JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant Onkar Singh, an Advocate of this Court and one Ganpat Singh were charged with having committed the murder of Virender Singh at about 10 p. m. on August 8, 1972, infront of the shop of Mohanlal (P.W. 7) in a locality called Paota Choraha in the city of Jodhpur. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by his judgment dated February 28,1975 acquitted Ganpat Singh, but convicted Onkar Singh under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by this decision Onkar Singh has field Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1975. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1975 against the order of acquittal of Ganpat Singh. The state has filed another appeal No. 795 of 1976 to enhance the sentence against Onkar Singh. The State has also filed a revision petition No. 217 of 1975 to cancel the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, directing that Onkar Singh be given 'B' Class facilities. 3. The facts leading to the prosecution of Onkarsingh and Ganpat Singh briefly stated are these: On August 8, 1972 Virender Singh (deceased) met Onkar Singh in the shop of Kailash Sharma (P. W. 11) accidentally. Virender Singh warned Onkar Singh stating that he should not misbehave with the sisters of his friend Narendra Singh. Onkarsingh retorted that he would behave as he liked and that he was nobody to ask him. In this behalf there was an altercation between them and the matter ended there. 4. At about 9 p. m. Laxman Singh (P. W. 8) met Onkar Singh in the shop of Kailash, and asked him whether he was cooled down. Onkar Singh replied to him that some time before Virender Singh had slapped him. 5. At about 10 p. m. Zalim Singh (P.W. 12) came from Paota Choraha side towards Pologrounds Colony and saw Laxman Singh (P. W. 8), Onkarsingh and one more person near the hotel of Mohanlal (P.W. 7). He joined them. These persons wanted to take 'pan' from Mohanlal. ,He closed the shop and went away saying that he had no 'pan.' Shortly thereafter Virender Singh came there on a cycle. GaDpat Singh stopped him and shook hands with him and in the meanwhile Onkar Singh stabbed Virender Singh with a knife on his abdomen. He joined them. These persons wanted to take 'pan' from Mohanlal. ,He closed the shop and went away saying that he had no 'pan.' Shortly thereafter Virender Singh came there on a cycle. GaDpat Singh stopped him and shook hands with him and in the meanwhile Onkar Singh stabbed Virender Singh with a knife on his abdomen. Virender Singh started running Onkar Singh and Ganpat Singh chased him and Onkar Singh stabbed him twice on the back and then they ran away from the place. Virender Singh ran some distance and fell in front of Taj Hotel. 6. Laxman Singh (P. W. 8) and Ramzan (P. W.10), who was in his cycle shop in that locality and Zalim Singh (P. W. 12) came near the injured Virender Singh. Some 20-30 persons also gathered at the spot. By that time Shiv Kishore (P. W.l) an Advocate came there in a car on his way to go to a picture house. His car was stopped and he was requested to take Virender Singh to the hospital. Virender Singh was put in the car. Three persons sat in the car along with the injured whom Shiv Kishore could not identify. Shiv Kishore drove the car to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, where Virender Singh was removed from the car. He left the hospital to go to the picture house. Then it was about 10.40 p.m. 7. There is no evidence whether Virender Singh was admitted to the hospital or any doctor treated him. But, however, Shyam Das (P. W. 6), enquiry clerk in the hospital saw Virender Singh with injuries and found him dead. He sent a telephone message to Udaimandir Police Station at 10.45 p.m, but the record in the police station (vide Ex. D. 12) shows that the message was received at 11.20 p.m. The message was that one boy by name Virender Singh was brought to the hospital and he was dead and that there were knife injuries on his person, and that how, when and by whom the injuries were caused was not known. This message was recorded by Bhagwandas (P. W. 14), Station House Officer. He came to the hospital and contacted Zalimsingh who was present there and recorded his statement (Ex. P.7) at 11.45 p.m. On the basis of Ex. This message was recorded by Bhagwandas (P. W. 14), Station House Officer. He came to the hospital and contacted Zalimsingh who was present there and recorded his statement (Ex. P.7) at 11.45 p.m. On the basis of Ex. P. 7 a case was registered against Onkar Singh and another person who subsequently was stated to be Ganpat Singh. 8. Onkar Singh surrendered before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur on August 30, 1972. On his information a knife Art. 6, said to have been used in the commission of murder of Virender Singh, was recovered. 9. The case of the prosecution was that because of what happened between Onkar Singh and Virender Singh on August 8, 1972 in the shop of Kailash, and thereafter Onkar Singh in order to take revenge took the assistance of Ganpat Singh and murdered him. 10. It was said that the first information report was lodged at 11.45 p.m. on August 8, 1972. Bhagwandas has stated that he despatched the first information report to the Magistrate on August 10, 1972. Whatever that may be, from the admission of Bhagwandas himself it is manifest that the first information report must have been got up any time before August 10, 1972 not excluding August 10, 1972. 11. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the first information report was not sent to the magistrate at all even after August 10, 1972. We searched the reason in vain to find out whether the first information report to be sent 'forthwith' to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered why the first information report was kept in the Police Station by the Station House Officer till August 10, 1972, and there is also no explanation why it was not sent to the magistrate. This is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting, as suggested by the learned counsel for the accused, that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to concoct and to introduce improvements, embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the first information report was not sent to the court at all. In this case suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the first information report was not sent to the court at all. After examining the circumstances in this case we are convinced that first information report must have come into being at any rate not before August 10, 1972. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 501 a first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be over estimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. On account of delay, the report only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In that case there was delay of hours in reporting incident, even through the police station was 2 miles from the place of occurrence. In those circumstances the Supreme Court pointed out that it was unsafe to base a conviction. 12. In this case the incident happened in the town of Jodhpur. The Police Station was hardly one furlong from the place of incident. Even according to the prosecution large number of persons were present soon after the incident. No one lodged any information about the incident. Therefore, it is clear that no one knew how, by whom Virender Singh was injured. 13. However, the prosecution sought to establish the case against the accused mainly from the direct testimony of Laxman Singh (P. W. 8), Ramzan (P. W. 10) and Zalim Singh (P, W. 12). No one lodged any information about the incident. Therefore, it is clear that no one knew how, by whom Virender Singh was injured. 13. However, the prosecution sought to establish the case against the accused mainly from the direct testimony of Laxman Singh (P. W. 8), Ramzan (P. W. 10) and Zalim Singh (P, W. 12). Before considering their evidence, we would like to deal with the evidence relating to motive. Lexman Singh was a resident of village Hariyadana about 40-50 miles from Jodhpur. He was a friend of Virender Singh {deceased). He had come to Jodhpur and was staying in the Paota locality about half a mile from the place of occurrence. On the fateful day when he was passing infront of the shop of Kailash at about 10 or 11 A.M. he saw Virender Singh and Onkar Singh in the shop of Kailash. He also went into the shop. There according to him, Virender Singh and Onkar Singh were quarrelling in connection with Onkar Singh having teased two sisters of Narender Singh, who was a friend of Virender Singh. Thar quarrel was pacified by Laxman Singh (P. W, 8 ), and all of them went way. Kailash (P. W. 11) was examined to support this story. In the beginning he supported the prosecution story to some extent and as he did not fully support the case, he was declared hostile. We have examined the evidence of Kailash (P.W. 11) and we are unable to find any truth. So far as Laxman Singh (P. W. 2) is concerned, he was a chance witness in its real sense and he could not have been present at the psychological time when these two persons were quarrelling in the shop of Kailash (P.W. 11). Laxman Singh (P. W. 8) had gone to the picture that evening and after seeing the picture he was returning to go to his house, but curiously enough he got down from the 'Riksha' near Paota Choraha. He again accidentally met Onkar Singh again in the shop of Kailash (P.W. 11). There he came to know from Onkar Singh that shortly before that time Virender Singh had assaulted him. In the beginning P. W. 11 supported this version and thereafter resiled from it. On an examination of the evidence of these two witnesses, we find that they are unreliable witnesses. There he came to know from Onkar Singh that shortly before that time Virender Singh had assaulted him. In the beginning P. W. 11 supported this version and thereafter resiled from it. On an examination of the evidence of these two witnesses, we find that they are unreliable witnesses. Therefore, we hold that the story of the prosecution prior to incident is not true. 14. In a case where the prosecution relies upon direct testimony whether the prosecution establishes motive or not, if the direct testimony is trustworthy conviction could be based. Therefore, we proceeded to examine the evidence of P. W. 8, P. W. 10 and P. W. 12. No doubt all of them stated that for some reason or the other they were near the place of incident, at about 10 p. m when Onkar Singh assisted by Ganpat Singh stabbed Virender Singh. Many people gathered soon after the incident. These three witnesses did not tell any one of them who were the assailants of Virender Singh. Shiv Kishore (P. W. 1) who took the injured to the hospital was unable to identify the