JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by accused Ramhet filed from jail is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated March 6, 1976, whereby he Convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for causing the death of Mahendra. However, three other accused namely, Kaptan. Santo and Yadram tried along with the appellant were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the accused suspected the deceased to have abducted the wife of accused Santo. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th September, J975 Yadram accused went to the house of Mahendra and invited him to assist in the search of Santo's wife. After some time Mahendra came to his house and slept. On the next morning Yadram again came and asked Mahendra to accompany him as he was wanted by accused Ramhet, Santo and Kaptan. It is alleged that at the relevant time Mst. Kamala was standing on her, roof. After a few minutes of Mahendra's leaving his house she heard a cry of her husband from the side of Kaharo-ka-Nagla. In the company of Deepchand she went towards the side from where the cry was coming. In the way she met Babu Washerman. All the three went to the Nagla of Kahar and they saw all the three accused inflicting injuries on the person of Mahendra. Accused Ramhet inflicted lathi blow on bis head as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. Taking Mahendra to be dead the accused took to their heels. Injured Mahendra was brought to his house and was shifted to the hospital at Bharatpur where he succumbed to his injuries. First information report of this occurrence Ex. P/6 was lodged before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bayana. Autopsy on the dead body of Mahendra was performed by PW 2 Dr. K. L. Sbarma. He noticed the following external Injuries on the person of Mahendra:- (1) One lacerated wound 1, 1/4" x ⅛" X 1/20" below the middle line having a diffused swelling measuring 21/2 x 2' area under the wound around. On internal examination he found the following injuries:- 1. K. L. Sbarma. He noticed the following external Injuries on the person of Mahendra:- (1) One lacerated wound 1, 1/4" x ⅛" X 1/20" below the middle line having a diffused swelling measuring 21/2 x 2' area under the wound around. On internal examination he found the following injuries:- 1. Scalp : Clotted blood under the scalp in it parietal and temporal area 4" x 4" also in the right parietal in 3" x 3' area. 2. Skull bones : There was fracture of the left parietal bone and of temporal bone and there was gapping of the fronto-parietal suture, 1' long on each side of the mid line. In the opinion of the doctor, Mahendra died of coma and shock following head injuries by blunt object. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against four accused, who were ultimately tried by the learned Sessions Jndge, Bharatpur. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 8 witness in support of their case, out of whom PW. 4 Mst. Kamla is the wife of the deceased. She along with PW 5 Deep Chand and PW 6 Babu was examined as eye witness of the occurrence. PW 2 Dr. K. L. Sharrna is the person who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mahendra. PW 7 Shyamlal is the investigating officer of this case. The accused persons denied their complicity in the Crime and examined four witnesses in support of their plea. 3. The learned Sessions Judge keeping in view the contradictions appearing in the statements of the eye witnesses held that the evidence of exhortation was not reliable. He further held that according to the medical testimony there was only one head injury on the person of Mahendra, which is alleged to have been caused by Ramhet and as such the prosecution story regarding beating being administered by other accused was not believable. On the above findings he acquitted the three accused namely, Kaptan, Santo and Yadram and convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has urged that first information report of this occurrence was lodged before the Deputy Superintendent of Police after three days of the occurrence and admittedly this time was utilised by the prosecutrix for setting down story against enemies of the deceased. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has urged that first information report of this occurrence was lodged before the Deputy Superintendent of Police after three days of the occurrence and admittedly this time was utilised by the prosecutrix for setting down story against enemies of the deceased. She in her own statement admitted that the first information report of this case was lodged after consultation with lawyer. He has also drawn my attention to the first information report Ex P/7, which bears the endorsement of the Magistrate dated September 24, 1975, which is suggestive of the fact that it was received by the Magistrate on that day. The distance between the police station and the Magistrate's Court being a short one it is not conceivable that the first information report would not reach to the learned Magistrate's Court within reasonable time. The extra ordinary delay in sending the first information report in the circumstances of the case, provides a legitimate basis for the appellant to argue that the first information report was recorded much later than stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on Ishwar Sing v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, A. I. R. 1976 Supreme Court 2423. He has also brought to my notice the averments made in Ex. P/6, wherein it has been mentioned that the prosecutrix gave an first information report on September 18,1976. On the basis of this averment he has argued that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the original first information report. The delayed despatch of the first information report when considered with the above contention, does create a suspicion about the fairness of the investigation in this case. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that both PW 5 Deep Chand and PW 6 Babu have stated that all the four accused inflicted injuries on the person of Mahendra one after the other. The statement of these witnesses stand contradicted by the medical evidence and as such no reliance can be placed on their statements. As regards PW 4 Mst. The statement of these witnesses stand contradicted by the medical evidence and as such no reliance can be placed on their statements. As regards PW 4 Mst. Kamla the learned counsel urged that she is the author of the first information report wherein it has been mentioned that the injuries to Mahendra (since deceased) were caused by Ramhet with a pharsa, whereas at the trial stage she has improved her statement and stated that a lathi blow was given to Mahendra by accused Ramhet. This improvement in her statement cannot be said to be innocent one. It has a purpose behind it to make her statement with the medical evidence. A deliberate improvement in the statement of a witness does create some doubt about the veracity of the statement of the witness. Besides that all the three witnesses have implicated the four accused in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted three of them. The State has not come up in appeal against the acquittal of those persons and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said with certainty that the eye witnesses who have implicated three other innocent persons have rightly implicated the appellant. Keeping in view the delay in the lodging of the fire t information report, contradictions appearing in the evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence and the various contradictions appearing in their statements recorded in the Court with their police statements as well as probabilities of the case, it would not be safe to hold that any of the eye witnesses had witnessed the occurrence. The accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. are set aside. He is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. *******