JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The appellant No. 1, namely, Baya Gagrai has been died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, his appeal stands abated vide order dated 21.08.2025. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 18.01.2003 and 20.01.2003 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 372 of 1995 arising out of Chakradharpur (Toklo) P.S. Case No.86 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the present appellant along with deceased appellant have been held guilty for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections ¾ of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. The appellants have further been directed to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. We have already heard the arguments of Mrs. Amrita Sinha, learned amicus curiae for the alive appellant namely Jenjo Bankira and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant Suniya Samad along with his uncle Chaitan Samad were working in their field. Uncle was ploughing the field and the informant was cutting the bushes and aunt of the informant after giving them food in the field went for taking bath in the nearby river. It is further alleged that in the meantime, three persons came to the field of the informant and started talking with his uncle in connection with purchase of some Bamboo and two persons namely Baya Gagrai (since deceased) and Jenjo Bankira (present appellant) were standing nearby. The informant identified only two miscreants out of five persons and has alleged that one of the miscreants threw bomb on the informant’s uncle causing injuries on his back and thereafter fled away. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act against above accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 5. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act against above accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 5. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. No. 372 of 1995 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence of the appellants was passed which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 6. Learned amicus curiae for the present appellant has submitted that altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and except the informant, none have claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 were mentioned in the F.I.R. as an eye witness but have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 is the informant who has not corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. and his evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies. None of the witnesses have attributed any overt act against the present appellant-Jenjo Bankira. No prior enmity or any kind of scuffle has been attributed against the present appellant at the time of relevant occurrence, rather, it is simply stated that he was present along with three main miscreants who were talking for purchase of Bamboo from the informant’s uncle. It is further submitted that the present appellant has been convicted only with assistance of Section 34 of the IPC but no ingredient of any common intention of the present appellant with other co-accused persons have been proved which were shared by the present appellant and in furtherance of which the alleged occurrence took place. The appellant is absolutely innocent and has wrongly been held guilty by the learned trial Court overlooking the material evidence available against him. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Submissions on behalf of the State 7. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Submissions on behalf of the State 7. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly appreciated and analyzed the evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant does not suffer from illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference. There is no legal substance in the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 8. We have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions of the parties. 9. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?” Analysis, reasons and decision 10.Before delving on merits of the case, we have to consider the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1, Shankarlal Charniya has simply proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-1 and Seizure List as Exhibit-2 which was not prepared in his presence. P.W.-2, Suniya Samad, has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 8:00am, he along with his uncle Chaitan Samad were working on their field, meanwhile, five persons came there, out of them, he identified Baya Gagrai, Kabe, Neno, Bankira who had come to purchase Bamboo. After visiting the place of Bamboo and examining its size, the accused persons returned, meanwhile, Baya Gagrai (since deceased) threw a bomb on Chaitan Samad and Bomb was brought by Baya Gagrai and Neno was bearing the bag of Bomb. He has further deposed that Chaitan Samad sustained bomb injuries by bomb blasting on his leg back side and fell down and died on the spot. He lodged a report of this case and proved his Fardbeyan as Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, he categorically admits that except him, none of the witnesses were present at the time of occurrence. P.W.-3, Balma Kui, is the wife of the deceased. According to her evidence, she brought food in the field and went for taking bath. He lodged a report of this case and proved his Fardbeyan as Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, he categorically admits that except him, none of the witnesses were present at the time of occurrence. P.W.-3, Balma Kui, is the wife of the deceased. According to her evidence, she brought food in the field and went for taking bath. Later on, she came to know that her husband has been assaulted by throwing bomb by Baya Gagrai and Jenjo Bankira. Accordingly, she is not an eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.-4, Bara Samad , is the son of deceased. He claims to be present at the time of occurrence on his field but he along with accused persons went to show the Bamboo Sticks to the Baya Gagrai and Jenjo Bankira. Thereafter, he went back to his home. Therefore, he is also not an eye witness of the occurrence, rather, further says that he heard sound of bomb explosion and went to the place of occurrence and found his father died. At that time, he was aged about 8 years. P.W.-5, Paro Samad, is the daughter of the deceased. She was also present at his house at the time of occurrence and later on she came to know that her father has been assaulted by throwing bomb but she cannot tell the name of any accused persons. P.W.-6, Gorelal Gagrai, is also hearsay witness from Soma Samad. Thereafter, he went to see the dead body of the deceased. The informant gave his statement in ‘Ho’ language which was translated by him in Hindi before the police and he also signed on the Fardbeyan of the informant which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. P.W.-7, Kunwar Singh Gagrai, who after hearing Halla in the village went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the Chaitan Samad caused by bomb explosion. In his presence, police seized the blood-stained earth and small pieces of lead, baring ball of cycle and proved his signature along with signature of another witness Churam Singh Sardar as exhibit-3 and exhibit 3/1. He has also proved his signature and the signature of Churam Singh Sardar on inquest report. P.W.-8, Anil Kumar Mawad, was the then Officer-in-Charge of Toklo Police Station. According to his evidence, on 07.05.1993 at 14:15 hours, village chowkidar informed him about the murder of a person. He has also proved his signature and the signature of Churam Singh Sardar on inquest report. P.W.-8, Anil Kumar Mawad, was the then Officer-in-Charge of Toklo Police Station. According to his evidence, on 07.05.1993 at 14:15 hours, village chowkidar informed him about the murder of a person. Accordingly, he made SD Entry No. 90 and along with other police personnels proceeded for the place of occurrence at Village Hatnabeda. He saw the dead body of Chaitan Samad where Fardbeyan of his nephew was recorded. He also prepared inquest report, seizure list and send the dead body for post-mortem examination, inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of other witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. P.W.-9, Dr. D.B. Dayal, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 08.05.1993 at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa as CAS and found following: A wound with burnt margin (irregular shaped) 11”x9”x bone and viscera deep, right sided of back. On dissection All ribs of right sides fractured. Right lung ruptured. Liver Ruptured. Right Kidney Ruptured. Heart Ruptured. Left lung ruptured. Stomach contains boiled rice about 150 gms. Urinary Bladder-Empty Time since death-within 36 hours Cause of death-Due to above injuries Weapon used-Bomb Blast He has proved the post-mortem report and marked as Exhibit-7. 11.From the aforesaid discussion of testimony of ocular witnesses particularly the sole eye witness who happens to be informant of this case, we find that no role has been attributed against the appellant-Jenjo Bankira, neither, he fetched the Bamboo for purchase nor he negotiated to purchase the Bamboo as alleged in the F.I.R. It is also not proved that he was having bag of Bomb in his hand or in any manner assisted the other co- accused persons in blasting the bomb upon the deceased. We find that the learned trial Court has simply swayed upon his name appearing in the evidence of some witnesses showing his presence at the time of occurrence. No ingredient of Section 34 of the IPC has been proved against the present appellant- Jenjo Bankira. Therefore, the judgement of conviction and sentence of the appellant appears to be beyond the weight of evidence and not warranted under law. Learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence available on record against the present appellant-Jenjo Bankira and arrived at wrong conclusion about his guilt. Therefore, the judgement of conviction and sentence of the appellant appears to be beyond the weight of evidence and not warranted under law. Learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence available on record against the present appellant-Jenjo Bankira and arrived at wrong conclusion about his guilt. 12.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the present appellant passed by learned trial Court in S.T. No. 372 of 1995 is hereby, set aside and this appeal is allowed. 13.In result, the present appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 14.The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 15.Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 16.Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 17.We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Ms. Amrita Sinha within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18.Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.