(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Hussain Khan,J.) Present two Criminal Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 1987 (Kunwarey Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 1987 (Nanka Vs. State) have been filed by accused appellants Kunwarey and Nanka against same judgement and order dated 24.1.1987 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trial No.181 of 1985, State of U.P. Vs. Nanka and another, whereby learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad has convicted accused appellant Kunwarey for offence under section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and accused appellant Nanka for offence under section 302 IPC and has sentenced both accused appellants therefor to life imprisonment. Both appeals have been filed against same judgement and order, therefore, both appeals have been taken together and are being disposed off by a common judgement. Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava appeared for accused appellant Kunwarey. Smt. Reema Srivastava, learned amicus curiae appeared for accused appellant Nanka. Sri M.S. Yadav appeared for respondent State of U.P.. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parites and gone through records. In brief, according to FIR Ext.Ka-1 version of prosecution is that on 6.12.1984 complainant Mundar and his brother Sunder were going from their house situated in Jhunsi to see fair at Barkhandi, Saitpur. In the way they went to the house of monther's sister in Mohalla Sadiapur and stayed for some time. Thereafter, they proceeded for fair alongwith their mother's sister's sons Sri Ram and Suresh and their neighbor Gyan, when they reached at Kakraha Ghat, all of them sat on the boat. In the meantime accused Nanka and Kunwarey who were standing at the Ghat called Sunder brother of complainant and when brother of complainant went near them accused Nanaka demanded rupees two for drinking liquor, whereupon Sunder brother of complainant draw a note of Rs.50/-, seeing the note of Rs.50/- accused Nanka demanded Rs.10/- with him. On this brother of complainant told him that he shall pay Rs.5/- at the time of return, whereupon accused Kunwarey exhorted accused Nanka to kill Sunder brother of complainant and accused Nanka thrown bomb at Sunder, brother of complainant with intention to kill him. On this brother of complainant told him that he shall pay Rs.5/- at the time of return, whereupon accused Kunwarey exhorted accused Nanka to kill Sunder brother of complainant and accused Nanka thrown bomb at Sunder, brother of complainant with intention to kill him. In the mean time after having drawn Tamancha from his fate (waste), accused Kunwarey threatened complainant and persons accompanying him that if they come out of boat he shall fire at them. Sunder, brother of complainant fell down after having received injury, thereafter both accused ran away towards west. At the time of running away they were making fire. When complainant and persons accompanying him came to ghat after leaving boat, they saw that Sunder, brother of complainant has died. According to FIR Ext.Ka-1 the time of incident is about 3.00 p.m.. After incident complainant Mundar got report Ext.Ka-1 written by Hari Lal Nishad and put his thumb impression. Thereafter he went to police station Khuldabad with report Ext.Ka-1 and presented the same in P.S. Khuldabad on the same day at 16.15 p.m., whereupon Crime No. 469 of 1984 under section 302 IPC was registered in P.S. Khuldabad against accused appellants Nanka and Kunwarey and investigation was started by police. Inquest report of dead body of deceased Sunder was prepared by police and dead body was sent in sealed cover for post mortem after having completed necessary formalities. Later on investigation was completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused appellants Nanka and Kunwarey for offence under section 302 IPC, whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of session. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 181 of 1985 (State Vs. Nanka and another) under section 302 IPC was registered in the court of session, Allahabad. Later on said session trial was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III who framed charges against both accused appellants for offence under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Both accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Mundar, P.W.-2 Sri Ram, P.W.-3 H.C.17 Ram Saran Singh, P.W.-4 Constable no.641 Kamta Yadav, P.W.-5 Investigation Officer, Inspector Arjun Singh and P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena. After prosecution evidence statements of both accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. Both accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Mundar, P.W.-2 Sri Ram, P.W.-3 H.C.17 Ram Saran Singh, P.W.-4 Constable no.641 Kamta Yadav, P.W.