Jharkhand High Court
Mukhtar Mian Son Of Sri Gani Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
2025:JHHC:12253
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 795 of 2006
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2006 and Order of
sentence dated 25.05.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(FTC-I), Giridih in Sessions Trial No.270 of 1993 arising out of
Dhanwar P.S. Case No.125 of 1990 (G.R. No.1417 of 1990]
......
Mukhtar Mian Son of Sri Gani Mian, Resident of Village Jataha, P.S.
Dhanwar District Giridih (Jharkhand).
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
......
For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 10.02.2025 Pronounced on 24.04.2025
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by
Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the appellant along
with Mrs. Pragati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing
for the State.
2. It is pertinent here to mention at the very outset that
one of the co-appellant, namely, Gulam Mian died during
Cr.A(SJ) No.795 of 2006 Page | 1
2025:JHHC:12253
pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been abated vide
order dated 12.04.2022.
3. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2006 and order of
sentence dated 25.05.2006 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Giridih in Sessions Trial No.270 of
1993 (G.R. No.1417 of 1990) arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case
No.125 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, this appellant has
been held guilty along with another appellant whose appeal
is abated vide order dated 12.04.2022 for the offences under
Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4
of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
the I.P.C. and further directed to undergo R.I. for seven years
for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substance Act. Both the sentences are directed to
run concurrently.
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, on the
basis of fardbeyan (Ext.2) of one Jalil Mian (P.W.5), is that on
03.08.1990 at about 10:00 p.m., Mukhtar Mian (appellant) and
Gulam Mian (now deceased) came to the house of the
2025:JHHC:12253
informant and dragged him out from the house and thrashed
him. Thereafter, they hurled bomb on him causing injury. It is
further alleged that the father and grandfather of the
informant were not present in the house and his mother
Julekha Khatoon (P.W.1) was inside the house. It is further
alleged that there is long drawn enmity between the parties
and they are under litigating terms due to land dispute. It is
further alleged that on previous day, Gani Mian and Dukhan
Mian were uprooting paddy crops of the informant which
was seen by several villagers and other family members had
gone to the field, taking advantage of absence of other family
members accused persons entered into the house of the
informant and injured him by bomb explosion with intention
to kill him. It is further alleged that when the father of the
informant returned from the field and along with other
villagers then he was brought to Dhanwar Refral Hospital
where his treatment was going on and statement was
recorded by police on 04.08.1990 at about 05:00 a.m.
On the basis of above information, Dhanwar P.S. Case
No.125 of 1990 was registered for the offences under Sections
2025:JHHC:12253
341 and 448 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substance Act.
5. After completion of investigation, both the accused
persons were charge-sheeted for the offences under Section
307 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance, committed
the case to the Court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.270 of
1993 was registered.
6. After Commitment of the case, charges were framed
against the accused appellant and one another accused
person under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substance Act, which were read over and
explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were
examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of
witnesses, following documentary evidence were adduced:
Exhibit 1 : Injury Report
Exhibit 2 : Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 : Sanction order for prosecution
Cr.A(SJ) No.795 of 2006 Page | 4
2025:JHHC:12253
8. The learned Trial Court, after scrutinizing the oral as
well as documentary evidence led by respective parties
concluded about the guilt of the accused person including the
present appellant and impugned judgment and order has
been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as
a matter of fact, there was land dispute between the parties
and due to harvesting crops some scuffle took place between
the parties. The story of bomb blast is absolutely false and
concocted story. The father of the appellant, namely, Gani
Mian was brutally assaulted by accused persons who
happens to be informant party of this case. The F.I.R. was
lodged as Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 prior to the
F.I.R. of present case and after completion of investigation
charge-sheet was also submitted against the informant party
of this case. Present case is a counter blast against the
criminal case instituted by the accused persons. It is further
submitted that there was long drawn land dispute. A civil
case was also instituted which culminated in favour of the
father of the appellant. The informant party were adamant to
forcibly dispossess the appellant from their lands and always
Cr.A(SJ) No.795 of 2006 Page | 5
2025:JHHC:12253
used to threaten to harvest the body crops. It is further
submitted that altogether six witnesses were examined by the
prosecution but the most important witness the Investigating
Officer, has not been examined which has caused serious
prejudice to defence of the appellant. No remains of any
bomb were collected from the place of occurrence. The injury
sustained by the informant was also superficial in nature. The
conducting doctor has also admitted that no particles of
bomb were found in the body of injured informant.
