Patna High Court
Mahesh Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.146 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2001 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Mahesh Sah S/O Late Mahabir Sah Resident of Village- Madhurapur, P.S-
Bajpatti, Distt- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 29-08-2025
The present appeal has been filed on behalf of
appellant, Mahesh Sah, against the judgment of conviction dated
11.03.2014
and sentence dated 15.03.2014 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi (hereinafter to be referred
as ‘Trial Court’) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 229 of
2003 (112 of 2013) arising out of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of
2001 whereby and where under the learned Trial Court
convicted the appellant under Section 3/5 of the Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him R.I. for 10 years and
fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 5(a) of Explosives Substances
Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for
6 months.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
2/17
A.P.P. for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.04.2001 at
about 8 A.M., the informant Chowkidar Ram Ekbal Rai (P.W.2.)
was moving in his area and came to Madhurapur village where
the villagers informed him that bomb was exploded in the
bamboo clump. The informant sent another Chowkidar Gonu
Das (P.W.3.) to inform the police station. The villagers told him
that Mahesh Sah (the appellant) and his two associates were
manufacturing bomb in bamboo clump and during
manufacturing, bomb was exploded and Mahesh Sah and his
two associates were badly injured and they fled away anywhere
for their treatment.
4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant
(P.W.2.), Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001 has been registered
against the appellant and two other unknown persons. After
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant
under Section 3/5 of Explosives Substances Act. The cognizance
was taken on 04.02.2003 and after cognizance, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions on 30.04.2003 and the
charges were framed against the appellant who pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
3/17
this case to prove charges against the appellant who are as
under:-
P.W's. Names
P.W.-1 Baidyanath Mahto, who was a seizure list
witnesses.
P.W.-2 Ram Ekbal Rai who is informant.
P.W.-3 Gonu Das (Chowkidar), who was a seizure
list witness.
P.W.-4 Tapeshwar Sah @ Ram Taleshwar Sah
(Hostile).
P.W.-5 Hari Narayan Sah (Hostile).
P.W.-6 Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, who had prepared
injury report of the accused.
P.W.-7 Kalika Ram, who was first Investigating
Officer.
P.W.-8 Ram Pravesh Ram (subsequent Investigating
Officer).
6. Prosecution has also produced following documentary
evidence.
Ext's. Particulars.
Ext-1 Seizure List.
Ext-2 Signature of informant on the Fardbeyan.
Ext-3 & 3/1 Injury report of appellant and requisition on
injury report.
Ext-4 Fardbeyan of informant.
Ext-5 Seizure List.
Ext-6 Sanction Order.
Ext-7 Report of F.S.L.
7. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the
accused/appellant was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
4/17
28.06.2012 who denied the allegation.
8. The defence has also examined one witness, namely,
Janki Sharan Mandal as DW-1 and also adduced documentary
evidence. Exhibit-A is carbon copy of application of I.O. dated
16.02.2002 and Exhibit-B is carbon copy of order dated
05.05.2001 in Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001.
9. The learned Trial Court on considering the evidence on
record given finding that the injury of accused was sustained in
bomb explosion as specified by the doctor who treated him and
was found during treatment in a private hospital as private
patient. These are the facts and circumstances collectively
considered and entire facts and circumstances lead only
conclusion that the accused sustained injuries due to bomb
explosion while preparing the bomb.
10. The learned Trial Court on the basis of aforesaid
finding came to conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove
charge under Section 3/5 of the Explosives Substances Act
against the accused/appellant Mahesh Sah beyond all reasonable
doubts, hence the appellant was convicted thereunder as stated
above.
11. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and sentence, appellant preferred the present appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
5/17
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is bad in
law and facts. The learned Trial Court did not consider that
admittedly there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and only
upon the evidence of P.W.6. (doctor) who has stated that the
injuries were caused by explosive substances convicted the
appellant. The learned Trial Court did not consider the defence
evidence who clearly stated that the appellant had sustained
burn injuries due to stove burst on 27.04.2001, the appellant
became blind. There is no single independent witness who has
disclosed the name of appellant in the occurrence. Also, there
was litigation between the appellant and Mukhia Sita Ram
Mandal, and on the instance of Sita Ram Mandal, the appellant
has been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submitted that the case is based on
circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not
complete and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the
appellant and the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence is liable to be set aside.
13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
and submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
6/17
against the appellant and learned Trial Court has rightly passed
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and are not
liable to be interfered by this Court in this appeal. He further
submitted that the facts proved by the prosecution witnesses
give rise to a reasonable inference that the appellant was
involved in the manufacturing of bomb which was exploded and
the appellant was seriously injured. The said inference does not
appear to be rebutted by the appellant. He lastly submitted that
the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
14. I have carefully perused the records and considered
the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
At this stage, I would like to appreciate the relevant extract of
entire evidence led by the parties before the learned Trial Court.
