ORDER : Appellant No.2 Vijay @ Vijjoo has expired. Record is received. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The appellant Ajay @ Ajjoo is aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.07.2002 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Jabalpur (M.P.) in CRA No.473/2001 whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and under Section 427 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. 02. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no reliable evidence to convict the appellant/accused (Ajay) on the basis of evidence; therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 427 IPC. 03. Ms. Preeti Bais, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, since she is an officer of the court, submits that basic evidence was against the Co-accused/appellant No.2 Vijay @ Vijjoo who has expired and regarding appellant No.1 Ajay evidence is very weak. Therefore, this court may pass appropriate orders as it may deem fit. 04. Perused the record. Considered the argument. 05. The substantive evidence in a court is not only the written documents filed with the charge-sheet but also what has been stated by the witnesses and what remains after cross-examination. On this point, if we examine the statement of PW/2 Ramprasad Gupta (hotel owner) who has basically deposed against the deceased/accused Vijay that he came and abused and thereafter threw the articles in the counter. Then co-accused Vijay threw three bombs. He has stated that appellant Vijay threw half or one bomb. Now this statement is neither here nor there and is totally confusing. Further, in cross-examination, this witness stated that when accused initially came they did not have anything in their hands. He further submitted in para- 9 of cross-examination that he does not know how the injury was caused to appellant-Ajay or co-accused Vijay. In Para-10, he stated that Vijay threw four bombs and Ajay threw one bomb. Thereafter, he replied that he cannot be sure whether Vijay threw 3 bombs or 4 bombs because at that time he was busy in saving himself. He does not know where the bomb was thrown. In Para-10, he stated that Vijay threw four bombs and Ajay threw one bomb. Thereafter, he replied that he cannot be sure whether Vijay threw 3 bombs or 4 bombs because at that time he was busy in saving himself. He does not know where the bomb was thrown. He does not know whether the bomb thrown by Ajay exploded or not. 06. PW/4-Pawan Gupta son of PW/1- Ramprashad Gupta has also basically deposed against co-accused-Vijay and submitted that three bombs were thrown by Vijay and one bomb was thrown by Ajay. In cross- examination in Para 2, this witness stated that the bomb thrown by Ajay did not explode and Police took the bomb away by picking it up. 07. PW/5- Shivraj Singh, ASI, in para-9 stated in cross-examination that Appellant-Ajay came to the Police Station on his own. He lodged a report regarding injury caused to him by Pawan Gupta. Ajay had an injury on his head. 08. DW/1 Ajay Prakash Choubey stated that when Ajay ordered for tea, he became angry and he assaulted Ajay and injured him by use of a stone. He also assaulted Vijay by kicks and fists. 09. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, when entire evidence is considered then this court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the remaining appellant no.1-Ajay @ Ajjoo. The appellant no.2-Vijay @ Vijjoo has already expired during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly appeal is allowed and appellant no.1- Ajay @ Ajjoo is acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted and sentenced. 10. Disposal of the case property shall be as per the judgment of the trial Court. Let the original record of the trial court be sent back to the concerned court. 11. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of.