Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Salim Khan @ Mona - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 163 of 2018 with CRAN. No. 2 of 2021
Decided On : 06-02-2023
For the Appellant:Kallol Mondal, Krishan Ray, Souvik Dan, Anamitra Banerjee, Ayan Mondal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Madhusudan Sur, ld. A.P.P., Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate.
A person who illegally stores explosives and has knowledge that such explosives may burst and cause death is guilty of an offence under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 - SECTION 3, 4 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 299, 304 PART II - BOMB BLAST - ILLEGAL STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVES - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant was convicted for causing a bomb blast that killed two people by illegally storing explosives in his room. The prosecution relied on witness statements, inquest reports, post-mortem reports, seizure lists, and forensic reports to establish the appellant's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had illegally stored explosives in his room, which resulted in the bomb blast and the deaths of two people. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of explaining how the explosives came to be stored in his room.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the appellant had illegally stored explosives in his room. 2. Whether the appellant had knowledge that the explosives may burst and cause death. 3. Whether the appellant's act fell within Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of witnesses, inquest reports, post-mortem reports, seizure lists, and forensic reports to conclude that the appellant had illegally stored explosives in his room. The court also held that the appellant had knowledge that the explosives may burst and cause death, as he had failed to take any steps to prevent such an occurrence. Therefore, the court held that the appellant's act fell within Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2018 and 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 14th court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 04(04)2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 17(8)2006 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- only, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- only in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act. Both sentences to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 09.04.2006 at around 6.45p.m., one Ashim Raja, a boy of nine years was playing. At that time a bomb blast occurred at premises No. P-121A, Khansamapara, Garden Reach, Kolkata – 700024. Another person viz. Reshma Begum also died due to the bomb blast. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by father of Ashim Raja i.e. Alam Khan (PW – 1) Metiabruz Police Station Case No. 32 of 2006 dated 09.04.2006 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act was registered.
3. In the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Inquest reports were prepared over the bodies of Ashim Raja and Reshma Begum. Post mortem reports were collected. Articles were seized from the house and were sent for EFSL examination. Sanction order was obtained. Appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed.
4. Charges were framed under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. In the course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.
5. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2018 and 27.03.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. Appellant has filed informal paper books and the appeal is taken up for hearing.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits there is no evidence that the appellant had kept explosives in the house. Involvement of the appellant in the offence is based on surmises. He prays for acquittal.
8. Learned Counsel for the State submits appellant was the son of the owner of the premises. He had criminal antecedents. He occupied the first floor of the house and stored explosive substances therein. He had knowledge that the explosion of bombs was likely to cause death. Hence, the prosecution case is proved beyond doubt.
9. PW 1 (Alam Khan) is the de facto complainant and father of one of the victims viz. Ashim Raja. He deposed on 09.04.2006 at about 6 to 6.30 P.M. there was a bomb blast in the house having premises No. P-121A, Khansamapara, Garden Reach, Kolkata – 700024. His son was playing and died due to bomb blast. He was not present at the spot. He went to the hospital. He lodged FIR and signed on the inquest report.
10. PW 2 (Md. Sohil) is the father of the other victim viz. Reshma Begum. He deposed his married daughter had come to his house for a visit. A bomb blast took place. As a result, the entire roof of his kitchen was blown away. His daughter died at the spot. Appellant kept bombs at his residence. He signed on the inquest report of his daughter. During cross-examination, he stated he was a tenant in the house. Appellant was the son of the owner of the house.
11. PW 3 (Shanwaz Alam) is the husband of Reshma Begum. He deposed his father-in-law occupied the ground floor of the house. Appellant used to resi