-5 Investigation Officer, Inspector Arjun Singh and P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena. After prosecution evidence statements of both accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. Both of them stated that they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. No evidence was adduced by accused appellants in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Allahabad heard the argument of parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 24.1.1987 whereby he has convicted and sentenced both accused appellants as mentioned above. Learned Amicus Curiae for accused Nanka as well as learned counsel for accused Kunwarey contended that accused appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for accused appellant Kunwarey and learned Amicus curiae for accused appellant Nanka both contended that FIR has been lodged on next day and is anti dated. Statements of witnesses of fact are full of contradiction and post mortem report does not corroborate ocular evidence. Learned counsel for accused appellant Kunwarey as well as learned Amicus Curiae for accused appellant Nanka contended that the conviction recorded by trial court against both accused appellants is against evidence as well as against law. Learned counsel for accused appellant Kunwarey as well as Amicus curiae for accused appellant Nanka prayed that both appeals should be allowed and both accused appellants should be acquitted. Learned A.G.A. contended that conviction recorded by trial court is in accordance with law. He further contended that witnesses examined by prosecution are trust-worthy witnesses and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve their testimonies. Learned A.G.A. contended that FIR is very prompt and it is wrong to say that FIR is anti time. Learned A.G.A. prayed that both appeals should be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Out of six witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Sri Ram are witnesses of fact. P.W.-1 complainant Mundar has proved FIR Ext.Ka-1 in his statement and has fully supported version of prosecution narrated in FIR Ext.Ka-1. P.W.-2 Sri Ram has also supported occurrence alleged by prosecution. He has stated that either accused Kunwarey or Nanka but none other thrown bomb due to which Sunder fell down and smoke spread on the spot. In which direction accused ran away, he could not know. P.W.-2 Sri Ram has also supported occurrence alleged by prosecution. He has stated that either accused Kunwarey or Nanka but none other thrown bomb due to which Sunder fell down and smoke spread on the spot. In which direction accused ran away, he could not know. He went near Sunder after accused had gone. He saw Sunder was dead. P.W.-3 H.C. Ram Saran Singh has stated in his statement that on 6.12.1984 he was posted in P.S. Khuldabad as Head Constable. He has stated that he has written chik FIR Ext.Ka-2 on the basis of First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 presented by complainant Mundar. He has further stated that he made entry of registration of crime in Rapat no.27 of G.D.. He has proved copy of G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-3. P.W.-3 H.C. Ram Saran Singh has stated in his statement that special report of crime was sent on the same day and entry of special report was made at Rapat No. 31 at 18.05 p.m.. P.W.-3 H.C. Ram Saran Singh has further stated that on 7.12.1984 two sealed containers were entered into police station by Inspector Arjun Singh. He has stated that entry of said articles has been made in G.D. at 6.35 a.m. by Inspector himself. P.W.-4 Constable Kamta Yadav has stated that on 6.12.1984 he was posted as Constable in police station Khuldabad. On that day he carried dead body of deceased Sunder in sealed cover with related papers to medical college for post mortem. Brij Raj was also with him. He has stated that so long dead body was in his custody no one touched it. P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 6.12.1984 he was posted as Incharge of police station Khuldabad. Present crime was registered in his presence at police station and chik FIR was prepared by Head Moharrir in his presence. He has stated that Chik FIR Ext.Ka-2 contains his signature also. He has stated that he recorded statement of Head Moharrir of chik FIR and complainant at police station. Thereafter he reached on spot at 4.15 p.m. and took dead body into his possession and prepared inquest report Ext.Ka-5, Challan Nash Ext.Ka-6, Photo Nash Ext.Ka-7, letter to C.M.O. Ext.Ka-8 and letter to R.I. Ext.Ka-9. Thereafter he kept dead body in sealed cover and prepared Specimen of seal Ext.Ka-10. Thereafter he reached on spot at 4.15 p.m. and took dead body into his possession and prepared inquest report Ext.Ka-5, Challan Nash Ext.Ka-6, Photo Nash Ext.Ka-7, letter to C.M.O. Ext.Ka-8 and letter to R.I. Ext.Ka-9. Thereafter he kept dead body in sealed cover and prepared Specimen of seal Ext.Ka-10. P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh has stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan of place of occurrence Ext.Ka-11. He has stated that he took blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared memo Ext.Ka-12 there for. P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh has proved in his statement containers of blood stained earth and plain earth as material Ext.-1 and 2 before court. P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh has stated in his statement that after having completed investigation, he submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-13. P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh has stated in his statement that he had sent report for sending blood stained earth and plain earth to chemical examiner. P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena has stated in his statement that on 7.12.1984 he was posted as Medical Officer in T.B.S. District Hospital, Allahabad. On that day at 3.00 p.m. he conducted post mortem of deceased Sunder son of Nankoo Lal resident of New Jhunsi, P.S. Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad. The body was brought in sealed cover by Constable 251 Kamta Yadav and Constable 1227 Brij Raj Yadav and was identified by said two constables. P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena has proved post mortem report Ext.Ka-14 and has stated that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased Sunder might have been caused by bomb blast and this injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena has further stated that the death of deceased Sunder might have occured on 6.12.1984 at 3.00 p.m.. Now, we shall examine evidence adduced by prosecution in the light contentions made by the parties. P.W.