Judgment R.C.Mishra, J. ( 1. ) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21/3/2006 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.375/04, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently :- Convicted under Section Sentenced 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 (for short the Act) to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default,to suffer RI for5 months 323 of the IPC to undergo RI for 3 months. ( 2. ) However, during pendency of this appeal, pursuant to permission granted by this Court on 29/10/2007, complainant Hargovind (PW2), who is none other than the father of the appellant, has compounded the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Consequently, he stands acquitted of the corresponding charge. ( 3. ) The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under : (i) At the relevant point of time, the parents of the appellant namely Hargovind (PW2) and Rekha (PW5) were residing in a house bearing no. 190 situated at Lalmati, Ghamapur, Jabalpur whereas the appellant was living with his wife separately in an adjacent house. Prior to the incident in question, the appellant had entered into a scuffle with his brother Ajay and the matter was reported by Hargovind to the police. This had led to bitterness in their relationship. (ii) On 15/3/2004 at about 9:15 p.m., Hargovind (PW2) was busy in cutting of cloths for the purpose of stitching. At this point of time only, the appellant, all of a sudden, hurled a country made bomb at him but it ultimately landed on a wall. However, the consequent explosion resulted into injuries in Hargovinds scapular region (iii) It was upon the FIR lodged by Hargovind that a case under Section 3 of the Act and Section 324 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Ghamapur against the appellant. He was sent to hospital where Dr. G.K. Agrawal examined him and found that the injury sustained by him was simple in nature. (iv) During investigation, ASI S.K. Ojha (PW4) inspected the spot; seized the remnants of the bomb and forwarded the same to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner found that the articles were components of a country made bomb and the explosion was capable of endangering life. (iv) During investigation, ASI S.K. Ojha (PW4) inspected the spot; seized the remnants of the bomb and forwarded the same to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner found that the articles were components of a country made bomb and the explosion was capable of endangering life. (v) After obtaining necessary consent of the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Act, charge-sheet was put up in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. ( 4. ) On being charged with the offences punishable under Section 3 of the Act and Section 324 of the IPC, the appellant abjured the guilt. In examination, under Section 313 of the IPC, he pleaded false implication at the instance of his younger brother Jay Kumar due to animosity in view of dispute concerning property left by their grandfather. ( 5. ) To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses including complainant Hargovind and his wife Rekha. In defence, the appellant produced his wife Manisha (DW1) and two neighbours namely Jiyalal (DW2) and Suresh Kumar (DW3). ( 6. ) Upon consideration of the evidence on record and for the reasons assigned in the judgment under challenge, the learned ASJ convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. ( 7. ) Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been assailed mainly on the ground that the trial Court had not appreciated the prosecution evidence in a right perspective whereas the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, while highlighting the fact that appellants conviction is based on the evidence of his parents only, has contended that the view taken by learned trial Judge was the only possible view. ( 8. ) It is true that the prosecution case hinges on the evidence of parents of the appellant viz. Hargovind (PW2) and Rekha (PW5) but it suffers from the following material contradiction :- (i) In his chief-examination, Hargovind (PW2) deposed that the bomb thrown by the appellant had rebounded from a wall but in the cross- examination, he clearly admitted that the bomb had struck the doors of the room wherein he was sitting whereas the fact that the bomb has hit the doors was specifically denied by his wife viz. Rekha (PW5) who also did not corroborate the prosecution version that the bomb had exploded at the wall. Rekha (PW5) who also did not corroborate the prosecution version that the bomb had exploded at the wall. (ii) As per statement of Hargovind, the bomb explosion had resulted into injury on the right buttock whereas Rekha was categorical in stating that the bomb had directly hit his right shoulder. ( 9. ) Both Hargovind and Rekha stressed that after hearing the explosion, people living in the vicinity had assembled at their house. However, none of them was examined as a witness of prosecution. On the other hand, Jiyalal (PW2), the next-door neighbour and Suresh Kumar (DW3), admittedly, residing in the house opposite stated categorically that no sound of any explosion was heard by them. They also substantiated the plea of defence by deposing that a dispute relating to partition of the ancestral property had given rise to animosity between the appellant and his father viz. Hargovind. The Investigating Officer S.L. Ojha (PW4), while admitting existence of such a dispute, failed to explain as to why no independent inhabitant of the locality was called to witness the seizure of remnants of the bomb. It is relevant to note that in the corresponding Seizure Memo (EX.P-4), complainant Hargovind and his wife Rekha were named as the panch witnesses. ( 10. ) In accordance with the corresponding recitals of FIR (Ex.P-2) recorded by him only, AST S.K. Ojha (PW4) also asserted that the bomb thrown at the first informant viz. Hargovind had exploded upon hitting a wall. However, as pointed out already, this fact did not derive support from the evidence of Rekha and the relevant parts of the statement of Hargovind were also self-contradictory. ( 11. ) Although, the prosecution failed to examine Dr. G.K. Agrawal yet, it was fairly admitted by Investigating Officer S.K. Ojha (PW4) that no injury caused by any explosive substance was noticed by the medical expert on the person of Hargovind. This apart, the report of chemical examiner (Ex.C-1) indicated presence of pellets in the remnants whereas, admittedly, no pellet injury was found on Hargovinds body. Moreover, in absence of any independent evidence as to the explosion, contents of the report reflecting existence of potassium chlorate and arsenic sulphide in the residues were not sufficient to establish that the nature of explosion or the mischief-making power of the bomb (Nemai Adak vs. State 1965(1) CRI.L.J. 160 referred to). ( 12. Moreover, in absence of any independent evidence as to the explosion, contents of the report reflecting existence of potassium chlorate and arsenic sulphide in the residues were not sufficient to establish that the nature of explosion or the mischief-making power of the bomb (Nemai Adak vs. State 1965(1) CRI.L.J. 160 referred to). ( 12. ) To sum up, on one hand, evidence of complainant Hargovind (PW2) and his wife Rekha (PW5) suffered from serious infirmities and, on the other, there was no corroborative, forensic and medical evidence on record to support their assertions against the appellant; The appellant, therefore, was entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 13. ) In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act and consequent sentences are hereby set-aside. Instead, he is acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant. ( 14. ) The appellant Ajay Kumar is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. Appeal allowed.