^- ^y ^U^^^^.r- ^s^.^M^y. ID. P. CF0000059237 T^ ^BencA (^naf^ IN %iB HIQH COORT OF mEH^ PRADESH AT JaMLPUR CR» APPE&£< N0». GF 1993 APPBLIJlNTs SatyanaEayan^ son of tlxath Rcased GIiati^vedi^ agecS 21 year's^ residentof Patna, Pelic©aiation Patna, Tahsil BaikanthpuE, Distt» Sar@xtja (MP) Vs« .RESE'ONBBNTs ^. St»t@©fm<ahya Pradesh CRIMEmi, ^PPBAL QNDER SSBSTION 374(2) OP_THE CODE_OP CRIMENAL PROCBDUaEa BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.06 13:09:08 +0530 W.^J^!..».^^. ^.F.R. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR Singl®Bench ; Hon'ble Mr, Justice Prittnker Diwaker Crimmal Appeal No 186 of 1993 APPELLANT Sotyanorayoin son of TJrath Prasad Chaturvedi Versus KESPONDENT State of M-adhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgorh) Shri D.N. PrajGpatJ, counsel for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer for the Stote. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CKIMINAL PKOCEDURE JUb@WENT (25.03.2010) This appeo.1 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 27.2.1993 passed by ^dditiono.! Sessions Judg@, Baikunthpur, Dlstrict Sarguja jn Sessions Triol No. 154/1987 convicting the accused/appeljant for the offences punjshable under Section 307 of the Indion Pena! Cpde and under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substonces Act (for short "the Act") ond sentencing hirn to undergo rlgorous impri^nment for 7 yecrs with fine of Rs.lOO^-u/S 307 IPC, to undergo ngorous imprisonment for flye years u/S 3/4 of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case ore that on 24.11.1986 ot about 7.20 pm F.I.R. (Ex.P-9) was Jod§ed by Yawat Kumar SJngh (PW-6) a!!e9ing in it that on th©soime day at about 7 pm when he was standing in the shop of one Sukkhu Kisan, he SOM thort- one Vindhesh Pandey was being chased by Sadonand, Parmanond, Shambhu, Ajoy Jaiswal, Devendro. Tiwari and the present o-ppellant Sotyanaroyflin. It is furl-her ajleged that while chasing the said Vindhesh Pandey, all the accused persons ..:<^^ were soying that "cotch hold of him and ensjre that he should not run away and he would be killed". It is atleged that when he tried to intervene, accused/appetiant SQtyQnarayan had thrown bomb on him, as a result of which, he sustained jnjuries on his jeft eye, finger of his left hand and rjght thigh. He stat'es that other persons namely Modan Prasad, Subran Singhand Angod have dso sustained various injuries. On the basis of this F.I.R. lodged by Yawat Kumar Singh (PW-6), Lnve^tjgation was done by the polic® and the accused persons ncmely Sotyanarayan (present appeilont), Shambhu, Ajeiy "Kumar, Satonond and Permanand wer©prosecuted for the.offence punishabje under Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 of the Xndian Penal Code Qnd under Sectlon 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act 3* So QS to hold the accused/appellant guitty, prosecution has examined as many QS 13 witnesses. Statement of the Qccused/appellont WGS a!so recorded under Sectlon 313 of the Code of Cnmind Procedure in which he denied the chcrges levejed against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Aport from this, witnesses nomely Vijay (DW-1) and Dr. A.K. SharmQ (DW-2) have been examined by the defence in support- of its cose. 4. After hearing the port'ies the trial Courl' ho^ acquitted four other co-accused persons, however, has convicted the accused/appellont GS mentioned above. Hence this appea!^ 5. Counse! for th©appeKant submits that most import'ont witness nomely Vindhesh Pondey, who wos altegedly chased by the accused persons, has not been exomined. He submits that non-examJnation of this material witness fajsifjes the entire ^ %s-^...,.-.