-1 complainant Mundar has stated in cross examination at page 16(page 24 of paper book) that report of this incident was written on next day but in his examination-in-chief he has stated that after incident he got FIR Ext.Ka-1 written by Hari Lal on spot and after having heard he put his thumb impression on it. Thereafter, he went with report to P.S. Khuldabad. Thereafter, he went with report to P.S. Khuldabad. In cross examination at page 15 (page 23 of paper book) he has stated that copy of report was given to him from police station on same day at 7.00 p.m.. Perusal of chik FIR Ext.Ka-2 as well as G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-3 shows that FIR has been lodged on 6.12.1984 at 16.15 p.m. and entry of registration of crime has been made in G.D. at the same time. G.D. relating to entry of special report Ext.Ka-4 shows that special report has been sent on the same day at 18.05 p.m.. P.W.-5 Investigating Officer, Inspector Arjun Singh has stated that he was present at the time of registration of crime at police station. He has further stated that at 4.15 p.m. he reached on spot. According to chik FIR Ext.Ka-2 FIR has been lodged on 6.12.1984 at 4.15 p.m. and the distance from place of occurrence is four and half Kilometers. In cross examination by defence P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh has stated that he reached on spot at 16.55 p.m.. In view of above, it is apparent that in examination-in-chief time of reaching on spot stated by P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh is not correct but this error may be slip of tongue and on this ground no adverse inference may be drawn against prosecution. Inquest report Ext.Ka-5 shows that inquest report was prepared on 6.12.1984 at 18.05 p.m. and in inquest report crime no. 469 of 1984 under section 302 IPC has been mentioned. After having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of the view that there is nothing on record to show that FIR Ext.Ka-1 has been lodged on next day and is anti time. Occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 6.12.1984 at 3.00 p.m. and FIR has been lodged on the same day at 16.15 p.m. just after 1.15 hours. Thus, it is apparent that FIR is prompt and promptness of FIR adds reality to prosecution version. According to post mortem report Ext.Ka-14 as well as statement of P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena following ante mortem injury was found on the dead body of deceased Sunder:- 1- Lacerated would 4 ½ " x 4" chest cavity deep on back of chest upper part of back of scapular region left side. Edges of wound are inverted. Blackening and scorching present in depth of wound. A.K. Saxena following ante mortem injury was found on the dead body of deceased Sunder:- 1- Lacerated would 4 ½ " x 4" chest cavity deep on back of chest upper part of back of scapular region left side. Edges of wound are inverted. Blackening and scorching present in depth of wound. Soft tissues on left side of chest parity missing." P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena has stated specifically that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of Sunder might have been caused by bomb blast and his injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinarily course. He has further stated that the death of deceased Sunder might have occured on 6.12.1984 at 3.00 p.m. Statement of P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena as well as post mortem report Ext.Ka-14 shows that two metalic pieces and two pieces of wadding were recovered from the depth of the wound of deceased. In this respect it has been argued on behalf of accused appellants that recovery of metalic pieces and wadding from injury of deceased shows that his injury has been caused by fire arm and not by bomb blast. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for accused appellants, we are of the view that the contention of learned counsel for accused appellants is misconceived. There is no standard prescribed for country made bomb and injury of bomb blast depends on its splinters. Therefore, on the ground of recovery of metalic pieces and two pieces of wadding from the injury of deceased Sunder, it may not be inferred that injury has been caused by fire arm and not by bomb blast. Dimention of injury of deceased Sunder mentioned above shows that certainly this is a bomb blast injury and not fire arm injury. It is apparent from FIR Ext.Ka-1 as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Shree Ram that deceased has been caused injury with bomb. Therefore, we are of the view that post mortem report Ext.Ka-14 as well as statement of P.W.-6 Dr. A.K. Saxena fully corroborates the version of FIR as well as ocular evidence adduced by prosecution. P.W.-1 complainant Mundar is brother of deceased Sunder. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he and his brother Sunder (now deceased) were going to see fair of Barkhandi by boat. They came to Kakraha Ghat by boat. A.K. Saxena fully corroborates the version of FIR as well as ocular evidence adduced by prosecution. P.W.-1 complainant Mundar is brother of deceased Sunder. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he and his brother Sunder (now deceased) were going to see fair of Barkhandi by boat. They came to Kakraha Ghat by boat. Leaving boat there he went to the house of mausi at Meerapur alongwith his brother Sunder (now deceased) and from the house of mausi he and his brother Sunder and his mausi's son P.W.