Chandu @ Chandra Prakash and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment

of conviction dated 25.11.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.

424/2003.

Complainant Rameshwar Prasad Gautam lodged a

report at Police Station Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad that

on the date of incident, at around 7.15 O''Clock in the

morning, he was taking tea in the courtyard of Nanhe

Bhaiya, at that time, he had heard explosion of a bomb and

then he reached at the filed of Akhilesh and then Munna told

him that Chandu Dixit and Sunnu Dixit i.e. both the

appellants had thrown a hand grenade at the deceased, due to

which he fell down. He reached on the spot and noticed that

deceased was died. On the aforesaid report, police registered

an offence against the appellants and conducted

investigation. Thereafter, the police filed charge-sheet

against the appellants for commission of offences punishable

under Section 302 / 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of

Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The trial Court framed

charges against the appellants. They abjured their guilt. After

trial, the trial Court found the appellants guilty for

commission of offence punishable under Section

302 / 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of

Explosive Substance Act and awarded RI life, RI 7 years and

RI 7 years respectively alongwith fine of Rs.500 each

appellant for each offence with default stipulations RI 2

months for each offence.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants has contended that the trial Court has committed

an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 / 34 of

Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance

Act. The prosecution has failed to prove commission of the

aforesaid offences, hence, the appellants are liable to be

acquitted.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State

submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly held the

appellants guilty for commission of offences punishable

under Sections 302 / 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of

Explosive Substance Act. There is no merit in the instant

appeal, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.

The report of the incident was lodged at the police

station at around 10.15 O''Clock in the morning after three

hours of the incident. In the report, the names of the

appellants have been mentioned. Complainant PW-4

Rameshwar Prasad, who lodged the first information report,

deposed that on 06.07.2004 at around 7:00-7:15 AM in the

morning he, at the house of Nanhe Bhaiya Pachouri,

alongwith Mahesh and Nanhe Bhaiya had been taking tea, at

that time, he had heard loud sound of bomb explosion and

then he went at that place. He had seen that the body of the

deceased was lying. Then, he enquired from the persons

present there and Munna and Kamlesh told him that accused

persons had thrown a bomb at the deceased. Thereafter, he

lodged the FIR Ex.P/10 and he admitted his signatures on

the same. He also signed the pachnama of dead body of the

deceased Ex.P/6.

Same facts have been deposed by PW-6 Nanhe

Bhaiya, who also reached on the spot. He deposed that he,

PW-3 Mahesh Pachouri and PW-4 Rameshwar were taking

tea in the courtyard, at that time, he heard sound of bomb

explosion. He deposed that when he reached at the spot,

Satyanarayan @ Munna told him that the present appellants

had thrown hand grenade on the deceased. He further

deposed that he had seen both the appellants running away

from the spot.

PW-3 Mahesh Pachouri in his evidence deposed that

he was taking tea in the courtyard of the house of Nanhe

Bhaiya alongwith other persons, at that time, he had heard

loud sound of bomb explosion and, thereafter, he rushed

towards the field and he had seen both the appellants

running away from the field of deceased Akhilesh towards

village Saikheda and, at that time, Munna @ Satyanarayan

told him that the present appellants had thrown hand grenade

on the deceased.

PW-9 Satyanarayan @ Munna in his evidence deposed

that at around 6 O''Clock in the morning he had gone to his

field. Akhilesh was also working in his field. His field and

the field of deceased Akhilesh are adjacent to each other. At

that time, both the accused persons/appellants reached near

at Akhilesh, due to which Akhilesh received injuries.

Thereafter, the accused persons ran away. At that time,

Mahesh, Nanhe Bhaiya and Rameshwar reached there and

he had told them about the incident. Thereafter, the report of

the incident was lodged. He is a natural witness. There is

nothing adverse in his cross-examination. He specifically

denied the fact that deceased Akhilesh was having a hand

grenade with him.

PW-11 Hargoving Raghuvanshi deposed that he had

given sanction to prosecute the appellant under the

Explosive Substance Act.

PW-12 D.S. Chouhan is the investigating officer. He

deposed that on 06.07.2003, he was posted as Station House

Officer Incharge, Police Station Bankhedi. The report

Ex.P/10 was lodged by Rameshwar Prasad Gautam and he

had recorded the report and signed the same. Thereafter, he

had issued notice Ex.P/5 and prepared pachyatnama of the

dead body of the deceased Ex.P/6, which was signed by the

witnesses. He also prepared the map Ex.P/4. He collected

the particles of bomb vide Ex.P/7 and blood stained soil and

plain soil and signed the same. He also arrested the accused

persons vide Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16. He recorded statements

of witnesses Mahesh vide Ex.D/1 and Munna vide Ex.D/3.

Statement of witnesses Nanhe Bhaiya, Kamlesh and

Rameshwar were also recorded by him. He denied the

suggestion that the deceased was died because he was

having hand grenade with him.

PW-7 Dr. M.K. Chandel conducted postmortem of the

deceased. He deposed that on 06.07.2003, he was posted as

B.M..O. at C.H.C. Bankhedi and, at that time, he had

conducted postmortem of the deceased and noticed

following injuries:

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

He further deposed that the injuries were caused by

explosion of bomb. 12. From the evidence of eye witness PW-9 Satyanarayan

@ Munna, evidence of PW-3 Mahesh Pachouri, PW-4

Rameshwar Prasad, PW-6-Nanhe Bhaiya, it has been proved

that the appellants had thrown a bomb at the deceased due to

which he received injuries and died.

The leanrned counsel for the appellants has taken a

defence that the deceased himself kept a bomb and due to

explosion of aforesaid bomb, he died. In our opinion, this

theory does not find support from the investigation

conducted by the prosecution. The nature of injuries also do

not corroborate the theory as argued by the counsel for the appellants.

In view of the aforesaid evidence on record and the

facts of the case, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly

held the appellants guilty for commission of offences as

mentioned above in the judgment. The prosecution has

proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the

appellants. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal, it is

hereby dismissed.