1 CRA No. 163 of 2016 2025:CGHC:25912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 163 of 2016 1 Beerbal Sidar S/o Shri Hemlal Sidar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Timarlaga, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 19/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2016 passed in Session Trial No. 17/2015, by the learned Upper Session Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 17:46:13 +0530 2 CRA No. 163 of 2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 4 (b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of non-payment of fine R.I. for 6 months. U/s 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of non-payment of fine R.I. for 3 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 24.4.2015, the police received information that the appellant/ accused possessed illegal explosive substances in his house for the purpose for crushing the stone in stone mines. The police raided the house of the appellant and recovered Explosive Thread, Gun Powder and Detonator. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. The statement of the witnesses was recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3 CRA No. 163 of 2016 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 25.01.2016 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the appellant have no intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to the property in India. He further submits that prosecution has failed to prove that the detonator seized from the possession of the appellant was alive and further it was not sealed and packed while investigation. He further contended that all the witness have turned hostile and further the sanction as per requirement under Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was also not taken. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the State has supported the decision of the trial Court. He has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be Correct and there is no basis by which any interference is warranted in the appeal. 4 CRA No. 163 of 2016 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The seizure witness namely PW-1 Girdhar Sidhar and PW-2 Mahaveer Sidhar have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. They stated that the police have not summoned them on 22.04.2015. PW-3 Shiv Kumar Dewangan is the patwari, he stated in his cross examination that he has not mentioned the details of the house in the Ex-P6 and there is no documentary proof in respect of the house where the alleged explosives were seized. 11. PW-11 B.L. Sharma ASI in the cross examination at para 11 stated that in the document Ex-P3 he has not mentioned with regard to seizure of explosive of four packets of gun powder and has also not mentioned about the weight and height of the same. He also admitted the fact that he has not mentioned anything with regard to live Detonator in the said document he also stated that no panchnama was prepared. 12. PW-7 B.P. Singh Parihar, ASI stated at para 8 of his cross examination, that he has not stated anything about the nature of disposal of explosives. He also stated that no panchnama has been prepared in respect of article A, B,C and D. He handed over the explosive of 25 grms to the SHO Sarangarh for sending the 5 CRA No. 163 of 2016 same to FSL without properly seal and packing. 13. From the record it is apparent that when the explosive sent for FSL examination by Ex-P-3 the same was returned by the FSL on 22.05.2015 to the SHO Sarangarh with a request to resend the said explosive after defusing the said explosive. Thereafter, the Bomb Disposal Squad received the same on 22.06.2015 for its disposal. In the entire period i.e. from 22.05.2015 to 22.06.2015 were the said explosive was kept has not been mentioned. 14. From the aforesaid fact and circumstances, in the opinion of this court the authorities have committed serious irregularity in discharging there duties because in such a serious matter i.e. seizure of explosives even they have not tried to kep and seal the same in a proper manner and the panchnama has also not been prepared. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the seizure witness PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3 patwari also not mentioned the details of the house where the explosives was allegedly sealed. Hence, in view of irregularities in the procedure while sending the alleged explosive articles for FSL and as the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, it is observed that prosecution failed to prove their case against appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. In a result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 16. It is stated that the appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 6 CRA No. 163 of 2016 17. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the accused-appellant, is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Jyoti