Lalan Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:50379

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 947 of 2008

¶6

Lalan Jaiswal, S/o Shri Ramgopal Jaiswal, aged about 24 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

Sunil Mishra, S/o Shri Buddhsen Mishra, aged about 27 years, Occupation – Reporter, R/o village – Kothi, P.S. – Bijuri, District Annupur (M.P.)

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through : S.H.O., Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellants. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate for appellant No.1 and Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for appellant No.2. For Respondent - Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

09.10.2025

¶15

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and

¶16

order of sentence dated 13.10.2008 passed by the 1^st

¶17

2

¶18

Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.135/2007 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as under :-

¶19

Conviction	S	entenc	e
For Appellant No.1	R.I. for 10	years	and fine of
Under Section 3 of Explosive	Rs.1,000/-,	in	default of
Substance Act read with section	payment of	fine	amount to
120-B of IPC	undergo ad months	ditional	R.I. for 06
For Appellant No.2.	R.I. for 10	years	and fine of
Under Section 120-B of IPC	Rs.1,000/-,	in	default of
	payment of	fine	amount to
	undergo ad months.	ditional	R.I. for 06

¶20

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 09.12.2006, complainant Rajesh Kumar Agarwal (PW-1), lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) in Police Station – Surajpur to the effect that on 08.12.2006, when he and his family members were sleeping at home, at around 1.50 AM, two loud explosions occurred on an interval of 5-5 minutes, as a result of which, his family woke-up and upon opening the upper door of the house quickly, they saw two men on a motorcycle. The first one was driving the motorcycle, and the second one, Lalan Jaiswal (A-1), was sitting behind him. When he shouted, "idMks idMks” then Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) opened fire in the air from a pistol and ran away. The complainant and his family members could not understand at that time and got very

¶21

3

¶22

scared and closed the door. When they woke up in the morning, they saw that bomb shells had been thrown at both his houses and the wall had been damaged as the bomb had hit the wall and exploded, remains of the bomb, shrapnel, thread, nut-bolt, adhesive tape were scattered at the spot. Further case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2006, a threatening call was received demanding Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to Narendra Shukla in jail, but due to non-fulfillment of such demand, Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) and his other associates had thrown bombs in the house, opened fire in the air to kill his entire family and Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) was roaming around his house for two-three days.

¶23

After the incident, the police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-2. Photocopy of page of STD/PCO call register (Ex.P-9(c)) was seized. One audio cassette of T-series which contain conversation between accused/appellant and complainant with regard to demand of money and extension of threat was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-4. The remnant of exploded bomb, white thread, pink-blue tape, paper, shrapnel, nut-bolt were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-5. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The remnant of the exploded bomb was sent for chemical examination to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad vide Ex.P13, and a report of Central Forensic Science was obtained

¶24

4

¶25

vide Ex.C-1, according to which, sodium, potassium, antimony, chloride, nitrate and sulphide ions have been detected in remnant of exploded bomb (Article -A) and the detected ions could be the ingredients of potassium nitrate, antimony sulphide based explosive.

¶26

After completion of the entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Sections 3, 4 of the Explosive Substance Act read with Section 120-B of IPC. The learned trial Court framed charges against accused/appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act read with section 120-B of IPC and against accused/appellant Sunil Mishra (A-2) under Section 120-B of IPC.

¶27

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶28

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order

¶30

5

¶31

of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law as well as against the evidence and therefore, liable to be set-aside. The learned trial Court committed an error by convicting the appellant particularly when the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the conviction is not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the mandatory provision under Section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act provides for prosecution sanction before filing of charge sheet, whereas the prosecution sanction has been obtained after filing of charge sheet, as such, the entire procedure is vitiated. The learned trial Court has failed to consider that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, and all the witnesses so examined, are interested and family members of the complainant, therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration for convicting the accused/appellant. Further, Khushbu Marko (PW-8), who was sitting in the S.T.D./P.C.O. from where the accused/appellant alleged to have made calls, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he saw the accused/appellant running away on motorcycle opening air fire but there is no seizure of motorcycle or pistol in this case but the learned trial Court without any clinching and credible evidence, convicted the accused/appellant. So the

¶32

6

¶33

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside and the accused/appellant may be acquitted.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for appellant Sunil Mishra (A-2) submits that for the same incident, another case being Criminal Case No.890/2013 was register against appellant Sunil Mishra (A-2) and the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.05.2018, acquitted the accused/appellant. In the instant case also, on the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. So the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.

