JUDGMENT This jail criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in S.T. Case No.39 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 398 of IPC and Section 9(B)(3)(a) of the Explosives Act, 1984 and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months respectively. The substantive sentences as per the order are to run concurrently. 2.The case of the prosecution in short is that on 03.02.2002 night when informant and his family members were asleep, it was around 2 O’ clock in the mid night they heard some one knocking their door and asking for a liter of petrol for his vehicle. Hearing the same P.W.3 the wife of the informant woke up and opened the door. Then to their surprise they found four young persons standing in front of the door, whereas two others were standing at a little distance on the road. P.W.3 then handed over a bottle of petrol to them and asked for the payment. At that time it is said that two of them caught of her hand an suddenly another placed a pistol on her mouth insisting to handover cash and valuables with her. P.W.3 managed to raise hullah for which her husband (P.W.2) and two sons woke up and came out-side. Seeing but P.W.2 and his sons started chasing them. In the process some bombs were thrown by the miscreants but those did not explode. On was then nabbed and brought near the house of P.W.2 when by then other neighbors assembled. The culprit then gave his identify disclosing his name and address. He was taken to a filed in the village and kept under guard but still he could manage to escape. So early morning the matter was reported in writing at the P.S. for which the case was registered and investigation commenced. One completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and another placing them to be tried in the Court of law for the above offences. So early morning the matter was reported in writing at the P.S. for which the case was registered and investigation commenced. One completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and another placing them to be tried in the Court of law for the above offences. In course of investigation the appellant and another were apprehended, unexploded bombs were seized from the house of P.W.2 which were then defused and sanction has also been accorded by the District Administration. Although six persons were shown as accused, four others were found to be absconders and case against them having been split up, the appellant and another only faced the trial at the first round. 3.It may be stated here that the trial Court while convicting the appellant for the offences as stated above and sentencing him therein has acquitted the other accused Rebati Baroi. Also this appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 25, Arms Act. The State has not challenged the said order of a acquittal as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate the order of acquittal recorded against the accused Rebati Baroi has need been called in question as also the order of acquittal of the present appellant in respect of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court having not properly appreciated the evidence let in by the prosecution has arrived at the conclusion finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 398 of IPC and under Section 9(B)(3)(a) of Explosive Act. It is also his submission that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory to each other and those contradictions are not reconcilable. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution evidence on proper scrutiny cannot be accepted to fasten the criminal liability upon the appellant by holding his complicity in the said incident. 5.Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the findings rendered by the Court below holding the appellant guilty for the above offences. It is his further submission that the evidence of prosecution witnesses have practically stood unchallenged and there appears no reason to believe for a moment that these P.W.2 and P.W.3 along with their villagers would be falsely implicating the appellant in the case who was even not known to them much less to say that they were having any axe to grind against him. He also submits that the prosecution evidence is overwhelming on the score of role played by the appellant for the incident and therefore, the trial Court did commit no error either in fact or in law in convicting the appellant. 6.Keeping the rival submission in mind the evidence of prosecution witnesses now require analysis so as to judge the sustainability of the finding of the trial Court. Prosecution during trial has examined 13 witnesses. P.W.2 being the informant, P.W.3 is his wife. When P.W.5 and P.W.9 are their sons, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12 have been cited as witnesses to prove the chasing the miscreants including the appellant and as regards the presence of the appellant thereafter, The investigating officers have been examined as P.W.8 and P.W.13, when P.W.1 is the doctor who has been examined as P.W.3. 