JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in these four appeals and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The four appellants have preferred these appeals against their conviction for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, Sections 148, 353, 153-B of the Indian Penal Code sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, as awarded by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, on 17th July, 1999, in Session Trial No. 147 of 1990 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 673/1989. By same judgment out of 26 accused facing trial, 20 accused have been acquitted, six were convicted including the appellant during appeal two have been dead and the respective appeals filed by them stand abated. 3. The prosecution has come out with the case on self-recorded statement of PW 34 namely, K.C. Dubey, Officer Incharge of Kotwali Police Station as well the Investigating Officer for major part of the investigation is that on 24th October, 1989, as per direction of Dy. S.P. of 23rd October, 1989, in order to maintain law and order situation on 24th October, 1989 at about 9.30 a.m. the informant arrived at Tatarpur Chowk, since one Ramsheela Shobha Yatra was to arrive and proceed but finding some objections by members of other community in good number including the appellants superior authorities were also informed who arrived tried to pacify. Initially there appears everything will pass peacefully but under hand there was some instigation by the religious heads (Gaddinaseen) and suddenly the mob turned hostile and violent and started throwing explosive substance and firing from rifle, guns and also there was brick-batting causing injuries to several persons mainly police officers and personnel who in turn also resorted firing, during the period curfew was also imposed, and two of the miscreants died during such counter by police. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after commitment the case was tried. Initially around 500 persons were shown as miscreants but ultimately as stated earlier only 26 were sent up for trial and six could be convicted and sentenced. 4. During trial prosecution has examined altogether 46 witnesses besides producing following exhibits: Exhibit - 1 - Written report. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after commitment the case was tried. Initially around 500 persons were shown as miscreants but ultimately as stated earlier only 26 were sent up for trial and six could be convicted and sentenced. 4. During trial prosecution has examined altogether 46 witnesses besides producing following exhibits: Exhibit - 1 - Written report. Exhibit - 2 - Formal F.I.R. Exhibit - 3 - Signature of M.K Alam on carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit - 3/1 - Signature of M.K. Alam on carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit - 4 - Firing order given by Magistrate Md. Abdul Sohrab to K.C. Dubey. Exhibit - 3/2 - Signature of Md. Abdul Sohrab Magistrate on carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit - 3/3 - Signature of Md. Abdul Sohrab Magistrate on carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit - 5 - Accident report of M.V.I. in connection with Vehicle No. BEJ 55. Exhibit – 5/1 - Accident report of M.V.I. in connection with Vehicle No. BAJ 8541. Exhibit - 5/2 - Accident report of M.V.I. in connection with Vehicle No. BRJ 6759. Exhibit - 5/3 - Accident report of M.V.I. in connection with Vehicle No. BRJ 909. Exhibit - 6 - Production list dated 25.10.1989. Exhibit - 7 - Seizure list Exhibit - 8 - Signature of Yugal Kishore Singh on seizure list. Exhibit - 9 - Sanction order. Exhibit - 10 - Post-mortem report No. 371/89 dated 26.10.89. Exhibit – 10/A - P.M. Report No. 372/89 dated 26.10.89. 5. On behalf of the defence, following exhibits have been produced: Exhibit - A - Signature of Abdul Sohrab, Magistrate on Zimmanama dated 24.10.89 given to Majhar Shakil. Exhibit - B - A Certificate granted by Shib Das Singh O/c Tatarpur P.S. to Majhar Shakil. Exhibit – B/1 - A Certificate granted by O/c Tatarpur P.S. to Md. Kamar Aanam. Exhibit - C - Petition dated 28.6.93 written by Sri K.C. Dubey. Exhibit - D - Forwarding report dated 26.10.89 in the pen of D. Sahay S.I. consisting the names of accused persons. Exhibit - D/1 - Forwarding report dated 28.10.89 consisting the names of 19 accused. Exhibit - E - Signature of accused Raisuddin dated 24.10.89 on the Register of Muslim High School. Exhibit - F – Certificate dtd. 19.9.98 of Asstt. Head Master Muslim High School. Exhibit - G - Certified copy of charge-sheet of G.R. 2083/89. Exhibit - D/1 - Forwarding report dated 28.10.89 consisting the names of 19 accused. Exhibit - E - Signature of accused Raisuddin dated 24.10.89 on the Register of Muslim High School. Exhibit - F – Certificate dtd. 19.9.98 of Asstt. Head Master Muslim High School. Exhibit - G - Certified copy of charge-sheet of G.R. 2083/89. Exhibit - H - Certificate of Diploma of the Takmilutib College, Lucknow of Md. Ibrahim (father of accused Aqueel Ahmad). Exhibit - Matriculation certificate of accused Aqueel Ahmad. Exhibit - J - C. C. of judgment of S.T. No. 122/90. 