^ ^ prosecution case. He furt'her submits that so-cajjed eye witnesses namejy Krisna Kumar Singh (PW-1). K.P. Singh (PW-5), Yawot Kumar Singh (PW-6), ParflBnath (PW-7), Angad Singh (PW-8) and Subrcn Singh (PW-9) have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that as per the stoitement of Dr. R.K. Rajmani (PW-11), injuries sustained by the vorious persons were simpje in nature and therefore, off©nceunder Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is hot mode out. He furl'her submits that iikewis®the conyictlon of the accused/appetloint for offence under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substonces Act js bad m the eye of law. 6. On the other hand, supporting th®impugned judgment, it has been orgued on behalf of the Stat®that lodger of the FIR injured Yawat Kumar Singh (PW-6), K.K. Singh (PW-1) and Angad Singh (PW-8) have categorically supporl-ed the cose of the prosecution. He further submits thdit upon query Dr. R.K. Rajmcni (PW-11) has cateQorically stQted that had the bomb would hav®come on the body of any person directly, he would have died. He further submJts that the small pjeces of bomb were found and that itself shows thot it was not the ordinary bomb like cracker, which WQS used by the accused/appeiJQnt. H®furl'her submits that the manner in which the offence has been committ'ed makes it very clear that the accused/appe!lant had all the intention to kilS the victim or other persons. 7. Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-1) - who is one of the eye witnesses, has stated that he knew all the accused persons <S the victjm. He states that on the dert-e of incident he was sitting jn th@ barber shop of one M.uichand and saw that Vindhesh was being choised by the accused persons. He states that near the shop of Mutchand, said victim Vindhesh stopped /'.^ and had asked for hejp ond then K.P.Singh (PW-5) hod tried to intervene ond to convince all th@ accused persons ond the victim Vindhesh Pandey by saying thot not to fight. He furl-her submits that despite his efforts, the accused persons were fighting cmd in the meanwhije Victim Yawat Kumar Singh (PW-6), who was also the Sarponch of the village, reached there csnd he too had tried to intervene m th©matter. He furt'her submits that at that pojnt of time, the accused/appejiarrt' took out a bomb from his pocket and had thrown the some towards vlctim Yawot Kumar Singh (PW-6), as a resujt of which the said bomb got blasted causing lot of smoke. On account of injury sustained by yawat Kumar Singh (PW-6), he immediately fe!l down and was lifted by other persons. He states thcrt victim Yawat Kumor Singh sustained severa! injuries including bum injuries on his head and other part-s of the body. He furl-her submits that Angad ond AAoidon Singh had also sustained various injuries on th@ir stomach, chest and leg. He furt'her states that the bomb thrown on the victjm was with an intention to kilt him. He has categoricaily denied the suggestions given by the dccused/appellant that on the eve of "Diwali" cerl-ain boys were bursting crockers and on account of that, minor injuries hove caused to the victim ond other witnesses. In poragraph 12 of his cross-exomination. he furl-her reiterates that jt is the accused/appellant who had thrown the bomb. 8. Roimeshwor Prasad (PW-4), Poiice CQnstable had seized cert-dn eirl-icjes and had pcked them for chemical exo.minatlon <md had issued the,duty cerfificate (Ex.P-7). K.P. Singh (PW-5) hos been though declcred hostile but has cate9orica!ly stated that on the date of incident, all the accused persons were 14 stonding and they were abusjng Vindhesh Pandey. He further submits thort- he tried to intervene into the matter but none of them could hear him. He also states that victJm yawcirt" Kumar Singh (PW-6), Sarpanch had olso tried to intervene and at that point of time there wos a bomb blast. Injured Yawoit KumQr Singh (PW-6) immediotely fell down and had sustalned various injurjes including bum injuries cnd likewjse Angad Singh and Mactan Singh had ajso suffeped injun'es. He stotes that along with Yawat Kumar Singh (PW-6) o.nd other persons, he had also gone to lodge the report-. He has furl'her stated that he hos not seen as to who exploded the bomb. Even this witness has categoricatly denied the suggestions of the d@f@nc© thfft' cert'ain boys were bursting the crackers and on account of burstjng of crackers, jncident had taken place. 