JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 28.10.2003 and order of sentence 29.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, FTC, Latehar, in Sessions Case No. 373 of 1994, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 307/120-B of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of Asha Joseph, recorded by Chandwa police in the District of Latehar (Jharkhand), stated that on 02.04.1993 at about 10.30 AM, she was returning from school to her home then at about 200 yards west from road near the house of one Keshwar Sao, two unknown persons aged about 20 to 25 years wearing full pants and shirts restrained her by standing before her and at that time one Chandra Kanti Devi, maid servant of the school was also accompanying the informant. It is further alleged that out of two unknown persons who tried to restrain her, the one wearing red shirt attempted to shot her by country made pistol, which did not fire and in that course, some scuffle took place with her and then on his instruction, his associate threw a bomb on the informant which exploded and caused injury in the leg of the informant and when the informant raised alarm, people gathered and both the persons ran away.

3. The informant disclosed the reason for the incident stating in her concluding paragraph of her Fardbayan that before this incident, the accused-appellant Agatha Soren had threatened several times to her as the accused -appellant had been in the litigating terms with the informant for the post of principal and the informant was the principal after winning the case from High Court. The informant further alleged that the accused- appellant had stated to a senior teacher Noyla Barla that his goons were present everywhere and at his instance the culprits had committed this incident by exploding “bomb.” The informant further alleged that the accused-appellant Agatha Soren had warned to the maid of the school as to why she moved with headmistress as her Bodyguard and threatened her not to accompany the informant. It has further been stated by the informant that on earlier occasion on the day of Janmashtami the offender had entered into the house assaulted her by knife.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant Asha Joseph of village Kusum Toli, P.S. Chandwa, dist-Lateher, Chandwa, P.S. Case No. 22 of 1993 under Section 324 and 307 of the IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act was registered. After the investigation, the charge-sheet under Section 324, 307, 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act was submitted against the accused-appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which is under challenge in the form of this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Manoj Tondon, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments on behalf of the learned defence counsel

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended at the outset that the I.O. in this case has not been examined and therefore the manner, mode and other incriminating evidences have not been proved in order to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR and this is a clear cut case where non-examination of the I.O. for such grievous offence, in which, this appellant has been convicted under Section 307 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act is fatal to the prosecution, but the learned trial court without appreciating and going into the details of the evidences and without depreciating the non-examination of the I.O. in this case, sweepingly held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under sections