Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.7 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 1.12.1999 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 2.12.1999, PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 4 OF 1988 ARISING OUT OF G.R. CASE NO. 1788 OF 1986 BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KATIHAR. =========================================================== 1. Isharaul Haque, son of Late Samful Haque, resident of village Dehariya, P.S. Katihar, District Katihar. 2. Surendra Singh, son of Late Jankak Singh, resident of village Bari Bathnaha, P.S. Manshi, District Katihar. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Ranvir Singh, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhya, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-07-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Nobody appears for the appellants. Mr. Ranvir Singh is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case who is present in Court. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 1.12.1999 and order of sentence dated 2.12.1999, passed in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1988, arising out of G.R. Case No. 1788 of 1986 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years under Section 3 read with Section 34 of the Explosive Substance Act. They are also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.7 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 2 / 7 2 under [STATUTE] . All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short is that one Fuldeo Singh Sub-Inspector of police Katihar instituted a case against 6 to 7 unknown persons in which it is alleged that in the evening he learnt that some criminals are going to commit an offence. On receiving this information the Sub-Inspector, the informant and one Assistant Sub- Inspector Arun Kumar Singh left for the said area on their motorcycle. On seeing the informant and the Assistant Sub-Inspector the criminals began to flee away. It is alleged that one of them threw a bomb by which both the informant and Arun Kumar Singh received injuries. 4. During trial, altogether 7 witnesses including the informant were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Parshuram Singh supports the case of the prosecution and has also stated that on receiving confidential information he raided the house of the appellant Surendra Singh and arrested him. 5. P.W. 2, Fuldeo Singh supports the case of the prosecution in chief and has stated that he identified the appellants. He has denied the suggestion that after the two accused persons were arrested they were brought to the police station where he had opportunity to identify them. He also denies the suggestion that he Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.7 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 3 / 7 3 had seen these two accused persons earlier. 6. P.W. 3 is the doctor who has examined Fuldeo Singh and Arun Kumar Singh and has found injuries which according to the doctor were caused by a bomb blast. Some of the injuries were caused due to falling down. In his cross-examination he states that the injuries could have been caused from a distance of 5 to 6 feet. 7. P.W. 4 is the formal witness who has proved the formal First Information Report (Ext. 3). 8. P.W. 5 the injured Arun Kumar Singh supports the prosecution case. Nothing has been elicited from him in his cross- examination which would help the defence to prove their innocence. 9. P.W. 6 has proved the formal sanction letter (Ext. 5). 10. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the case. 11. A Test Identification Parade was also held and the Sheo Narayan Prasad is the witness who conducted the Test Identification Parade and P.W. 2 has proved 6/A which is the Test Identification Parade. 12. On perusal of the evidence it is apparent that the informant along with Arun Kumar Singh were chasing some miscreants in which they have received bomb injuries. There is no doubt about the fact that the injuries were caused by bomb blast. The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.7 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 4 / 7 4 only question is whether the bombs were thrown on the informant with intention to kill him? The argument is that the miscreants in order to escape from the police had hurled bombs so as to divert their attention. Since the prosecution case is that the informant and Arun Kumar Singh, who was accompanying him could not identify the miscreants who had thrown the bomb, the same logic would also apply in favour of the appellants as they could not have distinguished in the dark the presence of the informant and Arun Kumar Singh and as such the intention to kill cannot be attributed to them, specially in view of the fact that they have not received grievous injuries. At the most it may be held that the appellants are guilty for an offence under [STATUTE] . 13. This Court also notices that the Investigating Officer who visited the place of occurrence did not find any blood or splinters at the place of occurrence, and as such no seizure list was prepared by him, therefore, the Trial Court has relied on the opinion of the doctor who says that the injury no. 3 on the informant was caused by a bomb blast as he found that there was splinters underneath the skin. The injuries on Arun Kumar Singh do not indicate that they were caused by a bomb blast as all the injuries were lacerated wounds however, no splinters were found embedded in or around the skin and as such it has been submitted that there is no clear cut case of a bomb explosion Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.7 of 2000 dt.13-07-2012 5 / 7 5 and even if there was a bomb blast it had to be fro

Applicable IPC Section: 324

Statute Text:
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.