7.The inmates of the house are P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.9. Their evidence requires examination first. It has been stated by all of them that the appellant came with others to their house woke up P.W.3 on the pretext of taking petrol for their motor cycle, frightened her by showing the gun in her buccal cavity and that there was an attempt to extort cash and valuables. It has also been stated that the appellant and others started running on being chased by P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 and other neighbours when they came to the spot hearing the cry. They have also stated that the appellant was nabbed at a little distance apart from their house and before that he had thrown bomb to detain them in chasing and catching hold of him. But fortunately the bomb went unexploded. P.W.3 has specifically stated that during mid night she opened the door hearing the request from the out side proceeded by knocking at the door. It is her further evidence that when she asked for payment pistol was put in her mouth after a punch being given at her face. The miscreants according to her evidence asked her to hand over cash and valuables. She has also stated that P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.9 woke up, rushed out side and seeing them the appellant and others started running. When they were chased ultimately appellant was nabbed. It is also her evidence that he had hurled bomb prior to that which went unexploded. The miscreants according to her evidence asked her to hand over cash and valuables. She has also stated that P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.9 woke up, rushed out side and seeing them the appellant and others started running. When they were chased ultimately appellant was nabbed. It is also her evidence that he had hurled bomb prior to that which went unexploded. She has further stated that the neighbours came to control the situation and the appellant was denied till information lodged by the police station. It is also her evidence she also sustained injuries on her body because of assault. On coming through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.9, it is seen that there remains no such variance in respect of any material aspect with the version of P.W.3 whose sole testimony appears to be consistent on the aspect that the appellant and his associates had made an attempt to commit dacoity at the point of pistol and also as regards the final detention of the appellant soon after the incident. When this witness stated that appellant was kept in the village under detention till report was lodged at the police station all other prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.12 have also stated in the same manner. But the evidence of P.W.9 is at variance. When he has stated that the appellant woke up while being kept under-guard from that field and that is found to have been deriving support from the evidence of P.W.8 that he apprehended the appellant and another on 07.02.2002 in village; while not stating further that he had given the custody of the appellant soon after the lodging of the F.I.R. to the police. But this piece of evidence is not enough to discredit the version of P.W.3 and her husband and another son as regards the main incident. It is stated by the inmates of the house as well as the neighbours that the appellant was nabbed and detained and that is within the close proximity of time from the said incident. When also there remains no such explanation from the side of the appellant. So, it is extremely difficult to discard the version of all the witnesses on the score and not possible to infer for a moment that he was falsely implicated in this case. When also there remains no such explanation from the side of the appellant. So, it is extremely difficult to discard the version of all the witnesses on the score and not possible to infer for a moment that he was falsely implicated in this case. In such state of affair in the evidence non-holding of T.I. Parade is of consequence as regards the presence of appellant and his role therein, when admittedly the evidence stands that the appellant was nabbed at the spot and was detained at least for quite some time moreover they have identified the appellant during trial. 8.Another piece of evidence comes from the lips of the P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7 that being interrogated the appellant confessed his guilt that he with others had committed the offence in the house. This stands as an additional force to the prosecution evidence as regards the presence and role of the present appellant, seizure of unexploded bomb from the place has been proved by P.W.6 and P.W.8 under Ext.4 which is also the version of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.9 that it is the appellant who had thrown bomb to detain them in chasing further. This lends further assurance to the prosecution case as regards the present appellant’s action. Therefore, the prosecution evidence appears to be quite acceptable that in the night of 3/4.02.2002 there was an attempt of robbery in the house of P.W.2 and so also the involvement of five other persons and that this appellant was one among them who was caught during run to escape from the place despite of his attempts to avoid himself. It also appears to have been proved that the appellant had thrown bombs which did not explode and that finds support from Ext.7, the report of the chemical examiner that the seized materials sent for examination was found to be containing potassium sulpher which are used to prepare bomb. In view of all these, on independent analysis of evidence. Therefore, it is found that the prosecution has established the charges against the appellant having committed the offence under Section 398 of I.P.C. and under Section 9(B)(3)(a) Act and thus, I am unable to record any disagreement with the finding rendered by the trial Court in convicting the appellant for the above offence. Therefore, it is found that the prosecution has established the charges against the appellant having committed the offence under Section 398 of I.P.C. and under Section 9(B)(3)(a) Act and thus, I am unable to record any disagreement with the finding rendered by the trial Court in convicting the appellant for the above offence. The sentence imposed there under in the facts and circumstances of the case is also found to be just and proper. Resultantly, the Jail Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.