Mandhata Singh, J. – Statement/Fardbeyan of Jamun Das P.W.7 has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in short, is that in the intervening night of 23/24 of July, 1992 at about 12.30 AM the informant arose hearing alarm/hue and cry of his brother Shyamdeo Das and sister-in-law Domani Devi, came out of the room along with his wife, saw accused appellant Ram Sewak Das, Dhrub Das and Tahal Das in his veranda assaulting his brother Shyamdeo Das and sister-in-law, caught wrist of accused Dhrub Das with dagger which he was intending to use. On his attack he left his hand, took a Danda with a view to defend himself. Accused appellant Ram Sewak Das hurled a bomb on him causing injuries on his head, both hands and back. Some one of accused persons was calling his nephew Ramashray Das but he did not come out.

2. Difference in between the parties was on the point of calling accused appellant’s mother Dyne.

3. The trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellant only for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act.

4. In all seven witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W.1 Ram Ashray Das, P.W.2 Ram Shresth Das, P.W.3 Feku Das, P.W. 4 Domani Devi, P.W.5 Shiv Narain Mahto one of the I.Os. of the case who has investigated later part of the investigation, P.W.6 Shyamdeo Das and P.W.7 Jamun Das informant of the case. A witness also is examined on behalf of defence who is Ram Das D.W.1.

5. Exhibit-1 is signature of witnesses on seizure list and a report from Forensic Science Laboratory of K.N.Sinha, Senior Scientific Officer (Explosive), Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna. Exhibit-2 series are signature and writing of injury reports and exhibit-3 is sanction order for prosecution against this accused appellant.

6. Allegation about injuries caused to informant’s brother and sister-in-law after entering their room is not believed in the case was the part of evidence of witnesses is not necessary to be looked into. This Court concerns with the material on the point of involvement of accused appellant in hurling a bomb and if really then it hit the informant.

7. Prosecution case is to the effect that after receiving injury, matter was informed to the Police. Injured were examined by different doctors, remaining splinters collected (seized) by the I.O. sent to concerned department for its examination if were of explosion.

8. On this point (hurling of bomb and injury to P.W.7) P.W.1 states to come out from his room and saw his uncle Jamun Das in injured condition. P.W.2 states about presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence and exploding bomb by this accused appellant which injured Jamun Das P.W.7 of the case. There can be suspicion that really he was an eye witness of the case, his attention has been drawn by the defence in paragraph 6 of the cross-examination in which he states that to Darogaji he had stated that he was not an eye witness of the case.

9. Another witness P.W.3 states about hurling of bomb by this accused appellant on Jamun Das which hit him also. To doubt his statement paragraph 4 of his cross examination it is pointed out by learned counsel for the accused appellant which is to the effect that after a month of the incident his statement was recorded if cannot be doubted then Jamun Das is examined in the case by a doctor to corroborate his injuries by explosive substance and on the point of explosion of bomb, a report from the concerned department was called for that really sign of explosion remained on the place of occurrence but submission of learned counsel for the accused appellant is that there is no admissible evidence/material in the case to believe the explosion or injuries by explosion of bomb. This part will be discussed later. First it is to consider that what other witnesses are stating on this point.

10. In this regard P.W.4 is the next witness. She states about causing of injuries by accused persons to her and her husband coming of