The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of evidence for conviction based on circumstantial evidence; mere hearsay and lack of eyewitness testimony do not meet the burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.

The present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant, Mahesh Sah, against the judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2014 and sentence dated 15.03.2014 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Trial Court’) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2003 (112 of 2013) arising out of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001 whereby and where under the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 3/5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 5(a) of Explosives Substances Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.04.2001 at about 8 A.M., the informant Chowkidar Ram Ekbal Rai (P.W.2.) was moving in his area and came to Madhurapur village where the villagers informed him that bomb was exploded in the bamboo clump. The informant sent another Chowkidar Gonu Das (P.W.3.) to inform the police station. The villagers told him that Mahesh Sah (the appellant) and his two associates were manufacturing bomb in bamboo clump and during manufacturing, bomb was exploded and Mahesh Sah and his two associates were badly injured and they fled away anywhere for their treatment.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.2.), Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001 has been registered against the appellant and two other unknown persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 3/5 of Explosives Substances Act. The cognizance was taken on 04.02.2003 and after cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 30.04.2003 and the charges were framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses in this case to prove charges against the appellant who are as under:-

P.W’s. Names P.W.-1 Baidyanath Mahto, who was a seizure list witnesses.

P.W.-2 Ram Ekbal Rai who is informant.

P.W.-3 Gonu Das (Chowkidar), who was a seizure list witness.

P.W.-4 Tapeshwar Sah @ Ram Taleshwar Sah (Hostile).

P.W.-5 Hari Narayan Sah (Hostile).

P.W.-6 Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, who had prepared injury report of the accused.

P.W.-7 Kalika Ram, who was first Investigating Officer.

P.W.-8 Ram Pravesh Ram (subsequent Investigating Officer).

6. Prosecution has also produced following documentary evidence.

Ext’s. Particulars. Ext-1 Seizure List.

Ext-2 Signature of informant on the Fardbeyan.

Ext-3 & 3/1 Injury report of appellant and requisition on injury report.

Ext-4 Fardbeyan of informant.

Ext-5 Seizure List.

Ext-6 Sanction Order.

Ext-7 Report of F.S.L.

7. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 28.06.2012 who denied the allegation.

8. The defence has also examined one witness, namely, Janki Sharan Mandal as DW-1 and also adduced documentary evidence. Exhibit-A is carbon copy of application of I.O. dated 16.02.2002 and Exhibit-B is carbon copy of order dated 05.05.2001 in Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001.

9. The learned Trial Court on considering the evidence on record given finding that the injury of accused was sustained in bomb explosion as specified by the doctor who treated him and was found during treatment in a private hospital as private patient. These are the facts and circumstances collectively considered and entire facts and circumstances lead only conclusion that the accused sustained injuries due to bomb explosion while p