JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra, J.-Heard the parties. 2. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants assailing their conviction for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 153, 148, 307/149 of IPC and respective sentences to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, seven years with find of Rs. 1,000/-, five years, two yeas and one year. All the sentences are to run concurrently, as awarded to them by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur on 8th April, 2002 in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1990 arising out of Nath Nagar P.S. Case No. 259 of 1989. 2. The prosecution has come out with the case on the written application of A.S.I. Chandeshwar Prasad Singh (not examined) that on 11th November, 1989 at about 8.30 p.m. during communal riot he along with some constables Praduman Mishra PW 3, Rameshwar Mandal PW 5, Arun Kumar Singh PW 6 and Ram Chandra Mahto PW 4 who are in patrolling and when at about 12.30 in the night patrolling party arrived at Narga mohalla, found 20 to 25 miscreants, raising slogans and exploding explosive substances and also firings. They continued to doing so in spite of protest by the patrolling party rather they started aiming the police party. However, when patrolling party took position to counter they started fleeing and on chase took shelter in the house of Md. Nizam (non-appellant) from where altogether 12 persons including house owner and the appellants were apprehended and 28 live bombs besides other articles were recovered. Seizure list was prepared. The Informant also prepared his written report and after institution of the case the Informant himself took responsibility of investigation and almost concluded the major part. 3. After commitment of the case one of the miscreants was dead, two declared juvenile, remaining nine including appellants faced trial, but almost at the fag end two of the persons facing trial absconded and remaining seven convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid giving rise to the present appeal. 4. In order to substantiate the charges prosecution has produced following documentary evidence besides examination of eight witnesses :- Ext. 1:- Signature on seizure list. Ext. 2:- Signature of Sri S.K. Keshav, DM on sanction order. Ext. 2/1:- Signature of S.P. Singh on collection of sanction order Ext. 3:- Written report. Ext. 4:- Endorsement on Fardbeyan. Ext. 4. In order to substantiate the charges prosecution has produced following documentary evidence besides examination of eight witnesses :- Ext. 1:- Signature on seizure list. Ext. 2:- Signature of Sri S.K. Keshav, DM on sanction order. Ext. 2/1:- Signature of S.P. Singh on collection of sanction order Ext. 3:- Written report. Ext. 4:- Endorsement on Fardbeyan. Ext. 5:- Formal FIR. Ext. 6:- Seizure lis. Ext. 7:- Written report of laboratory. Out of whom, PW 1 Sitaram Yadav one of the seizure list witness was declared hostile since he stated his ignorance about Md. Nizam from whose house allegedly recovery was made. However, his signature Ext. 1 was marked that too according to him was obtained on a plain paper. Next seizure list witness PW 2 Dallu Yadav was tendered for cross-examination and Ram Chandra Mahto, one of the members of patrolling party, PW 4, was also tendered for cross-examination. 5. PW 3 Praduman Mishra one of the members of patrolling party stated prosecution version, but at the same time in cross-examination he admits that he did not enter inside the house from where alleged recovery was made and at the same time he also denied affixing any paper as a marked on the recovered articles. Further he asserts that bombs were exploded upon patrolling party but they did not collect the residuary. PW 5 Rameshwar Mandal, another member of patrolling party has changed the date and time of occurrence and brought it just a month ahead. PW 6 Arun Kumar Singh, another member of patrolling party introduces a Magistrate, naturally as head of the patrolling party, but such introduction is contrary to the written report or statement of the witnesses examined. At the same time the said Magistrate has also not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. PW 7 is a formal witness proved sanction orders Exts. 2 and 2/1 but not at all concerned with its merit or basis for consideration in giving sanction order. PW 8 Tulsi Ram took charge of investigation on 21st January, 1990, received sanction order and also transmitted the alleged recovered articles (explosive substances) for chemical examination and report which could be received and marked Ext. 7 and he is the witness who formally proved right from Exts. 3 to 6 and initially Ext. 7 as Ext. X for identification. 6. 7 and he is the witness who formally proved right from Exts. 3 to 6 and initially Ext. 7 as Ext. X for identification. 6. Undisputedly, there is none suffering any sort of injury and residuary as out come of alleged explosion of explosive substances or firing also could not be collected without any convincing explanation. This raises doubt against the prosecution version which becomes more grave when there appears no explanation for the delay of about three months in transmission of alleged recovered explosive substances for due examination and report. There is none to explain the circumstances and also during the remaining period where such articles were kept. Further prosecution case gets another severe jolt by conduct of the Informant himself who took charge of investigation and did almost everything which he must not have. Such act of the Informant makes the entire investigation further more doubtful and such conduct is also deprecated by the Apex Court in the decisions of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 ; Megha Singh v. State of Harayana, reported in 1997 SCC (Cr) 267 : (1996) 11 SCC 709 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also granted benefit of doubt to the convicts. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained under law; hence, it is set aside. 8. Both the appeals are hereby allowed and the appellants are set free from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished on their behalf. Appeal allowed.