Ritlal Manda vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2002 passed by Md. Noman Ali, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 6/1992/T.R. No. 25/2002, by which judgment he found the Appellant guilty under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years u/s 4 of the Explosives Substance Act and further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years u/s 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. He directed both the sentences shall run concurrently.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that although the prosecution, which was started on the basis of self statement given by the informant, Ratanlal Sinha (P.W.10) stating therein that on 21.5.95 while he was posted at Hirodih Police Station and in the light of election who was checking the vehicles by putting 8 barrier on 21.5.91 and during the course of checking the Vikrant Bus No. BHN 6114 which was coming from Koderma, which was stopped and while checking from a bag which was in possession of the Appellant 9 pieces of dynamite was recovered. He disclosed his name as Ritlal Mandal (Appellant). On the basis of the said Fardbeyan the informant instituted a case and he himself took the investigation. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the informant could not have investigated the case himself. Moreover, it will appear that subsequently the seized material, which was kept in Thana Malkhana and the same was never sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Test for verification as to whether they were dynamites or not? After 3 years on 20.8.1998 one glass phial of brown substance was sent, which has been proved as Ext.-5 to be some explosive material and as such the conviction of the Appellant in absence of any finding that the recovered material was dynamite, the conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the witnesses have proved that from a bag of the Appellant 9 dynamites were recovered, but admits that they were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a glass phial of brown substance was sent.

After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of self statement given by the informant, Ratan Lal Sinha, who was the Investigating Officer, stating therein that on 21.5.91 during the checking of vehicles in front of Hirodih Police Station, a Vikrant Bus No. BHW 8114 was checked and from the possession of this Appellant, Ritlal Mandalin in his bag 9 pieces of dynamites were recovered. He prepared a seizure-list of the same which was signed by Driver and Khalasi of the Bus.

On the basis of the said Fardbeyan he himself registered a case under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the case.

It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses.

The P.W.1, is Nand Kumar Singh, P.W 2 is Suresh Tiwary, P.W.7 is Bikash Kumar Singh, P.W. 8 is Suresh Rai, P.W. 9 is Sarju Das and P.W. 10 is Ratanlal Sinha, all are police officials, except P.W.2, who is the Bus Conductor, they have stated that from the possession of the Appellant a Bag was recovered containing 9 pieces of detonators.

The other P.W. 3 is Kamal Yadav, P.W.4 is Bhuneshwar Rai and P.W. 5 is, Huro Mahto, who have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The I.O. has proved the seizure-list as also his fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. and report of the F.S.L., who proved that the substance recovered was found to be explosive substance.

After going through the record, it is apparent that no doubt the police had recovered something, which was kept in a Bag and they thought that it was dynamites and hence arrested the Appellant and the informant started investigation himself, but it appears from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Ext.-5 that one glass phial containing brown substance was sent by the police which was received in the F.S.L., Ranchi on 20.8.98 and by the report dated 28.2.2000 stated that substance was explosive material.

P.W.11 is Ijaz Ahmad, who is the Director Incharge of Forensic Science Laboratory. During his cross examination, in para 4, stated that the material which was received by the F.S.L. was a deactivated article and it was neither a bomb nor dynamite.

Thus, it is clear that the dynamitic which was said to be recovered from the possession of the Appellant-accused, which has been described by P.W.2 at para 11 hat they were 4" in the length were never sent for chemical examination. It is difficult to say that as per the seizure list, what was seized on 21.5.91 and the same was never sent to F.S.L. and after 8 years what was sent was some defused substance. There is no evidence of the prosecution that the dynamite recovered from the possession of so-called Appellant were deactivated and converted into brown substance which was sent after 8 years. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has failed to prove that what was the recovered from the possession of the Appellant was actually dynamite or any explosive. Hence, the Appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charged leveled against him.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2002 passed by Md. Noman Ali Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 6/1992/T.R. No. 25/2002, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

The Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.