Prabhakar Kushwaha vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 24-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – II, Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 241 of 2007, arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 102 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 / 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and thereafter, vide aforesaid order, he was sentenced 10 years for the offence under Section 3 / 4 of Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced 2 years for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C.

As per prosecution case, this appellant is said to have hurled a bomb on the vehicle of the Superintendent of Police of Munger district, which led to emission of huge shoot of smoke, blind-folding the Superintendent of Police and other members of the Police party. Some of the members of the Police party have received simple injuries also. Thereafter, on chase, this appellant and one Upendra Mishra were apprehended on spot.

On the basis of fardbeyan of one Sikandar Singh, Driver of S.P. Munger, a case was registered in Kotwali police Station, bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 12 of 2003 for the offene under Section 307, 353, 34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 of Explosive Substances Act. Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against both accused persons and cognizance were taken under Section 307, 353, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 of Explosive Substances Act and after framing of charges, the case of co-accused Upendra Mishra was segregated, since he absconded, and as such, trial was proceeded only against this appellant.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses in course of trial, who are:

P.W.1- Ramesh Kumar, stated to be a bodyguard of the Superintendent of Police;

P.W.2- Dr. Jaykant Paswan, Medical Officer;

P.W.3- Shambhu Sharma, Home Guard;

P.W.4- Basudeo Marandi, Constable;

P.W.5- Sikandar Singh, driver and informant;

P.W.6- Ravindra Shankar, S.P. Munger;

P.W.7- Yogendra Prasad Singh, Assistant, Legal Section, Collectorate, Munger;

P.W.8- Arun Thakur, a formal/official witness who turned hostile; and

P.W.9- Niraj Kumar, who also turned hostile.

The learned Trial Court treated P.Ws. 1 to 6 as material witnesses and relied substantially upon the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, who corroborated the prosecution case and also on the medical, seizure and forensic material and on careful perusal of aforesaid materials and after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced this appellant, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been challenged by the appellant through this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court, has submitted that though, the appellant and co-accused Upendra Mishra were nabbed by the Police party immediately after the occurrence while running away, but the evidence is not very clear with respect to the hurling of the bomb or the purpose behind such misadventure. He further submits that most of the prosecution witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, belong to police force and none of the independent witness has supported the case. Even, the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer in this case, which caused prejudice to the case of defence. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, appellant has already remained in custody for about three years and accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

Per Contra, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the appeal and submits that the evidence of P.W.5 (Sikandar Singh), who is driver of S.P., Munger, and P.W.6 (S.P., Munger) is trustworthy and fully corroborated the prosecution case. The appellant was caught on spot along with one co-accused by the police. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may not be interfered with by this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the prosecution case substantially rests upon the testimony of P.Ws. 5 (informant) and P.W.6 (S.P. Munger). Besides, P.Ws. 8 and 9, who are formal witness, have turned hostile and no other independent witness supported the prosecution case. Even, the doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, examined the injured Constable Md. Rahim and S.P. Munger and found the injuries to be simple in nature. Apart from the above, non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence, as the defence could not explain the material discrepancy and contradict the witnesses. However, this Court finds that the evidences are completely trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence.

However, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 and appellant has remained in custody for about 3 (three) years and there is no complaint against him after institution of the present F.I.R., I feel that end of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – II, Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 241 of 2007, arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 102 of 2006, is upheld and the sentence, awarded by the Trial Court, is reduced to the period, already undergone by this appellant.

In that view of the matter, the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond in connection with this case.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.