JUDGMENT Heard argument from both the parties and the judgment is as follows : 2. Both the appellants together with three accused persons faced trial in Sessions Case No.39 of 1995 (S.C. 220 of 1995-G.D.C.) in the Court of 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Berhampur. Out of them accused-appellant Padma Charan Nahak and Lingaraj Nahak faced charge for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 I.P.C. Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1980 and co-accused Pitambar Pradhan, Raju @ Rajkishore Pradhan and Raghunath Nahak faced charge for the offence under Section 302/109 I.P.C. Learned 2nd Addl.Sessions Judge delivered the impugned Judgment on Octo¬ber 28, 1996 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/149 I.P.C., Section 148 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentencing them respectively for imprisonment for life,rigorous imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for five years each. So far as the remain¬ing three accused persons are concerned,the trial Court acquitted them from the charge under Sections 302/109 I.P.C. There is noth¬ing on record and also the learned Government Counsel does not say that such order of acquittal of the co-accused persons is challenge. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, the informant party including deceased Udayanath Mahakaud were members of Communist Party of India while accused persons were supporters of Congress Party. On 30.9.1994, one Batu Behera, obviously the supporters of the prosecution party, was arrested by the police. On 1.10.1994, the deceased and the other supporters made an attempt for release on bail of said Batu. In furtherance thereof they went to Purushottampur Police Station and then to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purushottampur. The prayer for bail of Batu Behera having been refused, the deceased with P.W.2, Manoranjan Pradhan and P.W.4, Sahadev Behera were return¬ing on a Scooter being driven by the deceased. It is stated that they made two intermittent stops over, one for taking food and the other in the Mill of the local Sarapanch. It is alleged that at about 4.30 P.M. when they were proceeding ahead, at the place of occurrence, they discovered the appellant together with the absconding accused Ajay, Prasanta, Ramesh and Chunu being armed with various deadly weapons came upon the road. On seeing them, with a view to escape, they made an attempt to turn back the scooter. In that process the scooter slipped and the deceased fell down. On seeing them, with a view to escape, they made an attempt to turn back the scooter. In that process the scooter slipped and the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the deceased as well as P.W.4 took to their heels to avoid any attack on them. The aforesaid absconding accused persons together with the appellants forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object to do away the life of deceased chased him. Accused Ajay, threw a bomb which hit on the right side chest of the deceased and exploded resulting in grounding of the deceased and thereafter, all the accused per¬sons surrounded the deceased and inflicted blows by sharp cutting weapons. P.Ws. 2 and 4 while escaping from the spot could see the assault. Both of them reached at the Mill premises of the Sara¬panch one after the other. They took the help of the Sarapanch to inform this fact to the local police over telephone but when failed in their attempt, P.W.2 together with others lodged F.I.R. in the police station vide Ext.1. On receipt of that F.I.R., investigation was undertaken and after completion of investiga¬tion charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and Sections 302/109 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. Since remaining four accused persons could not be made available because of their absconding, the appellants and the three acquitted accused persons faced trial in the split up case. Accused persons took the plea of denial. 4. Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in order to substantiate the charge and relied on a series of documents marked, Exts.1 to 24 and the Material objects such as, wearing apparels of the deceased and the Khanda (Kati), M.O. IV being one of the weapons of offence, seized during the course of investiga¬tion.The accused persons examined two witnesses to prove their innocence. 5. On perusing the evidence of P.W.9, Dr. Basanta Kumar Biswal, and the post mortem report, Ext.10, together with the opinion report, Ext.11, learned Addl.Sessions Judge held that deceased suffered from homicidal death. The evidence of P.W.9 indicates that there were two cut injuries in neck region, one of which was of size 8" x 4" x 6" extending from angle of the Mandible upto one inch. Basanta Kumar Biswal, and the post mortem report, Ext.10, together with the opinion report, Ext.11, learned Addl.Sessions Judge held that deceased suffered from homicidal death. The evidence of P.W.9 indicates that there were two cut injuries in neck region, one of which was of size 8" x 4" x 6" extending from angle of the Mandible upto one inch. It had cut all muscles, big vessel and cervical vertebra at the level of the second and third spinal cord and the dimension of the other one was 4" x 1" x 1/2" situated horizontally. There was a cut injury over the middle of shoulder and another at the lateral aspect of the right upper thigh, a lacerated wound on the right elbow joint and some injuries there in the right hand. There was also superficial burn injury over the lower part of the chest of size 10" x 8" x 6" and the shape was found to be irregular with carbon particles over the wound. The hair surrounding the wound were burnt. The 6th, 7th and 8th ribs were fractured and according to the doctor such injuries occurred due to explosion of bomb on the chest, P.W.9 opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and homicidal in nature and injury No.1 was most fatal. P.W.9 further opined that the cut injuries found were possible by weapon like M.O.IV. In course of submission before us, learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the aforesaid evidence of P.W.9 nor the report Exts.10 & 11 or the finding of the trial Court relating to homicidal death of the deceased. In other words, appellants did not dispute to the assertion of the prosecution and the finding recorded by the trial Court that the deceased suffered homicidal death because of the ante mortem injuries found by P.W.9. