JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2005 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in connection with Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1995/140 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 362 of 1993 arising out of Kundahit (Bagdehari) P.S. Case No. 65 of 1993 whereby all the four appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Appellants namely Dilbahadur @ Dilu Dom @ Dilip @ Dil Bahar Dom, Fatik Dom and Keshav Dom have further been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the four appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 10 years under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year. No separate sentence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act has been inflicted. The appellants who have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code have further been inflicted sentence to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each. In default of making payment of fine, further R.I. for one years. 2. The facts reveal from fardbeyan of Lilu Dom (now deceased) recorded on 18.08.1993 at 18.45 hours at Bagdehari Police Station are that at about 2.00 p.m. on the same day when the informant with his nephew Khagen Dom (deceased) were having their meal in their house, they heard hulla raised by Krishna Dom. Both of them came out of the house and saw appellants Fatik Dom, Dil Bahar Dom, Keshav Dom, Damu Dom along with accused Vijay Dom, Pankhi Dom and Tufan Dom having bomb in their hand. It is alleged that Vijay Dom and Pankhi Dom challenging the informant and his nephew Khagen Dom instigated companion accused to kill them. Thereafter Damu Dom hurled bomb on Khagen and due to explosion of the bomb Khagen sustained injuries on his abdomen and fell down. It is alleged that Vijay Dom and Pankhi Dom challenging the informant and his nephew Khagen Dom instigated companion accused to kill them. Thereafter Damu Dom hurled bomb on Khagen and due to explosion of the bomb Khagen sustained injuries on his abdomen and fell down. When the informant tried to rescue Khagen, appellants Fatik Dom and Keshav Dom hurled bomb on him as a result he sustained injuries on his forehead, chest and waist. Hearing the sound of explosion, Bhuto Dom also came out of his house and he was targeted by Dil Bahadur Dom who hurled bomb causing injury to Bhuto on his left thigh. It is disclosed that after hearing sound of explosion people of the locality reached to the place and seeing the people coming towards the place of occurrence, the appellants with their associates started fleeing away. The informant has named some of the witnesses who had reached to the place and seen the occurrence. The family members and people assembled had been trying to remove Khagen to hospital but he died on the way to hospital. The motive behind the occurrence has been assigned as old enmity which developed after Suresh Dom, younger brother of the informant, had abducted wife of Fatik Dom about ten years ago. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan of Lilu Dom, Kundahit (Bagdehari) P.S. Case No. 65 of 1993 under Section 307 & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act against all the named accused including the appellants was registered. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1995/140 of 2002. 4. Charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act were framed against the appellants and co-accused Pankhi Dom, Vijay Dom and Tufan Dom. Separate charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellants Keshav Dom, Fatik Dom and Dil Bahar Dom was framed. To substantiate the charges so framed, prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. Since the informant died after the incident, he could not be examined. Bhuto Dom (injured) has been examined as PW1. Other eye witnesses have also been examined. Dr. To substantiate the charges so framed, prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. Since the informant died after the incident, he could not be examined. Bhuto Dom (injured) has been examined as PW1. Other eye witnesses have also been examined. Dr. S.K. Prasad who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Khagen has been examined as PW8 whereas Dr. U.N. Sinha who had examined injured Bhuto and Jivan Dom has been examined as PW9. He has proved the injury reports. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offences alleged and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 5. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant has not been examined. Fardbeyan has not been proved. The Investigating Officer did not turn up. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the appellants because they did not get opportunity to refer the contradictions taken from the mouth of witnesses to the Investigating Officer. Places of occurrence have also not been proved. The statement given by injured and other eye witnesses are highly contradictory to each other. The witnesses have exaggerated their statement before the court. Altogether seven accused were put on trial but three of them stood acquitted and that indicates implication of more accused with false allegation. Prosecution has not come up before the court with fair hand. The witnesses are also having criminal antecedent which is admitted by them. Neither in the First Information Report nor the witnesses examined in court have explained the injuries appearing on the person of appellant which they had received in the same occurrence for which counter case at the instance of appellants Fatik was instituted. The First Information Report of Kundahit (Bagdehari) P.S. Case No. 61 of 1993, G.R. Case No.352 of 1993 and injury reports have been marked Exhibits A, B and B/a. It is further argued that all the appellants have been held guilty under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but specific allegation of causing injury to Khagen is against Damu Dom. The remaining appellants did nothing to cause injury to Khagen. They have not been sharing common intention to commit murder of Khagen. The remaining appellants did nothing to cause injury to Khagen. They have not been sharing common intention to commit murder of Khagen. PW1 