6. A good number of witnesses such as PWs 5, 8, 9, 18, 22 to 27, 36, 40 and 41 are tendered. PWs 3, 6 and 43 are formal witnesses and PWs 37 & 39 have been declared hostile since did not support the prosecution version. PW 28 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of two miscreants since admittedly by police firing, hence, there is no necessity to discuss the evidence of the above witnesses. 7. The documents produced by the prosecution as stated above do not contain any report of forensic science laboratory or any competent authority indicating either of the seized articles were in any way part and partial of explosive substance in spite of seizure list (Exhibits-6 & 7) indicating seizure of some nails, sutli and papers said to have been used in such explosive substance, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, though, PW 34 the informant-cum-Investigating Officer has tried to explain the work load behind non-transmission of such materials for examination. Thus, as rightly contended by learned counsel representing the appellants, in absence of any material substantiating allegation of exploding explosive substances in spite of the statement of the witnesses in this regard none of the appellants can be held guilty for the offences under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that prosecution has also not produced and proved the injury reports of even a single injured in spite of assertion that good number of police personnel including the Superintendent of Police (PW 20) sustained some injuries barring this PW 20 all other injured witnesses PWs 21, 31, 33, 35, 38 and 41 stating about sustaining injuries inflicted by explosive substance and being treated by the doctors. None production of such injury reports to substantiate the assertion brings the conviction under Section 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code also under great cloud which is to be removed by the prosecution which remains uncleared. 9. PW 1 Digambar Prasad Verma, PW 2 Barjeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 4 Sita Ram Mandal, PW 11 Shiv Das Singh, PW 20 K.S. Dwevedi, PW 34 K.C. Dubey, are the persons claiming to identify the appellants out of whom PW 1 has only been able to identify all the four appellants whereas PW 2 could identify remaining three except Md. Mustaque alias Larle and PW 4 is the person identifying only Md. Mustaque alias Larle. PWs 11 & 34 identified Md. Zahiruddin and Akil Ansari, whereas PW 20 has identified only appellant Md. Zahiruddin, but none of these witnesses except stating about their presence in the mob and some protest at the initial stage of the occurrence has said nothing specific about them. 10. In this background, submission made on behalf of all the appellants that PW 34 (informant) has taken command of investigation right from beginning and almost concluded. Though as per his own statement since his superiors subsequently raised objection about his being Investigating Officer. He handed over remaining part of the investigation to PW 30 namely, Pradeep Kumar, only on 16.12.89, though, the occurrence took place on 24th October, 1989 and this witness was also at the place of occurrence along with other police personnel including the informant and main Investigating Officer. 11. This gave room to learned counsels representing the appellant to submit that entire investigation becomes doubtful and they rely upon decision of the Apex Court in cases 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 . In both these cases the Apex Court has not only deprecated investigation by the informant but also granted the benefits of doubt to the convicts. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 353, 153-B of the Indian Penal Code also cannot be held sustainable. In both these cases the Apex Court has not only deprecated investigation by the informant but also granted the benefits of doubt to the convicts. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 353, 153-B of the Indian Penal Code also cannot be held sustainable. Accordingly, all these four appeals are hereby allowed, conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set aside, they are set free from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished on their behalf. Appeals allowed.