Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear proof of intent to kill; mere injuries or hostile testimony without corroborating evidence are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

The present appeal preferred by appellant/convict against judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 17.02.2004 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in S.Tr. No. 36/96 and 227/97 whereby and whereunder appellant/convict has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 3 months. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The crux of prosecution, as it appears from the written information of the informant/PW-3 namely, Chandradeo Yadav that on 08.07.1995 at village-Malwan informant's wife Laxminia Devi was going from home taking her she-goat and in the meantime, Ram Dayal Paswan S/o Karu Paswan caught hold of her and assaulted. When the informant went to the house of the accused he fled away. It is further alleged that on the next day i.e. on 09.07.1995 at about 4:00 P.M. accused Ramdayal Paswan attacked on the informant with intention to kill him but the informant escaped without any injury and informant's uncle Sarjun Yadav (PW-5) and Dilip Sah (PW-1) sustained injuries due to explosion of bomb hurled by the accused. Besides them one ox of Ramadhar Sao was also injured. The accused Ramdayal Paswan and Nathun Paswan who is son of Parikha Paswan having pistol in hand gave threats and uttered that "markar khopdi ura do". On hulla, the accused after hurling bomb fled away and the injured persons were taken to Obra hospital for treatment. Many persons were gathered at the time of occurrence.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written information and after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against accused/appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act .

4. After commitment, learned trial court explained charges to appellant/accused, on the basis of materials collected during investigation, which he pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial.

5. To established its case before the learned trial court, the prosecution altogether examined total of nine witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dilip Sao, PW-2 Imamuddin Ansari, PW-3 Chandradeo Yadav (informant), PW-4 Moti Yadav, PW-5 Sarjun Yadav, PW-6 Shankar Sao, PW-7 Laxminia Devi, PW-8 Indrajit Kumar Singh (formal witness) and PW-9 Akshya Lal Singh, (Investigating Officer).

6. The prosecution also exhibited following documents during the trial to substantiate its case which are as:-

Exhibits 1 & 1/1 - Signatures of seizure list: Imamuddin Ansari and Ramadhar Sao.

Exhibit–2 Sanction order by DM, Aurangabad

Exhibit-3 Endorsement on the written FIR report.

Exhibit-4: Formal FIR

Exhibit-5 Seizure list, including, (a) small tin pieces. (b) a big piece of tin and (c) a small glass piece.

Exhibit-6 Forwarding Challan, sending seized items to the court during trial.

Exhibit-7 & 7/1 Injury reports of 2 injured persons prepared by the police

Exhibit-8 & 8/1 2 injury reports given by the doctor and these reports have also been proved by the I.O. himself.

Exhibit-9 Requisition letter seeking sanction for prosecution sent by police to DM.

7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses and by taking note of evidences and inc