Bhola Parshad vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Bhola Parshad appellant was challaned under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and was convicted by Shri Suresh Chand Jain, Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad, vide his judgment dated 17.12.1984 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years under Sections 4 and 5 each of the aforesaid Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, he had filed this appeal.

The prosecution case is that on 3.10.1982, Head Constable Raj Kishore, along with 2 Constables, was on patrol duty in the area of Baakhal Crossing, in the area of Police Station Central Faridabad. He heard a loud noise of bursting of a bomb like substance, coming from the side of Hindustan Tool Factory. HC Raj Kishore, along with his companions Police Constables, went towards the said site and saw Bhola Parshad appellant, coming out of the shed, situated in the said factory premises. Bhola Parshad was employed as a Chowkidar in the factory during those days. Bhola Parshad was having injuries and was bleeding. HC Raj Kishore, removed Bhola Parshad, appellant to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and got him admitted there. Before taking Bhola Parshad to B.K. Hospital, HC Raj Kishore deputed two constables to remain at the spot.

Sub Inspector Ram Parkash who was also on patrol duty came to know of explosion and reached there at about 5.30 p.m. SI Ram Parkash recorded statement Ex. PU of Man Bahadur, second chowkidar of the factory. The statement was sent to the Police Station, vide endorsement Ex PU/1 and thereafter First Information Report Ex. PU/2 was registered on its basis. In his statement, Man Bahadur had mentioned a dispute that had taken place one day earlier i.e. 2.10.1982 in the factory. He stated that on 3.10.1987, as his duty was to start at 8 p.m., he had gone to R.B. Chemical Factory at about 5 p.m. and was gossiping with one Chaudhary Sahib there. According to Man Bahadur, Bhola Parshad appellant was on duty in the premises as a Chowkidar at that time. At about 6. p.m., Man Bahadur appellant heard a loud noise. He and Chaudhary Sahib went to the main gate of the factory and found that explosion had taken place in the rear portion of the factory and there was lot of smoke on both the sides. After a few minutes when the smoke was settled, Bhola Parshad, crying with pain, came from the back side and informed him that he had been hit by a bomb. Both his hands, chest and belly were in an injured condition and he was bleeding. At this time, according to Man Bahadur, Police officers reached there and removed Bhola Parshad to the hospital.

After recording the statement of Man Bahadur, SI Ram Parkash went to the hospital and requested the Medical Officer, Incharge, vide application Ex. PX, as to whether Bhola Parshad was in a fit condition to make a statement. The opinion of the doctor was that he was not fit. SI Ram Parkash went to Police Station and sent a wireless message to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. The Director reached the spot on 4.10.1982 and inspected the spot. One jute bag, pieces of newspaper, pieces of stones and bricks, rivets of iron, unused yellowish powder, on square empty cardboard box and other articles which were lying there, were taken into possession. All these articles were put into different parcels. Blood lying on the ground was also scratched, sealed in a parcel and taken into possession. Residential quarters of the chowkidars were also inspected and a pair of Hawai Chappal smeared with blood was taken into possession from there. Pieces of broken asbestossheets, stone pieces, iron rivets lying there were also taken into possession from the roof of the shed of the factory. In all, 9 sealed parcels Ex. P1 to P9 were prepared. During all this recovery proceeding Om Parkash (PW 6) was present and he is a witness to all the memos. All these articles which were taken into possession by the Police, were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhubhan.

Dr. O.P. Chug, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory had visited the spot on 4.10.1982, had seen the spot and taken the photographs of the area. Dr. Chug also went to the B.K. Hospital and took photographs of injured parts of the body of the appellant.

On medico legal examination on 3.10.1982, 10 injuries were found on the person of Bhola Parshad. These injuries consisted of multiple area of burns and lacerated wounds etc. On the advice of the doctor, Bhola Parshad was got Xrayed for these injuries and as per the report of the Radiologist, opaque shadow was also detected. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented to Court. After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned earlier. Hence, this appeal.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Dr. O.P. Chug, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory; PW 2 Dr. Satish Nagpal, PW 3 Dr. V.D. Dewan, PW 4 Constable Ram Kumar, PW 5 Head Constable Fakir Chand, PW 6 Om Parkash; PW 7 Ram Chander; PW 8 Constable Balwant Singh; PW 9 Head Constable Raj Kishore and PW 10 SI Ram Parkash, Man Bahadur was given up as he was not traceable.

After close of the prosecution case, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his statement, he admitted that he was employed as a chowkidar in the said factory on 3.10.1982. He further stated that on 2.10.1982, at 8 p.m., some workers of that factory had a quarrel with the owner of the teastall, situated nearby. In the said brawl, some persons had received injuries. It is further in his statement that on 3.10.1982, he was present in the duty room situated near the main gate of the factory when some persons threw a bundletype article inside the factory which bursted on its being picked up and consequently, he received injuries all over his body. He started bleeding from his injuries and became unconscious.

In his defence, he has examined DW1 Kidar Nath who deposed about the quarrel which took place on 2.10.1982 between the workers and the teastall owner. DW Kidar Nath further stated that on 3.10.1982 at about 5.30/6.00 p.m., he, along with 1015 persons, was sitting in front of the gate. At that time, some promanagement workers who were inside the factory raised slogans and counterslogans were being raised. There was a lot of hallagulla. According to him, in that hallagulla, he heard a noise of bursting and then heard the cries of the appellant "Mar Gia, Mar Gia,". The appellant had become unconscious within their sight. He and his companions did not go inside the factory out of fear.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence.

The prosecution case in this case is entirely dependent on the statement of Dr. O.P. Chug, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, as there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The testimony of Dr. Chug will show that he has drawn certain conclusions after inspecting the spot. He inspected the spot on 4.10.1982, whereas occurrence took place on 3.10.1982. No convincing evidence has been placed on the record by the prosecution to show that the site of occurrence remained the same till 4.10.1982, i.e. The day of visit of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory and there was no tempering during the intervening period of one day. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be safely held that this delay of more than 20 hours between the occurrence and the inspection of spot by Dr. O.P. Chug, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory was not utilized to temper with the scene to make it in conformity with the prosecution case.

Even if the evidence of Dr. Chug is taken at its face value, he has only drawn certain conclusions which are at best his opinion. His opinion based on certain observations may or may not be true. There is no recovery of any explosive substance, nor is there any evidence to prove that any explosive substance was in possession of the appellant at any time. The appellant had given his own version, e.e. that same substance was thrown which bursted when he picked it up. Dr. Chug in his report gave the opinion that it may not be a case of throwing of a bomb from outside, but may be a case of bursting of a bomb in the hands of the appellant. There is nothing to corroborate the opinion of Dr. Chug and in the absence of corroboration, the opinion of Dr. Chug does not carry that weight that it may be taken as sufficient to base the conviction upon it alone.

In the absence of any evidence to connect the appellant with the crime, it is very difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellant, simply on the opinion of Dr. Chug.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that this appeal must succeed. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.