Hussain and One Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri A.K. Sharma J.

Appellants have filed this appeal against judgment dt. 21.1.1998 passed in S.T. No. 163/1996 by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Ratlam, M.P. whereby appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 326 and 324 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years each for the offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act, and they have been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years each and fine Rs. 2,000/-each for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC. Further they have been sentenced to RI for one year each and fine Rs. 500/-each for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC with default stipulation. The brief facts of the case are that, on 5.3.1996 due to explosion of bomb from the fire of Holi some children were injured and crime was registered and after investigation, it has been found that accused Noor Mohd. Hussain, Ajij s/o Jan Mohd. and Ajij s/o Wali Mohd. prepared explosives and appellant Hussain kept one bomb which exploded in Holi Dahan. Learned Trial Court after trial of the appellants, convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellants as there was no evidence against appellants on record.

The main point for consideration in this appeal is that, whether learned Trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants by impugned judgment.

Appellants have been tried for the offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act but learned Trial Court has failed to see that there was no consent of District Magistrate for trial of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act, 1908. Section 7 of the said Act makes a provision that no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except, with the consent of the District Magistrate. There is no letter of consent from District Magistrate for prosecution of the appellants or other accused persons. Therefore, trial of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act, 1908 is vitiated, therefore, learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act, 1908.

So far as the offence punishable u/s 326 and 324 of IPC are concerned, there is no evidence that any of the appellants put explosive substance in the Holi. Only one witness Shantibai PW-13 has stated that one Basantibai has been told by daughter of Pinjara that bomb has been kept in Holi, therefore, she should not go in Holi. This was told to her by Basantibai but Basantibai has not been examined before the Trial Court and statement of Basantibai what has been told by daughter of Pinjara is an hearsay evidence. Therefore, evidence of Shantibai PW-13 is not admissible in evidence. It is an admitted fact that accused persons are on inimical terms with Babulal Sarpanch, therefore, there is no reliable evidence available on record connecting the appellants with the bomb blast. Therefore, learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellants by impugned judgment. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 3 read with Section 5 of The Explosives Substances Act for the offence punishable u/s 326 and 324 of IPC by setting-aside the impugned judgment. Fine amount if deposited by the appellants, be refunded to them. Bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.