Judgment B.P.Sharma, J. 1. All the three appeals have been heard together as they relate to the same offence and the same Police Case i.e., Silao (Rajgir) P.S. case No. 7 of 1980. There were altogether four accused in this case and while two of them were facing trial, vide S.T No. 147/86, the other two were absconding ; the two accused Syed Zulfikar Hus sain and Bideshi Razwar were charged and tried in S.T. No. 147/86 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif and by judgment dated 18th December, 1987, the Trial Court convicted both of them. Accused Zulfikar Hussain was convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and also under Section 5(3)(b) of the Explosives Act, accused Bideshi Razwar was convicted under Section 302, IPC and also under Section 5(3)(b) of the Explosives Act. However, both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC and also to undergo RI for two years under Section 9(b) of the Explosives Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Trial Court, convict Zulfikar Hussain preferred appeal which has been registered as criminal appeal No. 11 of 1988 (DB) and convict Bideshi Razwar filed a separate appeal which was registered as criminal appeal No. 74 of 1988 (DB). So both, criminal appeal No. 11/88 and criminal appeal No. 74/88 arise out of the same judgment and order dated 18th December, 1987. However, it appears that subsequently, one of the absconding accused Arjun Rajbanshi was also apprehended and on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet, the cognizance was taken and he was also committed to the Court of Sessions and session case No. 103/90 was registered in which the said accused Arjun Rajabanshi was tried and was convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif by judgment dated 23.1.1993. This accused has been convict under Section 302, IPC and also under Section 9(b) of the Explosives Act and while he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC; he has not been separately sentenced under Section 9(b) of the Explosives Act. So, though the appeals arise out of two separate judgments of different dates; all the three appeals relate to the same occurrence and the same police case. 2. So, though the appeals arise out of two separate judgments of different dates; all the three appeals relate to the same occurrence and the same police case. 2. According to the prosecution story, stated in brief, a Police Officer of Rajgir Police Station received an information on 5th December, 1980 by way of rumour that some bomb was exploded and a person had died in Panditpur Khanda within the jurisdiction of Rajgir Police Station. Accordingly, the Police Officer, Balmiki Prasad (PW 6) recorded the Station Diary entry No. 94 of 5th December 1980 and proceeded for the P.O. for verification of the information. On arriving the said Panditpur Khanda at about 3.00 a.m. in the afternoon, he met one Arun Kumar, son of Shyam Narain Prasad of village Basuain and recorded his fardbeyan (Ext. 2). This fardbeyan was recorded in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramjee Prasad (PW 3) and Raj Kumar Prasad (PW 2). The informant stated before the Police Officer that on the same day, i.e., 5.12.1980, at about noon, he was going to Rajgir in the company of his uncle Saryug Prasad who happened to be a Mukhiya of Pathraura Gram Panchayat. The informant further stated that when they reached to the south of village Nonhee, near a neem tree, they saw four persons sitting there. They were Zulfikar Hus-sain, son of Nisar Hussain of village Nonhee, Bangali Rajbanshi, son of Dhani Rajbanshi, Bideshi Razwar son of Dhani Rajbansi of village Basuain and Arjun Rajbanshi son of Sahtu Rajbanshi of village Dohai Sohai. They were talking in hush voice among themselves. Thereafter the informant and his uncle crossed them and proceeded towards east. Then these persons started following them and when at about 1.00 p.m. they reached Panditpur Khanda, accused Zulfikar Hussain uttered that they should not now wait and they should finish their job. Upon this, Bangali Razwar took out a bomb from the jhola in his hand and threw the same on the uncle of the informant which hit him in the back and immediately thereafter accused Arjun Rajbanshi also threw a bomb which hit the uncle of the informant while the uncle of the informant was trying to run away towards sought, he fell down in a field and accused Bideshi Razwar hit him on his face with another bomb. The informant raised alarm on which persons started assembling and the culprits fled away. The informant raised alarm on which persons started assembling and the culprits fled away. The persons who assembled on hulla, included Kshatri Mahto (PW 1) Raj Kumar Choudhary (PW 2) and Ramjee Prasad (PW 3). They had also seen the occurrence with their own eyes and they also tried to catch the culprits who were running away, but they were threatened with a bomb and they stopped and the culprits ascaped. When the informant and witnesses went near the fallen Mukhiya, they found him dead. Many people also assembled thereafter. However according to the informant, the cause of murder was that the accused Zulfikar Hussain was one of the contestents for the post of Mukhiya during the last election in which his uncle, the deceased, became victorious and so Zulfikar bore grudge against him. The informant further stated that Zulfikar Hussain had dispute with his brother in which the deceased intervened for which Zulfikar Hussain bore grudge against him and, therefore, the murder was committed. Regarding others, it is stated that they were helpers and supporters of Zulfikar and, therefore, they participated in committing murder of the uncle of the informant. 