The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and essential evidence and corroboration of testimonies are crucial in establishing the case.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 15.9.2001 passed by Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava, learned Adhoc. Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions trial no. 14/1993 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant and one accused Pramod Tiwari for the offence punishable under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to undergo the period already undergone by them in jail custody and furthermore, he convicted accused Awdhesh Tiwari for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the aforesaid accused was also sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by him in course of trial.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Ashok Kr. Singh gave his fardbeyan on 1.4.1992 at about 3.55 p.m. to the SI of Mairwa police station to this effect that on the same day at about 11 p.m. while he along P.W 2 and some others were returning from their school and reached south side of primary school of village, accused Awdhesh Tiwari along with accused Pramod Tiwari and the appellant came there and accused Awdhesh Tiwari ordered to kill him and after that accused Awdhesh Tiwari hurled bomb on him which hit him and he sustained injury. The accused Pramod Tiwari and the appellant were also carrying bombs but when he fell down on earth, the appellant and two others fled away from there. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by his co-villagers and after the occurrence, he was taken to Mairwa hospital. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, Mairwa P.S. case no.34/1992 for the offences under sections 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/ 5 of the Explosive Substance Act was registered and accordingly, formal first information report was drawn for the aforesaid offences against the appellant and two others. The matter was investigated by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, Investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant and two others for the offences under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way.

5. The appellant along with co–accused Pramod Tiwari was charged for the offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Awdhesh Tiwari was separately charged for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant as well as other accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, four witnesses and proved seizure list as exhibit 1. The statements of the appellant and the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C in which they reiterated their innocence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and other accused in support of their defence.

7. The learned trial court, having relied upon the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2 coupled with seizure list and the materials available on the case diary, passed the impugned judgment and sentence order in the manner as stated above.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that injured of this case was not examined by prosecution nor any injury report was brought on record. He further submitted that neither Investigating officer nor doctor was examined and, as a matter of fact, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant only on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

9. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that P.W 2 has supported the prosecution story and claimed himself to be an eye-witness of alleged occurrence and similarly, P.W. 1 is a witness of se