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. 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 woun