Therefore, cause of injury has not been proved. Use of bomb
is also not proved to held the guilt by the prosecution. The
injury sustained by informant might have happened due to
fall on earth full of pebbles. The material contradiction
appearing on in the evidence of prosecution witness could
not be get explained through Investigating Officer due to his
non-examination which demolishes the prosecution case. The
cross case of the appellant was also not jointly tried with the
present case as per mandate of law. Therefore, the learned
Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the entire aspect
of the case and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the
appellant. As such, impugned judgment and order of
2025:JHHC:12253
conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set
aside by allowing this appeal.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State defending the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant
has contended that the learned trial court has very wisely and
aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated the prosecution
evidence and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the
appellant. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled
against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.
There is no substance in the points of argument raised on
behalf of the appellant, therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of the appellant and there is no merit in this
appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order.
12. It appears that altogether six witnesses were examined
by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against
the appellant.
Cr.A(SJ) No.795 of 2006 Page | 7
2025:JHHC:12253
P.W.1 Julekha Khatoon is the mother of informant who
admittedly was inside the house at the time of alleged
occurrence. She has stated in general terms that the Gulam
Rasool Mian and Mukhtar Mian dragged out her son from
the house and assaulted him. She has clearly stated that when
she came out of the house then saw her son lying on earth in
ensured condition.
In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that she
identifies the accused persons but her cross-examination
could not be conducted by defence and she was discharged.
P.W.2 Rozani Khatoon is the wife of Dukhan Mian.
According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about
10:00 a.m. Gani Mian was harvesting paddy crops of her
husband which was protested by her husband and several
other villagers. In the meantime, Mukhtar Mian and Gulam
Rasool Mian came to the house and dragged out Jalil Mian
and injured him by bomb explosion.
In her cross-examination, she admits that land dispute
is going on for 13 years in respect of two kathas land situated
about 500 yards from her house. At the time of occurrence,
father of accused persons was harvesting the paddy crop. She
2025:JHHC:12253
further admits that she saw the occurrence when the
accused persons were fleeing away.
P.W.3 Dr. Arvind Kumar has medically examined the
injured Md. Jalil on 03.08.1990 at about 05:10 p.m. and found
following injuries:
(i) Burn injury due to bomb blast 6"x4" of black colour
over left side of back.
As per opinion of the doctor smell of barood was there
and above injury was caused by bomb blast which was
simple in nature and caused within six hours.
In his cross-examination, he has stated at para 3 that he
examined the patient clinically and he does not apply any
chemical substance to ascertain the injury.
P.W.4 Aklun Bibi has claimed to be present in her
house at the time of occurrence. According to her evidence,
on the date of occurrence at about 08/09:00 a.m., she was
inside her house, Julekha Devi and Jalil were also in the
house, meanwhile, Mukhtar Mian and Gulam Mian came and
entered into the house and dragged Jalil Mian outside. Let
him down and caused injury by explosive bomb. Thereafter,
2025:JHHC:12253
Jalil was sent to Refral Hospital, Dhanwar for medical
treatment.
In her cross-examination, she has admitted land dispute
between the parties since 20 years and litigation was also
going on. She further admits that at first, she could not know
about the scuffle between the parties and after one and a half
hour, she came to know that the scuffle took place due to
harvesting of paddy crops by the father of accused persons.
She has also stated that at the time of bomb explosion,
Mukhtar was also standing at the distance of 2 ft. She has
further stated that the injury of bomb was on chest near
arm. She also admits that for the occurrence of same day Gani
Mian has also lodged case against her father-in-law. She
denied the suggestion that due to land dispute, the accused
persons have been falsely implicated and she is giving false
implication.
P.W.5 Md. Jalil is the sole injured-cum-informant of
this case. He has corroborated the contents of his fardbeyan
and stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10:00 a.m.,
accused Mukhtar Mian and Gulam Mian came to his house
dragged out him outside the house, thrashed on earth and
2025:JHHC:12253
exploded a bomb with intention to kill him. His father had
gone to field because father of the accused persons namely
Gani Mian was harvesting his paddy crops. He was brought
to hospital and got his treatment.