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that keeping in view the sequence of evidence and the manner in which the occurrence took place, PWs. 2 and 4 could not have been the eye witnesses to the assault. According to him, if P.Ws 2 and 4 were accompanying the deceased and they started running leaving behind the deceased, they could not have witnessed the manner of assault on the deceased and, therefore, their evidence that the accused persons assaulted the deceased was based on surmises and not on the basis of actual knowledge. According to him, if P.Ws 2 and 4 were accompanying the deceased and they started running leaving behind the deceased, they could not have witnessed the manner of assault on the deceased and, therefore, their evidence that the accused persons assaulted the deceased was based on surmises and not on the basis of actual knowledge. This argument is attractive, but the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 takes away that attraction and makes it devoid of substance.In their evidence, P.Ws.2 and 4 stated that even though they were running away from the spot, they were looking back to find out if they were not being chased and in that process, they saw the assault on the deceased. P.W. No.4 even stated that when the bomb was thrown and thereafter the accused persons surrounded the deceased, he stood on the way and witnessed the occurrence. Therefore,the argument advanced by the appellants to hold that P.Ws 2 and 4 were not the eye witness to the occurrence has no leg to stand. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants also argues that P.Ws.2 and 4 are admittedly followers of the Communist Party and the appellants are supporters of the Congress Party, P.Ws.2 and 4 being interested witnesses their evidence should not have been accepted, without due corroboration. With regard to P.W.8 said to be another eye witness, learned counsel for the appellants sub¬mits that the said witness was introduced as an eye witness at a subsequent stage and notwithstanding availability of other per¬sons as eye witnesses no such person was cited as such in the charge sheet, nor produced in course of trial and under such circumstance, evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 and 8 should be scanned carefully. 8. P.Ws.2 and 4 are undoubtedly interested for the success of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidence is to be read carefully and in between the line to find out truth or falsity therein. On a careful reading of the evidence of PWs.2 and 4, we do not find any exaggeration or falsity therein, so far as the occurrence part is concerned. The evidence regarding manner of assault and the weapons used finds corroboration from the evi¬dence of P.W.9 and the Post mortem report, so also the report received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Berham¬pur, Exts.21 and 22. The evidence regarding manner of assault and the weapons used finds corroboration from the evi¬dence of P.W.9 and the Post mortem report, so also the report received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Berham¬pur, Exts.21 and 22. Those two reports indicate about presence of human blood of Group-’A’ in the wearing apparels of the deceased, blood stained earth collected from the spot and the sword (kati) seized in course of investigation of the case. The other report indicates that the jute rope sent for chemical analysis was found to be exploded residue of an explosive mixture of “Pottasium Chlorate” and “Sulphur”. 9. P.W.2 lodged the F.I.R. on the date of occurrence and there is no delay in that respect. There are some minor omissions in the F.I.R. which have been explained by P.W.2. His explanation is that because he was hasty in reaching the Police Station and intimating about the incident and because he was mentally up set on seeing the occurrence, all detail particulars could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. The explanation is not only plausible but also sufficient to ignore those lapses. Therefore, non-mention of P.W.8 as eye witness to the occurrence in this case can not be treated as fatal. Be that as it may, even if the evidence of P.Ws No.8 is ignored from consideration, then also the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 4 are sufficient to prove the occur¬rence against the accused/appellants. 10. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 8, together with other evidence available on record, we do not find fault on appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that according to the evidence of P.W.9 there were four lacerated injuries on the dead body of the deceased. In absence of any evidence attributing specific injury to specified accused the trial Court should not have convicted the accused/appellants. This argument is heard to be rejected inasmuch as the charge is under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and it is proved that the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapon in prosecution of their common object of murdering the deceased assaulted him by deadly weapons and hurled bomb at him leading to his death. No other contention is raised on behalf of the appellants while challenging the order of conviction. 12. No other contention is raised on behalf of the appellants while challenging the order of conviction. 12. In the result, we find that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality or perversity in assessing and appreciating the evidence when he recorded that prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act against the accused-appellants. We find no merit in the appeal so as to disturb that finding of the trial Court. Under such circum¬stance, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court is hereby confirmed. 13. The L.C.R. be sent back to the Court below so that in the meantime, if the absconding accused have been apprehended then the trial be taken up and if not, they be apprehended. The Sessions Judge may do well to ask the concerned Superintendent of Police to extend his cooperation and we direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to see that the absconding accused per¬sons are apprehended without any further delay to face the trial in accordance with law. Crl. Appeal dismissed.