Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.@mdashThis appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 5.6.1992 of the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj passed in Sessions Trial No. 76/1991 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The appellant was convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.l. for ten years with regard to injuries caused on the informant Nagendra @ Chunu Singh. So far the charge u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to the injuries on Rajendra Prasad, Jagdish Sah and Balbhadra Prasad was concerned any separate sentence was not passed and R.l. for ten years u/s 3 of the Explosive Substance Act was passed but any separate sentence was not passed u/s 5 of the Explosive substance Act.
2. The fardbeyan of informant Nagendra Singh @ Chunu Singh (P.W. 6) was recorded by S.I. Upendra Sah in Bhorey P.S. on 23.5.1990 at 11.00 A.M. while the informant was lying in injured condition in Referral Hospital, Bhore. The informant stated that that day at about 8.00 P.M. he was returning to his house from Bhore Chowk and that when he came close to the Palani (hutment) of Jokhan Sah situated near a Middle School, he met Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4) and Jagdish Sah (P.W. 5) and asked them to go their house with him (informant). Thereafter, these two persons closed their shops and proceeded towards their house with him (informant) and at that time Balbhadra Prasad was also sitting there. In the meantime, he (informant) saw that the appellant along with three unknown persons standing near a Jamun Tree and he (appellant) threw a bomb on him (informant) with an intention to kill him. The bomb fell on the road and it exploded, as a result of which he (informant) sustained injuries on his abdomen and blood started coming out of the injuries. Jagdish Sah (P.W. 5) also received injuries by the splinters of the bomb. Immediately, thereafter, the appellant threw another bomb which also exploded, causing injury to Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4) and balbhadra Prasad. The informant and the other injured immediately tried to run away from there but in the meantime, several villagers and shopkeepers of nearby places rushed to the place and saw the occurrence. About the cause of the occurrence the informant stated that Raj Mangal Mistri (P.W. 2) was a tenant in his house for the last six years and he was living in the house with his family members. On the day of Purnima (full moor) in the months of Bhado in the year 1989 hue and cry was raised in the house of R(sic) Mangal Mistri whereupon he (informant) went there and saw that the appellant had entered into the house in drunken state. He (informant) had forcibly dragged him out of the house whereupon he (appellant) had threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 4) a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 5) was lodged and the investigation commenced. Charge sheet was submitted and the appellant was put on trial and on conclusion of the trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as above.
3. As many as ten witness were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 6, Nagendra Singh is the informant himself. P.W. 4 Rajendra Prasad and P.W. 5 Jagdish Prasad are the witnesses who are said to have received injuries in the occurrence. P.W. 1 Janardhan Singh, P.W. 2 Raj Mangal Sharma and P.W. 3 Bhrigurashan Lal have been examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 10, Daya Shankar Singh, S.I. is the I.O. who conducted the investigation of the case. P.W. 7 Raghunath Mahto, A.S.I. took up investigation at concluding stage and he submitted chargesheet in the case. P.W. 8 Ram Chandra Singh proved the sanction (Ext. 2) for prosecution of the appellant under Explosive Substances Act. P.W. 9 Dr. Uma Shankar Bhagat is the doctor who had examined the four injured Nagendra Singh (P.W. 6), Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4), Jagdish Sah (P.W. 5) and Balbhadra Prasad who is said be an insane person as per evidence of the witnesses.
4. The informant Nagendra Singh @ Chunu Singh (P.W. 6) deposed in his evidence that on 23.5.1990 at about 8.00 P.M. while he was going to his village from Bus Stand Bhorey More and Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4) and Jagdish Sah were also with him and that when he reached near the shop of Jokhan Sah situated near a Jamun Tree and at which place a electric pole stood fixed and a electric bulb lighting in the pole and there he saw that the appellant was present there carrying a bomb and he threw the bomb which exploded on the road. As a result of the explosion he (informant) received injury on left side of his abdomen. Before he could move away from the place, the appellant threw another bomb and the explosion of that bomb caused 4-5 injuries to Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4) and Balbhadra Prasad, an insane person, who was sitting there, also received injuries due to explosion of bomb. The informant further deposed that three other unknown persons had accompanied the appellant at the time of occurrence. The informant says that after the occurrence the appellant fled away from there and that after receiving injuries he had lied down on the ground in order to save himself further. He also deposed that he was carried to Bhorey hospital where he was treated. He identified his signature (Ext. 1) on the fardbeyan. He further deposed that since 5-6 years Rajmangal Mistri (P.W. 2) was living with his family as a tenant in his house and that in the month of Bhado on the day of Purnima while he (informant) was taking tea in tea shop Raj Mangal Mistri came to him, crying that one rascal had entered into his house. On being enquired he disclosed the name of rascal as Prabhu Bhagat (appellant). He also disclosed that on being persuaded he was not coming out of his house. Hearing this he (informant) went to the house of Raj Mangal Mistri and he asked the appellant to come out of the house but he refused to come out whereupon he (informant) gave two blows to the appellant with umbrella which he (informant) was carrying in his hand. Jandardhan Babu (P.W. 1) also gave two slaps to the appellant but despite that all the appellant did not come out of the house. Then catching hold of arms of the appellant they dragged him out of the house. After being dragged out of the house the appellant gave filthy abuses to them and he threatened them of dire consequence. He (informant) identified the appellant in dock during evidence. At para-22 of his cross-examination he deposed that place of occurrence was lighted due to glowing of electric bulb. He also deposed that there is a chowk (road crossing) near the Jamun Tree and several shops are situated there on both sides of the Road. At para-14 of his cross-examination he deposed that at the time of occurrence most of the shops were closed. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to discard his testimony. He has fully supported the case of prosecution as stated in his fardbeyan.
