Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chain Singh Odh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cri. Appeal No.1786/2017
(Chain Singh Odh Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated 09.12.2021
Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the
appellant.
Shri Anil Sakle, Advocate also appears for the
appellant as amicus curiae in compliance of order dated
08.12.2021.
Shri Manu V.John, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard finally.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th April,2017,
passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.100022/2016,
whereby appellant has been found guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 224,307,332 of IPC and Section
3/5 of Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to suffer R.I.
for one year, ten years, two years and ten years,
respectively and fine with default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution story, the appellant was
originally arrested on 29.10.2015 in connection with Crime
No.70/2015, registered by PS-Sultanpur under Section
302/34 of IPC, and on his interrogation with regard to Crime
No.156/2015, a confession was recorded under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act in which he accepted that he hid a Deshi
Katta in his house. When the police party along with the
accused went to his house to seize the said weapon, the
accused, while searching for the said weapon in the heap of
chaff, took out a battery and threatened the police party. He
thereafter plugged the wire on the battery which resulted in
a blast in which four persons who were inside the house
sustained injuries. Taking advantage of this chaos, the
appellant ran away from the spot and was later on arrested
on 16.11.2015. After completion of the investigation, charge
sheet was filed.
3. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded
innocence.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 15
witnesses to support its case. Learned trial Court, relying on
the statements of R.K.Ubnare (PW.1) A.S.I., Manglesh
Malviya (PW.2) Constable, Vinod (PW.5) Constable,
R.K.Dharia (PW.9) Inspector, Dr.Vivek Vyas (PW.7),
O.S.Tandan (PW.15) SDOP, the MLC report as well as the FSL
reports, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as
aforesaid.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is
that two independent witnesses,namely, Harish Sharma
(PW.3) who is the driver of the vehicle and Balwant (PW.6) a
labourer, have not supported the case of prosecution. It is
further pointed out that O.S.Tandan (PW.15) Investigating
Officer has not conducted the search of the spot in presence
of independent witnesses. It is submitted that in absence of
the signature of any independent witness on the
search/seizure report, the seizure could not be proved. He
has relied on a judgment delivered in the case of Kishori
Lal vs. State of M.P. ILR 2010 MP 2172.
6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State has pointed out that Ramesh Kumar Ubnare (PW.1),
Manglesh Malviya (PW.2), Vinod (PW.5) and R.K.Dharia
(PW.9), injured eye-witnesses were present on the spot
when the blast happened. Their injury is corroborated by the
MLC report which is proved by Dr. Vivek Vyas (PW.7). It is
stated that the clothes of these injured witnesses were
seized, sealed and sent for chemical examination and as per
the FSL reports Ex.P/22 and P/23, presence of Ammonium
Nitrate was established. The reports further reveal that if
the blast was of a greater impact, it would have been
dangerous to life of the person present at the spot. He has
also read out the Explosive Substance Report dated
11.01.2016. According to this report the metallic tubes sent
for chemical examination was an explosive of Class 6 Div.3
(Electric Detonators) as defined under Rule 4 (Schedule I) of
Explosive Rules, 2008, and to keep such kind of explosive a
licence is obligatory to possess.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant
that two independent witnesses Harish Sharma (PW.3)
driver of the vehicle and one Balwant (PW.6), a labourer
have not supported the prosecution story has no substance
as these witnesses have categorically admitted that the
appellant was taken in the jeep along with the police party
to his house to search for the Katta mentioned in his
memorandum and while the appellant was inside the house
along with the police party, the blast took place which
establishes the fact that the injured witnesses were present
on the spot when the blast occurred. So, even if they have
not seen the injuries of Ramesh Kumar Ubnare (PW.1),
Manglesh Malviya (PW.2), Vinod (PW.5) and R.K.Dharia
(PW.9), it will not make any difference to the prosecution
story. The testimony of Dr. Vivek Vyas (PW.7) corroborates
the case of aforesaid four injured witnesses, and the FSL
report proves presence of ammonium nitrate in the blast
which is normally found in the battery. Apart from that
O.S.Tandan (PW.15) SDOP has seized electric wire, broken
battery, detonators, urea, grease and other articles from the
spot. Though a suggestion has been made to this witness
regarding absence of signatures of independent witnesses,
however, the identity of the place and the fact that it
belongs to the present appellant is not in dispute. Under the
circumstances, the case law relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the
instant case.
8. In view of the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses
which is consistent and corroborated by each other and is of
sterling quality, I find that the trial Court has not committed
any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused-appellant
and sentencing him as aforementioned. The conviction of
the appellant is upheld and affirmed. The appellant is in jail.
It is ordered that he shall suffer the remaining part of his
sentence in accordance with the conviction recorded by the
trial Court.
9. The appeal stands dismissed.
(Nandita Dubey)
Judge.
jk.
Digitally signed by JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA
Date: 2021.12.10 15:17:24 +05'30'
