Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Md. Javed – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 193 of 2015
Decided On : 07-04-2017
For the Appellant : Rashid Izhar
For the Respondent: S.A. Ahmad, A.P.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence of knowledge or possession of explosive substances to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the Explosive Substance Act.
Headnote:
Explosive Substance Act - Guilt under Sections 3(a), 4(a) - Section 3, Section 4 - The court found the appellant guilty under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act. However, upon analyzing the legal provisions and the evidence presented, the court concluded that the conviction and sentence were not maintainable as the ingredients of the sections were not substantiated.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found guilty under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act for possessing explosive substances. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of bombs from another individual, with no evidence of the appellant's knowledge or possession of the explosives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not substantiate the appellant's guilt under the charged sections of the Explosive Substance Act, as there was no proof of his knowledge or possession of the explosive substances.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant could be convicted under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence proving the appellant's knowledge or possession of the explosive substances, as required by the legal provisions of Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was discharged from liability.
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
Sole appellant Md. Javed has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 3(a), 4(a) of the Explosive Substance Act and has been directed to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof to undergo SI.I for one year additionally, independently under each heads with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2015 order of sentence dated 02.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge IX, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 2014/663 of 2014.
2. Janaradan Prasad Singh (PW 13) recorded his own fardbeyan on 23.01.2004 at about 8.35 p.m. Disclosing therein that on the same day at about 5 p.m. he received confidential information regarding assembling of anti-social elements at Railway Cinema Hall Campus lying in Mohalla-Marufganj whereupon after Sanha entry, a raiding party was constituted as per direction of the Town Dy. S.P.and raid was conducted. The miscreants, seeing the Police, began to scatter hither and thither and during course thereof, two persons were apprehended who disclosed their identity as Md. Javed, the appellant as well as Mantu Mian @ Dokhiya (since absconded). Furthermore, they were searched and during course thereof, from a Jhola possessed by Mantu Mian four bombs were found for which seizure list was prepared in presence of Vijay Kumar (P.W.4) as well as Md. Mobin (not examined) however nothing was recovered from possession of Javed, appellant. Accordingly, two cases were independently registered so far present case is concerned. It happens to be Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004 under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
3. After registration of the case, investigation was taken up and after completing the same, charge-sheet was submitted followed with taking of cognizance of an offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, facilitated the trial on commitment, which ultimately concluded in a manner, the subject matter of instant appeal.
4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that of complete denial of the occurrence. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that he has been wrongly apprehended from the place of occurrence. However, nothing has been adduced/examined in their defence.
5. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had examined altogether 16 P.Ws. Out of whom P.W.1 is Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 2 is Arun Kumar Singh, P.W.3 Jivit Singh, P.W. 4 Vijay Kumar, P.W. 5 Sanjay Paswan, P.W.6 Yogendra Prasad, P.W.7 Ravindra Prasad, P.W.8 Anil Kumar Singh, P.W.9 Jai Chand Prasad, P.W.10 Dinesh Kumar, P.W.11 Ajay Kumar, P.W.12 Surajdeo Paswan, P.W.13 Janardan Prasad Singh, P.W.14 Jagbandhu Munda, P.W. 15, Libiya Singh Kuntta and P.W.16 Kanchan Kumar. Now coming to the status of the witnesses, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are formal in nature, P.W.4 is the seizure list witness who has been declared hostile, P.W.8 and P.W.9 happens to be the members of bomb defusing squad while remaining witnesses are the material witnesses. At present moment, it is prudent to note that P.W.10 Dinesh Kumar has not been cross-examined at the end of the accused persons.
6. It is further evident from the Lower Court Record that following exhibits have been made on behalf of prosecution. Exhibit 1 series signature of respective witnesses over formal F.I.R., seizure list Exhibit 2-fardbeyan, Exhibit 3-seizure list, Exhibit 4-signature of the informant over fardbeyan, Exhibit 5-sanction order, Exhibit-6 F.S.L. report. As stated above, nothing has been adduced on behalf of defence.
7. After going through the evidences of the respective P.Ws., it is apparent that they have fully substantiated the prosecution case to the extent that after coming to know about presence of anti social elements at the Railway Cinema Hall Campus, raid was conducted and during course thereof, other misc