3. After recording the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police Officer sent the fardbeyan to the Police Station at Silao for registering case where the case was registered and a formal FIR (Ext-3) was drawn up. After forwarding the FIR, S.I. Balmiki Prasad (PW 6) took up investigation and he prepared the inquest report of the dead-body and forwarded the dead-body to the Hospital for post-mortem examination. He also made some seizures at the P.O. and prepared seizure-list. He inspected the P.O. and recorded the further statement of the informant and the statements of some witnesses who went there. Subsequently, after almost completing investigation in the case, because of his transfer, he handed over charge to another Police Officer Arun Kumar Sinha (PW 5) who submitted the charge-sheet. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session and the sessions cases were heard and disposed of as stated above. 4. It has been pleaded on behalf of defence without adducing any evidence and without examining any witness that they have been falsely implicated in this case because of the grudge borne by the informant and his family against the accused persons for some reasons. 4. It has been pleaded on behalf of defence without adducing any evidence and without examining any witness that they have been falsely implicated in this case because of the grudge borne by the informant and his family against the accused persons for some reasons. So far as appellant Zulfikar Hussain is concerned, it has been pleaded on his behalf that he has been falsely implicated in this case, because the informant had some dispute with him earlier. So far as Bideshi Razwar is concerned, it has been pleaded on his behalf that he has been a leader of labour class in the village; whereas the deceased happened to be the leader of people of the landed class and because of demand of minimum wages by the labourers, pioneered by appellant Bideshi Razwar, the informant and the witnesses had grievance against him and taking advantage of the murder of the Mukhiya, they falsely implicated him in the case. It was also pleaded on his behalf that actually Bideshi Razwar did not reside in the village; rather, he was residing at Rajgir of past some years and, therefore, he had no interest. However, after considering the entire materials and evidence on the record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable manners of doubt and, accordingly, orders of conviction and sentence were passed against the three appellants separately, as stated earlier. 5. So far S.T. No. 147 of 1986 is concerned, the accused in this case were the two appellants of criminal appeal No. 11 of 1988 (DB) Zulfikar Hussain and criminal appeal No. 74 of 1988 (DB) Bideshi Razwar. In this case, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses to support the case against the accused. Out of these 7 witnesses, PW 4 Arun Kumar is the informant himself and he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, he was accompanying the deceased while he was attacked by the accused in his presence and he saw the entire occurrence and some other witnesses also assembled in course of the occurrence and saw the occurrence. Three other witnesses who are said to have witnessed the occurrence are PW 1 Kshartri Mahto, PW 2 Raj Kumar Choudhary and PW 3 Ramjee Prasad. Three other witnesses who are said to have witnessed the occurrence are PW 1 Kshartri Mahto, PW 2 Raj Kumar Choudhary and PW 3 Ramjee Prasad. However, it may be noted that PW 1 happens to be the father-in-law of the informant of this case, but he happens to be the resident of village Nonhee which is close to the P.O. and to which village accused Zulfikar Hussain also belongs. He has claimed that he was taking bundles of paddy from the field to the Khalihan on the alleged date and at the alleged time of occurrence and when he was returning to the field after keeping the bundles in the Khalihan to bring another bundle, he met the informant and the deceased and when he was just close to the P.O., the incident took place and he saw the entire occurrence. PW 2 Raj Kumar Choudhary is also a cousin brother of the deceased Mukhiya. He is a resident of village Basuain to which village the informant and deceased belonged and he has also stated that he was in the field in the same area where the occurrence took place and he saw the entire occurrence, taking place from some distance. PW 3 Ramjee Prasad is also a man from village Basuain, i.e., the village of the informant and the deceased. He supported the prosecution story as an eye-witness to the occurrence before the Police and his statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr PC in which he has supported the prosecution story as eye-witness and in Court he started faltering and giving different kind of evidence. Though he also happens to be related to the set of witnesses in this case; because of his lukewarm attitude, he was declared hostile by the prosecution and his attention was drawn to the statements said to have been made by him before the I.O. and also the statements said to have been made by him before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr PC. PW 5 Arun Kumar Sinha is a Police Officer who had taken charge of the case at the last stage from PW 6 and had submitted charge-sheet in this case. He did not actually do any investigation work. PW 6 Bhalmiki Prasad is the I.O. of the case and PW 7 Dr. PW 5 Arun Kumar Sinha is a Police Officer who had taken charge of the case at the last stage from PW 6 and had submitted charge-sheet in this case. He did not actually do any investigation work. PW 6 Bhalmiki Prasad is the I.O. of the case and PW 7 Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha is the Doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. 