Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sec. 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. The prosecution case briefly stated is that P.W. 1 Ashok Sahu @ Sohrai Sao lodged his fardbeyan before the Officer -in-Charge, Doranda Police Station on 18-8-1992 at 3 p.m. at village Hundru to the effect that on the same day he along with Suresh Sao, P.W. 2 had gone to Ranchi Court and while they were returning back on scooter and when they reached near Chuna Bhatha near the Aerodrome Road at about 1.40 p.m., the appellants, all of a sudden, appeared before them having jhola in their hands and immediately thereafter the appellant Madan Gope took out a bomb from his jhola and threw upon them. However, the bomb exploded on the ground, as a result of which, Suresh Sao, P.W. 2 lost his balance and both of them fell down and thereafter, the appellant, Rajesh Gope hurled another bomb, hitting Suresh Sao, as a result of which Suresh Sao sustained multiple injuries. He thereafter started fleeing away and again Madan Gope threw another bomb, which exploded on the ground without hitting anyone. He thereafter, out of scare, fled away towards his home where his fardbeyan was recorded. The further prosecution case is that injured Suresh Sao, P.W. 2 was hospital used in the R.M.C.H. by P.Ws. 8 and 9 and there he was treated by the doctors. 2. A formal first information report was drawn up and a case under Sec. 307 read with other ancillary sections of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sec. 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered against the appellants and after due investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted for the offence under Secs. 3/7/34 of the I.P.C. and also 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and cognizance of the offence was taken and they were put on trial. 3. It appears that the appellants were charged in the trial only under Sec. 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Sec. 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and accordingly they were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellant is denial of the alleged occurrence and false implication 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. 4. The defence of the appellant is denial of the alleged occurrence and false implication 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them P.Ws. 1,2, 11 and 12 are the material witnesses. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 have been declared hostile. P .W. 1 is the informant himself, whereas P.W. 2 is Suresh Sao, the injured. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer of the case, where P.W. 12 is the doctor, who had examined the injuries on the person of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 in his evidence has supported the prosecution version of the case as disclosed in the fardbeyan. P.W. 2, Suresh Sao has stated in his evidence that on the fateful day at about 1.40 p.m. while he was driving the scooter and P.W. 1 was the pillion rider and no sooner he had reached near Chuna Bhatha near the Aerodrome Road, he was attacked by the appellants with bombs and one bomb at least hit him, causing multiple injuries on his person and thereafter, the accused persons fled away and he was taken to R.M.C.H. by P.Ws. 8 and 9. P.W. 11, the I.O. in his evidence has stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence on the same day and had found certain materials showing that bomb had exploded at the place of occurrence. The 1.O. accordingly, prepared a seizure list of certain materials of the exploded bombs. There is nothing in the evidence of the 1.O, to show that he had also seized the scooter, which was left at the place of occurrence where P.W. 1 Suresh Sao fled away to his home leaving behind the injured P.W. 2 on the spot. The I.O, has not stated in his evidence that he also found blood or blood marks on the place of occurrence. P.W. 12, the doctor who had examined the injuries on the person of P.W. 2 has found the following injuries: Lacerated wound of right arm, right shoulder joint, scapula with multiple fracture of right humerous bone. Muscles of arm and shoulder joint were badly lacerated. Abrasion 1" x l" on right wrist joint with charred margin. P.W. 12, the doctor who had examined the injuries on the person of P.W. 2 has found the following injuries: Lacerated wound of right arm, right shoulder joint, scapula with multiple fracture of right humerous bone. Muscles of arm and shoulder joint were badly lacerated. Abrasion 1" x l" on right wrist joint with charred margin. Two lacerated wounds 1" x 1/2" x skin deep on the right scapular region with charred margin." In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by bomb blast and the age of the injuries was within six hours. In the cross-examination the doctor has stated that he had ascertained the nature of the injuries by chemical examination. 6. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the scooter which was left at the place of occurrence was not seized and the prosecution thus has not been able to show any mark of violence on the scooter, corroborating the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that bomb had exploded at the place of occurrence causing multiple injuries on the person of P.W. 2 Mr. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that prosecution has not even brought on the record the first statement of P.W. 2 recorded in the hospital i.e. RM.C.H., though the same is evident from the evidence of P.W. 2 itself. 7. I have scrutinised the evidence on record, P.W. 2, the injured has stated that he was taken to R.M.C.H. from the place of occurrence itself by P.Ws, 8 and 9. This fact, however, stands uncorroborated in view of the fact that P.Ws. 8 and 9 denied the fact that they had taken the injured P.W. 2 to RM.C.H. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws. 1 and 2 it appears that 4 bombs were thrown at, the place of occurrence. The sufficiency or otherwise of explosion of four bombs however is not proved from the evidence of P.W. 11, who had seized the certain materials from the place of occurrence showing that the bombs had exploded. The in juries caused on the person of P.W. 2 also does not conclusively proved that the same were caused by bomb. 8. The prosecution has not completed the chain showing the circumstance that P.Ws. 1 and 2 both were attacked, while they were going on a scooter. When both P.Ws. The in juries caused on the person of P.W. 2 also does not conclusively proved that the same were caused by bomb. 8. The prosecution has not completed the chain showing the circumstance that P.Ws. 1 and 2 both were attacked, while they were going on a scooter. When both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were present on the spot when bombs were hurled, P.W. 1 could have also sustained injuries. Even assuming as per the prosecution version of the case that P.W. 1 escaped unhurt, certain marks of violence could have been found on the scooter which was being used by P. Ws. 1 and 2. 9. Another fact which makes the entire prosecution case doubtful is that the statement of the injured recorded in the RM.C.H, has not been brought on the record, or the same has been proved in evidence. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and have also scrutinised the evidence, both documentary as well as occular and I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts that it were the appellants who had caused bodily injuries to P.W. 2. The surprising part of the case is also this that even though the appellants were charge-sheeted under Sec. 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, no charge was framed against him in the trial. 11. On the totality of the evidence and the circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the appellants. In that view of the matter, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and they are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.