JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Ram Karan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated January 31, 1975 convicting and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 10/- in default of payment of which further R. I. for four months under section 147 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. On the night intervening 13-9-1972 and 14-9-1972 in village Chhapari Devi Singh P.W. land his wife Suhagi P.W.8 were sleeping in their chowk. Suhagi felt a jerk that some body was plucking the gold 'bore' from her head. She was thus awakened. She raised an alarm and her husband Devi Singh got up and found one person plucking 'bore' from the head of his wife and another man running from the room. He chased them and caught one of them namely, Ramkaran. On the alarm P. W. 2 Bhagirath, P. W. 4 Chhiter, P. W. 5 Devi and P.W. 7 Balu also came there and saw that Devi Singh was holding Ramkaran. The further story with which we are not concerned is that Suja came on the boundary of the field of Balu. He apprehended Surja. Co-accused Gulaba came, and gave a few blows with an axe. Surja then escaped. It is also claimed that Devi Singh could recognise the other thief who was Surja. 3. The villagers including Devi Singh took Ramkaran to police station Banera and lodged verbal report of the incident. A case under section 459 and 380 I. P. C. was registered and the appellant was arrested. During the course of investigation no other incriminating circumstance against the appellant was found except the oral testimony of the witnesses. 4. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted two accused Gulaba and Surja for the offences under sections 326. 307, 458, 326, and 307/34 I. P. C. but convicted the appellant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the police station was only 6 miles away from the village, yet the oral report was lodged at 5 p. m. in the evening. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the police station was only 6 miles away from the village, yet the oral report was lodged at 5 p. m. in the evening. The witnesses were deposing falsely that they reached the police station in the morning because P.W. 9 Gulab Singh stated that the report was lodged to him at 5 p. m. This delay in lodging the F. I R. is fatal. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant was detained by the villagers in the morning. They gave him a severe beating and thereafter to escape the liability of the act of beating lodged this F. I. R. The appellant was found with a radio and it was inconceivable that he entered the house of Devi Singh for committing a theft while having a radio with him. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor argued that in view of the clear and cogent evidence the delay in lodging the FIR was not of much importance. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. It could not be disputed that the villagers gave a severe beating to the appellant. P,W. 9 Gulab Singh stated that he arrested Ramkaran who was produced before him by the villagers. They also produced a radio belonging to Ramkaran. He found that Ramkaran was injured and, therefore, got him medically examined. Thus the fact of beating is established, I have gone through the testimony of various eye witnesses. This much can safely be said that none of them is a witness of absolute truth. P.W. 1 Devi Singh deposed that he recognise: the other person as Devilal. However, he did not so state in his police statement Ex. D. 1 and also in the F I.R, Thus it is obvious that he had falsely implicated Surja. As regards the FIR. he stated that he reached the police station at 8 or 9 a. m. and gave the report to B SH.O. Gulab Singh. He denied the suggestion that he got a report written by Mishrilal which was later on torn. The witness was examined in the committing court also where he admitted that one report was got written by the villagers and it was torn away. He denied the suggestion that he got a report written by Mishrilal which was later on torn. The witness was examined in the committing court also where he admitted that one report was got written by the villagers and it was torn away. Thus it appears that initially some other report was written and it was torn away. P.W. 9 Gulab Singh definitely stated that Devi Singh lodged the report at 5 p. m. On this part of the case also therefore, the witness is not deposing truly. He also gave a false explanation that Ramkaran got the injury bv the hand of Surajmal. He said that the villagers gave him fist and slap blows. P.W. 2 Bhagirath stated that he reached the scene of incident and saw Ramkaran grappling with Devi Singh. Devi Singh told him that the other co-accused was Surajmal. The witness stated that he did not disclose to the police that Devi Singh told him that Surajmal had taken away the bore. He also denied about the radio though had so stated in the police statement. He also denied that they gave a severe beating to Ramkaran. Thus the witness is not giving out the whole incident in a true manner, P.W. 3 Ramkaran also stated that the report was lodged at 10 p. m. P W. 4 Chhitar has also deposed similarly and so also P W. 6 Devi P.W. 7 Balu gave a similar statement. Thus a number of witnesses stated that Devilal apprehended Ramkaran in the night. However, they did not clearly explain the injuries occasioned to Ramkaran They also did not give any plausible explanation about the delay in filing the F T.R. The case of the accused from the very beginning is that he was detained by the villagers in the morning on suspicion and was given a serious beating. The F. I. R. is obviously not available to corroborate the prosecution evidence. The possibility cannot be totally ruled out that the villagers caught Ramkaran in the morning on suspicion with regard to the incident of theft in the night and gave him a beating. Thereafter having realised that lawfully they could not have given a beating to Ramkaran, improved the case to this extent that Ramkaran was caught by Devi Singh in the night. There does exist a doubt about the guilt of the appellant in the aforesaid circumstances. Thereafter having realised that lawfully they could not have given a beating to Ramkaran, improved the case to this extent that Ramkaran was caught by Devi Singh in the night. There does exist a doubt about the guilt of the appellant in the aforesaid circumstances. I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ramkaran was guilty of the offence under section 457 IPC. 7. I, therefore, accept the appeal and acquit the appellant Ramkaran for the offence under section 457 IPC. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby discharged.Appeal accepted - Appellant acquitted. *******