P.K. Mohanty, J.
1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 23.1.1986 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore acquitting the accused persons from the charges under Sections 323/325/225/34 read with Section 447, IPC and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act.
2. The main thrust of the argument of the Learned Addl. Government Advocate is that the Learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected the evidence of P.W. 3 and his son P.W. 4 on the ground that their statements are not corroborated by independent witnesses, specially when the evidence with regard to the injury on the person of P.W. 4 has been corroborated by the Doctor examined as P.W. 2 in all material particulars. It is further submitted that in view of the evidence of P.W. 3 and his son P.W. 4 corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 2, the Trial Court ought to have recorded the order of conviction.
3. The prosecution story, in short, was that on 1.11.1980 at about 9.30 P.M., while P.W. 3, Sk. Batul Mohammad was going to feed his cattle, the light suddenly went off and when it came back accused Sidiq and Kala were found jumping over the boundary wall into his bari and proceeding towards his house. P.W. 3 caught hold of them and shouted for help of his son. His son came and all of them dragged the accused persons, for which there was a tussle, Accused Sidiq had a bomb in his hand and in that process Kala took it from his hand and threw it on the verandah of Sk. Batul Mohammad, but however, it did not explode. When they were engaged in the tussle, accused Lokman Alli appeared on the scene with his scooter and tried to snatch away his son Kala. Accused Kala gave fist blow on the mouth of Sk. Batul Mohammad (P.W. 3), as a result of which, one of his teeth of upper jaw was shaken. However, accused Loknath Alli physically took away accused Kala and escaped living behind the scooter. Police arrived and seized remnants of the scattered bomb and the Scooter. Accused Sadiq in police custody made a statement giving to discovery of explosive powder from a Store Room of accused Lokman Alli which was kept inside his premises. The defence case was complete denial.
4. The prosecution examined six witnesses in all, of whom, P.W. 1 is Laxmikant Mohapatra, and Advocate of the local Bar and a witness to the seizure. P.W. 2 is the Doctor, who examined P.W. 3 is Sk. Batul Mohammad, who was injured, while P.W. 4 is Sk. Kutab Mohammad, son of P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 is the expert of explosive substance and P.W. 6 is the Officer-in-Charge, who took up investigation.
5. On consideration of the evidence of P.W. 3, the Learned Magistrate having found that the house of accused Lokman Alli is at Kantabania, about 3 to 4 Kms. away from the place of occurrence and he was assaulted underneath the verandah in presence of the son while one or two tenants were there at the spot, but none of the tenants or any independent witnesses have been examined. Moreover, P.W. 3 admitted that three types of powders were found. The Learned Magistrate further found from the evidence of P.W. 4, the son of P.W. 3, the injured that when he went to the spot, hearing the sound of his father, he found his father was holding the accused persons Sk. Kala and Sk. Sadak. This witness along with his father P.W. 3 brought the two accused persons and in course of it, there was tussle between them, when the other accused Loknath Ali reached the spot with a Scooter. Accused kala seeing his father accused Loknath, gave a fist blow to P.W. 3, resulting in swelling over his mouth and blood came out from his teeth. This witness admitted in his cross-examination that when both the brothers went there, they saw bomb in the hands of the accused but they did not try to snatch it away nor accused Sadak or other accused did try to throw the bombs towards them earlier to disburse them. The evidence of P.W. 5, the Deputy Controller of Explosive with regard to the substance seized from the place of occurrence is also clear that each of the substances taken independently does not constitute an explosive substance. Interestingly, the material with which the substances were packed i.e., the bomb, has not been described nor any such thing has been seized during investigation. He has said in his cross-examination that the crackers used in the festival also contained this type of mixture. P.W. 6, the Investigating Officer, who investigated into the case has been examined as P.W. 6, and in his evidence he has stated that the accused Sadak gave a statement before him leading to discovery of the incriminating articles from the store room on 2.1.1980 and the said store room belongs to accused Lokman Alli.
6. In view of the allegations and the materials placed as discussed above and discussions in the details in the judgment of the Learned Trying Magistrate, I do not find any cogent reason to take a different view in the matter. Otherwise also, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1980 and about 25 years have elapsed in the meantime.
In the result, the Government Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.