(i) P.W.1. Baidyanath Mahto has deposed that he
came to know that there is bomb explosion in Mandal Tola in
the night and three persons including Mahesh Sah and two other
unknown were injured. Thereafter, he went there and found
some blood in the bamboo clump and also seen the blood
stained cloth, one pair of sandle stained with yellow material,
remnant of bomb and six bundles of sutari in which there are
five pieces of sulphur (gandhak) and there was nail in a
container having smell of Kerosene oil, pieces of glass and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
7/17stoves were scattered. Some burnt materials were also seen.
Police came and prepared seizure list on which he and
Chowkidar Gonu Das had signed. He came to know that bombs
were prepared to be used in election for terrorising and also for
the purpose of sale. Due to this bomb explosion, both eyes of
accused Mahesh Sah were damaged. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that wife of Sitaram Mandal is Mukhia of the Gram
Panchayat of his village.
(ii) P.W.2. Ram Ekbal Rai, Chowkidar, who is informant
of this case, deposed that at about 8 A.M. during moving in his
area, he reached near Village Madhurapur where he got
information regarding explosion of bomb in a bamboo clump
and he sent a Chowkidar Gonu Das to inform Police Station. He
came to know from the villagers that Mahesh Sah and two
others were manufacturing bomb and due to explosion of bomb
during that time they (Mahesh Sah and two others) sustained
injuries. Thereafter, police came at bamboo clump of Jagdish
Sah with Baidyanath, Gonu Das and he himself where they
found exploded bomb and some white chemicals, stone chips
and also found some blood on that place. Those materials were
seized and seizure list was prepared which was signed by the
witnesses and his fardbeyan was recorded and signed by him.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
8/17
In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was
litigation between Mahesh Sah and Sitaram Mandal. Mahesh
Sah instituted a case against him. At the time of explosion of
bomb, case was pending against Sitaram Mandal who is
presently Mukhia. He had seen blood on the place of
occurrence. In para-3 of his cross-examination, he has stated
that Daroga jee had come at 9 A.M. and with Daroga jee,
Sitaram Mandal was also present. He does not remember that
who had told him the name of accused Mahesh Sah that he had
exploded the bomb. He also admitted that before the occurrence
of bomb explosion, there was no case against the accused
Mahesh Sah.
(iii) P.W.3. Gonu Das, Chowkidar deposed that he went to
the police station for giving information about bomb explosion
on instruction of Chowkidar Ram Ekbal Rai (P.W.1.) and he
informed the police and police came along with him. Thereafter,
the police took statement of P.W.1. and also seized materials. It
came to be known that Mahesh Sah, the accused, was preparing
bomb which exploded, Mahesh Sah and others fled away.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that entire
materials were seized on place of occurrence. He could not give
description of the seized materials. He also stated that eyes of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
9/17
Mahesh Sah were damaged since before. He also admitted that
Sitaram Mandal is a Mukhia of Panchayat and there is litigation
term with Mahesh Sah and said Mukhia. He cannot say that who
had told him the name of Mahesh Sah.
(iv) P.W.4. and P.W.5. have stated nothing with respect to
occurrence and they have been declared hostile.
(v) P.W.6., Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, proved the injury
report. He has deposed that on 27.04.2001, he was posted at
Jialal Kalawati Hospital, Sitamarhi and on that day at about 10
A.M., he examined Mahesh Sah and found following injuries in
his person.
a. Burnt injury by dry hit characterized by
roasted patches of a skin, singeing and burning of
hair of body and deposit of carbonaceous material
on the body. Vessels and blisters present on the
circumference of burnt area.
b. Percentage of burn- 42%
c. Age of burn- More than three hours.
d. Nature of injury- Grievous caused by dry
hit such as explosion of bomb.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that accused
Mahesh Sah was not treated at the instance of police rather he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
10/17
was treated as a private patient. He admitted that carbonaceous
material may be found on the back by burst of stove.
(vi) P.W.7. Kalika Ram, who is first I.O. of the case
deposed that Chowkidar Gonu Das had informed at Police
Station that Ram Ekbal Rai had told about bomb explosion at
village Madhurapur Mandal Tola on which he made S.D. entry
and proceeded for verification to Madhurapur where he came to
know that Mahesh Mandal @ Mahesh Sah was preparing bomb
with the help of his two friends. During that time, bomb
exploded due to which they were injured and went outside for
their treatment. He recorded fardbeyan of Chowkidar Ram
Ekbal Rai, seized six bundles of sutari, one plastic old container
containing some nails having smell of Kerosene Oil. Five pieces
of Mishri white colour sulphur (gandhak), white stones, pieces
of glass, blood stained clothes, one pair of plastic sandles
stained with yellow bomb powder, one blood stained and burnt
gamchha, one steel lota, stain of barood and remnants of
exploded bomb. Seizure list was prepared and was signed by
two witnesses viz., Baidyanath Mahto and Gonu Das. He
inspected the P.O. in presence of witnesses, taken the statement
of witnesses. Thereafter, he received information from control
room, Sitamarhi that accused Mahesh Sah is admitted in injured
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
11/17
position at Jialal Kalwati Hospital, Mehsaul, Sitamarhi on which
he along with Chowkidar went there and saw the accused in
injured condition whose face was burnt and there was black
patches. Accused Mahesh Sah was arrested and his treatment
was going on in his custody. He was transferred and he had
handed over the charge of this case to O/C, Bajpatti P.S.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there is
litigation between the candidate of Mukhia Sitaram Mandal and
accused Mahesh Sah and Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 100 of 1997
under Sections 342, 307, 379/34 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the
Arms Act and a complaint case are pending between them. He
has not got comparison of blood of the accused and the blood
found on the seized clothes. He has admitted that he had not
seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. He
further admitted that no eye-witness was found. He denied the
suggestion that the investigation is incorrect and has been
conducted on the saying of Mukhia candidate Sitaram Mandal.
