(1.) COUNSEL of Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1999. As far considering the contention of the learned counsel of Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1999 so raised and appreciation of the evidence of the material witnesses, namely, P.W.s. 4, 5, 7 and 10 who are closely related it appears that there was no damage either of the road and even to the motor cycle undoubtedly no injury was done to the person of the informant Prakash Chandra Yadav neither to the pillion rider Mantu Kumar (P.W. 7). PW. 2 Dhunkeshwar not related to the informant does not support the case and he only supports that he heard explosion of bomb. No independent witness though a crowd assembled was examined. Presence of P.W. 5 is doubtful and suspicious as he was posted at Barauni and he claimed that he was deputed by railway to receive the senior Officials who were to arrive at Jamalpur but could not produce any paper or order in support thereof to this effect. Thus he could be doubted as planted witness even his statement was recorded three days after the occurrence. 22. From the above discussions it is evidently clear that since there was no proper consent under section 7 of the Act, the court below has rightly acquitted the appellants under sec. 3/4 of the Act. As such Cr. Revision No. 241 of 2001 is dismissed as the point raised therein has no merit. 23. It is also apparent from the above discussions that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of the appellants in the alleged occurrence of throwing bomb has not been proved. As such the appellants deserve benefit of doubt and are acquitted of their charges under sec. 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1999. is allowed.