C.A.V. JUDGMENT Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This Cr. Appeal has been preferred by above-named sole appellant, Tripurari Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05-01-2000 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1998/09 of 1999 by which and whereunder, he convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for each of the offences under Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section-3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and, furthermore, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years for the offence, punishable under Section-4 of Explosive Substances Act whereas; co-accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section-4 of Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years for the above-said offence. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Nawada ordered that the sentences of appellant Tripurari Singh would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 1 Bhagirath Singh gave his fardbeyan to A.S.I. Om Prakash Singh (P.W. 6) of Kashichak Police Station at 7.30 a.m. at village Dhodha Baghar to this effect that on the same day, at about 6.00 a.m. while he along with his son (P.W. 3) were arranging bundles of wheat crops in their Khalihan, he saw that the appellant and Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar along with 4 unknown persons were cutting wheat crop from his plot No. 85 which had been allotted to him in his share. He as well as his son, Awadhesh Singh forbade them to do so, but the appellant started abusing and exhorted to kill him and after that, the appellant and Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar exploded bombs, as a result of which, his son, Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) sustained splinters of the bomb causing injury on his left eye and chest. The appellant also made firing, which passed away near his ear. The appellant and accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar, threw bomb thrice. The unknown persons fled away from there. In the meantime, several co-villagers came running there. The appellant also made firing, which passed away near his ear. The appellant and accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar, threw bomb thrice. The unknown persons fled away from there. In the meantime, several co-villagers came running there. The police party also came there and seeing the villagers and police party, the appellant, and accused Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar started fleeing from there but they were chased by the villagers and police party. The appellant and co-accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar made firing on the villagers and police party but he, with the help of villagers and police party, apprehended the appellant and accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar near Baghar. The aforesaid apprehended persons were searched in presence of Anil Singh, Abhimanyu Singh and on being searched, one bomb, kept in a bag, was recovered from right hand of the appellant, Tripurari Singh whereas; two live bombs, kept in a bag, were recovered from right hand of Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar. The seizure list of the aforesaid recovery was prepared. The informant claimed that the aforesaid persons had cut wheat crop and made firing and threw bombs with intent to commit murder. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Kashichak P.S. Case No. 21 of 1998 under Sections-144, 379, 504, 447, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and Section-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act was registered and formal FIR was drawn against the appellant, co-accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar as well as some unknown persons. 4. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections- 144, 379, 504, 447, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and, later on, second charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way. 5. The appellant and charge sheeted accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar were put on trial and they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Sections-144, 504, 447, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. The appellant and charge sheeted accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar were put on trial and they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Sections-144, 504, 447, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, 12 witnesses and besides it, documentary evidences were also adduced. The statements of appellant and co-accused were recorded under Section-313 of the Cr. P.C. in which, they reiterated their innocence. 7. The certified copy of plaint of Title Suit No. 20 of 1992 was exhibited on behalf of the appellant and other accused as Ext “A” to prove this fact that there was land dispute between the appellant and the prosecution party. It appears from perusal of trends of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as statements of the appellant and co-accused, recorded under Section-313 of the Cr.P.C. that the defence of the appellant and co-accused, was totally denial of the prosecution story and their false implication on account of previous enmity and land dispute. 8. Learned court below, having considered the materials available on the record, convicted the appellant and co-accused, in the manner as stated above whereas; the appellant and co-accused were acquitted of the charges, framed under Sections-144, 447, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and, similarly, co-accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 9. Learned counsel Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, appearing as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, arguing that not a single independent prosecution witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements. He further submitted that admittedly, there was bona fide land dispute between the parties and several litigations were pending in respect of the above-said land dispute. He drew my attention towards Ext.”A” and submitted that the aforesaid document clearly establishes this fact that there was land dispute between the parties. He further submitted that admittedly, there was bona fide land dispute between the parties and several litigations were pending in respect of the above-said land dispute. He drew my attention towards Ext.”A” and submitted that the aforesaid document clearly establishes this fact that there was land dispute between the parties. He further submitted that P.W. 3 was examined by a private doctor and his original injury report was not produced before the trial court in course of trial and, therefore, the injury report of P.W. 3 appears to be doubtful. He further submitted that admittedly, P.W. 3 sustained simple injury and, therefore, the aforesaid injury could have manufactured easily and no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid injury report of P.W. 3. