JUDGMENT Ghanshyam Prasad, J. — The sole ap­pellant, Shree Rai, has preferred this appeal, against his conviction and sentence recorded by Sri B.N. Shahi, IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra in Ses­sions Trial No. 114 of 2001 thereby and thereunder he has been convicted and sen­tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for four months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been also con­victed and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 3 of Ex­plosive Substance Act. However, both the sentences have been directed to run con­currently. 2. The accusations which led to trial and this appeal are as follows; On 24.12.1999 at 7 p.m. the injured inform­ant, Sona Lal Rai, was returning to his house after sowing Rabbi crops. When he reached near the house of Bhushan Rai he met Dashrath Rai and Sree Rai, accused-appellant of village Manik Chawah P.S. Dariyapur. They requested the informant to accompany them upto their house. The in­formant agreed and accompanied them. It was further alleged that as soon as they reached near the house of one Batori Rai both of them threw bomb upon the inform­ant from behind. The bomb exploaded as a result of which the informant received mul­tiple injuries on his face, hand and legs. He became unconscious and fell down on the ground. On hearing the sound of bomb ex­plosion several persons of the village including his uncle Mouji Rai (PW 2), Chandraket Rai (PW 1) and Batroi Rai came at the spot and thereafter both accused including the accused-appellant fled away. 3. Immediately after the occurrence the injured was removed to Dariyapur hospital where, at about 8 p.m., his state­ment (Ext. 5) was recorded by the police and on the basis of the fardbeyan lodged by Sona Lal the police registered a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act against both the persons including the appellant. However, in course of investiga­tion only accused-appellant was nabbed and accordingly the police pending inves­tigation against Dasrath Rai submitted charge-sheet against him. 4. However, in course of investiga­tion only accused-appellant was nabbed and accordingly the police pending inves­tigation against Dasrath Rai submitted charge-sheet against him. 4. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in­cluding the injured Sona Lal Rai (PW 4), Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh (PW 6), two inves­tigating officers Kishun Das (PW 8) and Lalandeo Singh (PW 9). The other witnesses are Chandraket Rai (PW 1), Mouji Rai (PW 2). Jageya Rai (PW 3), Devi Rai (PW 5) and Subhash Singh (PW 7). PW 5, Devi Rai, has been declared hostile. 5. The defence is merely denial of the occurrence. According to the accused-appellant, he has been falsely implicated in this case mere on suspicion. 6. In course of argument learned counsel for the appellant challenged the legality of the impugned judgment and it has been submitted that there is no legal evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the appellant. There is neither any eye-witness nor circumstantial evidence to support the prosecution story. 7. This case is based on sole tes­timony of injured, who is informant also. Other witnesses reached at the spot after the occurrence on hearing the sound of explosion of bomb. However, on careful perusal of evidence of injured (PW 4) it would appear that there is material contradiction and inherent infirmities in his evidence. In fardbeyan lodged by him it has been mentioned that on request of ac­cused-appellant and Dasrath Rai he accompanied them and when they reached near the house of Batori Rai the accused-appellant threw bomb upon him from behind. However, in evidence before the Court this witness has contradicted his own story mentioned in fardbeyan (Ext. 5). He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he refused to accompany the accused-appellant and Dasrath Rai and continued to proceed for the house. This statement is quite U turn from his earlier statement made in fardbeyan. There is nothing in his evidence to show that in spite of refusal they followed him. In cross-examination at paragraph 6 he has stated that the bomb was thrown upon him from a distance of twenty steps. Now the question will arise as to whether a man can be able to identify a person from the distance of twenty steps in dense foggy night without any aid of means of identification. In cross-examination at paragraph 6 he has stated that the bomb was thrown upon him from a distance of twenty steps. Now the question will arise as to whether a man can be able to identify a person from the distance of twenty steps in dense foggy night without any aid of means of identification. There is nothing in his evidence to show that he identified the ac­cused-appellant in any light. Under the circumstances, there can be only one conclusion that the accused-appellant has been named only on suspicion because he met the informant in the way near the house of one Bhushan Rai. The house of Bhushan Rai is about half kilometer away from the place of occurrence. 8. In fardbeyan (Ext. 5) the motive of the crime has been mentioned. It has been alleged that they attempted to commit his murder due to previous enmity. It has fur­ther been alleged that both of them have criminal antecedent. However, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence worth the name, to show that they had any en­mity or the appellant has any criminal antecedent. On the other hand, the informant himself in his cross-examination at paragraph 5 has denied to have any enmity with the accused persons. 9. It is well settled principle that in criminal case it is not invariably required to prove the motive for the crime. However, if the prosecution alleges but fails to prove the same it casts doubt on the complicity of the accused in the crime. It assumes more significance in cases where no im­plicit reliance can be placed on prosecution witness due to infirmities or inherent con­tradiction. 10. The evidence of the other wit­nesses except PW 2, Mauji Rai, is not of much significance. PWs 1 and 3 are hear­say witnesses. They reached at the spot after the occurrence and came to know the names of accused persons from injured Sona Lal Rai. PW 5 is hostile witness. PW 6 is the doctor who examined the injured. PW 7 is a formal witness who has proved the sanction order for prosecution under Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act. PWs 8 and 9 are Assistant Sub-Inspectors of police who have investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet. 11. PW 2, Mauji Rai is uncle of the injured and is aged about sixty two years. He came on the spot on hearing hullah. PWs 8 and 9 are Assistant Sub-Inspectors of police who have investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet. 11. PW 2, Mauji Rai is uncle of the injured and is aged about sixty two years. He came on the spot on hearing hullah. He has stated that he saw both the accused fleeing. However, none of the persons present chased them and tried to catch. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the cross-examina­tion of this witness would go to show that it might have taken about five minutes to reach at the spot after hearing hullah. It is difficult to believe that the assailant remained there for five minutes to be iden­tified by the witnesses. Apart from it no other witness has claimed to see the accused persons. They had reached at the place of occurrence immediately after explosion of bomb. Paragraph 4 of his evidence further shows that he saw the accused from a distance of 5/7 Bighas but he forget that in dense foggy night a man cannot be iden­tified from a distance of 5/7 bighas. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to rely on the evidence of this witness on the point of identification of accused persons. 12. Thus on careful consideration of oral evidence as well as infirmities and con­tradiction as also the circumstances I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower Court is not sustainable either in law or on facts and is fit to be set aside. 13. In the result this appeal is al­lowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned lower Court is hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is in jail. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.