Vinod Prasad, J.:- Appellants, who are five in number namely Birey, Anil Kumar, Hori Lal, Shyam Chandra and Mani Shanker in these two connected appeals have challenged their conviction under sections 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and section 3 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and imposed sentences of two years RI on the first count, three years RI for each on the second and third counts. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial Judge/IV Additional Session's Judge, Mirzapur, which he had passed in S.T. No. 140 of 1979, State Vs. Shyam Shanker and others vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.81. Since both the appeals arises out of the same judgment, they were clubbed together and are being disposed off by this common order. Prosecution allegation against the appellants as was scribed by the informant Chhabile Mishra P.W. 7 were that he had animosity with accused Gore Lal, Shyam Chandra, Hori Lal, Ravi, Shyam Shanker, Birey, Anil Kumar and Mani Shanker. Numerous litigations were pending in between them because of which, on 3.1.79 at 3.15 p.m., when informant was returning to Vindhyachal from Mirzapur along with Gangeshwar Prasad Mishra @ Gangeshwar Panda, in Jeep No. UPL 3482 owned by Moti Chandra and driven by Lalli @ Kalika Prasad P.W. 2 and, when they reached near Bojhla Kalvert, near cow shed and a well, then all of sudden from the ambush, appellant accused Mani Shanker, Shyam Chandra, Anil Kumar, Hori Lal, Birey, Shyam Shanker, Ravi and Gore Lal appeared at the scene and first five accused started hurling bombs with a motive to annihilate informant. Rest of the three accused Shyam Shanker, Ravi and Gore Lal resorted to firing with the said motive. One of the bombs exploded on the jeep while others exploded on the ground, injuring jeep driver Lalli @ Kalika Prasad P.W. 2, Baboo Lal Harijan and Bamb Bahadur Singh roadster ( Ikka) driver. After exploding bombs and resorted to firing, attackers escaped towards the railway line leaving a cloth bag with live bomb at the spot. Jeep in which informant and others were travelling was driven a head for about hundred paces and then was stopped. Informant and Gangeshwar Prasad Mishra alighted from it and they chased and apprehended one of the miscreant Anil Kumar at the spot. This incident was witnessed by Khissu P.W. 1, Gutru Nai and many others. Jeep in which informant and others were travelling was driven a head for about hundred paces and then was stopped. Informant and Gangeshwar Prasad Mishra alighted from it and they chased and apprehended one of the miscreant Anil Kumar at the spot. This incident was witnessed by Khissu P.W. 1, Gutru Nai and many others. Informant P.W. 7 thereafter scribed FIR Ext. Ka-4 and accompanied with injured went to the police station Katra, Mirzapur where he lodged it at 3.55 p.m. same day which F.I.R. was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and 3 Explosive Substances Act vide crime no. 5 of 79. P.W. 4 constable Rang Nath Upadhyay had registered the crime and had prepared chik FIR Ext. Ka-5 and GD entry Ext. Ka-6. Apprehended accused Anil Kumar was put in police lockup. Injured witnesses Bamb Bahadur, Lalli @ Kalika Prasad P.W.2 and Baboo Lal who were at the police station were sent for their medical examination to the district hospital along with constable Rama Shanker by I.O. S.I. Kavit Narain Singh P.W.9. Investigation into the crime was conducted by aforesaid SI Kabit Narain Singh P.W. 9, who at the pointing out of the informant, conducted spot inspection, prepared site plan Ext. Ka-20, seized roadster ( Ikka) and gave it in custody by preparing memo Ext. Ka-21. Potato bags, which were laden on the said roadster were also seized by the I.O. and were given in custody regarding which Ext. Ka-22 was prepared. Blood stained and plain earth were taken by the I.O. vide Ext. Ka-23. Pieces of lead and splinters of bombs were also seized vide recovery memo Ext. Ka-24. Jeep No. UPL 3482 was also seized and was given in the custody of the informant vide Ext. ka-25. From the spot, I.O. also recovered a cloth bag and a live bomb and had sealed it by preparing recovery memo Ext. Ka-26. Concluding investigation, he had laid a charge sheet against the accused vide Ext. Ka-27. Cloth bag was exhibited as material Ext. 13, towel material Ext. 14, splinters of bombs material Ext. 15, blood stained charcoal Ext. 16 and plain charcoal Ext. 17 have been proved by the I.O. P.W. 9. All the injured were medically examined same day by Dr. C.P. Singh P.W.3 vide Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-3 and these reports are produced as under:- Ext. 13, towel material Ext. 14, splinters of bombs material Ext. 15, blood stained charcoal Ext. 16 and plain charcoal Ext. 17 have been proved by the I.O. P.W. 9. All the injured were medically examined same day by Dr. C.P. Singh P.W.3 vide Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-3 and these reports are produced as under:- Ext. Ka-1 Examined Kalika Prasad @ Lalli aged about 43 years S/o Paranu R/o Vindhyachal, P.S. Vindhyachal, Mirzapur on 3.1.79 at 4.45 P.M. B/B S.I. Kabit Narain Singh P.S. Katra, Mirzapur. M.I.:- Raised black mole middle of left cheek. Injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound 2cm x 2cm x muscle deep with slight charring of the margin on upper and inner part of left forearm 10.5 cm below elbow. Smell of gun powder present. 