AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjana Prakash, J.—Heard.
The Appellant has been convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under first two counts and three years and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 4 of Explosive Substance Act by the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Gaya, by a judgment dated 14/17.6.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1411 of 1988/1 of 1993.
The case of the prosecution is that on 31.1.1986, the Appellant allegedly threw a Bomb on the Informant but the same did not hit him and it dashed against the boundary wall of the cinema hall.
The prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 6 is the Informant himself whereas P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the factum of the occurrence. Similarly, P.W. 3 is also not the eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are seizure witnesses. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case and, therefore, there is no objective evidence that the article which allegedly had been thrown by the Appellant was in fact a Bomb.
The fact that the Informant was not injured in the transaction appears to be highly suspicious. Moreover, P.Ws. 4 and 5 have materially contradicted themselves and their evidence does not appear to be trustworthy. However, I find from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 that the genesis of the occurrence was well proved and the Appellant had indeed lobbed a certain article of the Informant with a view to cause injury to him.
In the result therefore, this Appeal is partly allowed with modification that the Appellant is convicted u/s 307/511 Indian Penal Code and acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act. However, the sentence already undergone by the Appellant shall suffice for his conviction u/s 307/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed.