The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the importance of conclusive evidence, and the necessity for compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2002 passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in sessions Trial No. 267 of 1995/214 of 2000 whereby the appellants have been convicted for an offence under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under section 324/34 IPC and the appellant No. 1 Kaushal Kishore Rai has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 5 thousand under section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and incase of default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. However all the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.11.1994 at about 8.30 p.m. while the informant along with Ram Lakhan Rai, his covillager, was returning after easing themselves from an orchard, they saw all the named accused of the F.I.R. standing carrying lathi in their hands and identified them in the moon-light night. The informant thought that all the named accused had returned from the “Jhanda Mela” and had gone to the orchard for easing themselves. As the informant and his companion moved towards their house, the accused, Kaushal Kishore Rai and Shiv Ji Rai ordered to catch hold and to kill the informant, on which the informant and his companion, Ram Lakhan Rai tried to flee away. The accused, Kaushal Kishore Rai hurled a bomb upon the informant with an intention to kill him, which caused injury upon the right leg and thumb of the left hand of the informant. Latkan Rai also received injury by bomb on his left leg just below the knee. The villagers arrived and saved the life of the informant and his companion. The motive behind the occurrence was the differences regarding the fair-price shop of the accused, Kaushal Kishore Rai, on account of which villagers were divided into two groups.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 100 of 1994 was instituted for the offence under Sections 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act against 11 accused persons. After investigation charge sheet was submitted charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. After cognizance the case was committed to the Court of session on 6.11.1995. On framing of charges the appellants pleaded not guilty and as such they were put on trial.

4. During trial altogether 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PWs. 1 and 2 are hearsay witnesses. PW-3 is the formal witness as he is seizure list witness. PW-4 is the companion of the informant. PW-5 is the informant, PW-6 is the IO who submitted charge sheet, PW-7 is the IO who investigated the case, PW-8 is the doctor who examined the injured.

5. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in the present case the police after investigation submitted charge sheet against 11 persons. Out of 11 persons 9 have been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt. The appellants herein have been convicted by the trial court. Referring to the injury report and the deposition of the doctor Mr. Sinha submitted that on scrutiny of the evidence of the PW-8 it appears that the appellants have been convicted only on suspicion. The materials available on record does not conclusively indicate that the appellants are guilty for causing injury to the informant. He submits that the doctor in his opinion has not indicated the part of the body of the informant on which he has sustained explosive substance injury. Such vague opinion of the doctor cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellants for offence under the Explosive Substances Act.

6. Mr. Sinha next submitted with reference to the deposition of the IO of th