(vii) P.W.8., Ram Pravesh Rai is subsequent I.O. who has
proved sanction (Ext. 6) letter for prosecution of accused. He
also received the F.S.L. Report (Ext. 7) and submitted charge-
sheet against the accused.
(viii) D.W.1., Janki Sharan Mandal, examined on behalf
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
12/17
of defence/appellant stated about the injury of accused Mahesh
Sah due to stove burst on 27.04.2003. In his cross-examination,
he stated that he heard sound of explosion at 6 hours where he
had gone and found uneasiness of accused who got burn injury.
15. In this appeal, the issue which comes up for
consideration is “whether the prosecution has proved the
charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt or
not?”
16. In the present case, admittedly, no one has seen the
accused/appellant manufacturing the bomb and the injury of
accused at the place of occurrence. The case is based on
circumstantial evidence and inference drawn from established
facts. The law is well-settled that the Court must draw inference
with respect to whether chain of circumstances is complete and
when circumstances are collectively considered, same must lead
only to irresistible conclusion that accused alone is perpetrator
of crime. The circumstances so established must be of
conclusive nature and consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of
accused.
17. The law is well settled that when there is no eye
witness, then the entire case of prosecution depends upon
circumstantial evidence. The circumstances from which the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
13/17
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC
116: (AIR 1984 SC 1622) laid down five golden principles
(Panchseel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial
evidence and has observed:
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against an accused can be said to be
fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned “must or should” and
not “may be” established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807:
SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
14/17(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment,
Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2024 SC 518 in
paragraph 28 has quoted the aforesaid judgment and observed:
“28.In a recent decision, Pritinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727 : (AIROnline 2023 SC
575) one of us (Justice Gavai) has taken note of
the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.
State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: (AIR
1984 SC 1622) and observed:
17. It can thus be seen that this Court has held
that the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It has been held that the circumstances concerned
“must or should” and not “may be” established. It
has been held that there is not only a grammatical
but a legal distinction between “may be proved”
and “must be or should be proved”. It has been
held that the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty. It has been held that the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency and they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence
so complete so as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by
the accused.
18. It is a settled principle of law that however
strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a
proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
15/17these guiding principles, we will have to consider
the present case.”
20. In the present case, there is no eye-witness to the
occurrence, and the prosecution witnesses, including the
informant, have merely deposed that they heard the name of the
appellant, Mahesh Sah, being involved in the preparation of the
bomb, without disclosing the source from whom such
information was received, thereby rendering all of them hearsay
witnesses so far as the involvement of the appellant is
concerned. Further, P.W.7, Kalika Ram, has candidly admitted
that no comparison was made between the blood of the accused
and the blood found on the seized cloth, and hence, there is no
evidence to establish any link between the seized articles at the
place of occurrence and the accused. It has also come on record
that there existed litigation between the accused, Mahesh Sah,
and Sitaram Mandal, the Mukhia of the concerned Panchayat,
and P.W.2, Ram Ekbal Rai, the Chowkidar and informant, has
admitted that the Investigating Officer had reached the place of
occurrence at 9 A.M. and that Sitaram Mandal was also present
with him. The admitted previous enmity between the appellant
and Sitaram Mandal further casts a shadow of doubt on the
prosecution case. Additionally, though the accused was admitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
16/17
to a private hospital with the claim that he had sustained injuries
due to a stove burst, the Investigating Officer failed to conduct
any investigation on this aspect, which weakens the prosecution
story. The chain of evidence is not complete and the
circumstances cannot be said to be of conclusive nature and
tendency.
21. In the light of above discussions and taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidences available on record, I am of the considered view that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges
levelled against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable
doubts thereby entitling the accused/appellant for acquittal.
22. In the result, the instant appeal deserves to be
allowed.
23. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
11.03.2014 and order of sentence dated 15.03.2014 passed by
learned Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 229 of
2003 (112 of 2013) arising out of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 32 of
2001 convicting the appellant and sentencing him, is
accordingly, set aside.
24. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled
against him and held to be proved against him by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.146 of 2014 dt.29-08-2025
17/17
Trial Court and the appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from
liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties.
25. The aforesaid appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
26. The Trial Court records of the instant appeal be
returned to the Trial Court forthwith.
27. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed off, accordingly.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 07.08.2025 Uploading Date 29.08.2025 Transmission Date 29.08.2025
[ad_1]
Source link