-2 Shree Ram as well as Ram Sumer started for fair. In the way Gyan met. He also accompanied them. All of them went to the ghat and sat in boat, thereafter incident took place at the ghat. The statement of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar has been fully supported by P.W.-2 Shree Ram. Defence has not denied the fact that on the day of of occurrence there was fair of Barkhandi. Therefore, after having considered the version of FIR Ext.Ka-1 as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Shree Ram, we are of the view that reason assigned by prosecution for presence of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Shree Ram at the time and place of occurrence appears very reliable and natural and there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve their presence at the time of occurrence. In FIR Ext.Ka-1 specific mention has been made that the bomb was thrown by accused appellant Nanka which caused injury to deceased Sunder, brother of complainant. In statement on oath also P.W.-1 complainant Mundar has stated that accused appellant Nanka thrown bomb at his brother Sunder which caused him injury but P.W.-2 Shree Ram has stated in his statement on oath that eithter Kunwarey or Nanka but none other thrown bomb which caused injury to Sunder (now deceased). In FIR as well as in statement of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar, it has been specifically mentioned that after having caused bomb injury to Sunder( now deceased) both accused appellants Nanka and Kunwarey ran away towards west and at the time of running away they were making fire. But P.W.-2 Shree Ram has stated in his statement that due to bomb blast there spread smoke on spot and he could not know in which direction accused ran away. But P.W.-2 Shree Ram has stated in his statement that due to bomb blast there spread smoke on spot and he could not know in which direction accused ran away. In his statement P.W.-2 Shree Ram has not stated that at the time of running away accused appellants were making fire. In cross examination made on behalf of accused Kunwarey P.W.-2 Shree Ram has stated on page 9 (page 30 of paper book) that before him no fire was made on deceased with Tamancha. In cross examination no question has been made by defence with P.W.-2 Shree Ram to ascertain as to whether at the time of running away accused appellants were making fire. Therefore, non mentioning of fire made by accused at the time of running away in the statement of P.W.-2 Shree Ram may be an accidental omission and on this basis his whole statement regarding incident alleged by prosecution may not be discarded. In the case of Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 163, Hon'ble court has held that,"It is settled that even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case the residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence of some of the witnesses has been found to be deficient." P.W.-1 complainant Mundar has stated in his statement on oath that he knows accused Nanka and Kunwarey, who are present in court. Nanka is resident of Meerapur and Kunwarey is resident of Sadiapur. P.W.-2 Shree Ram is also resident of Mohalla Meerapur. In cross examination P.W.-2 Shree Ram has been suggested that there has been an altercation between him and accused Nanka in respect of catching fish. But P.W.-3 Shree Ram has denied the suggestion. This suggestion given by defence to P.W.-2 Shree Ram shows that admittedly accused Nanka is known to P.W.-2 Shree Ram. There is nothing in cross examination of P.W.-2 Shree Ram made on behalf of accused Kunwarey to show that accused Kunwarey was unknown to him. But P.W.-3 Shree Ram has denied the suggestion. This suggestion given by defence to P.W.-2 Shree Ram shows that admittedly accused Nanka is known to P.W.-2 Shree Ram. There is nothing in cross examination of P.W.-2 Shree Ram made on behalf of accused Kunwarey to show that accused Kunwarey was unknown to him. In view of discussion made above, after having gone through whole statements of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar as well as P.W.-2 Shree Ram , we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve statements of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Shree Ram. Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that statements of witnesses may not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. For instance following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court may be cited:- 1- Vithal Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 1 SCC Crl. 91. 2- State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Masta Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 . 3- Kapildeo Mandal & others Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 2008 SC 533 . In view of above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court testimonies of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Shree Ram may not be discarded on the ground of relationship with deceased. In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 2012 (IV) SCC 124 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that,"every honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." In the case of Faquira Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that,"minor discrepancy guarantees that witnesses are not tutored." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others, 2010 Cr.L.J. 3889 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that,"prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that,"the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole." We have gone through whole statements of P.W.-1 complainant Mundar and P.W.