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence arguing that the injured witness as well as other witnesses supported the prosecution story and, as a matter of fact, the prosecution proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and, therefore, there is no scope for this appellate court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. As I have already stated that altogether, 12 prosecution witnesses were examined and, out of them; P.W. 1 Bhagirath Singh is the informant, P.W. 2 Abhimanyu Singh is said to be an eye witness of the alleged occurrence as well as a witness on seizure list; P.W. 3 Awadhesh Singh is injured of this case; P.W. 4 Md. Qayum is a staff of civil court, Nawada and at the time of alleged occurrence, he was posted as Peshkar of Sri Daya Shankar Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 11) who recorded the statements of some witnesses under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W. 5 Dhirendra Prasad was staff of District Magistrate, Nawada who proved his signature as well as signature of District Magistrate, Nawada on sanction order which is Ext. 4. P.W. 6 Om Prakash Singh, P.W. 8 Vijay Shankar Prasad, P.W. 10, Manu Prasad and P.W. 12 Gorakh Nath Sharma are four police officials. P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 are doctors whereas. P.W. 11 is a Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statements of witnesses under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. 12. 4. P.W. 6 Om Prakash Singh, P.W. 8 Vijay Shankar Prasad, P.W. 10, Manu Prasad and P.W. 12 Gorakh Nath Sharma are four police officials. P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 are doctors whereas. P.W. 11 is a Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statements of witnesses under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. 12. P.W. 6 namely, Om Prakash Singh stated that on 13-04-1998, he was posted as A.S.I. of Kashichak Police Station and on the same day, he heard sound of explosion of bomb and having heard the aforesaid sound of explosion of bomb, he along with armed forces, went to Daulachak village and saw that several villagers had assembled there and seeing police party, the appellant and accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar started fleeing but they were chased by the villagers as well as police party and they were arrested in Aahar of Rauta village and after that, the apprehended persons were searched and in course of search, one bomb, kept in a bag, was recovered from possession of the appellant, Tripurari Singh, whereas; two bombs, kept in a bag, were recovered from possession of Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar. He prepared seizure list of the aforesaid recovery of bombs in presence of Anil Singh and Abhimanyu Singh and took signature of the appellant as well as co-accused, Bholi Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar. This witness proved the seizure list as Ext 2/2. He also recovered remnants of exploded bomb and prepared seizure list. This witness proved seizure list as Ext. 5/2. He further stated that he recorded fardbeyan of P.W. 1, who put his signature on the fardbeyan. 13. P.W. 10 Manu Prasad was also posted as S.I. of Kashichak Police Station on 10-12-1998 and took charge of investigation. He obtained report from Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna. Similarly, P.W. 12 Gorakh Nath Sharma was also posted in Kashichak Police Station on 13-04-1998 and he received the fardbeyan of P.W. 1 on the above said date. This witness proved fardbeyan as Ext. 1. He further stated that he registered the case on the basis of fardbeyan. He also proved the formal FIR and inspected the place of occurrence in course of investigation. He found sign of explosion of bombs on the place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of witnesses and before completion of investigation; he handed over charge of investigation to another police official on 01-07-1998. 14. P.W. 7 Dr. He also proved the formal FIR and inspected the place of occurrence in course of investigation. He found sign of explosion of bombs on the place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of witnesses and before completion of investigation; he handed over charge of investigation to another police official on 01-07-1998. 14. P.W. 7 Dr. Rajendra Prasad stated that on 14-04-1998, he was posted as Medical Officer at State Dispensary, Warisaliganj and on same date, at about 9.00 a.m., he examined P.W. 3 Awadhesh Singh and found following injuries: - (i) Tatooing of face left side and left clavicular region of chest caused by explosive substances; (ii) Redness of left eye with foreign body in the centre of the cornea. This witness referred the injured, Awadhesh Singh to the eye specialist. He proved referred slip as Ext.-6. This witness further stated that after examination by the eye specialist, he received the supplementary injury report and proved the aforesaid supplementary injury report as Ext. 7 with objection, raised by the defence. This witness further stated that the supplementary injury report was issued by Dr. Mukti Nath Singh (P.W. 9) who found non-metalic foreign body (sulphate powder particles) embedded in the centre of the left cornea and the aforesaid injury was caused by explosive substance and the said injury was simple in nature. This witness proved the aforesaid injury report as Ext-1 with objection raised by the defence. He admitted in his cross-examination that the original injury report was not before him on the date of his examination. 15. P.W. 9, Dr. Muktinath Singh stated that on 14-04-1998 at about 1.30 p.m., he examined the injured, Awadhesh Singh and found that the aforesaid patient had non-metalic foreign body (sulphate powder particles) embedded in the centre of the left cornea, which was removed under local anesthesia and due to the aforesaid injury, there was diminution of vision in the left eye. He admitted that he treated the injured, Awadhesh Singh in his private clinic and supplied the injury report on his personal pad. 16. Now there are three witnesses on the point of occurrence. He admitted that he treated the injured, Awadhesh Singh in his private clinic and supplied the injury report on his personal pad. 16. Now there are three witnesses on the point of occurrence. P.W. 1 is the informant and stated that the appellant hurled bomb due to which, splinters of bomb caused injury to his son (P.W. 3) and after that, the appellant opened fire but the aforesaid firing did not hit anybody and he further stated that the appellant and co-accused, Bholi Singh hurled bombs. 