JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Pragati Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. It is pertinent here to mention at the very outset that one of the co-appellant, namely, Gulam Mian died during pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been abated vide order dated 12.04.2022. 3. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 25.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Giridih in Sessions Trial No.270 of 1993 (G.R. No.1417 of 1990) arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.125 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, this appellant has been held guilty along with another appellant whose appeal is abated vide order dated 12.04.2022 for the offences under Section 3 07 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 3 07 of the I.P.C. and further directed to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext.2) of one Jalil Mian (P.W.5), is that on 03.08.1990 at about 10:00 p.m., Mukhtar Mian (appellant) and Gulam Mian (now deceased) came to the house of the informant and dragged him out from the house and thrashed him. Thereafter, they hurled bomb on him causing injury. It is further alleged that the father and grandfather of the informant were not present in the house and his mother Julekha Khatoon (P.W.1) was inside the house. It is further alleged that there is long drawn enmity between the parties and they are under litigating terms due to land dispute. It is further alleged that on previous day, Gani Mian and Dukhan Mian were uprooting paddy crops of the informant which was seen by several villagers and other family members had gone to the field, taking advantage of absence of other family members accused persons entered into the house of the informant and injured him by bomb explosion with intention to kill him. It is further alleged that when the father of the informant returned from the field and along with other villagers then he was brought to Dhanwar Refral Hospital where his treatment was going on and statement was recorded by police on 04.08.1990 at about 05:00 a.m. On the basis of above information, Dhanwar P.S. Case No.125 of 1990 was registered for the offences under Sections 3 41 and 448 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. 5. After completion of investigation, both the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 3 07 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.270 of 1993 was registered. 6. After Commitment of the case, charges were framed against the accused appellant and one another accused person under Section 3 07 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, which were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence were adduced: Exhibit 1 : Injury Report Exhibit 2 : Fardbeyan Exhibit 3 : Sanction order for prosecution 8. The learned Trial Court, after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence led by respective parties concluded about the guilt of the accused person including the present appellant and impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as a matter of fact, there was land dispute between the parties and due to harvesting crops some scuffle took place between the parties. The story of bomb blast is absolutely false and concocted story. The father of the appellant, namely, Gani Mian was brutally assaulted by accused persons who happens to be informant party of this case. The F.I.R. was lodged as Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 prior to the F.I.R. of present case and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was also submitted against the informant party of this case. Present case is a counter blast against the criminal case instituted by the accused persons. It is further submitted that there was long drawn land dispute. The F.I.R. was lodged as Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 prior to the F.I.R. of present case and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was also submitted against the informant party of this case. Present case is a counter blast against the criminal case instituted by the accused persons. It is further submitted that there was long drawn land dispute. A civil case was also instituted which culminated in favour of the father of the appellant. The informant party were adamant to forcibly dispossess the appellant from their lands and always used to threaten to harvest the body crops. It is further submitted that altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution but the most important witness the Investigating Officer, has not been examined which has caused serious prejudice to defence of the appellant. No remains of any bomb were collected from the place of occurrence. The injury sustained by the informant was also superficial in nature. The conducting doctor has also admitted that no particles of bomb were found in the body of injured informant. Therefore, cause of injury has not been proved. Use of bomb is also not proved to held the guilt by the prosecution. The injury sustained by informant might have happened due to fall on earth full of pebbles. The material contradiction appearing on in the evidence of prosecution witness could not be get explained through Investigating Officer due to his non-examination which demolishes the prosecution case. The cross case of the appellant was also not jointly tried with the present case as per mandate of law. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the entire aspect of the case and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant. As such, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant has contended that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellant. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant and there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order. 12. It appears that altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant. P.W.1 Julekha Khatoon is the mother of informant who admittedly was inside the house at the time of alleged occurrence. She has stated in general terms that the Gulam Rasool Mian and Mukhtar Mian dragged out her son from the house and assaulted him. She has clearly stated that when she came out of the house then saw her son lying on earth in ensured condition. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that she identifies the accused persons but her cross-examination could not be conducted by defence and she was discharged. P.W.2 Rozani Khatoon is the wife of Dukhan Mian. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 10:00 a.m. Gani Mian was harvesting paddy crops of her husband which was protested by her husband and several other villagers. In the meantime, Mukhtar Mian and Gulam Rasool Mian came to the house and dragged out Jalil Mian and injured him by bomb explosion. In her cross-examination, she admits that land dispute is going on for 13 years in respect of two kathas land situated about 500 yards from her house. At the time of occurrence, father of accused persons was harvesting the paddy crop. She further admits that she saw the occurrence when the accused persons were fleeing away. P.W.3 Dr. Arvind Kumar has medically examined the injured Md. Jalil on 03.08.1990 at about 05:10 p.m. and found following injuries: (i) Burn injury due to bomb blast 6”x4” of black colour over left side of back. As per opinion of the doctor smell of barood was there and above injury was caused by bomb blast which was simple in nature and caused within six hours. Jalil on 03.08.1990 at about 05:10 p.m. and found following injuries: (i) Burn injury due to bomb blast 6”x4” of black colour over left side of back. As per opinion of the doctor smell of barood was there and above injury was caused by bomb blast which was simple in nature and caused within six hours. In his cross-examination, he has stated at para 3 that he examined the patient clinically and he does not apply any chemical substance to ascertain the injury. P.W.4 Aklun Bibi has claimed to be present in her house at the time of occurrence. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 08/09:00 a.m., she was inside her house, Julekha Devi and Jalil were also in the house, meanwhile, Mukhtar Mian and Gulam Mian came and entered into the house and dragged Jalil Mian outside. Let him down and caused injury by explosive bomb. Thereafter, Jalil was sent to Refral Hospital, Dhanwar for medical treatment. In her cross-examination, she has admitted land dispute between the parties since 20 years and litigation was also going on. She further admits that at first, she could not know about the scuffle between the parties and after one and a half hour, she came to know that the scuffle took place due to harvesting of paddy crops by the father of accused persons. She has also stated that at the time of bomb explosion, Mukhtar was also standing at the distance of 2 ft. She has further stated that the injury of bomb was on chest near arm. She also admits that for the occurrence of same day Gani Mian has also lodged case against her father-in-law. She denied the suggestion that due to land dispute, the accused persons have been falsely implicated and she is giving false implication. P.W.5 Md. Jalil is the sole injured-cum-informant of this case. He has corroborated the contents of his fardbeyan and stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10:00 a.m., accused Mukhtar Mian and Gulam Mian came to his house dragged out him outside the house, thrashed on earth and exploded a bomb with intention to kill him. His father had gone to field because father of the accused persons namely Gani Mian was harvesting his paddy crops. He was brought to hospital and got his treatment. His father had gone to field because father of the accused persons namely Gani Mian was harvesting his paddy crops. He was brought to hospital and got his treatment. In his cross-examination, he admits that in his village all community and caste members are residing. There is land dispute of two kathas land since long with the accused persons. His house is situated in middle of the village and surrounded with house of several persons. He was brought towards street adjacent to his house and there are pebbles in the street. He has also admitted at para 6 of evidence that the street is towards sought and north and he fell down in the middle of the street on stomach side and back side was on upper portion. Bomb fell towards left leg side of him at a distance of one ft. from his posture on the earth. Due to bomb explosion, a ditch about two hands was also caused at the place of occurrence. He also admits that there were several pebbles and stone chips near the place of occurrence. He has not shown the place of occurrence to Police. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his family members were harvesting the paddy crops of the accused persons which was protested by informant and his family members in that course, he fell down sustaining injuries and he has lodged this false case in order to save his skin from the case lodged by the accused persons. P.W.6 Darogi Lal Barnwal is a formal witness and Head Clerk of Legal Section D.M. Office, Giridih who has proved the permission for prosecution under Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Act in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.125 of 1990 which is marked Ext.3. 13. On the other hand, the case of defence is false implication due to land dispute and earlier F.I.R. vide Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 for the same day of occurrence was lodged against the informant party. No oral evidence has been adduced by defence but following documentary evidence has been relied upon: Exhibit A : Charge-sheet of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 436/511, 427 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against 12 named accused persons including the informant of this case. No oral evidence has been adduced by defence but following documentary evidence has been relied upon: Exhibit A : Charge-sheet of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.124 of 1990 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 436/511, 427 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against 12 named accused persons including the informant of this case. Exhibit B : Certified copy of order sheet of the Court of Munsif Giridih passed in Title Suit No.65 of 1980 dated 22.01.1982. Exhibit C : Decree in Suit No.65 of 1980 Exhibit D : Certified copy of judgment of G.R. Case No.1608 of 1989 dated 28.05.2004, wherein accused persons Gani Mian, Gulam Mian and Mukhtar Mian were acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 324, 325/34 of the I.P.C. 14. From the aforesaid discussion of oral evidence adduced by prosecution, it appears that except P.W.5 (informant-cum-sole inujred Md. Jalil), no one is eye witness of the occurrence because all other ladies who had been examined are family members of the informant and were inside the house and admitted that they have not seen the occurrence rather came to know after happening of the same. The informant himself admits that he fell down in the street adjacent to his house during the occurrence. The phase of occurrence was also a land where several stone chips and pebbles were scattered. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined to prove the exact place of occurrence and effects of the bomb explosion as alleged by the prosecution. No remains of bomb has been seized in this case and produced during trial. P.W.3 (Dr. Arvind Kumar) who conducted medical examination of the injured has also found simple injury to the injured 6”x4” over left side of back. Although in the injury report, it is stated that it was caused by bomb blast but there is no scientific examination report showing the injury to be caused by bomb blast. The doctor himself admitted in his cross-examination that he examined the patient clinically and did not apply any chemical substance to ascertain the cause of injury and also admits that such type of injury may also be caused by electric shock. He also admits that no foreign substance showing the particles of bomb were found in the injury of the patient. 15. He also admits that no foreign substance showing the particles of bomb were found in the injury of the patient. 15. In the above material aspects of the case, it cannot be concluded conclusively that the injury sustained by the informant was caused by bomb explosion. The nature of injury is also simple caused on the back side of the injured. It is also admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the accused (present appellant) was also standing at a distance of only 2 ft. at the time of explosion also explodes the factum of bomb explosion else it might cause injury to the appellant also. The Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined but as a measure of absolute caution, I have perused the case diary at para 10 of which there is description of place of occurrence, wherein it is mentioned that although it is alleged that injured was laid down and sustained injuries by bomb blast but at the place of occurrence, no any article connecting bomb explosion was found and noticed. Therefore, the claim of injured that at the place of occurrence, there was 2 ft. ditch due to explosion is also falsified. The overall discussion of evidence goes to show that there was case and counter case between the parties and there was involvement of several persons in the occurrence and it is most probable that the injured has sustained injuries due to fall on the earth where admittedly pebbles and stone chips were scattered. 16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I am of the definite conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Section 3 07 of the I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act is not based upon consideration of materials available on record. The evidence of witnesses has also not been properly considered in the light of materials elicited in the cross-examination. The prosecution story as projected does not inspire confidence and shrouded with doubt and there is motive behind false implication due to land dispute. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 18. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.