B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE trial court has held the charges against the appellant under section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code established and having convicted the appellant for both these offences, has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence of murder without passing any separate sentence for the other offences, after accepting the case of the prosecution that on April 8, 1979, during the night, the appellant, on returning from the market with P. W. 2 after purchasing a pair of buffaloes, asked his wife hereinafter referred to as the deceased to bring some turmeric water and as there was some delay, he entered inside, dragged the deceased out and first assaulted her by means of a oradabadi (M. O. 1) and after it broke into two pieces, he dealt kicks and blows on the neck and belly of the deceased and pressed the neck of the deceased by his leg for which the deceased groaned and succumbed to the injuries sustained by her and on the day following the appellant and his brother, who also stood trial being charged under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, cremated the dead body to cause evidence of the offence of murder to disappear to screen the appellant from legal punishment. The Court of Sessions acquitted the brother of the appellant of the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code owing to want of evidence that he had knowledge of the commission of offence of murder. ( 2 ) TO bring home the charges to the appellant, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses of whom P. Ws. 2 to 5 and 9 were said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 7, the brother of the deceased, was the first informant. Of the witnesses to the occurrence, P. W. 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and was put leading questions by it under section 154 of the Evidence Act. P. W. 5 had testified in his examination-in-chief as if he had seen the assault, but gave a go- by to it in his cross-examination by making a statement that he had not actually seen the occurrence, but had only heard the sounds of assault. There thus remained for consideration before the Court the evidence of P. Ws. P. W. 5 had testified in his examination-in-chief as if he had seen the assault, but gave a go- by to it in his cross-examination by making a statement that he had not actually seen the occurrence, but had only heard the sounds of assault. There thus remained for consideration before the Court the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 which the trial court accepted and the conviction was mainly based thereon. ( 3 ) AS the dead body had been cremated, no autopsy had been conducted. Some bones seized by the Investigating Officer from the burial ground were found to be those of a female person, but no ante-mortem injury had been noticed on any of the bones. There was thus no medical or scientific evidence that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The plea of the appellant was one of denial and false implication. According to him, the deceased had given birth of a child sometime prior to her death and she had become anaemic and had died a natural death. ( 4 ) THERE was evidence of P. W. 1, the doctor-in-charge of the Mission Hospital at Bissam, Cuttack, that the deceased had been suffering from anaemia and had been treated in the hospital, for sometime. This was also the evidence of D. W. 1 examined for the defence. The evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 was that the appellant had assaulted the deceased and the prosecution alleged that the deceased died owing to assault by the appellant. ( 5 ) MR. Routray for the appellant has contented that the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 was not worthy of credence. The learned counsel for both the sides have submitted that but for the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9, there was no evidence which could substantiate the charges. ( 6 ) WE notice that all was not well between P. W. 2 on the one hand and the appellant on the other as they had land dispute about which halting and hesitating statements had been made by P. W. 2 in his cross-examination and this fact of dispute would be borne out by the evidence of D. W. 1. P. W. 9, the wife of P. W. 2, would also have animus towards the appellant. Their evidence was to be examined with great care. P. W. 9, the wife of P. W. 2, would also have animus towards the appellant. Their evidence was to be examined with great care. ( 7 ) THE statements of the witnesses to the occurrence including those of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 had been got recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigating agency. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR. Balak Ram and another v. State of U. P. no fault can be found with the investigating agency for getting the statements of the witnesses to the occurrence recorded under section 164, but the evidence of such witnesses has to be examined with great care before the same is accepted as such witnesses feel tied, down to their previous statements recorded by the Magistrate and they have but a theoretical freedom to depart from such statements as a prosecution for perjury may be the price of such freedom. This aspect had not been kept in mind by the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9. The evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 required close scrutiny and careful examination and in our view, the trial court did not critically examine their evidence before accepting it. ( 8 ) WHILE P. Ws. 2 and 3 had stated that on returning home, the appellant asked the deceased to bring some turmeric water, P. W. 9 had testified that the appellant asked the deceased as to whether she had brought turmeric water and oil. These witnesses had, however, testified that when there was some delay on the part of the deceased, the appellant went in, dragged the deceased outside his house, assaulted her by means of M. O, I which broke into pieces and then dealt kicks on her back and belly. P. W. 2 went a step further by stating that the appellant pressed the neck of the deceased by his leg although this had not been deposed to by P. Ws. 3 and 9. ( 9 ) IT would be noticed from the evidence that although P. Ws. P. W. 2 went a step further by stating that the appellant pressed the neck of the deceased by his