6. So far S.T. No. 103 of 1990 is concerned, the prosecution could examine only four witnesses in Court. They are PW 1 Kshatri Mahto, PW 2 Arun Kumar, the informant himself, PW 3 Raj Kumar Choudhary who was examined as PW 2 in the other sessions case and PW 4 Ram Pujan Thakur. ASI, a formal witness. It is clear that apart from the eye-witnesses, the Doctor who held the P.M. Examination and the I.O. of the case could not be examined by the prosecution in this and the judgment is based solely on the oral evidence of three witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2 and 3. PW 1 Kshatri Mahto has supported the prosecution story as an eyewitness to the occurrence and as usual he has stated that he was carrying bundles of paddy from the field to his Khalihan on the alleged date of occurrence and at the alleged time of occurrence when he was going to his field situated near the P.O., to fetch a bundle of paddy, he chanced to meet the informant of this case and the deceased and he saw the occurrence with his own eyes. Similarly, PW 3 Raj Kumar Choudhary has also stated that he had gone to watch his field near the P.O. when the occurrence took place and he saw the occurrence. He has also supported the prosecution story in his evidence in Court. PW 2 the informant has also supported the prosecution story. 7. The main contention of the appellants in criminal appeal No. 79 of 1993 is that since the medical evidence has not been brought on the record to show as to what injuries were found on the deceased and what was the cause of his death and since the I.O. has also not been examined by the prosecution, the prosecution story cannot be said to have been proved and the conviction of the appellant in this case is illegal and improper. The learned Lower Court has, however, observed in this connection that the medical evidence has only a supportive value and the prosecution case has to be considered on the basis of the material oral evidence and since three witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution story, he accepted the prosecution story and convicted the appellant in this case. Regarding the contention that non-examination of the I.O. has caused prejudice to the accused, the learned Trial Court has observed that since the oral evidence is sufficient to prove the charge, non-examination of the I.O. also cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. However, this aspect has to be considered whether the view taken by the Trial Court is correct or not. 8. So far as criminal appeal No. 11 of 1988 (DB) and criminal appeal No. 74 of 1988 are concerned, from the materials on the record in S.T. No. 147/86 it appears that the occurrence had taken place in the manner and at the place as alleged in the prosecution story in this case. 9. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, according to PW 7 the Doctor, who held the P.M. Examination and also according to the P.M. Examination Report (Ext-5), when the Doctor examined the dead-body, he found four injuries on the person of the deceased which were ante mortem in nature and were caused with some substance like bomb. Out of the four injuries found by the Doctor during the P.M. Examination, the 1st was a lacerated would with ragged and blackened margin of 7" x 4" on the face, the left eye ball was missing, left orbit was mocirated and chunk was absent. The nose was absent, frontal portion of maxilla was also absent with macirated appearance, the upper jaw was also mocirated with absence of frontal row of teeth, the mandible was fractured and mocirated. Thus, the entire fase was practically mocirated and the face gave a blackish appearance. Injury No. 2 was a burn area with blackish appearance on the right arm in the area involving the lateral aspect of the right arm with patchy laceration of 1/2" x 1" x skin deep. Thus, the entire fase was practically mocirated and the face gave a blackish appearance. Injury No. 2 was a burn area with blackish appearance on the right arm in the area involving the lateral aspect of the right arm with patchy laceration of 1/2" x 1" x skin deep. The 3rd Injury was one burnt area with black appearance of 3" x 2" on the right side of back and the 4th Injury was one burnt area of 4" x 3" skin deep on the left arm blackish in appearance. The death, in the opinion of the Doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries sustained by the deceased. So it is clear from the medical evidence that the injuries were caused to the deceased in the manner as alleged in the prosecution story in this case. According to the FIR as well as the witnesses, three successive bombs were thrown on the deceased and the injury on the back shows that he was hit on his back with a bomb when he was trying to run away. The injury on the face is said to have been inflicted with a bomb thrown after the victim had fallen down after receiving two bomb injuries. 