5. The P.W. 4 Rajendra Prasad had received injuries during the occurrence. He deposed that in the night at 8''o clock he, along with the informant and Jagdish (P.W. 5) was going from Bhorey Chowk after closing his shop and that when he had covered a short distance a bomb was exploded. Due to explosion of the bomb, he (P.W. 4), the informant (P.W. 6), Jagdish (P.W. 5) and one insane whose name was Balbhadra had received injuries. The informant had received injuries on his abdomen and he had received injuries of 5-7 places of his body. He was treated in Bhorey hospital. However, he stated that he has not identified the assailant. This witness says about the explosion of bomb and the injury caused due to the explosion but he does not say to have identified the criminals. May be that this witness was not acquainted to the appellant hence he did not identify him by name.
6. The other injured witness Jagdish Prasad (P.W. 5) similarly deposed like the P.W. 4 about explosion of bomb while he was going with the informant and about receiving of bomb injury on the person of him as well as the informant, Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4) and one insane person present there. This witness has said that he did not identify the assailant due to the reasons that the appellant was not known to this witness. So, he could not identify naming the appellant. However, this witness fully proves the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
7. The P.W. 1 Janardhan Singh deposed that in the night on 23.5.1990 at 8 P.M. he was going from Bhorey Chowk and that the informant (P.W. 6), Rajendra Sah (P.W. 4) and one another person whom he did not going ahead of him. He further deposed that the appellant Prabhu Bhagat was standing near Jamun Tree situated near the shop of Jodhan Sao and that he identified the appellant there in the light of electric bulb lighting there. He further deposed that the appellant came out of Jamun Tree and threw two bombs on the informant and that due to the explosion of bomb the informant (P.W. 6), Rajendra Sah (P.W. 4) and the insane Balbhadra who was also sitting there had received injury. He further deposed that after the occurrence the appellant fled away towards South. He continued to depose that about one year before the occurrence on the day of Purnima in the month of Bhado the appellant in drunken state entered into the house of Rajmangal Mistri (P.W. 2) who is the tenant in the house of the informant and that on Hulla of Rajmangal Mistri he (P.W. 1) along with informant had gone there and had asked the appellant to come out of the house but the appellant had refused to come out whereupon the informant had given 2-3 umbrella blows and he (P.W. 1) had given two slaps to him and thereafter catching hold of his (appellants) arms they had dragged him out of the house. This witness continued to depose that after being dragged out of the house, the appellant went away and stood at some distance in Gandak Colony and started abusing them and had threatened to kill them and that thereafter he fled away from there. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Thus this witness corroborates the informant on all materials particulars of the case.
8. The P.W. 2 Rajmangal Sharma identified the appellant in dock during his evidence and he deposed that in the night of occurrence at 8 P.M. while he was at his shop he heard the sound of bomb explosion and then he went to the P.O. on the road and he saw injuries on the abdomen of the informant. The injury was caused due to explosion of bomb and the informant was taken to hospital. This witness is the person in whose house the appellant is said to have entered one year prior to the occurrence and that the appellant had threatened the informant. This witness has deposed that the appellant had entered into in his house on the day of Purnima in the month of Bhado and that when he refused to come out of the house, the informant had given 2-3 umbrella blows to the appellant and then the appellant went away threatening to teach them a lesson. This witness identified the appellant in dock. This witness has also gone to depose that prior to the occurrence two bombs had been thrown on him also while he was sleeping in his shop but the bomb had not exploded. There is nothing to discredit the testimony of the this witness. This witness supports the prosecution case on material particulars.