-2 Shree Ram. In view of principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no material contradiction in the statements of these witnesses to disbelieve their testimony regarding occurrence. The place of occurrence alleged by prosecution is corroborated by site plan Ext.Ka-11 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh. Dead body of deceased Sunder was found on spot and inquest report Ext.Ka-5 was prepared on spot. Ext.Ka-12 shows that blood stained earth and plain earth has also been taken by P.W.-5 Inspector Arjun Singh from spot. In view of discussion made above after having gone through whole evidence on record, we are of view that P.W.-1 complainant Munder and P.W.-2 Shree Ram are trust-worthy witnesses of occurrence. In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in statement on oath complainant Munder P.W.-1 has stated that bomb was thrown by accused appellant Nanka. P.W.-2 Shree Ram has stated that bomb was thrown either by accused appellant Nanka or by accused appellant Kunwarey. He has not stated that bomb was not thrown by accused appellant Nanka. F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 has been lodged soon after occurrence. Therefore, considering whole evidence on record, we are of the view that it has been proved that bomb was thrown by accused appellant Nanka and bomb blast injury found on the dead body of deceased Sundar was sufficient to cause his death. In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 specific mention has been made that when accused appellant Nanka thrown bomb at Sundar (deceased) brother of complainant, at the same time accused appellant Kunwarey after having drawn Tamancha from his fate (waist) threatened complainant and persons accompanying him that if they come out of boat he shall fire at them. In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 specific mention has been made that when accused appellant Nanka thrown bomb at Sundar (deceased) brother of complainant, at the same time accused appellant Kunwarey after having drawn Tamancha from his fate (waist) threatened complainant and persons accompanying him that if they come out of boat he shall fire at them. In his statement on oath complainant P.W.-1 Munder has stated that when they began to come out of boat accused appellant Kunwarey threatened them that if any one come out of boat he shall fire at him. Thus, it is apparent from F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-1 complainant Munder that accused appellant Nanka thrown bomb in furtherance of common intention of accused appellant Kunwarey. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, after having gone through whole evidence on record and all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold accused appellant Nanka guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and accused appellant Kunwarey guilty of offence under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC.. Learned trial court has framed charge against both accused appellants for offence under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC but has convicted accused appellant Nanka for offence under section 302 IPC. In the case of Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Tripura 1999 Cr.L.J. 4498 (Gauhati) it has been held by Hon'ble High Court, Gauhati that accused charged with offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC may be convicted for offence under section 302 IPC simpliciter even if no independent charge was framed for offence under section 302 IPC. In view of this pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court Gauhati as well as sections 215 and 464 Cr.P.C., we are of the view that conviction of accused appellant Nanka recorded by trial court for offence under section 302 IPC is not against law and no prejudice has been caused to him. From F.I.R. to statement of complainant it has been specifically mentioned that accused appellant Nanka thrown bomb and caused fatal injury to deceased Sundar. We have perused impugned judgement passed by learned trial court. Learned trial court has gone through whole evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case and considered all relevant points raised by the parties. From F.I.R. to statement of complainant it has been specifically mentioned that accused appellant Nanka thrown bomb and caused fatal injury to deceased Sundar. We have perused impugned judgement passed by learned trial court. Learned trial court has gone through whole evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case and considered all relevant points raised by the parties. The conviction and finding recorded by trial court is based on judicious analysis of evidence and is in accordance with law and principles established by judicial pronouncement. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that trial court has rightly placed reliance on evidence adduced by prosecution to convict accused appellant Nanka for offence under section 302 IPC and accused appellant Kunwarey for offence under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. We find no illegality in conviction of both accused appellants recorded by trial court. Sentence awarded by trial court to both accused appellants is not excessive and no appeal has been preferred by State for enhancement of sentence. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that both appeals have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. Both appeals are dismissed accordingly. Accused appellants Nanka and Kunwarey are on bail. They shall surrender before the trial court for serving sentence within 30 days from the date of judgement of this Court, failing which trial court shall ensure their arrest and shall send them to jail for serving sentence in accordance with law. Office is directed to send copy of this judgement to trial court for securing compliance. Send back records of trial court immediately. ——————