10. So far as the objective evidence collected by the I.O. during the investigation is concerned, it appears from the evidence of PW 6 that the dead-body was fallen in a field at some distance on the southern side of the road going from west to east. He also found huge quantity of blood fallen on the ground where the dead-body was lying. The I.O. (PW 6) has also stated that he had found some materials indicating the explosion of bomb. These materials are said to have been collected by the I.O. from the P.O. and he has also stated that he had sent the materials to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination but the report had not been received. However, it may be noted in this connection that the I.O. has failed to produce and prove the seizure list prepared by him and since the materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where the report could not be received by him, the materials could not be produced in Court. However, it may be noted in this connection that the I.O. has failed to produce and prove the seizure list prepared by him and since the materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where the report could not be received by him, the materials could not be produced in Court. The prosecution should have tried to procure the report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the materials sent to the Laboratory, but it could not be done and the Court also did not make an effort to procure the report. However, even in absence of the materials and the report, it cannot be said that the prosecution story has no leg to stand, because other materials are sufficient and the oral evidence regarding the manner of occurrence gets full support from the medical evidence in this case, as stated above. 11. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it is obvious that one of the four witnesses examined on the point of occurrence has failed to fully support the prosecution story in his evidence. He is PW 3 Ramjee Prasad, but it becomes clear from his evidence that he is deliberately trying to suppress the fact. It is clear that when his attention was drawn towards his statements said to have been made before the I.O., he went on admitting that he had stated so, but at one point he stated that his statement was prepared and he was made to sign. Actually, the entire statement of the witness in this case is a canard. When a witness is examined under Section 161, Cr PC by the Police during the investigation, his signature or L.T.I. is not taken. Therefore, obviously, he is making incorrect statement in spite of the fact that he admits that he had made certain statements. Moreover, he also admits his signature on the statements under Section 164, Cr PC, but says that he did not remember as to what he stated earlier. Therefore, it is obvious that this witness is deliberately trying to suppress the fact. However, the other three witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2 and 4 have consistently supported the prosecution story, excepting for a few minor contradictions. The evidence of these three witnesses appear to be most consistent. They have given a clear picture of the manner in which the occurrence took place. However, the other three witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2 and 4 have consistently supported the prosecution story, excepting for a few minor contradictions. The evidence of these three witnesses appear to be most consistent. They have given a clear picture of the manner in which the occurrence took place. It is clear from their evidence that while PW 2 was present in his field near the P.O., the informant PW 4 and the deceased were seen going towards Rajgir through the village road. First of all this road runs from north to south and then it takes a turn towards east and after going to some distance it again turns towards south and then it goes to Rajgir. There is a neem tree on this road near the turning where the road takes a turn towards east and there is a culvert ahead of it. Thereafter there is another neem tree at some distance on the eastern side. The attackers are said to have been sitting near this neem tree which the informant and the deceased passed. At that stage they met PW 1 who was returning to his field after keeping the bundle of paddy in the Khalihan. Because they were known to each other, they exchanged pleasantries and then PW 1 proceeded towards south to go to his field and the informant and the deceased were heading towards east. At that stage, four attackers followed them and under the orders of Zulfikar Hussain, other accused persons started throwing bomb at the deceased. At that stage, according to the informant, the deceased was behind him and when he found the culprits attacking his uncle he became scared and started raising alarm and running towards south. After receiving one blow with bomb thrown at him, the victim also starts running towards south and after running to some distance, after receiving another bomb injury, he fell down and then a third bomb was thrown at his face causing complete damage to his face