshwar Pandit (P.W.2) and Chandeshwar Pandit (P.W.5), a search was conducted in the house of the appellant. A plastic bag hidden in a room caught attention of the raiding team. On opening the bag, it was found that 100 empty detonators, 9 detonators with fuse wire and 2 meters electric wire were kept in a carton. No plausible explanation could be given by the appellant in respect of those articles. On inquiry, he stated that members of the MCC party used to come to his house and even on that day they had come to meet him. He further disclosed that out of them he could recognize Baiju @ Govindjee, Santosh @ Manoj Lal Deo and Amar Lal Deo by name. He revealed that the aforesaid articles recovered from his house were given to him by the members of the MCC organization in order to cause land mines blast during the election time which was scheduled to be held shortly.
4. It has further been stated that the articles so recovered were seized in accordance with law and a copy of the same was also handed over to the appellant.
5. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, the first information report (for short ‘the FIR’), was registered and investigation was handed over to P.W.1 Ram Singar Singh, who investigated the case and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after complying with the mandatory provisions of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’), committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
6. After commitment,
