Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.309 of 1999 **** Against the judgment, dated 11th October, 1999, passed bySri Vivekanand Jha, Additional Sessions Judge, III, Muzaffarpur, in S. Tr. No. 380 of 1997 **** Chuchun Tripathy @ Chunchun Tripathy, son of late Jaimangal Tripathi, resident of village Kaparpoora, P.S. Kanti, district Muzaffarpur .. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the Appellant .. Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Respondent .. Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh, APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged by Noor Mohammad, informant, that he is an Advocate Clerk of Mr. Navendu Narain, Adv., and on the day of occurrence, i.e., 08.05.1997, while he was going from his office to the Court of Mr. B.R. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, and reached near the Court of Mr. Birendra Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, then four persons, namely, Chunchun TripathyLalan Tripathy, Sanjay Tripathy and 2 Anil Tripathy, were standing there and out of them Chunchun Tripathy threw bomb on his person and he got injury of bomb and any how managed to escape by scaling the boundary wall. One more person has also got injured and he alleged that a case for offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code with regard to murder of his father is going on in which Chunchun Tripathy and Lalan Tripathy are accused and after release from jail they are pressuring for compromise. 4. On the fardbeyan the first information report lodged and after investigation the charge sheet submitted. 5. The trial Court took cognizance taken and committed the case to the Court of sessions consequently charge framed under Sections 307 of the Penal Code and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 6. During the trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. However out of six witnesses examined, P.Ws. 1 and 2 declared hostile as not supported the prosecution case, P.W. 3 is the doctor, who examined the informant as well as one Surendra Sahni also found lacerated wound on the person of the victim. P.W. 4 is, again, Surendra Sahni, another injured, however, though has supported the prosecution case about the injury sustained by the explosion of bomb, but, has not identified the accused, P.W. 5 is the informant and has supported the prosecution case and P.W. 6 is the police officer and has proved the fardbeyan, marked as Exhibit 2 and the endorsement on the fardbeyan marked as Exhibit 2/1. However, he stated that he did not find any sign of the blood at the place of occurrence. He arrested the accused persons. He, further, proved the formal first information report and the injury report. 3 7. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses convicted the appellant for offence under Section 324 of the Penal Code, however, acquitted him for the offence under Sections 307 of the Penal Code as well as 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the only evidence against the appellant is evidence of P.W. 5 and none has supported the prosecution case regarding the implication of the appellant facing the trial and the other co-accused, Lalan Tripathy, has been acquitted. However, regard to the fact that the informant has supported the prosecution case about the explosion of bomb and the injury report has been supported by the doctor, P.W. 3, and the injury has found on the person of the informant and P.Ws. 2 and 4 have also supported the prosecution case that he got injury due to bomb explosion. 9. Hence, taking into consideration the evidence that there are evidence to support the prosecution case, however, having regard to the facts that occurrence is of the year 1997 and the appellant has suffered the rigour of prosecution case since then and has remained in jail for about six months and, hence, the end of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone by him. 10. The appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 16th day of November, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.