resulting in his instantaneous death. In the mean time, many people of the village started rushing to the P.O. and the culprits fled away. 12. The three witnesses, i.e. PWs 1, 2 and 4 have consistently supported the prosecution case. In the mean time, many people of the village started rushing to the P.O. and the culprits fled away. 12. The three witnesses, i.e. PWs 1, 2 and 4 have consistently supported the prosecution case. However/it has been contended in this connection that the entire case rests on the evidence of these three witnesses who are closely related to the deceased and are highly interested witnesses and even though there is evidence to show that many persons had seen the occurrence and had gone to the P.O. no. independent witnesses has been examined in this case. Therefore, it has been contended that the prosecution story should be viewed from this angle and should not be believed and accepted. In this connection, it is important to note that the I.O. (PW 6) has stated in his evidence that once during the investigation he was instructed by his superior, i.e. Superintendent of Police that he should record the statements of some independent witnesses also and when he tried to comply with the direction of the Superintendent of Police, he found that no independent witness was ready to come forward to support the prosecution case, probably because of the reason that accused Zulfikar Hussain (appellant in criminal appeal No. 11/88) happens to be an influential and wealthy person of the locality. It has been stated by the witness that his father was also a Zamindar and he has substantial landed property. It is also obvious that he had also contested the post of Mukhiya in which he was defeated by the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is an ordinary man and it is also not unusual that the people are scared of him and probably for this reason no independent witness could come forward to support the prosecution case against him. Therefore, in spite of the fact that only the persons who have some relationship or concern with the deceased have been examined in this case, the prosecution story cannot be thrown away, if the statements of the witnesses supporting the prosecution story appear to be reliable. The only requirement of law in such a circumstance is that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with much care and caution. So far as these witnesses are concerned, it is not that they are strangers or they are just chanced witnesses. The only requirement of law in such a circumstance is that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with much care and caution. So far as these witnesses are concerned, it is not that they are strangers or they are just chanced witnesses. The village of PW 1 is about 1 k.m. from the P.O. and, therefore, he was going to the field to bring the bundles of paddy. It has been stated by the witnesses as well as the I.O. that it was a harvesting season and paddy crop in most of the fields was cut and some paddy crops were standing in field also. They have also stated that the paddy crops after harvesting were kept in the field. Therefore, his statement in this regards does not appear to be unnatural and improbable. In this view of the matter, his presence at the P.O. cannot be doubted solely on the ground that he happens to be the relation of the informant. So far PW 2 is concerned, he is also a man from the village of the informant and he has also stated that he had gone to see the field. In such a circumstance, it cannot be said that his presence at the P.O. was either unnatural or improbable. So far as the informant is concerned, he is none else than the nephew of the deceased and his case is that he was accompanying the deceased, as they were both going to Rajgir for some personal word. 13. It is true that harvesting or carrying of paddy crops was going on and it was about noon in the day time, therefore, presence of many persons in the locality of the P.O. cannot be doubted. But unfortunately, these days independent witnesses who happened to see the occurrence do not come forward to depose or support a case, do not want to take the risk of incurring the displeasure of the accused in a case. Therefore, only because independent witnesses do not come to support the case, the statements of near relations cannot be discarded, if they appear to be dependable and reliable and if the evidence is consistent. If a close relation of the deceased happens to have witnessed the occurrence, there is no question of his allowing to let the real culprit go scot free to falsely implicate innocent persons. If a close relation of the deceased happens to have witnessed the occurrence, there is no question of his allowing to let the real culprit go scot free to falsely implicate innocent persons. Therefore, it does not appear to be true that the accused in this case were falsely implicated. 