In his cross-examination, he admits that in his village all
community and caste members are residing. There is land
dispute of two kathas land since long with the accused
persons. His house is situated in middle of the village and
surrounded with house of several persons. He was brought
towards street adjacent to his house and there are pebbles in
the street. He has also admitted at para 6 of evidence that the
street is towards sought and north and he fell down in the
middle of the street on stomach side and back side was on
upper portion. Bomb fell towards left leg side of him at a
distance of one ft. from his posture on the earth. Due to bomb
explosion, a ditch about two hands was also caused at the
place of occurrence. He also admits that there were several
pebbles and stone chips near the place of occurrence. He has
not shown the place of occurrence to Police. He has denied
the suggestion of defence that his family members were
harvesting the paddy crops of the accused persons which was
2025:JHHC:12253
protested by informant and his family members in that
course, he fell down sustaining injuries and he has lodged
this false case in order to save his skin from the case lodged
by the accused persons.
P.W.6 Darogi Lal Barnwal is a formal witness and
Head Clerk of Legal Section D.M. Office, Giridih who has
proved the permission for prosecution under Section 3/4 of
the Explosive Substance Act in connection with Dhanwar P.S.
Case No.125 of 1990 which is marked Ext.3.
13. On the other hand, the case of defence is false
implication due to land dispute and earlier F.I.R. vide
Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 for the same day of
occurrence was lodged against the informant party. No oral
evidence has been adduced by defence but following
documentary evidence has been relied upon:
Exhibit A : Charge-sheet of Dhanwar P.S. Case
No.124 of 1990 for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 452, 436/511, 427 of the Indian Penal Code
against 12 named accused persons including the
informant of this case.
2025:JHHC:12253
Exhibit B : Certified copy of order sheet of the
Court of Munsif Giridih passed in Title Suit No.65 of
1980 dated 22.01.1982.
Exhibit C : Decree in Suit No.65 of 1980
Exhibit D : Certified copy of judgment of G.R.
Case No.1608 of 1989 dated 28.05.2004, wherein accused
persons Gani Mian, Gulam Mian and Mukhtar Mian
were acquitted from the charges under Sections 323,
324, 325/34 of the I.P.C.
14. From the aforesaid discussion of oral evidence
adduced by prosecution, it appears that except P.W.5
(informant-cum-sole inujred Md. Jalil), no one is eye witness
of the occurrence because all other ladies who had been
examined are family members of the informant and were
inside the house and admitted that they have not seen the
occurrence rather came to know after happening of the same.
The informant himself admits that he fell down in the street
adjacent to his house during the occurrence. The phase of
occurrence was also a land where several stone chips and
pebbles were scattered. The Investigating Officer has also not
been examined to prove the exact place of occurrence and
Cr.A(SJ) No.795 of 2006 Page | 13
2025:JHHC:12253
effects of the bomb explosion as alleged by the prosecution.
No remains of bomb has been seized in this case and
produced during trial. P.W.3 (Dr. Arvind Kumar) who
conducted medical examination of the injured has also found
simple injury to the injured 6"x4" over left side of back.
Although in the injury report, it is stated that it was caused
by bomb blast but there is no scientific examination report
showing the injury to be caused by bomb blast. The doctor
himself admitted in his cross-examination that he examined
the patient clinically and did not apply any chemical
substance to ascertain the cause of injury and also admits that
such type of injury may also be caused by electric shock. He
also admits that no foreign substance showing the particles of
bomb were found in the injury of the patient.
15. In the above material aspects of the case, it cannot be
concluded conclusively that the injury sustained by the
informant was caused by bomb explosion. The nature of
injury is also simple caused on the back side of the injured. It
is also admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the accused
(present appellant) was also standing at a distance of only 2
ft. at the time of explosion also explodes the factum of bomb
2025:JHHC:12253
explosion else it might cause injury to the appellant also. The
Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined but
as a measure of absolute caution, I have perused the case
diary at para 10 of which there is description of place of
occurrence, wherein it is mentioned that although it is alleged
that injured was laid down and sustained injuries by bomb
blast but at the place of occurrence, no any article connecting
bomb explosion was found and noticed. Therefore, the claim
of injured that at the place of occurrence, there was 2 ft. ditch
due to explosion is also falsified. The overall discussion of
evidence goes to show that there was case and counter case
between the parties and there was involvement of several
persons in the occurrence and it is most probable that the
injured has sustained injuries due to fall on the earth where
admittedly pebbles and stone chips were scattered.
16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I am of the
definite conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the
appellant for the offences under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and
3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act is not based upon
consideration of materials available on record. The evidence
of witnesses has also not been properly considered in the
2025:JHHC:12253
light of materials elicited in the cross-examination. The
prosecution story as projected does not inspire confidence
and shrouded with doubt and there is motive behind false
implication due to land dispute.
17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of his bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 24/04/2025
Sachin / NAFR