leg although this had not been deposed to by P. Ws. 3 and 9. ( 9 ) IT would be noticed from the evidence that although P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 claiming to have witnessed the occurrence and as earlier indicated by us, two of them had not been pulling on well with the appellant, none of the witnesses had disclosed the occurrence to any one immediately thereafter and they did not even choose to inform the Gram Rakhi of the village. No reasonable explanation has been offered by them as to how and why they remained silent and did not make any disclosure about what had happened, if they had really seen such a murderous assault, until the investigating police officer came to the scene. Even if some of the villagers including the witnesses had gone to attend a marriage ceremony at a village nearby for a day or so no reasonable and acceptable explanation for their not disclosing the occurrence had been offered by P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9. Unexplained delay in the disclosure of such occurrence by persons claiming themselves as witnesses to the occurrence would cast a serious reflection on their bona fides and would certainly affect their evidence. It would not be safe and proper 10 accept such evidence and base a conviction thereon in this connection, reference may be made to the principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in Bahuli v. The State of Orissa and Panda Nana Kare v. State of Maharashtra. ( 10 ) APART from the aforesaid suspicion in the evidence of P. Ws. 2. 3 and 9, contradictory statements made by them in their evidence in the court and in their statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would bring about their condemnation. P. W. 2 had not stated tinder section 164 that the appellant pushed the deceased down lad dealt kicks on the front of her neck and pressed her neck by his leg and the deceased groaned and thereafter she did not utter a word. P. W. 2 had not stated tinder section 164 that the appellant pushed the deceased down lad dealt kicks on the front of her neck and pressed her neck by his leg and the deceased groaned and thereafter she did not utter a word. P. W. 3 had not stated to the Investigating Officer that the appellant, on return with a pair of buffaloes, asked the deceased to bring turmeric water and because of delay, dragged the deceased out and assaulted. He had not stated under section 164 that on account of beating by the appellant, the Koradabadi got broken and that thereafter the appellant dealt kicks on the neck and belly of the deceased and further that the deceased cried out saying that she was dying. P. W. 9 had not stated under section 164 about the appellants returning with a pair of buffaloes and asked the deceased as to whether she had brought turmeric water and oil. He had also ,not stated that the appellant was armed with a Koradabadi and that he brought the deceased out and assaulted her for which that Koradabadi got broken and he dealt kicks on her neck and belly. These omissions with regard to the material parts of the case of the prosecution involving the appellant as the author of the crime could not be characterised as inconsequential and would be taken as material contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the evidences of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 9 were untrue and untrustworthy and could not be acted upon. ( 12 ) ANOTHER highly suspicious feature in the case is the unexplained delay in lodging of the first information report (Ext. 3) by P. W. 7. On his own showing, he bad been sent for by the appellant and had been informed through a messenger about the death of the deceased. If the appellant was the author of the crime, it was highly unlikely that be would send information to no other person than the brother of the deceased who, on his own admission, was not on good terms with the appellant. If the appellant was the author of the crime, it was highly unlikely that be would send information to no other person than the brother of the deceased who, on his own admission, was not on good terms with the appellant. The evidence of P. W. 7 and that of his mother (P. W. 8) was that both of them came to the house of the appellant and P. W. 7 had testified that he liotkcd injuries on the person of the deceased. According to P. W. 7, the appellant had threatened to kill him for which he had not lodged any report. It is pertinent to note that P. W. 8 who was with P. W. 7 at that time had not whispered a word about any such threat. As deposed t6 by P. W. 6. and 8 after P. W. 6. the brother-in-law of P. W. 7, advised the latter to make a report at the police station, a report was lodged. If P. W. 7 had seen what he had claimed to have seen in the house of the deceased on the day following the night of occurrence, he must have gone to the police station which was not far away from the spot and lodged a report. Instead of doing that, the first information report was lodged as late as on April 13, 1979. Delay in lodging the report may bring in embellishment as a result of after thought and danger creeps in of coloured version and concocted story. It is essential that delay in making the report should be explained satisfactorily and in the instant case, it has not been. ( 13 ) IN the view we have taken, the recovery of one piece of Koradabadi (M. O. 1) or some earth suspected to have stains of blood from inside the house of the appellant would be of no consequence and would not further the case of the prosecution. ( 13 ) IN the view we have taken, the recovery of one piece of Koradabadi (M. O. 1) or some earth suspected to have stains of blood from inside the house of the appellant would be of no consequence and would not further the case of the prosecution. ( 14 ) IN the absence of evidence that the deceased died a homicidal death, the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant must also fail it may not be out of place to mention here that as deposed to by D. W. 1, cremation of the dead body of the deceased had taken place in the presence of the villagers and although P W. 7 had also spoken about his presence then, there was no evidence that he had raised any protest. ( 15 ) IN the result we would allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under section 302 and the order of conviction passed against him under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed. .