Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Dated:09.05.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the Judgment of Conviction dated 10.03.2005 and Sentence dated 15.03.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.82 of 1991/ 09 of 2004, arising out of Meharma P.S Case No.82 of 1990 by Sri Jagannath Mishra, then learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Godda by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 448 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for five (05) years under section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, R.I. for five (05) years under section 307 of the IPC, R.I. for six (06) months under Section 448 of the IPC.

3. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl.PP for the State and Mr. Swami Nath Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the Informant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence except the informant and no one had seen for hurling bomb upon the informant by the appellant. It is submitted that 2025:JHHC:14123 P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-4 and P.W-8 namely Aniul Haque, Purnanand Sharma, Tuleshwar Prasad Tanti and Brahmdeo Choudhary respectively have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that P.W-9 is informant of this case and he is also injured and he claimed that his servant was also injured. However, his servant Manouri Thakur had not been examined by the prosecution and thus the evidence of the informant has not been corroborated from any other witness. It is submitted that P.W-10 is Dr. Naresh Prasad Sinha and who had examined the informant and found merely simple injury on his person. It is submitted that one Aghun, who had put his signature on the FIR and accompanied him to the Police Station, has not been examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that D.W-1 is nephew of another injured Manouri Thakur and who has denied the occurrence and stated that occurrence had taken place inside the factory of the informant and not in his house. It is submitted that F.S.L report of explosive substance has not been proved by the prosecution. Thus, no offence under Section 307, 326, 324 and 448 IPC is made out against the appellant. Even no offence under section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act is made out. Hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed.

9. The police, after making investigation, had submitted charge sheet for the offence under section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and also under sections 448/324/326/307 of the IPC on 16.10.1990 before the learned C.J.M, Godda. Thereafter learned C.J.M, Godda had taken cognizance against the appellant under sections 448/324/326/307 of IPC and under section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act.

10. The charges against the appellant were framed on 24.01.2002 for the offences under sections 324, 326, 307 and 448 of IPC and also under Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act by Sri S.K Sinha, then learned Additional 2025:JHHC:14123 Sessions Judge, Godda and to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

54. Therefore, it is evident that conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is illegal and not sustainable in law and at best it can be conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C.

55. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant-Gopal Sah is altered from 307 of IPC to section 324 of IPC.

2025:JHHC:14123

56. It further reveals that the appellant had remained outside the house and as such no offence under section 448 of the IPC is made out. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted under Section 448 IPC and the appellant is also acquitted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.