Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.110 OF 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.4.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990] Mohammad Shamshad, son of late Nadir Khan, resident of Mohalla Sukrullah Chak, Police Station Mujahidpur, Distt. Bhagalpur …………………….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Bahauddin, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant has been convicted u/ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by a judgment dated 11.4.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Inspector Incharge of Mujahidpur Police Station, Bhagalpur is that on 13.11.1989 at 9 P.M. when the informant, the Inspector of Police, was on patrolling duty to control communal riot, he suddenly heard bomb explosion and he along with other members of the patrolling party went there and saw 150 persons in violent mood. The informant took 17-18 persons in his custody and when they were searched, from the possession of the appellant a live bomb was said to have been recovered in presence of two independent witnesses. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined in all thirteen witness. Out of whom, two independent seizure witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, who did not support the case of the prosecution that any recovery had been effected from the possession of the appellant. Further P.W.3 and P.W.5 have also been declared hostile. P.W.4 and P.W.6 were tendered witnesses, whereas P.W.7 is a hearsay witness. P.W.10 and P.W.13 are formal witnesses and P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.12 are the members of the patrolling party, out of which P.W.9 is the informant. 4. On going through the evidence of the four witnesses, I find that it is only the police personnels, who had testified that the appellant had been apprehended with bomb, but there is no corroboration from independent witnesses. Moreover, the appellant also examined two witnesses on its behalf on the ground that in fact there was no occurrence as alleged by the informant, 5. In view of the uncorroborative evidence of the police personnels, I am inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 11.4.1997 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.177 of 1990 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Patna High Court Dated, 29th June, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )