Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Though five persons including appellant were put on trial, while others were acquired of the charges, appellant alone suffered conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and while no sentence was awarded under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for his conviction under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act also. In case of default, to make payment of fine, appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and similarly for failure to pay fine, awarded under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one month. These sentences were awarded to the appellant with a rider that both fhe sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The essential features of the prosecution case may be discussed with brevity. Kailash Yadav (PW 2) who happened to be an Army Personnel, had moved the Government by filing an application for allotment of gairmazarua Aam Land which situates north to his village, in his name and this had offended appellant and others, who forcibly occupied the land in question. It was alleged that on 27th May, 1984 while Kailash Yadav was going to respond to natures call, appellant came along with others constituting an unlawful assembly, and on exhortation made by Medani Yadav, lobbed a bomb on him causing injuries in both the legs. He was taken to Sahkund hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded by police at 11.00 a.m. on 27th May, 1984. As usual, investigation followed, during which, Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, seized offending articles from the place of occurrence, secured injury report from the hospital, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. He was taken to Sahkund hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded by police at 11.00 a.m. on 27th May, 1984. As usual, investigation followed, during which, Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, seized offending articles from the place of occurrence, secured injury report from the hospital, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. During trial, the State examined altogether ten witnesses who happened to be injured, doctor, other hosts of witnesses and also a formal witness who brought on the record the order of sanction accorded by the District Magistrate for prosecution of the appellant under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 3. The defence of the appellant had been that of plea of innocence and he ascribed his false implication due to land dispute persisting between the parties. The defence, however, had not chosen to examine any defence witness to strengthen the plea of defence and that of animosity. The trial Court, however, on considering evidences available on the record, negativing the plea of defence raised by the appellant, while acquitting others, recorded finding of guilt against the appellant and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 4. Primarily three fold contentions were raised by the learned counsel for appellant. The contentions are raised that though it would appear from testimony of witnesses that there are cluster of houses around the place occurrence, the State has chosen to examine only interested witnesses, entirely to the exclusion of independent witnesses against whom possibly no eye brow could have been raised. Other submission was that though none of the accused put on trial had been saddled with accusation of assaulting Kailash Yadav with hard blunt substance, the finding recorded by the doctor suggests as many as six number of injuries found on his persons said to have been caused by hard blunt substance and that manifestly suggests that injured had suffered injuries not in the manner alleged by the prosecution and also that some part of the prosecution case had been suppressed by the State and hence and adverse inference had to be drawn by the Court. Yet it is urged that though none else but the victim himself alleges to have suffered injuries from front side, finding recorded by the doctor was otherwise, as injury caused by explosion was found on back part of the legs of the victim. Yet it is urged that though none else but the victim himself alleges to have suffered injuries from front side, finding recorded by the doctor was otherwise, as injury caused by explosion was found on back part of the legs of the victim. Learned counsel also highlights that since Investigating Officer was examined by the State, the objective finding recorded by him could not be placed on the record, and for that too, the appellant was seriously prejudiced, and the last argument was that in view of serious animosity between the parties which has been acknowledged by the witnesses, false implication of the appellant could not be ruled out. 5. A brief narration of evidences of the witnesses would help to correctly appreciate the contentions raised. Admittedly, Shankar Yadav (PW 1) who happened to be brother of the injured did not claim to be an ocular witness about appellant lobbing bomb on his brother,as he states to have heard sound of explosion, pursuant to which he noticed his brother lying injured smeared with blood. Though this witness states about disclosure of complicity of the appellant by the injured, there has been such narration made by other witnesses. Though Ram Baran Yadav, PW 4, claims to have noticed appellant lobbing bomb when Kailash Yadav sustained injury in his legs, he admits to have heard explosion of bomb only when he had proceeded from the place of occurrence. However, he claims to have noticed Kailash Yadav lying injured. Similar was the case with Devendra Yadav, PW 5, who too claims to have rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing sound of explosion of bomb. He too claims to have noticed Kailash Yadav lying injured. Rajendra Yadav, PW 6, too stated to have noticed Kailash Yadav lying injured, who disclosed complicity of the appellant about lobbing bomb on him. He, however, claims to have noticed appellant and others making good their escape. Prakash Yadav, PW 7, claims to have noticed appellant and others having encircled Kailash Yadav, pursuant to which there was explosion of bomb causing injury in the legs of Kailash Yadav, but he admits that he could not identify the person who lobbed the bomb. 6. He, however, claims to have noticed appellant and others making good their escape. Prakash Yadav, PW 7, claims to have noticed appellant and others having encircled Kailash Yadav, pursuant to which there was explosion of bomb causing injury in the legs of Kailash Yadav, but he admits that he could not identify the person who lobbed the bomb. 6. Rest two witnesses including Dilip Kumar Yadav, PW 8, and Jai Prakash Yadav, PW 9, however, claim to be ocular witnesses about Kailash Yadav sustaining injury in the legs on explosion of bomb by the appellant. The evidence of Kailash Yadav who happens to be the injured and also the maker of fardbeyan cannot remain unnoticed, who too reiterating his earliest version states about injuries sustained by him in the legs when appellant had exploded bomb on him. The positive finding recorded by Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, PW 3, can also be taken notice of, who had noticed seven lacerated injuries in the region of legs of Kailash Yadav, and while injury No. 1, in his estimation, was caused by explosion of bomb, rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. All the injuries were on non-vital part of the body and that too simple in nature. 7. Though some sort of disputes between the parties including that of a proceeding under Section 107, Cr PC had been acknowledged by the witnesses, while such animosity may be motive for false implication, at the same time also a factor mobilising a person for committing the offence. Though it is urged that majority of witnesses examined by the State were interested witnesses, that fact too was not of vital significance to discard credibility of witnesses, in case they were found credible by the Court. Likewise, though injuries were found on the back part of the legs of the injured, the ocular testimony of the witnesses and finding recorded by the doctor cannot be considered to have been in contrast to discredit the witnesses. True it is that notwithstanding such accusation about appellants or his associates dealing blows with hard and blunt substance, the doctor stated to have noticed injuries caused by hard and blunt substance, but for that too for hypothetical findings recorded by the doctor, ocular evidence available on the record could not be brushed aside. True it is that notwithstanding such accusation about appellants or his associates dealing blows with hard and blunt substance, the doctor stated to have noticed injuries caused by hard and blunt substance, but for that too for hypothetical findings recorded by the doctor, ocular evidence available on the record could not be brushed aside. Had the Investigation Officer been examined, true it is that some questions could not have remained unanswered, but for that reason too, the prosecution would not suffer the set back. 8. Yet contentions are raised that not only that the prosecution was launched against appellant in the year 1984, pursuant to which about two decades have elapsed, regard being had to the nature of the injuries and also that injuries were not on vital part of the body, the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves consideration for its reduction, in case finding of guilt was upheld by this Court. 9. Though the appellant had suffered conviction also under Section 3Q7 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years, neither the nature of injuries for there are intervening circumstances which could have forbade the appellant to translate his design into action to attract mischief of Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In the circumstances, regard being had to the nature of the injuries, its situs, and there being no intervening circumstances, while finding recorded by Court below regarding finding of guilt under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act are, however, upheld. However, the sentence awarded to the appellant on both counts under which he was sentenced, is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine too awarded to the. appellant is set aside and with this modification, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification.