ASHOK PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A police case had been registered against the appellant and Vijay Pandit with accusation that on 19th day of August, 1987 when Prabhu Paswan, constable no. 10 posted at Gulzarbagh Railway Station, on receipt of confidential information about assemblage of some miscreants on platform no. 2, visited there in the company of Md. Ashfaque Khan P.W. 2 and one Kapildeo Rai, Koolee, he noticed appellant and Vijay Pandit standing near compartment of a train which had just reached the station. It was alleged that shortly after they were identified by them, the appellant hurled a bomb causing injuries to his person and pursuant to institution of the police case, the investigation commenced. However, the police laid chargesheet against the appellant alone showing Vijay Pandit as absconder and the trial as such commenced only against the appellant. At the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses including two eye witnesses, a formal witness who brought sanction order accorded by the District Magistrate on the record, Investigation Officer of the case and also the doctor Chandra Mauleshwar Singh P.W. 5 who examined injuries, and the trial court finding evidence of the prosecution witnesses worthy of reliance convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellant suffered conviction also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act for which he was sentenced to same term of imprisonment.

(2.) NOW adverting to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses placed on the record, the evidences of constable, Prabhu Paswan was reiteration of his earlier version which he rendered when the police was set in motion, about he having visited platform no. 2 at Gulzarbagh Railway Station in the company of P.W. 2 and Kapildeo Rai, when appellant hurled bomb on him causing injuries to his person. Similar was the evidence of P.W. Ashfaque Khan who happens to be a constable about he being in company of P.W. 2 at Platform No. 2 of Gulzarbagh Railway Station, when the appellant on being identified, hurled bomb causing injuries on Prabhu Paswan P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 3 was about the execution of the process against absconding accused. The sanction order accorded by the District Magistrate, Patna was brought on the record with the aid of evidence of RW. 4. The doctor Chandra Mauleshwar Singh P.W. 4 who examined injured Prabhu Paswan, stated to have noticed five numbers of lacerated wounds on his person besides some tiny abrasions which too were seven in numbers. All the injuries in the opinion of the doctor were simple in nature caused by some projectile object which could be due to explosion. Sidh Nath Singh P.W. 6 who was the Investigating officer of the case, stated to have noticed signs of violence on the place of occurrence which was platform No. 2 of Gulzarbagh railway station. This witness stated to have effected seizure of the remanances of incriminating object noticed at the place of occurrence which was. sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical analysis. This witness stated to have recorded the statement of Kapil Rai under section 161 of the Code of Criminaf Procedure and on completion of investigation laid chargesheet before the court. This is all the evidence which has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

(3.) THE finding recorded by the trial court was sought to be assailed by learned counsel for the appellant on the premises that though the appellant was sought to be prosecuted under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and also that remanances of the explosive substance seized from the place of occurrence were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical analysis, there was no finding of the expert to lead to the conclusion that what was collected at the place of occurrence by the police was nothing but explosive substance and in this backdrop it is sought to be urged the conviction of the appellant on that court alone was invalid and unmeritted. The second limb of argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant was that though the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, there was no evidence of credible nature to ever suggest, taking the evidence to be true on its face value, that the bomb was hurled with an intent to kill P.W. 1. In quick succession it is urged that the injuries noticed on the person of the injured were lacerated wounds and abrasions but as none of the injuries were on the vital part of the person of the injured, the case would not fall squarely within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.