The trial Court erred in convicting the accused under the Explosive Substances Act without necessary sanction, and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against judgment in Session Case No. 110/2002 dated 29-11-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Betul whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months, further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Karan Bahadur was residing in village Padhar. On 14-3-2001 when he was at home at about 8:00 p.m. he heard some voice of quarrel and he came out and saw that his sister-Pushpa was beaten by the accused and his wife and daughter and he intervened then the accused threw a hand grenade on him due to which he sustained burn injuries on his right leg and one Mr. Naval who was there sustained injury on middle finger of his right hand and neighbour Sunil’ daughter Sweta also got injury on her right leg and the incident was witnessed by Rajju, Pushpa and Kirti and immediately after the incident the injured Karan Bahadur went to the Police Station-Betul and informed about the same in oral. PW-9 Jugal Kishore Singh recorded his statement and registered the same as an FIR in Crime No. 21/2001 for the offences under section 324, 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter he sent Karan Bahadur, Naval and Sweta to the hospital for medical examination. On 15-3-2021, PW-9 Jugal Kishore Singh inspected the scene, prepared a map and seized the soil and other material objects and forwarding the same to the FSL and effected arrest of the accused and sent him for judicial remand and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, during investigation, it was found that there was a past enmity between the Karan Baharur and appellant/accused. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against appellant/accused for offence under sections 307, 324 and 506 Part-II, Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short “the Act of 1908”) which was taken on file as Criminal Case No. 2394/2001 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul for the offences under sections 307, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents as required under section 207, Criminal Procedure Code was supplied to him. As the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Betul for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

4. Basing on material available on record, strangely the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges under sections 307, 324 and 506 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code and also framed the charge under the provisions of Explosive Substances Act, the trial Court was not specifically charged under section 4 of the Act of 1908 in which he was prosecuted. The same has been read over and explained to the appellant/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 and PW-10 and exhibited documents got marked Ex.P/1 to P/18. Out of 10 witnesses examined by prosecution, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated them hostile by prosecution.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant/accused was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code with reference to incriminating circumstance appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied, however, he pleaded innocence and having past enmity and filed