Short Note : Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the Panel Advocate and after examining the evidence on record minutely, this Court is of the view that the convictions and sentences as recorded by the trial Judge against the appellants cannot at all be sustained. It may at the out set be pointed out that the dead body of the deceased having not been recovered, there is no evidence on record to prove that deceased Jhanjad actually died and that he met a homicidal death. The incident took place in the evening of 7-9-1972 but the FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged by Ratniya (P.W.1) on 9-9-72. In the FIR (Ex. P-1) witness Ratniya had given the name of Pahadsingh, Pachaiya, Harika, Khajan and Tantiya to be the persons who participated in the alleged occurrence. The witness Ratniya in the trial Court substituted the names of Harsingh, Kansingh and Hazaria in place of Harika, Khajan and Tantiya. The witness Ratniya (P.W.1) in the cross-examination in paragraph 10 has admitted that in the FIR (Ex.P-1) be wrongly gave out the names of Khajan and Tantiya although they were not present on the spot. He also stated that he had given the name of appellant Harsingh to the police while making the FIR (Ex.P-1), but the police wrongly recorded the name of Harika. Such a vital contradiction in the identity of three accused persons between the evidence on record and the delayed report Ex.P-1 is almost fatal to the prosecution case. Appeal allowed.