14. However, much emphasis was led on this aspect that so far as the motive for the occurrence is concerned, it has not been proved. So it has been alleged on this account that the prosecution story should be disbelieved. According to the prosecution story in the FIR the main reason for attack on the deceased was the fact that accused appellant Zulfikar Hussain was defeated by the deceased in the election of Mukhiya in the year 1978. It has also been stated that a brother of the accused Zulfikar Hussain had some dispute with him in which the deceased Mukhiya had intervened and, therefore, he had grudge against him. It has been contended in this connection that if the said appellant Zulfikar bore grudge against the deceased for being defeated by him in 1978, why did he wait for such a long time to kill him in the year 1980. It has further been contended that if there was some dispute and if the Mukhiya had intervened, there should have been some papers which could have been produced in the Court which has not been done and, therefore, it has been submitted that the motive for the occurrence has not been proved and, therefore, the prosecution story should be disbelieved. So far as the question of bearing grudge by the accused Zulfikar Hussain against the deceased regarding his defeat in the election of Mukhia is concerned, it is not that any person having such grudge must immediately attack him. In such cases people remain in the look-out for appropriate chance and opportunity and as the time passes, because of certain developments, the feeling of antagonism goes on becoming stronger. In such cases people remain in the look-out for appropriate chance and opportunity and as the time passes, because of certain developments, the feeling of antagonism goes on becoming stronger. If is true that no paper in connection with dispute between appellant Zulfikar Hussain and his brother has been produced, but the witnesses have stated that this appellant had some problem with his cousin brother regarding some land and the I.O. (PW 6) stated that he had taken the statement of that cousin brother of this appellant during the investigation, but unfortunately that person could not be examined and the papers in this connection could not be collected by the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the motive, as alleged and narrated in the prosecution story has not been established and proved and, therefore, the prosecution story should be disbelieved. First of all it all depends on the conviction of the Court whether the motive as alleged is a possibility or not. Moreover, even if it is so that the motive is not proved, if the evidence on the record otherwise shows that the occurrence took place in the manner as alleged, in absence of motive, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, I find that so far as conviction of the two appellants, namely, Syed Zulfikar Hussain (of criminal appeal No. 11 /88) and Bideshi Razwar (of criminal appeal No. 74/88) are concerned, there does not appear to be any reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Trial Court. 15. So far as criminal appeal No. 79 of 1993 (DB) is concerned, it appears that before the Trial Court in sessions case No. 103 of 1990, only four witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Out of these four witnesses, PW 4 Ram Pujan Thakur is practically a formal witness and he has stated that he had taken charge of investigation of the case from another Police Officer and, thereafter, he had submitted charge-sheet in the case. He also, however, proved the formal FIR (Ext-2). Of the other three witnesses, PW 2 Arun Kumar is the informant himself who happens to be the nephew of the deceased. According to him, he was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time when there was attack on him and in this connection, he has taken names of four persons, including this appellant Arjun Rajbanshi. Of the other three witnesses, PW 2 Arun Kumar is the informant himself who happens to be the nephew of the deceased. According to him, he was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time when there was attack on him and in this connection, he has taken names of four persons, including this appellant Arjun Rajbanshi. He stated that when the deceased was attacked, the present appellant had thrown a bomb which hit him on his back. But prior to it one bomb was also thrown by one Rajbanshi Razwar which also hit the victim on his back and thereafter victim fell down and a bomb was thrown by Bideshi Razwar which hit him on his face and he died. He is claiming to be an eye-witness to the occurrence and according to him some other witnesses also saw it and accordingly PW 1 Kshatri Mahto and PW 3 Raj Kumar Prasad Choudhary Rave also supported the prosecution story as eye-witnesses and have narrated the incident in detail in their evidence. PW 1 has stated that he was going to bring bundle of paddy crop from his field when he met the deceased and the informant and thereafter he proceeded ahead and the incident took place and he saw it. PW 3 Raj Kumar Prasad Choudhary has also stated that he was visiting his field when he saw the incident. Both these witnesses are related to the informant and the deceased and the informant is the nephew of the deceased. In the prosecution story, it has been alleged that because one of the accused Zulfikar Hussain bore grudge against the deceased as he had defeated the accused in the election of Mukhia and he was also aggrieved with him because he had intervened in a dispute between the accused Zulfikar Hussain and his cousin brother, there is no positive material available to support it. However, it is obvious that in this case neither the Doctor who held the P.M. Examination has been examined nor the P.M. report has been brought on the record. Therefore, there is no medical evidence