TOGENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though five persons including appellant were put on trial, while others were acquired of the charges, appellant alone suffered conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and while no sentence was awarded under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for his conviction under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act also. In case of default, to make payment of fine, appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and similarly for failure to pay fine, awarded under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one month. These sentences were awarded to the appellant with a rider that both fhe sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The essential features of the prosecution case may be discussed with brevity. Kailash Yadav (PW 2) who happened to be an Army Personnel, had moved the Government by filing an application for allotment of gairmazarua Aam Land which situates north to his village, in his name and this had offended appellant and others, who forcibly occupied the land in question. It was alleged that on 27th May, 1984 while Kailash Yadav was going to respond to nature's call, appellant came along with others constituting an unlawful assembly, and on exhortation made by Medani Yadav, lobbed a bomb on him causing injuries in both the legs. He was taken to Sahkund hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded by police at 11.00 a.m. on 27th May, 1984. As usual, investigation followed, during which, Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, seized offending articles from the place of occurrence, secured injury report from the hospital, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. During trial, the State examined altogether ten witnesses who happened to be injured, doctor, other hosts of witnesses and also a formal witness who brought on the record the order of sanction accorded by the District Magistrate for prosecution of the appellant under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

(3.) The defence of the appellant had been that of plea of innocence and he ascribed his false implication due to land dispute persisting between the parties. The defence, however, had not chosen to examine any defence witness to strengthen the plea of defence and that of animosity. The trial Court, however, on considering evidences available on the record, negativing the plea of defence raised by the appellant, while acquitting others, recorded finding of guilt against the appellant and sentenced him in the manner stated above.