2. Incised wound 9cm x 1/4cm x skin deep front side lower part of left leg. Nature u.o. Adv. X ray left forearm upper part. Duration fresh. Injury:- No caused by explosion and injury no. 2 sharp object. Ext. Ka-2 Examined Bamb Bahadur aged about 25 years S/o Matuk Dhari Singh R/o Vill. Mahuwari Kala, P.S. Vindhyachal, Mirzapur on 3.1.79 at 5 P.M. B/B S.I. Kabit Narain Singh P.S. Katra, Mirzapur. M.I.:- Old scar 2.5 cm x 1cm lower and outer part of left forearm 5cm above wrist. Injuries :- 1. Contusion 1cm x 1cm front of right shoulder. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2cm x 1/2cm x muscle on front and middle of chest 6cm below suprasternal notch. 3. Lacerated wound 2.5cm x 1cm x skin deep on front upper and inner part of left hand. Slight charring present, smell of gun powder present. Nature simple except injury no. 3 and Adv. X ray caused by blunt object- except ( 3) by explosion. Duration fresh. Ext. Ka-3 Examined Baboo Lal aged about 20 years S/o Darboli R/o Vill. Babura, P.S. Vindhyachal, Mirzapur on 3.1.79 at 4.30 P.M. B/B S.I. Kabit Narain Singh P.S. Katra, Mirzapur. M.I.:- 2 old scars:- 1. 2cm x ¼ cm outer part Rt. Eyebrow. 2. 1cm x ½cm, 1cm outer to No. ( 1) scar on Rt. Eyebrow. Injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound 4cm x 3cm on front and lower part of left forearm 6cm above wrist communicating with lacerated injury ( wound of exit) on back and lower part of left forearm 3cm x 4-1/2cm above wrist. Few side foreign body palpoled around on front wound. 2. Eyebrow. Injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound 4cm x 3cm on front and lower part of left forearm 6cm above wrist communicating with lacerated injury ( wound of exit) on back and lower part of left forearm 3cm x 4-1/2cm above wrist. Few side foreign body palpoled around on front wound. 2. Lacerated wound 5cm x 3cm x muscle deep, charring present around the wound on front and upper part of Rt. Thigh 24cm above knee. Communicating with injury outer part of Rt. Thigh 3cm x 2cm, 5cm outer and slightly lower to injury on front of thigh. All injuries u.o. Adv. X-ray left forearm and Rt. Thigh A.P. And lat view. Duration fresh. Caused by explosion. Accused persons were summoned and finding their offences triable by court of session's, their case was committed to session's court where it was registered as S.T. No. 140 of 79, State Vs. Shyam Shanker and others. IV Additional Session's Judge, Mirzapur charged the appellants for offences under sections 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 Explosive Substances Act vide order dated 23.3.79, which charges were denied by all the accused, who claimed to be tried. To establish it's case during trial, prosecution produced nine witnesses, out of whom Khissu P.W. 1, driver of the vehicle Lalli @ Kalika Prasad P.W. 2 and informant Chhabile Misra P.W. 7 were the fact witnesses. Tendered formal witnesses included Dr. C.P. Singh P.W. 3, constable clerk Rang Nath Upadhyay P.W. 4, photographer Ravindra Nath Dwivedi P.W. 5 ( who had photographed the spot and the jeep), SI Rama Shanker P.W. 6 ( who had proved process under 82-83 Cr.P.C.), Virendra Kumar Singh, police driver, who had inspected and checked the jeep in question P.W. 8, and I.O. Kabit Narain Singh P.W. 9. Accused persons in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidences against them and pleaded their false implication. IV Additional Session's Judge, Mirzapur after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, evidences tendered before it and after hearing arguments of prosecution and the accused, concluded that appellant Mani Shanker, Shyam Chandra, Anil Kumar, Hori Lal and Birey were guilty under sections 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 Explosive Substances Act and, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Other three accused Shyam Shanker, Gore Lal and Ravi were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. Other three accused Shyam Shanker, Gore Lal and Ravi were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. It this conviction and sentence, which is under challenge in the instant appeal. I have heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R.P. Dwivedi for the appellants Birey, Hori Lal, Shyam Chandra and Mani Shanker and Miss Ibha Sinha, learned amicus curiae for the appellant Anil Kumar as well as Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned AGA in opposition for the State. At the very outset, Miss Ibha Sinha, learned amicus curiae pointed out that so far as her client appellant