LAKSHMAN URAON, J. - (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. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in order to prove its case. PW 1, Janardhan Singh, PW 2, Ramraj Singh PW 3, Adim Mian and PW 4, Lakshman Singh went to the BCCL quarter, occupied by the appellant, Rambriksha Bhuian, on hearing the sound of bomb -explosion. The doors and windows of the quarter were found broken. They found Muniya Bhuian, Bijay Bhuian and Gayatri Kumari, injured due to bomb -explosion. PW 5, Prabhunath Singh, is the informant and the I.O. of this case. PW 6. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Bijay Bhuian, aged three years, on 9.10.1981 at 4 p.m. and submitted the report in his pen and signature (Ext. 8). PW 7, Parsuram Prasad had gone alongwith the informant to the P.O. where the informant searched the house of Rambriksha Bhuian and recovered two country -made pistols and two cartridges. He seized them and prepared the seizure -list. PW 8, Akbarali Mian, a formal witness, has proved the sanction order (Ext. 9) to prosecute the appellant under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 25A of the Arms Act. In this case there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. The appellant, Rambriksha Bhuian, was admittedly on his duty at his place of work and he was not present in his house at the time of the occurrence. When he was informed then he came to his quarter and found his wife, son and step -daughter injured who were sent for treatment. The nearby occupants of the quarter rushed to the quarter of the appellant and saw smoke in the room. There was smell of bomb -explosion and they saw the wife, son and step -daughter of the appellant in injured condition. The cot on which Muniya Bhuian, Gayatri Kumari and Bijay Bhuianwere taking snacks, was found broken into pieces. The doors and flanks were also found broken and fallen. There was a ditch under the cot due to pressure of bomb -explosion. The walls were also found having black spot and mark of explosion. All the injured had sustained bleeding injuries due to bomb -explosion. The 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad relied the evidence of the informant and I.O. PW 5, and the materials found at the P.O. and opined that the explosive materials and country -made pistols were concealed in the house under a cot. The inmates of the appellant were in conscious possession of those explosive materials, country -made pistols and cartridges which exploded due to negligence endangering human life resulting the death of Bijay Bhuian and causing injury to Muniya Bhuian and Gayatri Kumari. PW 6, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, held the postmortem examination on the dead body of Bijay Bhuian and found blackish burn injuries over the dorsurn of both foots and anterior lateral aspect of both legs, blackish burn injuries of neck and left auxilla, blackish burn injuries over both sides of buttocks, blackish burn injuries over both hands and left side of the scalp. The cause of death was shock as a result of bomb injuries due to explosion of bomb within 24 hours from the time of postmortem examination. Considering the evidence that although the informant is the I.O. of this case, the appellant was not prejudiced as the informant was the only Sr. Police Officer posted at the outpost and in absence of any plea that the bombs and arms were kept by any other person other than the appellant, the learned 1st Addl. Session Judge, Dhanbad convicted and sentenced the appellant.
(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.;