JUDGMENT : S.K. Gangele, J. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 424/2003. 2. Complainant Rameshwar Prasad Gautam lodged a report at Police Station Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad that on the date of incident, at around 7.15 O'clock in the morning, he was taking tea in the courtyard of Nanhe Bhaiya, at that time, he had heard explosion of a bomb and then he reached at the filed of Akhilesh and then Munna told him that Chandu Dixit and Sunnu Dixit i.e. both the appellants had thrown a hand grenade at the deceased, due to which he fell down. He reached on the spot and noticed that deceased was died. On the aforesaid report, police registered an offence against the appellants and conducted investigation. Thereafter, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants for commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants. They abjured their guilt. After trial, the trial Court found the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and awarded RI life, RI 7 years and RI 7 years respectively along with fine of Rs. 500 each appellant for each offence with default stipulations RI 2 months for each offence. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the trial Court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act. The prosecution has failed to prove commission of the aforesaid offences, hence, the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act. There is no merit in the instant appeal, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The report of the incident was lodged at the police station at around 10.15 O'clock in the morning after three hours of the incident. There is no merit in the instant appeal, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The report of the incident was lodged at the police station at around 10.15 O'clock in the morning after three hours of the incident. In the report, the names of the appellants have been mentioned. Complainant PW-4 Rameshwar Prasad, who lodged the first information report, deposed that on 06.07.2004 at around 7:00-7:15 AM in the morning he, at the house of Nanhe Bhaiya Pachouri, along with Mahesh and Nanhe Bhaiya had been taking tea, at that time, he had heard loud sound of bomb explosion and then he went at that place. He had seen that the body of the deceased was lying. Then, he enquired from the persons present there and Munna and Kamlesh told him that accused persons had thrown a bomb at the deceased. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR Ex. P/10 and he admitted his signatures on the same. He also signed the pachnama of dead body of the deceased Ex. P/6. 6. Same facts have been deposed by PW-6 Nanhe Bhaiya, who also reached on the spot. He deposed that he, PW-3 Mahesh Pachouri and PW-4 Rameshwar were taking tea in the courtyard, at that time, he heard sound of bomb explosion. He deposed that when he reached at the spot, Satyanarayan @ Munna told him that the present appellants had thrown hand grenade on the deceased. He further deposed that he had seen both the appellants running away from the spot. 7. PW-3 Mahesh Pachouri in his evidence deposed that he was taking tea in the courtyard of the house of Nanhe Bhaiya along with other persons, at that time, he had heard loud sound of bomb explosion and, thereafter, he rushed towards the field and he had seen both the appellants running away from the field of deceased Akhilesh towards village Saikheda and, at that time, Munna @ Satyanarayan told him that the present appellants had thrown hand grenade on the deceased. 8. PW-9 Satyanarayan @ Munna in his evidence deposed that at around 6 O'clock in the morning he had gone to his field. Akhilesh was also working in his field. His field and the field of deceased Akhilesh are adjacent to each other. 8. PW-9 Satyanarayan @ Munna in his evidence deposed that at around 6 O'clock in the morning he had gone to his field. Akhilesh was also working in his field. His field and the field of deceased Akhilesh are adjacent to each other. At that time, both the accused persons/appellants reached near Akhilesh and abused him and they had thrown hand grenade at Akhilesh, due to which Akhilesh received injuries. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away. At that time, Mahesh, Nanhe Bhaiya and Rameshwar reached there and he had told them about the incident. Thereafter, the report of the incident was lodged. He is a natural witness. There is nothing adverse in his cross-examination. He specifically denied the fact that deceased Akhilesh was having a hand grenade with him. 9. PW-11 Hargoving Raghuvanshi deposed that he had given sanction to prosecute the appellant under the Explosive Substance Act. 10. PW-12 D.S. Chouhan is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 06.07.2003, he was posted as Station House Officer Incharge, Police Station Bankhedi. The report Ex. P/10 was lodged by Rameshwar Prasad Gautam and he had recorded the report and signed the same. Thereafter, he had issued notice Ex. P/5 and prepared pachyatnama of the dead body of the deceased Ex. P/6, which was signed by the witnesses. He also prepared the map Ex. P/4. He collected the particles of bomb vide Ex. P/7 and blood stained soil and plain soil and signed the same. He also arrested the accused persons vide Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/16. He recorded statements of witnesses Mahesh vide Ex. D/1 and Munna vide Ex. D/3. Statement of witnesses Nanhe Bhaiya, Kamlesh and Rameshwar were also recorded by him. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was died because he was having hand grenade with him. 11. PW-7 Dr. M.K. Chandel conducted postmortem of the deceased. P/15 and Ex. P/16. He recorded statements of witnesses Mahesh vide Ex. D/1 and Munna vide Ex. D/3. Statement of witnesses Nanhe Bhaiya, Kamlesh and Rameshwar were also recorded by him. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was died because he was having hand grenade with him. 11. PW-7 Dr. M.K. Chandel conducted postmortem of the deceased. He deposed that on 06.07.2003, he was posted as B.M.O. at C.H.C. Bankhedi and, at that time, he had conducted postmortem of the deceased and noticed following injuries: ^1- pksV ds dkj.k nksuksa gkFk vyx gks x;s Fks ¼gkFk ds iats vyx gks x;s Fks½ tys ds fu'kku FksA 2- vusd NksVs&NksVs ,cjstu] czwlsl iaDoMZ owUM yslsjVsM owUM Fks tks fd 1 lseh0 ls de ds Fks vkSj VSVw ds lkFk Fks ;g pksVsa gkFkksa dh Hkqtk ¼nkfguh½ psgjs ij] lhus ij] nkfguh Hkqtk eqM+ x;h FkhA 3- fNfnzr laj/kz tys ds lkFk 7 xq.kk 6 lseh0 ds {ks= esa xgjkbZ fy;s gq;s nkfguh rjQ lhus ds lkeus dh vkSj FkkA 4- isuhVªsfVax owUM 2 xq.kk 1 xgjkbZ fy;s gq;s lhus ds nkfguh rjQ cxy esa FkkA 5- isV Hkh fNfnzr gks x;k Fkk tys ds lkFk&lkFk ijdksjs'ku dk ;g fNnz 25 xq.kk 20 lseh0 ds {ks= esa ekStwn FkkA ml Nsn ls isV ds vUnj dh djhc ,d ehVj vkar ckgj fudyh gqbZ Fkh ;g NksVh vkar ,ao tyh gqbZ gkyr esa FkhA 3- efLr"d ds vUnj dk ijh{k.k djus ij flj ds vUnj Hkh vkUrfjd jDrL=ko FkkA 4- o{k ds Iywjk esa vusd txg ijdksjs'ku Fks nkfguh rjQ ,ao o{k ds Iywjk ds xqgk esa djhc 350 lh0lh0 jDrL=ko FkkA Vªsfd;k esa Hkh jDr ekStwn Fkk nkfgus QsQMs ds vanj vusd iaDoMZ owUM Fks ,ao ce ds VqdM+s dV lsDlu ij ik;s x;s FksA iSjhdkfMZ;k esa 0-5 xq.kk 0-5 lseh0 {ks= esa iaDoMZ gks x;h Fkh gzn; [kkyh Fkk] gzn; ds VsfiDl ,sfj;s esa isuhVªsfVax owUM dh ,d VqdM+s dk Fkk dsehdy ijh{k.k gsrq fy;k x;k FkkA isjhdkfMZ;u esa Hkh FkksM+h ek=k esa jrL=ko FkkA isV ds vUnj dk inkZ tyk gqvk Fkk ,ao ijdksjsVsM Fkk] vkarksa dh fNYyh ijdksjsVsM Fkh isV ds vUnj dkQh ds jax dk FkksM+h ek=k esa nzO; ekStwn Fkk] eqga] xzkl uyh ,ao xzluh] ;d`r Iyhgk] xqnkZ isy Fks] ,ao mlds xqIrkax lkekU; Fks] ew=k'k; [kkyh Fkk] nkfgus gkFk dh Hkqtk esa gzkejl ds lkFk vfLFkHkax gksuk ik;k x;k FkkA ;g leLr pksVsa e`R;q iwoZ dh FkhA ce ds ikap VqdM+s lqjf{kr djds lhycUn djds vkj{kd ds lqiqnZ fd;s FksA e`rd ds diM+s cfu;ku] tkaf?k;k ,ao yqaxh lhycan iSfdV esa vkj{kd ds lqiwnZ fd;s FksA* He further deposed that the injuries were caused by explosion of bomb. 12. From the evidence of eye witness PW-9 Satyanarayan @ Munna, evidence of PW-3 Mahesh Pachouri, PW-4 Rameshwar Prasad, PW-6-Nanhe Bhaiya, it has been proved that the appellants had thrown a bomb at the deceased due to which he received injuries and died. 13. The leanrned counsel for the appellants has taken a defence that the deceased himself kept a bomb and due to explosion of aforesaid bomb, he died. In our opinion, this theory does not find support from the investigation conducted by the prosecution. The nature of injuries also do not corroborate the theory as argued by the counsel for the appellants. 14. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record and the facts of the case, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of offences as mentioned above in the judgment. The prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.