RAMBRIKSHA BHUIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.1996 and 13.2.1996 respectively passed in ST No. 45/1983 by Shri R.N.R. Mahto, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, under Section 25(1a) of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and under Section 304A of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case was initiated on the written information (Ext. 1) of Prabhunath Singh, ASI of Sonardih O.P., addressed to the Officer -in -Charge, Baghmara P.S., in which he Informed that on 6.2.1981 at 9 a.m. he heard rumour that there was bomb -explosion at Dharmabandh colliery near Khilanghora Hospital in the house of Rambriksha Bhuian (appellant) causing injury to some inmates. He entered Sonardih O.P. S.D.E. No. 86/6.10.1981 and alongwith police force went for verification and reached BCCL quarter of this appellant, Rambriksha Bhuian, situated at Dharmabandh Khilanghora. where he was living alongwith his family members. The informant found Muniya Bhuian, wife of the appellant, injured due to bomb -explosion on the back side of her right leg, right sole, right thumb, right little finger of the leg. He also found Gayatri Kumari injured which was bandaged. She had also sustained injury on her buttock and back side of leg. Bijay Bhuian, son of the appellant, had sustained injury on his right leg and on other parts of the body, oozing blood in the right heel and left leg. All the three inmates sustained injuries due to bomb -explosion. The informant sent all the injured for treatment to BCCL Regional Hospital, Katras. He found smell of bomb -explosion. He found door -flanks, window -panes and other household articles fallen down dueto bomb -explosion. He found that there was ditch towards the East -South corner of the room. The flanks of the cot were also thrown out due to bomb -explosion having spot of explosion and smoke on its bottom portion. He also found mark of explosion and smoke on the wall. He found that the bombs were kept under the cot which got exploded. In presence of Anirudh Prasad Singh and Adim Mian, he searched the house of this appellant. He found one heavy weapon wrapped and kept towards the Southwestern corner of a room facing towards West. When he opened that bundle, he found two country -made pistols. He seized both the pistols, splinters of bomb -explosion, blood -stained saree. small bent pillets which were fired due to bomb -explosion and prepared seizure -list (Ext. 3). On thebasis of the written information (Ext. 1), formal FIR (Ext. 2) was drawn and case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act under Section 25A/26 of the Arms Act and under Section 326 of the IPC was registered. In course of treatment of injured, Bijay Bhuian, succumbed to his injuries on 8.10.2001.

(3.) ASSAILLING the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no prudent man will keep bomb under a cot to kill his own wife, minor son and minor daughter. Some enemies had kept the bomb and country -made pistols with cartridges in order to kill the family members of the appellant. The appellantwas on duty at BCCL colliery at the time when bomb exploded. The room in question was not in exclusive possession of this appellant. He had no knowledge about the bomb and country -made pistols which were kept in that room under the cot and in the corner of the room. The informant should not have investigated this case; and has relied upon a case reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal, Page 3988 Megha Singh v. State of Haryana. It was also submitted that the sanction, which requires under the Indian Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act, has not been accorded by the competent authority and besides that there is nothing to show that the relevant facts had been placed before the District Magistrate who had accorded the sanction. The material exhibits seized by the informant I.O. were also not produced in the Court in course of trial. None of the witnesses has stated that the appellant is responsible for keeping the bomb and country -made pistols in his house. It was also submitted that without examination of experts in the Court as contained under Section 293 of the Cr PC the report of the expert should not have been taken into evidence by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. It was also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the bombs and country -made pistols with cartridges were in conscious possession of the appellant and has relied upon a case reported in 1976 Criminal Law Journal, Page 205 Guljar Singh and Ors. The State of Maharashtra. On these grounds it was submitted that the appellant is innocent who has falsely been implicated in this case only on suspicion.