Vinod Prasad, J. - Appellants who are four in number have filed present ap­peal being aggrieved by their conviction under section 307/34 IPC and impose sen­tence of four years with fine of Rs. 100/-each imposed by IV Additional Session's Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 302 of 1980, State v. Har Sukh and others dated 4.3.1981. 2. The perusal of the impugned judgment revealed that initially the afore­said appellants were tried in Criminal Case No. 139 of 1979 by Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj for offences under sections 323 and 324 IPC and for those charges they were sentenced to six months and two years R.I. respectively. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the aforesaid ac­cused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1980 before Session's Judge who, although, set aside their aforesaid conviction and sen­tence but finding offence under section 307 IPC disclosed against the accused directed Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj for commit­ting the case of the appellants to the Court of Session's for trial. It is how that S.T. No. 302/1980, State v. Har Sukh and others, was registered before the Session's Court, which was allotted to IV Additional Ses­sion's Judge, Farrukhaoad for trial and de­cision. 3. In nutshell prosecution allegations were that on 13.6.1977 at 8.00 p.m. appel­lant Har Sukh and his son Ram Dass were stacking woods over the heap of woods kept by informant Ram Bharosey at the open space near the informant's house. When informant objected to then Har Sukh and his son started vetuparising informant. When Ram Bharosey informant objected to the said hurling of abuses then accused Har Sukh armed with spade, Ram Dass armed with Gandasa, Itwari and Ram Dayal both brothers of Har Sukh armed with lathi en­circled informant. Ram Chandra and one Chottey lal and started belabouring them from their respective weapons. Shrieks of informant and other injured attracted Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad at the scene of the incident, who had witnessed the assault and saved the informant and other persons. Ram Bharosey thereafter got F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-1 scribed from Ramendra Kumar and lodged it at po'ice station Thatiya, district Farrukhabad at 3.45 p.m. vide Ext. Ka-2. After registration of crime aforesaid three injured Ram Swarup, Chotey lal and Ram Bharosey were dispatched to Government Hospital for medical examination. Doctor N.R. Sharma medically examined these injured and prepared their injury reports Ext. Ka 4, Ka-5 and Ka-6. 4. Ka-2. After registration of crime aforesaid three injured Ram Swarup, Chotey lal and Ram Bharosey were dispatched to Government Hospital for medical examination. Doctor N.R. Sharma medically examined these injured and prepared their injury reports Ext. Ka 4, Ka-5 and Ka-6. 4. Investigation into the crime was commenced by Sub-Inspector Mahendra Pal Singh, who prepared site plan Ext. Ka-7 recorded investigatory statement under section 161 Cr.P.C and concluding it charge-sheeted the accused vide Ext. Ka-8. 5. In respect of this very incident on the same day 13.6.1977 at 5.30 p.m. ac­cused-appellant Har Sukh also lodged a cross F.I.R. against informant Ram Bha­rosey, his son Chotey lal and Ram Swarup under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC vide Exhibits Ka-9 and Ka-10. 6. On the basis of charge-sheet sub­mitted against the appellants they were summoned and their case was committed to the Session's Court as is mentioned above. Trial Judge charged all the appel­lants under sections 307/34 IPC on 15.10.1980, which charges were read out and explain to the accused, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the levelled charge prosecution examined informant Ram Bharosey as the sole eye-witness of the inci­dent, who also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. According to his deposition, both sides had a brawl among themselves all-of-a-sudden and there was ho pre-existing enmity. It was also testified that both the sides had com­promised the lis and no other witness in­cluding Ram Chandra and Ram Prasad wanted to testify against the accused per­sons. Beside aforesaid witness, prosecution tendered documentary evidences on vari­ous exhibits as has already been mentioned herein above. The defence Exhibits Ka-9 and Ka-10 were also accepted and admitted in evidence under section 294 Cr.P.C. 8. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused persons denied prose­cution allegation and claimed right of pri­vate defence and a cross version. It was stated by accused Ram Dass and Itwari that they had also sustained injuries in the same incident. 9. After looking into the prosecution case, Trial Judge concluded that all the four appellants were guilty under section 307/34 IPC, as the prosecution had estab­lished the aforesaid charge against them beyond any shadow of doubt and there­fore, convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them to four years R.I. with Rs. 9. After looking into the prosecution case, Trial Judge concluded that all the four appellants were guilty under section 307/34 IPC, as the prosecution had estab­lished the aforesaid charge against them beyond any shadow of doubt and there­fore, convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them to four years R.I. with Rs. 100/- fine the default sentence being one month simple imprisonment vide im­pugned judgment and order rioted 4.3.1981, which is under challenged in the instant appeal. 10. At the time when the appeal was called out for hearing, nobody appeared and therefore, Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava was appointed as amicus Curiae to argue the appeal. Sri Radhashyam, advocate has also appeared on behalf of the appellants but there is no power on his behalf on the record of appeal, therefore, I have heard Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned amicus curiae and Sri A.P. Singh, learned AGA in opposition. 11. Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned amicus curiae assisting the Court after perusal of the record intimated that out of the four, three of the appellants ap­pellant No. 1 Har Sukh, appellant No. 2 Itwari and appellant No. 3 Ram Dayal had died in support of the said argument, learned amicus curiae invited attention of the Court on a report submitted by C.J.M., Farrukhabad dated 15.3.2007. He further pointed out a police report submitted by P.S, Thathio, District Kannauj dated 7.3.2007, certificate by Pradhan of village panchayat Bahsuia Umdi, district Kannauj and statement of various persons Ram Naresh, Sukh Nandan, Dev Raj Singh etc. in that respect. In such a view, there was credible evidence on record that the afore­said three persons have expired and, there­fore, in their respect, their appeals were abated vide order dated 29.6.2009. This has now left this Court only to consider appeal of appellant Ram Das. 12. Learned amicus curiae pointed out that the Trial Court record has also been weeded out. In this respect, learned amicus curiae pointed out various communications from the office of this Court and the Trial Court. Only available record in this Court is a copy of charge and the impugned judgement of the Trial Court. The incident occurred on 17.6.1977, 34 years ago. Three of the appellants are already dead. In this respect, learned amicus curiae pointed out various communications from the office of this Court and the Trial Court. Only available record in this Court is a copy of charge and the impugned judgement of the Trial Court. The incident occurred on 17.6.1977, 34 years ago. Three of the appellants are already dead. Perusal of the record does not indicate any specific role assigned to the appellant as the same could not be culled out from perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction. The sole eye-witness informant himself turned hos­tile and had compromised the lis. No other witness has been produced by the prosecu­tion and in such a view, in my humble opinion, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending on the dockets of this Court or remanding it back to the Trial Judge for de-novo trial. 13. In view of above, appeal of appel­lant Ram Das is hereby allowed. He is ac­quitted of the charqe under section 307/34 I.P.C. He is on bail, he need not surrender and his surety and bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appeal of rest of the three ap­pellants as already mentioned above stood abated. 14. A copy of this judgment be certi­fied to the Trial Judge for its intimation. Appeal Allowed.