three persons, who accompanied the injured to the hospital. However, these three witnesses have stated that they went in the car alongwith the injured, but they did not tell Shiv Kishore (P. W.l) who were the assailants of Virender Singh. We have already pointed out that there is no evidence as to what happened to Virender Singh after Shiv Kishore (P.W.I) left him in the hospital. It is very strange that in a major hospital when an injured was taken with the history that he was stabbed, shortly before that time no doctor or compounder or even a nurse attended on the injured. However, Shyamdas (P. W. 6) after coming to know that Virender Singh was dead, he telephoned to the police station in the presence of Ramzan (P. W. 10) and Zalim Singh (P. W. 12) stating, as pointed out earlier, that a boy was dead and he had knife injuries and that it was not known as to how and who caused the injuries. Ramzan (P. W.10) and Zalim Singh (P. W. 12) were the witnesses to the occurrence. They would not have kept quiet when Shyamdas (P. W. 6) telephoned in that way. It is, therefore, clear that they did not know, who were the assailants. Ramzan (P. W.10) and Zalim Singh (P. W. 12) were the witnesses to the occurrence. They would not have kept quiet when Shyamdas (P. W. 6) telephoned in that way. It is, therefore, clear that they did not know, who were the assailants. Laxman Singh (P. W. 8) was in the hospital when Bhagwandas (P. W. 14) came. He also did not tell him how and under what circumstances, and by whom Virender Singh met his death. If we examine the evidence of these three witnesses and the circumstances attending the murder of Virender Singb, it is clear that these three witnesses could not have been the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 15. According to the prosecution Virender Singh was stabbed in front of the shop of Mohanlal and from there he ran and fell down in front of Taj Hotel. The medical evidence in this case was that there were three serious injuries. The major portion of intestine had come out. .There must have been blood stains at both the places and trail of blood from the shop of Mohanlal to Taj. We find no such evidence available in this case. Shive Kishore (P. W. 1) has stated that he did not noticed any blood stains in his car when he took him to the hospital. This circumstance clearly goes to show that long before Virender Singh was found lying in front of the Taj Hotel, he must have been stabbed elsewhere and by the time these three witnesses found hint there Virender Singh must have been completely bled. It also in a way suggests that the incident may not have happened in that locality in which case the story of theses three witnesses cannot be believed. Zalim Singh (P. W. 12) was residing in the house of Virender Singh himself. According to him after Shyamdas (P. W. 6) sent message to the police, he came to the house of the deceased and informed his brother Bhupendra Singh (P. W. 2) about the incident. Although P. W. 2 has come forward with the story that he learnt from him that Zalim Singh told him that Onkar Singh and another person had stabbed his brother, Zalim Singh is positive that he did not tell him, who the assailants were. Although P. W. 2 has come forward with the story that he learnt from him that Zalim Singh told him that Onkar Singh and another person had stabbed his brother, Zalim Singh is positive that he did not tell him, who the assailants were. P. W. 8 and P. W. 12 on their own showing were very much interested in the deceased and if they really know who were the assailants they would have told every-body even before going to the hospital. Even in the belated first information report Ex. P. 7 Ramzan (P. W. 10) is not mentioned as an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to the recital in Ex. P. 7 he came to the spot after the occurrence, and stopped the car of Shive Kishore (P. W. 11). In this state of evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge was either manifestly wrong or perverse or unreasonable in coming to the conclusion that Onkar Singh and Ganpat Singh were the murderers of Virender Singh. The trial court overlooked certain significant features of the case, viz. the inordinate delay and unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, more so, the first information report not being sent to the court. The account of the eye-witnesses, in our opinion, is unreliable and their very presence at the scene of murder was doubtful, nay they were not there at all. On the other hand, there might have been number of persons of the locality present: No one has been produced to support the case of the prosecution. This being the evidence the learned Judge was not correct in convicting Onkar Singh, when he acquitted Ganpat Singh on the very same evidence. 16. Lastly, we may point out that there was no motive for any of the accused to murder Virender Singh. The two girls, in regard to which the trouble started have not been examined in this case. Therefore, the whole story, in our opinion, appears to have been concocted to implicate the accused. 17. For the reasons stated above, we allow Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1975, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against Onkar Singh and acquit him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. The other appeals and the revision filed by the State are dismissed.Appeal Acquitted *******