SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND 
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Sk. Amiruddin, son of Sk. Makbul - Appellant 
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent 
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 45 of 1998 (P)
Decided on : 28-04-2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.

The absence of requisite sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act and inconsistencies in evidence led to acquittal of the accused, reaffirming the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3 and 5 - Conviction of appellants for possession of explosive materials - Appeal against judgment of conviction and sentence - Prosecution's case relied upon inconsistent testimonies and lack of requisite sanction for trial under Section 7 of the Act. (Paras 2, 19, 20, 22)

(B) Right to fair trial - Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - In this case, evidentiary shortcomings led to the presumption of innocence being upheld. (Paras 23)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were accused of assembling with armed miscreants and possessing illegal explosive materials during a raid. Upon investigation, inconsistencies in witness testimonies undermined the prosecution's case. (Paras 3, 4, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that original sanction was not available and photocopy of seizure list was not properly established, leading to the conclusion that prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. (Paras 20, 22)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and if the requisite sanction under Section 7 was present.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution's evidentiary deficiencies prevent a conviction, and the absence of proper sanction invalidates charges under the Explosive Substances Act. (Paras 20, 22)

Result: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. hearing and representation of parties. (Para 1)
2. case background and accusation details (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments from both parties (Para 9 , 10)
4. analysis of evidence and witness credibility (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. legal requirements and evidence shortcomings (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. setting aside conviction due to insufficient evidence (Para 23)
7. final ruling and discharge of appellants (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Per Arun Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 24.01.1998 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godda in Session Case No. 111 of 1996/Session Case No. 95 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 /5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and RI for 14 years under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the written application of informant-Vishnu Rajak, Officer-in-Charge, Basantrai O.P., P.S. – Pathargama who stated therein that on24.08.1991 at about 08:00 P.M. in the evening, he received secret information while he was at Basantrai O.P. that one Sk. Amiruddin, S/o of Sk. Makbul, resident of Village – Bansipur, P.S. – Pathargama (Basantrai), District – Godda along with 10-12 miscreants of his gang assembled at the house of Sk. Nasim, S/o Sk. Basier, resident of Village – Jagatpur, P.S. – Pathargama, District – Godda to commit an offence and they all are equipped with weapon. Thereafter, entering the above-said information in O.P. diary, the informant-Vishnu Rajak along with ASI Fani Bhushan Marandi, Constable –Ram Avtar Singh, Hawaldar – Mahendra Singh, Constable – Bajrangi Das, Constable – Shankar Prasad Singh and Constable – Mokhtar Kha and Chowkidars namely Jichhu Hazra, Ramji Murmu, Kapil Deo Paswan, Laxman Paswan, Naresh Paswan and Panchanand Manjhi started for Village – Jagatpur and reached Village – Jagatpur at round 09:00 P.M. and Jahir Ansari, S/o Bilal Ansari, Sigeshwar Yadav, S/o Ghureti Yadav and Sk. Yakub, S/o Sk. Bhagami and Sk. Fekan, S/o of Sk. Pachu were also taken together and informed accordingly and all of them, reached to the door of Sk. Nasim, then they saw 10-12 persons were sitting on cot and chauki and were having interaction with one another and gang leader Sk. Amiruddin holding a musket gun on his shoulder, then torch light was flashed on them and they have been told that police had reached and asked the miscreants to surrender, then the miscreants started fleeing away towards North but two miscreants were caught who divulged their names respectively as Sk. Amiruddin, son of Sk. Makbul and Sk. Nasim Son of Sk.Basier.

It is further stated by the informant that search of above-said persons were taken in presence of Jahir Ansari and Sigeshwar Yadav, then from possession of Sk. Amiruddin one musket gun and from the black colour rexin bag four live bombs and one live cartridge whereas from the possession of Sk. Nasim one country made loaded pistol and from black colour rexin bag four live bombs got recovered and accordingly seizure list was prepared and Jahir Ansari and Sigeshwar Yadav stood as witness to the said seizure list.

4. On the basis of above stated facts, an FIR being Pathargama (Basantrai) P.S. Case No. 112 of 1991 under Sections 3 /5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 has been registered against the above said two accused persons who are the appellants herein.

5. After due investigation, charge-sheet against the accused persons has been filed under Sections 3 /5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

6. The charges under Sections 3 99, 402 of IPC and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top