JUDGMENT : ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Sole appellant, Imran @ Eboo @ Lulha, who has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Section-307 IPC, 384 IPC, 3 of the Explosive Substance Act vide judgment dated 17.09.2010 and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years as well as fined Rs. 5000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for three months additionally, under Section 307 IPC, RI for one year under Section 384 IPC, RI for 10 years as well as fined Rs. 5000/- in default thereof to undergo SI for three months additionally under Section-3 of the Explosive Substance Act vide order dated 22.09.2010 in S. Tr. No. 67/2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Bhagalpur, has challenged the same under present appeal. 2. PW-5, Md. Sah Alam @ Buddhuwa gave his Fard-e-beyan on 15.02.2006 at 1.30 p.m. at Jagdishpur State Dispensary alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 9.30 along with Md. Umar had come to Puraini Bazar on his motorcycle. At about 11:15 a.m. during course of returning from Puraini to his house over motorcycle as soon as reached near Eidgah lying at village Khwaja Nagar, Imran and Rahman who were present since before suddenly appeared with bomb in their hands and hurled towards them on account of which he along with Umar got injuries. Then thereafter, both of them escaped towards western direction. Persons of nearby came and took them to hospital. The motive for occurrence has been shown as few days ago, they had demanded Rs. 10,000/- which he (PW-5) declined and on account thereof, both the brothers had hurled bomb with an intention to cause murder. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Fard-e-beyan, Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 41/2006 was registered under Sections- 341, 324, 307. 384/34 of the IPC, ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act whereupon investigation commenced and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted only against Imran @ Eboo @ Lulha while against Rahman the investigation has been kept open and accordingly, appellant has been put on trial meeting with ultimate result, the subject matter of the instant appeal. 4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of the occurrence. 4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of the occurrence. also been pleaded that having chequered history, informant and injured might have sustained the injuries at different place in different manner. However, neither any DW nor any exhibit has been made on behalf of appellant. 5. From the record it transpires that altogether seven PWs have been examined on behalf prosecution out of whom PW-1 is Md. Umar, the injured, PW-2 is Zulfikar, PW-3 is Md.Anwar, PW-4 is Md. Alam Ansari, PW-5 is Sah Alam @ Budhuwa, PW-6 is Jitendra Nath, PW-7 is Ram Lal Choudhary as well as also exhibited Ext-1, signature of attesting witness, Ext-1/1 signature of informant, Ext-1/2 Fard-e-beyan, Ext-1/3 endorsement, Ext-2, injury report of Md. Umar, Ext-2/1 injury report of PW-5, Sah Alam @ Budhuwa, Ext-3, formal FIR. 6. Now coming to status of witnesses. PWs, 2, 3 and 4 are not eyewitnesses to occurrence. Their presence at the alleged place of occurrence happens to be after occurrence. According to PW-2, informant Md. Sah Alam had divulged that Imran and Rahman, both had hurled bomb on them while PW-3 Md. Umar had stated that Md. Sah Alam, the informant had disclosed name of only Rahman to be their assailant while PW-4 Md. Alam Ansari had not supported the case of the prosecution on that very score. Therefore, the evidence of these three PWs, although, posed themselves to be corroborative in nature but did not corroborate the prosecution version as has been advanced. Therefore, now the evidence of PW-1 as well as PW-5 have to be looked into but before that, it looks pertinent to have the medical evidence for consideration at first glance. 7. PW-6 is Dr. Jitendra Nath who had examined the victims on 15.02.2006 itself and found following injuries:– (A) Md. Umar i. Bleeding blister wound of left leg lateral side of 3”x2” size. ii. Multiple blister wound lateral side of left thigh of 3”x4” iii. Blister wound lateral side of left forearm of 3”x2” Duration within 3 hours. All injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. (B) Md. Sah Alam 1. Bruise of ½”x ¼” on left portion of temporal region. 2. Bruise of ½”x ¼” on left wrist. 3. Blister wound lateral side of left forearm of 3”x2” Duration within 3 hours. All injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. (B) Md. Sah Alam 1. Bruise of ½”x ¼” on left portion of temporal region. 2. Bruise of ½”x ¼” on left wrist. 3. Broken small pellet on lower left leg 1”x1”. 4. Small bruise on left side abdomen. 5. Small bruise on ½”x ½” on left side of thigh. Duration of injury: within six hours. Nature and cause of injuries. All injuries are simple in nature and caused by fire object like explosive substance. 8. So as per opinion of the doctor, PW-1 had not sustained any injury caused by the explosive substance while the injuries sustained by the informant have been suggested to be caused by means of explosive substance. During cross-examination at para-3 the doctor had deposed that he had not found splinter of bomb over the person of injured. 9. Now coming to ocular evidence, PW-1 who happens to be brother-in-law (Sala) of PW-5, the informant had deposed that they had gone to Puraini Bazar on motorcycle. During course of returning, he was driving the motorcycle while his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) was on pillion. As soon as, they came near Eidgah lying at village-Khwaja Nagar two persons appeared who hurled bomb aiming upon them on account of which they had fallen on road along with motorcycle. They sustained severe injuries, blood oozen out. He further identified both the accused and named the accused in attendance as Rahman. It has further been disclosed that as his brother-in-law failed to oblige the accused persons by paying Rs. 10,000/- so demanded by them in lieu of Rangdaari, as such, they hurled bomb. During course of cross-examination identification of accused so present in the dock was questioned and it appears from his deposition that court had remarked that the accused who is present in dock is Imran and not Rahman who was under judicial custody. As such, having absence of explosive injury as per evidence of PW-6 and further having his controversial conduct over identification of accused makes his evidence unreliable and untrustworthy. 