9. Yawot Kumar Singh (PW-6) is the victim on whom the bomb was thrown, hos cCTtegorJcally stated as to in what manner the incident had taken pjace. H©states thof he saw thfe accused persons chasing Vindhesh Pandey and when he tried to intervene, it js the accused/appejlont who had thrown bomb on him, as a resuit of which he sustojned various injunes. He states that Mandan Sin3h <& Angad Singh had also sustained various injuries. In the cross-examination also he has stoted that it is the accused/appelSont who had thrown something on him and on account of the said blast, he hod sustained injuries. Parasnath (PW-7) has not support-ed the prosecution case and hos been declared hostile. 10. Angad Singh (PW-8), who had olso suffered injuries in the incident, has stoted that there was some dispute between the accused/appeilant and victim Vindhesh Pandey ond on "^ .^-'.r^ m '^^•^ t 6 occount of the bomb which was exploded by the accused/appelSont, he ond the other accused persons in part-icular Yawot Kumar Singh (PW-6) had sustain©dvarious injurjes. 11. Subron Singh (PW-9) has stoted thot there was some dispute between the accused/appellont omd Vindhesh Pandey, victim Yawot Kumar Singh had tried to intervene into the matter and at thort" point of time there wos a bomb b!ast, QS a result of which he, Angad Singh, Madan Singh ond Yawat Kumor' Singh had su^ained various injuries. 12. Prakash Pandey (PW-10) is the seizure witness of sweater of yowat Kumar Singh has supporl'ed the seizure memo vide Ex.P-10 ond has stated that the sald sweater was bumt. Dr. R.K. Rcymoni (PW-11) - who had examined the complajnosnt Yawot Kumar Singh and other injured persons, has stoted thot al! the persons hod sustained number of jnjuries on various parl's of their body. He has further stdted thcri' these bum injuries could have been caused due to explosion of Bomb. He further states that a query was made to him ond the so.me wos reptied by him vide Ex.P-12. stating therem that if the bomb which has been used in the incident would hcxve fallen directly on any of th®persons, he would have died. Chandriko. Prasad (PW-12) is the seizure witness of Ex.P-14 bywhich various constituents of the bomb like giass and Jron pajlets were seized. Birendra Sharma (PW-13) is the Investlgating Officer ond has support-ed the prosecutjon case. Defenc® witness Vtjay (DW-1) has been projected by the accused persons as one of the eye witnesses has stated that on the eve of Diwali Festival, on the spot cerj-fltin boys were bursting the crackers, e®o. r©sultof which SGitcuiand and Parmo.no.nd ho.v@ .,.,^^^ '••^ sustained minor injuries and there wos fight between them. However, in the cross-examinatjon, he states that he does not remember as to where the incident had taken p!ace ond even he does not know as to what type of crackers w@r@ bemg used. 13. Minute exQmination of the evidence of the witnesses in part-icuSar th^ statements of Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-1), Shyam Lal M.ishra (PW-2) o.nd Yawot Kumor Singh (PW-6) makes it yery cjear thort it is the accused/appejlant who had thrown the bomb on the victim Yowat Kumar Singh (PW-6), as a result of which, severa! persons were injured. Even defence witness No. 2 Dr. A.K. Sharma had categoricdly stated that two of the accused persons were hospitdized in the District Hospital and had sustained burn injuries. Dr. R.K. Rajmani (PW- 11) has categorically stoted that had the bomb would hosve faljen directjy on someone; the sajd person would have died. 14. Having come ocross the entire pros ond cons of the matter the only conclusion suitable for the offenders like appellamt herein is the apathy not sympathy. Accordmgly, this Court finds nothin9 to interfer® with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and to b!ow a l»feto the appeal. Apped being lifeless is dismissed. Appellant is reporl'ed to be on baij, his bail bonds stand cancelied. H@ be despotched to jail to serve out the remaining part" of the sentence imposed upon him. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge &/-