Anil Kumar is concerned, he had already expired on 17.12.2005. In such a view, appeal of appellant Anil Kumar being criminal appeal no. 2014 of 81 stands abated. This has left this Court to consider appeal of rest of the appellants Birey, Hori Lal, Shyam Chandra and Mani Shanker. Castigating and criticizing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, it is submitted by learned senior counsel that none of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and they have not narrated the actual incident. In support of the said argument, learned senior counsel relied upon injury no. 2 of Lalli @ Kalika Prasad vis a vis, testimony of doctor P.W. 3, who had stated that no incised wound can be caused by explosion of bomb. It is, therefore, contended that the entire prosecution story of causing injury to Lalli @ Kalika Prasad by bomb is false and cannot be attached with any credence. Next it was submitted that the trial Judge himself disbelieved substantial and major part of prosecution story of resorting to firing by three accused Shyam Shanker, Ravi and Gore Lal he has acquitted these three persons. It was, therefore, contended that testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and witnesses had escalated the number of accused and had deposed exaggerated, untruthful and unreliable statements. Further, supplementing the argument, it was contended that none of the injured persons had sustained any injury by firearm and, therefore, prosecution story that three persons had resorted to firing is absolutely false and untrue and, therefore, none of the prosecution witnesses can be dubbed as wholly truthful and reliable witness and consequently no reliance should be placed on such untruthful and incredible witnesses and hence conviction of the appellants be set aside and they be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. It was further submitted that perusal of the depositions of three fact witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 indicate that they had assigned specific role only to one of the appellant Mani Shanker and for other accused, no credible and reliable statements have been made by them and consequently, these accused except Mani Shanker be acquitted of all the charges. It was further contended that trial Judge himself has discarded testimony of Jeep driver P.W.1 Khissu and, for him, has held "This conclusively shows that Khissu had in fact not seen the occurrence and his name was included as a witness in the first information report because he was taken for granted on account of his association with Chhabile Mishra. On a close scrutiny of Khissu's testimony by all standard, I have come to the conclusion that he is not a person on whom reliance could be placed. I would, therefore, reject his testimony in toto." It is therefore, submitted that once the trial Judge has disbelieved testimony of P.W.1 Khissu then it is perceptibly clear that the prosecution story seems to have been embellished by induction of partisan, inimical and untruthful witnesses and in such a view the story developed by the informant P.W.7 Chhabile Misra could not have been attached with any credence. It is further contended that evidence of P.W.2 Lalli @ Kalika Prasad indicate that, he is an unreliable witness. From his cross-examination it is perceptibly clear that the bomb was thrown on the bonnet/mudguard of the Jeep and exploded but he continued to drive the Jeep and thereafter he had heard sound to exploding of bombs. Thereafter the Jeep stopped at a distance of two hundred or quarter to two hundred paces. Informant and Gangeshwar Mishra thereafter alighted from the Jeep but he has fainted and therefore, he could not state as to who came and who went. He contradicted and resiled from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement by testifying that he had never informed the I.O. that after stopping of the Jeep they had alighted from it and had chased the culprits. It is therefore, submitted that the Jeep driver P.W.2 could not have identified and located the appellants and therefore, so far as his testimony is concerned, it is not reliable and confidence inspiring. It is therefore, submitted that the Jeep driver P.W.2 could not have identified and located the appellants and therefore, so far as his testimony is concerned, it is not reliable and confidence inspiring. It was next contended that so far as informant is concerned he is a criminal having enmity with the appellants and therefore, he is inimical and partisan witness. He had not sustained any injury in the incident and therefore, his presence at the spot is extremely doubtful. It is further submitted that although informant had a rifle with him but during entire incident he had not used it which is very unnatural. Inviting attention on his cross-examination it is submitted that he had already faced two murder charges, one of which was a double murder case, as he was charged with annihilating Prem Lal and Gagun. He had also admitted that