10. Now remains the evidence of PW-5, the informant whose evidence is found suffering from major setback on account of having suspicion regarding presence of PW-1 along with him. During his examination-in-chief, he had stated that while he along with Md. 10. Now remains the evidence of PW-5, the informant whose evidence is found suffering from major setback on account of having suspicion regarding presence of PW-1 along with him. During his examination-in-chief, he had stated that while he along with Md. Umar were returning from Purainia Bazar over motorcycle and as soon as reached near Eidgah lying at village Khawaja Nagar, all of a sudden, Imran and his brother Rahman appeared and hurled bomb on account of which he along with Md. Umar sustained severe injuries. They had fallen down from motorcycle. He had sustained injury on the left side of head, left side of stomach, on the thigh as well as on his ankle. Md. Umar had also sustained bomb injury on the left side of leg and on the left side of hand. Thereafter, accused persons escaped therefrom. The villagers assembled and lifted them to hospital. Motive for occurrence has been shown on account of his denial to pay Rangdaari so demanded by the accused persons. He had given his Fard-e-beyan in hospital. During cross-examination at para-6, he had stated that copious blood spread over place of occurrence. He had further stated that Md. Shahbaaz brought motorcycle after three days. In para-7, he had stated that he was referred to Mayaganj Hospital from Jagdishpur. He had further shown ignorance with regard to his apprehension during course of treatment itself in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 40/2001. He had further stated in para-7 that a bag full of bomb was thrown upon them. He is unable to say as to how many bombs were kept inside the bag. There was an explosion with loud sound. He had denied the suggestion that being an anti-social element he sustained the injury in different manner at different place. 11. PW-7 is the I.O. who had inspected the place of occurrence on 15.02.2006 itself. He had simply incorporated the fact that P.O. happens to be near Eidgah lying at village Khwaja Nagar and confined the same by boundary, North-half built building of Md. Ansari, South, East, West- roads. Recorded statement of witnesses, received injury report and then after concluding investigation submitted charge-sheet. During cross-examination at para-10, he had stated that he had not found remnant of bomb at the place of occurrence. He had not found blood nor seized it. Ansari, South, East, West- roads. Recorded statement of witnesses, received injury report and then after concluding investigation submitted charge-sheet. During cross-examination at para-10, he had stated that he had not found remnant of bomb at the place of occurrence. He had not found blood nor seized it. He had further stated that he had arrested injured, Buddhu Mian in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 40/2001. He further stated that he had not obtained sanction order from the District Magistrate. 12. From the evidence available on the record, it is apparent that no sanction was obtained by the I.O. for legal prosecution of the accused/appellant under Explosive Substance Act although the same is necessary in terms of Section-7 of the Explosive Substance Act which reads as follows:– Restriction on trial of offences.–No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for offence against this Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. 13. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court happens to be in contravention of statutory provision relating to Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. 14. Now coming to the Section-384 IPC, save and except PW-5 none stood on that very score and so far as his evidence is concerned, it does not transpire confidence. Moreover, the charge to this effect is of dated 15.02.2006 along with the acquisition so made and confronted to the appellants in terms of Section-313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the finding so recorded by the learned trial court on this score is not found substantiated. With regard to application of Section-307 of the IPC, the same being not guided by presence of injuries, nature of injuries but the fact remains that when the occurrence is said to have been alleged in particular manner then its offspring should be perceived in similar way. Having deficiency on that very score, certainly, will have an adverse impact as well as will cause dent upon the case of the prosecution. There happens to be consistent version of the prosecution that during course of passing through over motorcycle by PWs-1 and 5, appellant Imran and Rahman (not on record) hurled bomb on them on account of which both of them sustained bomb injuries. There happens to be consistent version of the prosecution that during course of passing through over motorcycle by PWs-1 and 5, appellant Imran and Rahman (not on record) hurled bomb on them on account of which both of them sustained bomb injuries. Having absence of bomb injuries over the person of PW-1 and further PW-1 being inefficient in getting appellant, Imran properly identified in dock, put suspicion over manner of occurrence as suggested by the prosecution which found further strengthened by way of objective finding of the I.O., PW-7 over the place of occurrence. 15. Moreover, in the background of evidence of PW-2, para-6 that the motorcycle was taken away by the police official which cannot be accepted in light of own disclosure made by PW-5, the injured under para-6 that after three days, Md. Shahbaaz has brought motorcycle in his house. After analyzing the prosecution version on the aforesaid score gives a clear cut impression that although there happens to be presence of explosive substance injury over the person of PW-5 but he had not sustained the injury at the place in a manner for which instant prosecution has sailed. 16. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 17. Appellant is under custody, he is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. ?