Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th July, 1997 and 2nd December, 1997, passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1992. ================================================== Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.212 of 1997 =========================================================== Kuldip Paswan son of Late Karmu Paswan, Resident of village- Nisiyama (Masaurhi), Police Station-Masaurhi, District-Patna (Bihar) .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 247 of 1997 =========================================================== 1. Sita Ram Paswan son of Doman Paswan, 2. Subhash Paswan son of Mannu Paswan, 3. Munarik Paswan son of Deep Lal Paswan, 4. Krishna Paswan son of Sakaldeep Paswan, 5. Suresh Paswan @ Jholtan son of Sita Ram Paswan, 6. Nathun Paswan son of Darwari Paswan, 7. Darbari Paswan son of Late Shobhan Paswan, 8. Sakaldeep Paswan son of Karmu Paswan, 9. Umesh Paswan son of Sri Kuldip Paswan, 10. Ramnath Paswan son of Sri Deonandan Paswan & 11. Deonandan Paswan son of Late Ram Prit Paswan, All of village- Nisiyama, Police Station-Masaurhi, District-Patna (Bihar) .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 332 of 1997 =========================================================== Pradeep Paswan son of Late Karmu Paswan, resident of village- Nisiyama (Masaurhi), Police Station-Masaurhi, District-Patna (Bihar) .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance: (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 212 of 1997) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anujit Sinha, Amicus Curiae 2 For the Respondent/s: Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 247 of 1997) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anujit Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s: Mr. Humayon Ahmad Khan, APP (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 332 of 1997) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anujit Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s: Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH) 1. Appellant nos. 1 to 7 of Cr. Appeal No. 247 of 1997 have been convicted under section 147 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, whereas, appellant nos. 8 to 11 have been convicted under section 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant Pradeep Paswan (Cr. Appeal No.332 of 1997) and Kuldip Paswan (Cr. Appeal No.212 of 1997) have been convicted under section 307 Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Explosives Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and ten years respectively by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.82 of 1992, by judgment dated 28.7.1997 and 02.12.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the informant (PW 5) was sitting at his Darwaja on 26.04.1991 at about 7.30 PM, appellant Kuldip Paswan and Pradeep Paswan came armed with bombs along with others variously armed to his house and thereafter appellant Kuldip Paswan and Pradeep Paswan are said to have thrown bombs on account of which PW 1 and PW 4 were seriously injured. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of whom, PW 1 is an injured witness and stated that appellant Pradeep and Kuldip had 3 thrown bomb on Bengali Paswan (PW 5) while the others were present there variously armed with. He admitted that there was land dispute with regard to the Plot No. 1017 between the parties and PW 5 had constructed a house on the same on account of which this occurrence had taken place. PW 2 Badri Prasad, also an eye witness to the occurrence, has stated as to how the appellant Kuldip Paswan and Pradeep Paswan in presence of the other accused persons had thrown bomb on the informant on account of which three persons had suffered injuries. There was a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. and 145 Cr. P. C. going on between the parties. PW 3 Akhileshwar Paswan, also a witness, has stated as to how the occurrence took place while he himself was feeding his buffalos at the distance of about twenty feet from the place of occurrence. PW 4 Panpari Devi, an injured witness, has stated that while she was going to bring water from the hand pump, she saw the accused persons throwing bomb on PW 5 on account of which she herself, her son and PW 5 were injured. She further stated that a proceeding under section 107 Cr. P. C. was going on between the parties. PW 5 Bangali Paswan, the informant has fully corroborated the version that he had given in his First Information Report. PW 6 Dr. Satya Narain Singh, who examined PW 5, 1 and 4, has stated that he had examined all the three injured. Therefore, there was full corroboration about the fact that the three injured had sustained injuries by bombs thrown by the two appellants. From the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that proceedings under sections 107 Cr. P. C., 144 Cr. P.C., 145 Cr. P.C. pending between the parties and, therefore, there was motive for the accused to have committed this occurrence. PW 7 is a formal witness who has only proved the First Information Report. 4. On going through the evidence of the eye witnesses, as discussed above, there is no manner of doubt that appellants Pradeep Paswan and Kuldip 4 Paswan had thrown bomb on the informant on account of which three persons were injured. The same stood fully corroborated by the doctor (PW 6). 5. In view of such, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. However, in view of the fact that the occurrence had taken place about twenty years ago, sentence of Pradeep Paswan and Kuldip Paswan under section 307 Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Explosives Substance Act both is reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years and ten years respectively. 6. As for the conviction of the other appellants i.e. appellant nos.1 to 11 of Cr. Appeal No. 247 of 1997, the same is maintained but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with modification in the sentence. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be handed over to the Amicus Curiae for the needful. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 6th July, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-