in para-9 has stated when he came out of the house, he saw Khagen lying on the ground having injury on his person. When Lilu Dom sustained injury, no witness other than him and Lilu Dom was present at the spot. PW1 did not speak about presence of other witnesses at the place of occurrence at relevant point of time. PW5 Shanti Dom has given different story in his deposition in court. He says that he along with Kisan Dom, after having meal, were roaming near the house of Lalan where Lalan and Maga were enjoying music on radio. Then he saw appellant Damu, Dilu, Keshav and Fatik coming towards them and they were having bomb in their possession. Damu told his companion to kill Kishun whereafter Kishun started running from the place. This witness could not succeed and he fell down. He says that the appellants confined him at the place and told, if you try to walk, you would be killed. If this version of Shanti Dom is correct, then there are two places of occurrence but this story brought on record by Shanti Dom does not find support from other witnesses. The appellants, have wrongly been held guilty for the offence as indicated above and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that all the appellants with their associates had reached to the place of occurrence and they all were having bomb in their possession. It is not a case that only Khagen was targeted and for that only they had been to the place. The evidence on record suggest that all the appellants with premeditation of mind armed with bomb in their possession reached to the place to commit murder. From the evidence of Kishan Dom PW-4 and Shanti Dom PW-5 it is very clear that they were present at some distance from the house where Maga and Lalan were enjoying music on radio. The appellants and their associates were seen by PW-4 and PW-5 before they reached to the house of informant. From the evidence of Kishan Dom PW-4 and Shanti Dom PW-5 it is very clear that they were present at some distance from the house where Maga and Lalan were enjoying music on radio. The appellants and their associates were seen by PW-4 and PW-5 before they reached to the house of informant. The appellants tried to target Kishan and Shanti but Kishan by raising alarm started running from the place whereas Shanti fell down and he was threatened. Hearing hulla of Kishan Dom the informant and Khagen Dom came out of the house and immediately they were targeted by the appellants and one of the appellant Damu hurled bomb on the person of Khagen as a result of explosion of bomb Khagen sustained injuries on his abdomen and fell down. Immediately, thereafter Lilu (informant) was targeted and bomb was hurled upon him by co-convict Fatik and Keshav. Thereafter PW-1 came out of the house but he was also not spared and bomb was hurled upon him by appellant Dilbahar @ Dilu and he also sustained injuries. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove that all the appellants with their associates had reached to the place armed with bomb and that indicates their common intention. Not only that, they all have participated in hurling bomb. The offence committed by the appellants further find support from the evidence of independent witnesses PW-2 Sekh Sakib and PW-3 Sekh Enamul Haque who had reached to the place after hearing sound of explosion. Both the witnesses have stated that Khagen Dom disclosed before them that he had sustained injury due to explosion of bomb hurled by Damu. Since there are eye witnesses to the occurrence, non-examination of Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellants and that is not fatal to the prosecution. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have gone through the evidence adduced and the documents marked exhibits and also perused the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has given much stress that there are two places of occurrence and the witnesses have failed to pinpoint actual place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined, therefore, place of occurrence has not been proved. From perusal of evidence of PW-4 it appears that he had invited Shanti Dom PW-5 on the eve of Mansha Puja. The Investigating Officer has not been examined, therefore, place of occurrence has not been proved. From perusal of evidence of PW-4 it appears that he had invited Shanti Dom PW-5 on the eve of Mansha Puja. In that afternoon, after having meal both of them came out of the house and after covering a distance of 100-150 yard both of them sat near bamboo bush where Maga Ram and Lalan Sekh were enjoying radio. In the mean time, all the appellants having bomb in their hand reached to the place. Appellant Damu Dom instigated the companion accused to kill Kishan Dom. Apprehending danger PW-4 escaped from the place and stopped after covering distance of 100 yard. He has further stated that at the time of fleeing from the place he was raising alarm. The alarm so raised by Kishan Dom attracted his family members who also came out of the house to see as to what is happening. Khagen Dom reached to the place but Damu Dom immediately hurled bomb causing injury on his abdomen. Following Khagen Dom, informant Lilu Dom also came out of the house but he was also targeted and bombs were hurled upon him by appellant Fatik Dom and Kesab Dom. Informant also sustained injuries on his person due to explosion. Thereafter PW-1 Bhuto Dom reached to the place but he too was targeted and bomb was hurled upon him. The informant has not been examined because he died one year after the occurrence but the facts narrated by him in the fardbeyan find support from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7. Sekh Sakib PW-2 and Sekh Enamul Haque PW-3 are independent witnesses and they had reached to the place after hearing sound of explosion. Both the witnesses have deposed, when they reached to the place of occurrence, they had seen Khagen Dom having injury on his abdomen caused due to explosion. In their presence, deceased Khagen Dom had disclosed that bomb was hurled upon him by Damu Dom. These two witnesses had also seen the informant lying injured at the place of occurrence. The informant disclosed before them that bomb was hurled upon him by appellant Fatik