to lend to the prosecution story regarding the manner of assault and the cause of death of the victim in the case. However, it is obvious that in this case neither the Doctor who held the P.M. Examination has been examined nor the P.M. report has been brought on the record. Therefore, there is no medical evidence to lend to the prosecution story regarding the manner of assault and the cause of death of the victim in the case. Similarly, the I.O. of the case has also not been examined in this case and there is no evidence regarding the objective evidence collected by the I.O. during the investigation. Neither there is description of the P.O. nor evidence regarding any other thing found at the P.O. by the I.O. during the investigation. Therefore, it has been contended on behalf of this appellant that so far as the manner of occurrence is concerned, because of the non-examination of the Doctor and because of non-production of the P.M. report, it could not be proved and so far as the non-examination of the I.O. is concerned it has caused prejudice to the defence and, therefore, the prosecution story could not be treated as proved and established. The learned Trial Court has refused to accept the contention in this regard and has held that the medical evidence has only corroborative value and since there are witnesses available on the point of evidence, there does not appear to be any reason to disbelieve them. It is true that the occurrence is proved by the oral evidence, but corroboration to this effect is necessary that the injuries were found on the person of the deceased which lend support to the manner of occurrence, as alleged in the prosecution story. In a case the cause of death has also to be proved along with the weapon said to have been used. In absence of the evidence to this effect, the oral evidence of the manner of occurrence does not appear to be sufficient to conclude that the incident took place in the manner, as alleged. Similarly, certain important features observed by the I.O. during the investigation of the P.O. also become material and the non-examination of the I.O. certainly causes prejudice to the defence. Certain attentions of the witnesses have also been drawn towards the contradictions which could not be verified from the evidence of the I.O. because of his non-examination. Similarly, certain important features observed by the I.O. during the investigation of the P.O. also become material and the non-examination of the I.O. certainly causes prejudice to the defence. Certain attentions of the witnesses have also been drawn towards the contradictions which could not be verified from the evidence of the I.O. because of his non-examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the non-examination of the doctor and the I.O. has no effect on the prosecution case. In such a circumstance, it is very difficult to rely merely on the evidence of some witnesses claiming to be eye-witnesses who are also interested persons. Therefore, the charge against the accused in this case cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable manners of doubt as held by the learned Trial Court. The findings of the learned Trial Court do not appear to be based on solid materials in view of the lacuna in the prosecution story. Therefore, the conviction of appellant Arjun Rajban-shi of criminal appeal No. 79/93 does not appear to be according to law. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant Arjun Rajbanshi is set a side and criminal appeal No. 79 of 1993 (DB) is allowed. 16. However, so far as criminal appeal No. 11 of 1988 (DB) and criminal appeal No. 74 of 1988 (DB) are concerned, from the discussions made above, it becomes clear that sufficient materials were available before the Trial Court to record finding of guilty against the two appellants and there does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court. These two appeals have no merit. However, so far as the convictibn under Section 9(b) of the Explosives Act is concerned, it appears that no evidence has been adduced regarding the sanction of prosecution and, therefore, the conviction under the provisions of Explosive Act cannot be treated as legal. The conviction of the two appellants under Section 9(b) of the Explosive Act is set aside. So far as conviction of the appellant Bideshi Rajbanshi under Section 302, IPC is concerned, the same is upheld and the conviction of appellant Zulfikar Hussain under Section 302/34, IPC is also maintained. 17. Accordingly, with the modification, as observed above, the two appeals, i.e. criminal appeal No. 11 /88 (DB) and criminal appeal No. 74/88 (DB) are dismissed. So far as conviction of the appellant Bideshi Rajbanshi under Section 302, IPC is concerned, the same is upheld and the conviction of appellant Zulfikar Hussain under Section 302/34, IPC is also maintained. 17. Accordingly, with the modification, as observed above, the two appeals, i.e. criminal appeal No. 11 /88 (DB) and criminal appeal No. 74/88 (DB) are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of appellant Zulfikar Hussain under Section 302/34, IPC are confirmed and similarly the conviction and sentence of appellant Bideshi Raz-war are hereby confirmed. Appellant Arjun Rajbanshi is ordered to be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case. Cr. A. 11 and 74 of 1988Dismissed. Cr. A. 79 of 1993Allowed.