Hanumant Singh and Another vs State of M.P.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

The appellants by filing this appeal u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has assailed their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed u/s 9B of the Explosives Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby sentenced them to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to suffer further imprisonment of one month.

No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that the appellants alongwith other accused persons were tried for the offence under Sections 148, 307, 149 of IPC and also u/s 9B of the Act. Learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons including appellants from the charges punishable under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC. However, these two appellants have been convicted u/s 9B of the Act.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the pieces and garbage of the explosive substance was not sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory in order to ascertain whether the substance, which was seized, was containing the explosive substance or not and, hence, according to learned counsel, the conviction of appellants u/s 9B of IPC cannot be accorded.

On the other hand Sushri Sudha Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, has argued in support of the impugned judgment.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

On going through the findings of learned Trial Court in para 28, this Court finds that admittedly the pieces and garbage of the alleged explosive substance was not sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory in order to ascertain whether it contains any explosive substance or not. The learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants u/s 9B of the Act merely on the ground that it is a matter of common parlance that hand grenade is an explosive substance and without examining its garbage and pieces one can identify it to be an explosive substance. To me, this finding cannot be allowed to remain stand. In order to ascertain whether the garbage and the pieces recovered at the spot was having explosive substance, it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to send it for examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Since this has not been done, it is not proved that the substance which was seized from the spot was containing any explosive substance and, therefore, conviction of the appellants u/s 9B of the Act cannot be allowed to remain stand.

For the reasons stated hereinabove this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge u/s 9B of the Act. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the appellants.