Criminal Appeal No.266 OF 1994 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in S.T. No.23 of 1984] 1. AMARNATH MAHTO SON OF LATE RAM BILAS MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LATRAHA, POLICE STATION JALLEY, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 2. SHIV SHANKAR MAHTO SON OF SRI AYODHAYA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOGHARA, POLICE STATION JALLEY, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal No.268 of 1994 (S.J.) 1. RAJ KISHORE PASWAN SON OF RAM SARAN PASWAN 2. JIWAN PASWAN SON OF LALA PASWAN, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BALBHADRAPUR (NAVTOLIA), P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 3. LAL BIHARI PASWAN SON OF SITA RAM PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ALALPATTI, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA …… Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Vishwanath Pd Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate Mr. Prabhash Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Murli Dhar, Addl. P.P. Mr. M.K. Khare, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to R.I. for three years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in S.T. No.23 of - 2 - 1984 by a judgment dated 28.7.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.7.1982 at about 1 P.M. the informant suddenly heard a bomb explosion from the house of one Ram Prit Mahto and when he went there he saw smoke coming and four persons were injured including the appellants, who were suspected to have been involved in manufacturing bombs. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.13 and P.W.14 are formal. P.W.7 is tendered and P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 have been declared hostile. P.W.11 is the informant, whereas the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the material witnesses. 4. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, the only evidence that has transpired is that the appellants had been seen injured at the place of occurrence. None of the witnesses stated that the appellants had been seen manufacturing the bombs or were in possession of the same. Admittedly Ram Prit Mahto, in whose house bombs were manufactured, has not been examined during trial. 5. In view of complete paucity of any evidence on record, which would prove the fact that the appellants have indulged in manufacturing or were in possession of explosive substance, I am inclined to acquit the appellants. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on - 3 - 28.7.1994 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in S.T. No.23 of 1984 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 2nd May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )