- (1.) Barju Mian @ Bahruddin Mian @ Barju and his co-accused Jamshed Mian faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. Their third accused namely Shamsher Mian could not be nabbed by the Police till the challan was filed against these two accused, hence his case was segregated. Both were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Barju Mian was charged separately for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereas Jamshed Mian for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. Both have now been convicted for the said charges vide impugned judgment and order of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar dated 15/24.07.2015. Since Jamshed Mian has been sentenced for seven years, he has filed a separate appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.643 of 2015, which is yet to be admitted. In the instant appeal filed by Barju Mian, he is now praying for suspension of sentence.
(2.) Heard Mr. Sanjeev thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the assistance rendered by Mr. Thakur, we have gone through the impugned judgment and some material evidence available on trial court record.
(3.) Mr. Thakur vehemently contended that the entire prosecution case is shrouded under thick clouds of doubt. He submitted that admittedly there was a previous litigation going on between the informant and the accused side. He then submitted that if one looks at the prosecution case, as put forth, the time of occurrence is indicated as 9:30 A.M. by the informant and when he stepped into the witness box, he projected the time of occurrence as 1:00 P.M. This was the position of certain other material witnesses except one or two, who stated that the occurrence has taken place at 9:30 A.M. Learned counsel then submitted that even if some leverage is given to the prosecution on this aspect, whereas this flaw knocks at the bottom of the prosecution case to disbelieve it in toto, the other fact apparent on record is that none from the side of the complainant has received any injury. Not only that, according to learned counsel, the case set up by the prosecution was that the present appellant had thrown a bomb at the complainant party which exploded also, but the prosecution agency did not lift any splinter of bomb from the situs where the occurrence had taken place. He submitted that after two hours of occurrence a thread and certain scattered papers were handed over to the Police by the Informant along with a pistol which is shown to have been used by Shamsher Mian (not faced trial).;