17. P.W. 2 Abhimanyu Singh also claimed himself to be eye witness but he made vague statement saying that the appellant and Bholi Singh hurled bombs as a result of which, P.W. 3 (Awadhesh Singh) sustained injury. 18. P.W. 3, Awadhesh Singh is the injured of this case. He stated that the first bomb was hurled by the appellant and the splinters of the aforesaid bomb caused injury on his chest and left eye and after that, again, the appellant hurled bombs thrice and also made firing. 19. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that P.W. 1 developed his statement in course of trial because before police, he had not stated that it was the appellant who had hurled bomb on P.W. 3 causing injury to him and similarly, P.W. 2 has not specifically stated that it was the appellant who hurled bomb on P.W. 3. No doubt, P.W. 12 has admitted at paragraph-10 of his cross-examination that P.W. 1 had not stated before him that the appellant had hurled bombs twice with intent to commit murder but admittedly; P.W. 3 had claimed even in course of investigation that it was the appellant who hurled bombs on him causing injury to him. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that original injury reports of P.W. 3 were not brought on record and photocopies of the same, were exhibited which were not admissible in the evidence but in spite of that, the learned trial court convicted the appellant relying upon the aforesaid injury reports. Admittedly, at the time of admission of the aforesaid Exts. 6 and Ext. 8 in evidence, the defence raised objection about the admissibility of aforesaid exhibits but even then, the learned trial court relied upon the aforesaid two exhibits. Admittedly, at the time of admission of the aforesaid Exts. 6 and Ext. 8 in evidence, the defence raised objection about the admissibility of aforesaid exhibits but even then, the learned trial court relied upon the aforesaid two exhibits. There is nothing on the record to show this fact that the prosecution even attempted to prove this fact that the original injury reports of P.W. 3 were missing or original injury reports were not in possession of the prosecution and without proving the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court exhibited the Photostat copies of injury reports which were not legally admissible in the evidence and, therefore, in my view, the learned trial court committed error in relying upon the exhibits 6 & 8. No doubt, P.Ws. 7 & 9 deposed before the learned trial court that they found injury on the person of P.W. 3 , caused by explosive substance but in absence of original injury reports of P.W. 3, no reliance can safely be placed upon the deposition of P. Ws. 7 & 9 and, therefore, in my view, the prosecution could not succeed to prove this fact that P.W. 3 had sustained injury caused by him by explosive substance in course of occurrence. 21. It is not in dispute that to prove a case u/S 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the injury is immaterial but when in a case, it is specifically asserted by the prosecution that the victim has sustained injury in the occurrence, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the aforesaid injury. In the instant case, it is specific case of the prosecution that P.W. 3 sustained injury caused by explosive substance in the alleged occurrence but as I have already stated that the prosecution could not succeed to prove this fact that P.W. 3 had sustained injury caused by explosive substance and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the charge framed against the appellant under Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act and Ext. 22. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act and Ext. 2 reveals that on 13-04-1998, one bomb kept in a bag, was recovered from possession of the appellant and the aforesaid fact was corroborated by P.W. 9 Om Prakash Singh who stated that having heard noise and explosion of bomb, he went near the place of occurrence, where he saw the appellant and accused Bholi Singh fleeing and after that, he as well as other villagers chased them and apprehended the appellant and co-accused, Bholi Singh and on being searched, one bomb, kept in a bag, was recovered from possession of the appellant, Tripurari Singh and after that, this witness prepared seizure list of the aforesaid recovery. Therefore, it is established by the aforesaid material that one bomb, kept in a bag, was recovered from conscious possession of the appellant and Ext. 9, the F.S. L. report, corroborates this fact that the jute string wrapped tin object house made bomb was recovered from possession of the appellant and, therefore, in my view, the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section-4 of Explosive Substances Act. So far as Section-3 of Explosive Substances Act is concerned, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 consistently stated that the appellant hurled bomb at the time of alleged occurrence and furthermore, the P.W. 12 found sign of explosion of bomb on the place of occurrence and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, I am of the view that the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section-3 of Explosive Substances Act. 23. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has argued that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and, there was bona fide land dispute between the parties but I am not at tall, convinced with the aforesaid submission of learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant because the deposition of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are not independent witnesses. It is settled principle that if the deposition of independent witness inspires confidence, the court can pass order of conviction relying upon the deposition of even an interested witness. 24. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Cr. It is settled principle that if the deposition of independent witness inspires confidence, the court can pass order of conviction relying upon the deposition of even an interested witness. 24. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Cr. Appeal is partly allowed and conviction of the appellant for the offence u/S 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and so far as the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections-3/4 of Explosive Substances Act is concerned, the same is, hereby, affirmed. 25. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a month from today failing which, the learned trial court shall take all possible steps to procure the attendance of the appellant so that he could serve out his sentences.