JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Umar Beg, along with one Bahadur, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Judge has acquitted Bahadur, but convicted the appellant under both the counts sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default simple imprisonment for three months under section 307 I. P. C. He has also sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further simple imprisonment for 7 days under section 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on July 2, 1976 the appellant who was one of the audience of a Natak asked PW Munir Khan to go and bring some liquor for him. Munir Khan refused. The appellant is said to have given a beating to Munir Khan. Munir Khan immediately went to PW Akbar and complained to him about the said beating. Akbar Khan went to the appellant in the Natak and protested the beating he had given earlier to his brother. It is alleged that the appellant then attacked Akbar Khan with the help of Bahadur and inflicted two knife blows to him. 3. The report of the occurrence was lodged by Akbar Khan with the police on July 7, 1976 i.e. 5 days after the occurrence. 4. The appellant was arrested on August 12, 1976. Both he and Ba were sent up for trial in the court. While Bahadur was acquitted the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. He has appealed. 5. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant are wholly unsustainable. It will be seen that the first information report in this case was lodged by the complainant after a long delay of 5 days which has not been satisfactorily explained. Akbar Khan would have us believe that he had gone to the police station to lodge the first information report on the very next day after the occurrence and that the police had refused to register it on the plea that they would do so only after he brought the medical report from the doctor. The police have denied this allegation. The police have denied this allegation. The allegation on the face of it is difficult; if not impossible, to believe. The delay in the circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution. 6. The complainant had mentioned in the delayed first information report the names of Jumma Khan and Ram Nath as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, Jumma Khan who was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, did not support the complainants version. He was declared hostile. Ram Nath the other alleged eye witness of the occurrence was not examined by the prosecution as a witness in the trial court. Instead, two other PW persons, namely, Abdul Aziz and Latoor Lal were called as witnesses to give what, according to the prosecution, is an eye-witness account of the occurrence. Both of them however denied that they had seen any such thing as alleged. They too were, therefore, declared hostile. 7. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the presence of a large number of audience at the Natak. The fact that none of the audience is prepared to support the complainant should indicate that there is something wrong about his complaint against the appellant. 8. In the circumstance, I am not prepared to hold that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him. I would accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit the appellant of both the charges framed against him. He shall be released forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******