1. Heard Mr. Sumit Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. By this appeal, appellant / convicted accused, Brahmdeo Thakur, is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2004 passed by Sri Ram Pravesh Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2002 / 25 of 2002 (arising out of Sitamarhi Sadar P.S. Case No.284 of 2001, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under S.3 and S.4 of the Explosive Substances Act separately.

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the First Information Report, may, in brief, be described as under:
"The informant, namely, Nagendra Chaudhary (PW - 5) has stated that on 07.11.2001 at about 8:30 PM, one person came to his toddy shop for taking toddy and had taken three bottles of toddy and after consuming the toddy, he asked the person to pay the amount, but he gave some amount less than the price then he demanded more amount and had followed the accused for rest amount and then came to ring road where altercation took place. Meanwhile, the said person threw the bomb with a view to kill him. Fortunately, he managed to escape and the bomb fell in the nearby pond. Upon raising alarm, several persons came who over powered the said man (appellant) and caught him and after search, one live bomb was recovered from his bag and disclosed his name as Brahmdeo Thakur (appellant) and in the meantime, the police arrived and taken him into custody.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Nagendra Chaudhary (PW - 5), Sitamarhi Sadar P.S. Case No.284 of 2001 dated 08.11.2001 was registered under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused.

5. After investigation, charge - sheet has been submitted under S.307 of the IPC read with S.3 / 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and thereafter cognizance has also been taken under the same sections and then committed to the court of sessions for trial.

6. At the trial, charges, under S.307 of the IPC and under S.3 / 4 of the Explosive Substances Act were framed on 07.09.2002 against sole accused on which he pleaded no guilty.

7. In support of his case, the prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses, namely, Shyam Narain Prasad (PW - 1), neighbour, Lalbabu Sah (PW - 2), seizure list witness, Mahesh Choudhary (PW - 3), his shop is adjacent to the shop of informant, Yogal Mahto (PW - 4), neighbour, Nagendra Chaudhary, informant (PW - 5), shop owner, Chulhai Chaudhary (PW - 6), informant's father, Bachhi Devi (PW - 7), Informant's mother. Out of 7 witnesses, PWs - 5, 6 and 7 have been declared hostile. The accused during his examination under S.313(1)(b) of the CrPC denied the allegation and on his behalf, he has not examined any witness. The statement of the all 7 prosecution witnesses are as follows: -

8. PW - 1, neighbour of the informant stated that occurrence took place on 08.11.2001 at 1 AM in the night while he was sleeping in his house. Upon bomb explosion, he went there and came to know that at toddy shop of informant, some persons were taking toddy. When he demanded the price of toddy, then they started quarrelling on ring bandh. Then Brahmadeo Thakur (appellant) took out bomb from his jhola and threw at the informant. By chance, bomb fell into water, but he was apprehended by the villagers. Then one bomb was recovered also from his jhola. Subsequently, police arrived and took him into custody and prepared seizure list of bomb. He also put out a signature on the seizure list. The witness has identified his signature which has been marked as Ext. - 1. Witness also identified accused as the person who has apprehended on the date of occurrence. During cross examination also, witness has supported the prosecution case and defence has not been able to dismantle his evidence. In para 5 o