he had faced trial regarding murder of Ram Charan, who was his servant and the aforesaid murder charge was levelled on him by Ram Karan, brother of deceased Ram Charan. It is pointed out that on material aspects of the matter, this witness had deposed false statement as he does not remember for what purpose he had come to the court on the date of the incident. He also does not remember that who was his associates in the murder case of Ram Charan, although he had recollection that he had lodged a case against Janardan, Brijesh, Bhagwati, Shagun and Sri Narain, who were subsequently acquitted from the session's court. He also admitted that in the murder case of Gagun, he was given capital punishment but was acquitted from the High Court and on the date, when the present incident occurred, he was an accused in the murder case of Bhagwati. Informant also admitted that in an attempt to murder case on the life of one Bindu he was on bail. His cross-examination further reveals that he was convicted under Section 323/149 IPC and was involved in many other cases. It was on these submissions that it was contended that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the informant and therefore, drawing the curtain of the argument it was contended that appeal of the appellants be allowed and they be acquitted of the charges. It was on these submissions that it was contended that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the informant and therefore, drawing the curtain of the argument it was contended that appeal of the appellants be allowed and they be acquitted of the charges. Learned AGA, on the contrary, countenanced judgment of conviction and sentences and contended that it was a day light incident where three persons had sustained injuries and from the medical report it is clear that some of the injuries were caused by bomb and therefore, conviction of the appellants is well merited and should not be altered. Next he submitted that merely because a person had a criminal background is no reason not to believe his truthful and confidence inspiring statements. Further it was submitted that enmity is a double edged weapon and therefore, appellants had ample motive to commit the crime. Learned AGA, therefore, submitted that appeal of the appellants are meritless and therefore, be dismissed. I have considered the arguments raised by both the sides and have critically appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences of fact witnesses and have perused various exhibits. It is revealed from the perusal of the record that it is an incident, which occurred at 3.15 p.m. in the month of January 1979 at an open place near a culvert on the road when informant was going in a Jeep along with P.W.2 and Gangeshwar Prasad Mishra @ Gangeswar Panda. According to the prosecution charge, five persons had thrown bombs on the Jeep whereas three persons had fired on the informant. On such facts, it is very astonishing that informant did not sustain any injury in the incident. Gangeshwar Panda, who is the real brother of the informant never entered into the witness box to support prosecution case. He was a co-traveller and therefore, was the best witness. It is also very unconvincing that out of the three injured, two of them Bamb Bahadur Singh and Babu Lal Harijan also did not enter into the witness box to support the prosecution case. Only Jeep driver Kalika Prasad @ Lalli was examined as P.W.2. Perusal of his testimony during the trial indicate that he had levelled the charge of throwing bomb only on appellant Mani Shanker. He had not stated at all that other accused also threw bombs. Only Jeep driver Kalika Prasad @ Lalli was examined as P.W.2. Perusal of his testimony during the trial indicate that he had levelled the charge of throwing bomb only on appellant Mani Shanker. He had not stated at all that other accused also threw bombs. It is his deposition that Mani Shanker threw bomb first, which exploded on the mudguard and clutch and some portion of it exploded but he continued to drive. He had also sustained injury. When his jeep had moved ahead then he had heard explosion sound of other bombs. This statement in examination-in-chief was never got explained and prosecution never endeavoured to ask him as to whether other persons had thrown bombs or entire incident was committed only by two accused Anil and Mani Shanker. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 further revealed that he had not alleged that firing was resorted to at all during the incident. In such a view, it cannot be said convincingly that but for Mani Shanker and Anil rest of the appellants had participated in the incident. This witness has not been supported at all by P.W.1, as for sufficient and acceptable reasons, trial Judge has disbelieved presence of P.W.1 at the spot and has dubbed him as a planted and got up witness. It seems that after explosion of the first bomb, P.W.7 had also not seen other accused persons and only because of enmity has implicated them in the incident. In this respect, it is recollected that two other injured Bum Bahadur Singh, Babu Lal and co-traveller Gangeswar Prasad Mishra @ Gangeswar Panda, never entered into the witness box to justify the levelled charges. Thus informant's allegation that all the accused resorted to bomb throwing is not believable. Subsequent part of actual incident regarding firing made by Daya Shanker, Gore Lal and Ravi, has already been found to be incorrect by the trial Judge, who had acquitted them, which acquittal has attained finality. Informant had a rifle with him but he had not used it. This view that but for Mani Shanker and Anil, no other person participated in the incident also seems to be probable as a cloth bag having a live bomb was found at the spot. If five persons carried six bombs there was no difficulty in running away with the bag with the live bomb. This view that but for Mani Shanker and Anil, no other person participated in the incident also seems to be probable as a cloth bag having a live bomb was found at the spot. If five persons carried six bombs there was no difficulty in running away with the bag with the live bomb. It was left at the place of the incident only because Mani Shanker was involved in the crime along with Anil, the apprehended accused, and none of the rest of the appellants participated in the incident. This view is further cemented by the fact that had the accused being eight in number armed with bombs and countrymade pistols, only two person would not have mustered courage to chase them and apprehend Anil. In my view, informant is not a truthful person having a criminal background and his testimony indicate that he wanted to rope in as many person as he can and therefore, separating the grain from the chaff, I am of the view that but for Mani Shanker and Anil, ( expired accused), no other person participated in the incident and their implication is false. Closing the discussion, the residue conclusions are as follows:- Criminal Appeal 1957 of 1981, Birey Vs. State is allowed and aforesaid appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail, he need not surrender, his personal and surety bonds are discharged. Criminal Appeal No.2014 of 1981, Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. is allowed. Conviction of appellants Hori Lal and Shyam Chandra on all the charges are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of it. These appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby discharged. Appeal of appellant Mani Shanker is allowed in part. His conviction under Section 148 and 307/149 IPC is hereby set aside as there was no unlawful assembly. Instead this appellant is convicted under Section 307 IPC and 3 Explosive Substances Act. These appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby discharged. Appeal of appellant Mani Shanker is allowed in part. His conviction under Section 148 and 307/149 IPC is hereby set aside as there was no unlawful assembly. Instead this appellant is convicted under Section 307 IPC and 3 Explosive Substances Act. On the question of sentence, since incident occurred in 1979, thirty two years ago, and since prosecution had failed to bring on record any conviction of the appellant Mani Shanker in any other crime and since I find that the said appellant Mani Shanker had already undergone near about seven months of imprisonment and as on today he should be 65 years of age, as he had stated his age to be thirty five years in 1981, I am of the view, that for both the charges under Section 307 IPC and 3 Explosive Substances Act, period of imprisonment already undergone by him with a fine of Rs.25000/- imposed on him with compensation of Rs. 5000/- to each of the three injured Kalika Prasad @ Lalli, Bum Bahadur Singh and Babu Lal will serve the ends of justice. In view of above, Mani Shanker is convicted under Section 307 IPC and 3 Explosive Substances Act and on both the counts he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him with fine of Rs.25000/- cumulatively for both the charges. A compensation of Rs.5000/- to each of the three injured are awarded. Mani Shanker is allowed one month time to deposit entire amount of fine failing which, it shall be realized from him within a period of a month by the trial Judge, as arrears of land revenue. After the fine is deposited and/or realized, trial Judge is directed to notice all the three injured and pay them the compensation as has been awarded herein above. Both, Criminal Appeal No.1957 of 1981 and Criminal Appeal No.2014 of 1981, are disposed off as above. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court to its intimation. Dt. 2.1.2012 Rk/Arvind/- Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J. Miss Ibha Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae has rendered valuable assistance in deciding the appeal, which was pending since last three decades and, therefore, she is directed to be paid Rs. 8,000/- as his fees by the office of this Court.