Dom and Keshab Dom. Therefore, PW-2 and PW-3 who are independent witnesses had seen the occurrence. These two witnesses had also seen the informant lying injured at the place of occurrence. The informant disclosed before them that bomb was hurled upon him by appellant Fatik Dom and Keshab Dom. Therefore, PW-2 and PW-3 who are independent witnesses had seen the occurrence. The deceased had also made oral dying declaration before them by saying that Damu Dom has hurled bomb upon him. Since the informant has not been examined, the disclosure made by him before these two witnesses that bomb was hurled upon him by appellant Keshab Dom and Fatik Dom become admissible. Therefore, only because the informant has not been examined, the prosecution case as brought on record by other witnesses cannot be thrown away. It was argued that Shanti Dom was restrained at the place where he was sitting then how the appellants committed offence and why Shanti Dom was not targeted? To make it clear, we have examined the evidence of Kishan Dom PW-4 and Shanti Dom PW-5. When appellants appeared at the place where PW-4 and PW-5 were sitting, PW-4 ran from the place to save himself whereas PW-5 could not succeed and fell down. The alarm raised by Krishna Dom attracted his family members whereafter Khagen Dom and informant came out of the house to know the situation but immediately Damu Dom targeted Khagen Dom and hurled bomb on him. It reveals from the evidence that place of occurrence is rasta situated infront of the house of informant. PW-4 and PW-5 after having their meal were sitting at the side of road at a place situated at a distance of about 100 yard from their house. Therefore, we do not accept that the witnesses have failed to pinpoint the place of occurrence in their deposition in court and prejudice has caused to appellants due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. It has come on the record that informant was not alive at the time of trial and therefore, he could not be examined but we find that contention made by informant in the fardbeyan find full support from the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5. The consistent evidence adduced by them on record is that the appellants having bomb in their possession reached to the place where PW-4 and PW-5 were present. They were just going to target Kishna Dom but he ran away and went out of the reach of appellants. The consistent evidence adduced by them on record is that the appellants having bomb in their possession reached to the place where PW-4 and PW-5 were present. They were just going to target Kishna Dom but he ran away and went out of the reach of appellants. In course of running from the place, Kishan Dom had been raising alarm which attracted the villagers and the family members. Hearing the alarm raised by Kishna Dom, deceased Khagen Dom followed by informant Lilu Dom came out of the house to know the situation. Immediately Dilu Dom hurled bomb on Khagen causing injury to him on his abdomen. Keshav Dom and Fatik Dome targeted the informant Lilu Dom and hurled bomb on him. The informant also sustained injury and fell down. The explosion of bomb attracted the villagers. PW-2 and PW-3 are independent witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case as brought out by the informant in his fardbeyan. Not only that, the disclosure made by deceased Khagen Dom and informant Lilu Dom find support from the evidence of these two witnesses. Kishan Dom PW-4 and Shanti Dom PW-5 are the eye witnesses and they had also narrated the entire occurrence. Bhuto Dom PW-1 is an injured witness and he has also consistently supported the fact. We do not find any contradiction or exaggeration in the statement of these witnesses and therefore, non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellants. 8. Now coming to the evidence of Dr. S.K. Prasad PW-8 and Dr. U.N. Sinha PW-9. Dr. S.K. Prasad had conducted post mortem examination on dead body of Khagen Dom and he has described the injuries noticed by him at the time of post mortem examination and he has proved post mortem report as Exhibit-1. The injuries were caused due to explosive substance find support from the evidence of PW-8. Dr. U.N. Sinha PW-9 has proved the injury report of Lilu Dom as Exhibit-2 and described the injuries appearing on his person. He has stated that injuries were caused due to explosive substance. PW-9 has further proved injury report of Bhuto Dom PW-1 and that injury report has been marked as Exhibit 2/1. The contention made in the fardbeyan that informant Lilu Dom had sustained injury due to explosion of bomb hurled upon him by the appellants find support from the evidence of Dr. PW-9 has further proved injury report of Bhuto Dom PW-1 and that injury report has been marked as Exhibit 2/1. The contention made in the fardbeyan that informant Lilu Dom had sustained injury due to explosion of bomb hurled upon him by the appellants find support from the evidence of Dr. U.N. Sinha PW-9. Bhuto Dom PW-1 had sustained injury in the incident find support from Exhibit 2/1 proved by Dr. U.N. Sinha PW-9. Khagen Dom died due to injuries caused to him due to explosion of bomb find support from the evidence of PW-8. Therefore, we find that the ocular version of the witnesses find full corroboration from the evidence of PW-8 Dr. S.K. Prasad and PW-9 Dr. U.N. Sinha. Since evidence of the prosecution is fully intact, we do not find any substance in the argument that prejudice has caused to the appellants due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2005 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in connection with Sessions Trial No. 221of 1995/140 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 362 of 1993 arising out of Kundahit (Bagdehari) P.S. Case No. 65 of 1993 is hereby upheld. Bail bonds of appellants Dilbahadur @ Dilu Dom @ Dilip @ Dil Bahar Dom and Kesab Dom @ Keshav Dom are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the convicting/successor court within six weeks from today to serve out the sentence failing compliance the convicting/successor court shall take all efforts to secure their attendance by issuing processes against them. 10. This appeal stands dismissed.