^PBLLJUiT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Q-iainal Appeal No. 208/2001 Artm Kum.ar Pathak S/o Maai Ram. Pafhak, aged about 45 years, R/o Tikani, P.S. Shaakargarh, Dist. Suiguja, C.G. VERSUS RE8PONDBNT State of CIxhattisgarh through P.S': Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. APPEAL U/S 374(2LQFLCR!Mra[AL PROCBDURB CODE. 1973. (SB :Hoa'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri J.S. Baraik, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Shushil Dubey, Qovt. Advocate forthe State/respondent. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 28/07/2008) •). This appeat is direoted against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/1/2001 /13/2/2001 passeci by Firet Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in S.T. No. 61/96 after holding the appellant guilty oonvicted under Section 3 of Exptosive Substance Ad, sentenced Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment offine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 1 years. 2. The conviction and sentence is challenged on the ground that learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned without any oredible evidence. 3. Shri J. S. Baraik, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Shushil Dubey, Govt. Advooate for the State are heard. ; 4. Judgmentimpugnedand record oftrialCourtperused. j 5. It is argued on behalf' of the appellant that appellant has compteted seqtence awarded to hiFn-bQt he want to argue the case on merit. It is further argued on beljiaff of the appellant that there is no iota of evidence against the appellant relating to exp|osion of any explosive substance. 6. On the other hands judgmert is supported on behalf of the respondenyStatje. -9 •^' Bi! •^/ t- 7. According to the case of prosecution on 22/1101 at viilage Tikni P.S. Shankargarh appellant was in house and preparing bomb (exptosive substance) when after preparing the bomb the appellant was inspecting the same at that time alteged bomb was blast. Appellant was injured, FIR lodgea by Ex. P-8. Blood stained stonewas seized vide Ex. P-10. Spring, led, iron pipe, and Ranga were seized by Ex. P-11. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-12. Injured appellant was examined by Dr. B. M.L. Shresth i '.^ and foltowing injury were found over the body (i) muttipte lacerated wound over the ,' -'<' palms. Metaoarpus and corpus were badly ftactured in to piece . Cotour of handswere tumed into black. Multiple screeches over the face, chest, hands and other part of body. Uteer in comea of left eye as a result of blasting of barud. Laoerated wound over rigrt leg having damnation of 3 cm. X 2 Vz cm. Multipte screeches wound of btack colour over right leg. Spot was inspected by technical expert of Forensic Science Laboratory and submits a report Ex. P/13. After investigation oharge sheet was filed. 8. In ordertoestablishtheguiltoftheappellantprosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the cireumstances appearing ggainst him and pteaded innooence that he has been falsely implioated in the crime. Appellant has also adduced a defense witness Ramkumar to show the di^anoe of the places. 9. After affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties leamed Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 10. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, 1 examined the evidenoe adduced on behatf of the appellant PW1 Lalsaya has stated that he heard the sound and saw the lightening. After an hour, hearing of the sound Manohar came to him and told that hands of appellant have been fractured. He went with Manohar to the appellant there he saw the appellant's hand in injured condition. TheV /bk out the appellant jand sent Ambikapur through Bus. (FW2) Mahaweer, (PW3) Joktian, (PW4) Prateish, (Pi/V5) Manohar has also supported (PW1) Lalsaya. Appellant injured and his jnjury were examined by ( PW6) Dr. B.M.L. Shresth and nothing has asked to the prosec(Jtion witnesses to diseredit their testimony. Fadum of hearing the sound of blast, an injury over the body of the appellant is not substantially disputed. Seizer of manufacturing tf'f r B 'ss" -J article of Deshikatta, another material are also not disputed. Investigation is supported by (PW8) H. M. Gautam, (PW9) Balram Singh. Appellant has admitted in his statement relating to blast sound and injury over his body but he has not explained and how he received injury and how incriminating property were found in possession of; the appellant. 11. Learned Trial Court has after evaluating the evidenoe avaitable on record arrived at a finding that appellant has explosion the explosive substance as a result he vvas injured. The finding of the trial Court is based on sound principle and legal evidence sufficient for holding conviction for the offenoe punishable under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act. 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding of conviction of the. trial Court. 12. As regard the question of sentence is conoemed taking into consideration the offence trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Appellant was manyfacture of Deshikatta and explosion the explosive substance. The act ofthe appellant is against the soeiety and dangerous to the peace of society. Taking into consideration the above facts no tenienoy is required. It is submitted on behalfofthe appellant that he has compteted the sentence and released from the Jail. Consequently, 1 do not find any merits in appeal. Appeal is liable to be dismissed andhereby dismissed. _ Sd'- — T.P. Sharma Judge 4^3- /7