9. The P.W. 3 Bhrigurashan Lal deposed that on 24.5.1990 there was Tilak ceremony of his son and therefore, in the night on 23.5.1990 at about 8 P.M. he had come to Bhorey Chowk for engaging Halwai for preparation of sweets and that while he was going for the purpose, he saw the appellant along with 2-3 unknown near Palani, Jokhan Sao situated near Jamun Tree and that electric light was also lighting there and he identified the appellant in that light. He further deposed that the appellant threw bomb on the informant and due to explosion of bomb, the informant (P.W. 6) Jagdish Prasad, (P.W. 5) Rajendra (P.W. 4) and one insane named Balbhadra had received injuries. He further deposed that the appellant had thrown two bombs. At para-12 of his cross-examination he has deposed that he had identified the appellant in the light of electric bulb light which was lighting there and that after explosion, smokes had occurred for 5-10 minutes. Thus, this witness corroborates the informant on the materials particulars of the case.
10. P.W. 8 Ram Chandra Singh has proved the sanction order (Ext. 2) for the prosecution of the appellant for offences punishable under the Explosive Substance Act. P.W. 10 Daya Shankar Singh is the I.O. who conducted investigation into the case. He deposed that in the night of occurrence at 11.15 P.M. he had gone to the house of the appellant but the appellant was found absconding. He further deposed that due to mid-night he did not inspect the P.O. and he inspected the P.O. at 4 A.M. in ensuing morning. He deposed that the occurrence was caused on the road and there was an electrical pole and a electric bulb was also lighting in the pole. He also deposed that the place of occurrence was a busy market place and on the date of occurrence wind was blowing fast and due to this he could not be able to find remains of the exploded bomb there. He also deposed he had issued police requisition for medical examination of the injured. The requisitions have been marked Exts. 6 to 6/3. Thus the LO. proved the place of occurrence and has also found electric pole and an electric bulb was also lighting in the pole at the P.O. The P.W. 7 Raghu Nath Mahto, A.S.I. is the I.O. who took up the charge of investigation at concluding stage and he finally submitted the chargesheet in the case.
11. P.W. 9 Umasankar Bhagat is the doctor who examined the injured namely, Nagendra Singh (informant), Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4), Jagdish Sah (P.W. 5) and the insane named Balbhadra Prasad. He deposed that he found following injuries on the informant Nagendra Singh (i) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" X1/2" on the right lower abdomen with the surrounding skin charred and bleeding. The injury was simple caused by splinter of bomb. The age of injury was within half an hour. The injury was dangers to life. The injury report was proved as Ext. 3.
12. He further deposed that he examined Bhalbhadra Prasad and found the following injuries on him. (i) Lacerated wound 1/2" X1/4" with surrounding skin burnt on the right medial side on thigh near knee.
The injury was simple and caused by splinters of bomb. It was dangers for life. It was caused within half an hour. The injury report was proved as Ext. 3/1.
The doctor further deposed that he examined Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4) and found the following injuries on him.
(A) Small irregular injuries with bleeding point and surrounding skin burnt.
(i) Right lower leg near ankle (ii) Medial side of left thigh and ankle and (iii) Right upper limb elbow (iv) left upper limb wrist and auxiliary region.
The injuries were simple in nature and it was caused by splinters of bomb. They were dangerous for life. The age of injury was within half an hour. The injury report was proved as Ext. 3/2.
The doctor further deposed that he examined Jagdish Sah (P.W. 5) and found the following injuries on him.
(i) lacerated wound of left upper limb near elbow of size 1/2" X1/4" with surrounding skin burnt.
The injury was simple and caused by splinters of bomb. It was dangerous for life. It was caused within half an hour. The injury report was proved as Ext. 3/3.
13. Thus the doctor has examined the injuries shortly after the occurrence and he has found the injuries caused by splinters of bomb. Thus the medical evidence proves the case of prosecution with regard to the injuries caused by bomb explosion.
14. On considering the evidence of witnesses as well as the evidence of the I.O. and the doctor I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. During argument any material contradictions or infirmities was not pointed out to discard the case of prosecution on any count.
15. During hearing the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the sentence of R.l. for seven years u/s 307 and further sentence of R.l. for seven years u/s 3 of the Explosive Substance Act will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence under each of the two counts is reduced to a sentence of R.l. for seven years. Both the sentences will run concurrently. Thus with the modification in sentence as indicated above, this appeal stands dismissed.