¶35

In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 20.07.2022 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CRA No. 1324/1998 [Om @ Omiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh] and judgment dated 01.11.2022 passed by this High Court in CRA No.2641/1999 [Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. (now CG) through C.B.I.].

¶36

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the conviction of the accused/appellants is strictly in accordance law and there is no infirmity in the same.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the

¶39

7

¶40

learned trial Court framed charges against

¶41

accused/appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act read with section 120-B of IPC and against accused/appellant Sunil Mishra (A-2) under Section 120-B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellants accordingly.

¶42

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident at around 1.30 – 1.45 AM, when they were sleeping, there were two explosions in the interval of 2-3 minutes. After hearing the sound of explosion, he opened the door and looked outside and saw that a motorcycle was going which was being driven by a man, and accused/appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) was sitting behind him. He has also stated that as soon as he opened the door, the vehicle was parked there then he shouted “idMks & idMks” thereafter, the motorcycle started and the accused/appellants started running. Accused/appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) was holding a small pistol or revolver, with which he opened fire in the air. This witness has also stated that after the incident, the police personnel reached the spot and seized the remnant of exploded bomb, pieces of thread, shrapnel, nut-bolt were seized from the spot by the police and FIR was lodge vide Ex.P-2. This witness has also stated that prior to 2-3 days of the incident, an unknown

¶43

8

¶44

person called him and told him to send Rs.5 Lakh to Narendra Shukla in jail. This witness could not understand much of what the person on call said and asked him as to who was speaking and from where, then the person on call said that there is no time to talk much, send the money else the marriage would turn into mourning. This witness has also stated that after two days of the explosion, at evening again an unknown person called him and said that he had already seen the picture of incident of night, that was just a small trailer.

¶45

Bheem Sen (PW-2) has admitted his signature in seizure memo (Ex.P-5) on ‘A to A’ part.

¶46

Bajrang Lal Agrawal (PW-3) has supported the evidence of complainant (PW-1).

¶47

Narayan (PW-5) and Vinod Agrawal (PW-6) have also supported the statement of complainant (PW-1) and stated that they heard the sound of explosion and saw that one motorcycle was going.

¶48

Khushbu Marko (PW-8) has not supported the case of the prosecution and prosecution declared her hostile and crossexamined her but she did not support the suggestion of prosecution and has also denied her police statement (Ex.P10).

¶49

The police has seized the remnants of the bomb and the same were subjected to chemical examination, and

¶50

9

¶51

according to the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad (Ex.C-1), sodim, potassium, antimony, chloride, nitrate and sulphide ions have been detected in Ex.-A and the detected ions could be the ingredients of potassium nitrate, antimony sulphide based explosive.

¶52

The learned trial Court recorded the finding of conviction only on this ground that both the accused/appellants had criminal antecedents/record but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact that none of the witnesses have seen the accused/appellants throwing the bomb on the house of complainant. Such deposition also does not find place in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses. That apart, the police did not seize any explosive material from the possession of any of the appellant. According to the seizure memo Ex.P-5, all the material were seized from the spot and the prosecution witnesses only stated that they saw the motorcycle was going from the house and appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) was sitting behind the driver of the motorcycle. Expect this, no clinching and credible evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to substantiate its case, and the police have also not proved this fact that threatening call demanding ransom was made by both the appellants or any of the appellant. So it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all

¶53

10

¶54

reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts in its true perspective and convicted the appellants. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and the appellants are definitely entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them by extending them benefit of doubt.

¶55

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the accused/appellant Lalan Jaiswal (A-1) under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act read with section 120-B of IPC and accused/appellant Sunil Mishra under Section 120-B of IPC and sentence imposed thereunder are hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges by extending them benefit of doubt.

¶56

The appellants are already on bail. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellants are 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 one surety 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶57

11

¶58

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶61

pekde

¶62

Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE

Lalan Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalan Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemchand and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anjali Sharma Vs Dr. Saransh Mittar

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kali Prasad Mishra (Wrongly Mention Prashad in Order) Vs State of Chhattisgarh