S.N. Jha J. These three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment because they arises out of the same judgment. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1977 there are three appellants. All of them have been convicted under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. All the three appellants have also been convicted under section 147 of the Code' and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year. Appellant no. 2 Sheo Prasad has further been convicted under section 323 of the Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. In Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1977 there are two appellants, namely, Mahendra Sao and Baijnath Sao. Both these appellants have been convicted under section 302/149 and each has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the appellants have also been convicted under section 148 of the Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant Mahendra Sao has been further convicted under section 326 of the Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years while appellant Baijnath Sao has been convicted for an offence under section 324 of the Code and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. Sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. In Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1977 there is only one appellant namely, Rajendra Sao who has been convicted under section 302/149 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under section 148 of the Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. This appellant has further been convicted under section 302 of the Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 5. He has also been convicted under section 148 of the Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. This appellant has further been convicted under section 302 of the Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 5. According to the first information report the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.5.1974 at 5 A.M. Rambriksh Sao, the deceased, was sitting at his outer verandah along with his two wives Ram Sawari Devi (P.W.3) and Taramani Devi (P.W. 4) and his mother Punia Devi (P.W. 5) and the informant (P.W.6) was feeding his she-baffalo below the verandah when all the accused persons who are appellants came there variously armed. The allegation further is that Lakhan Sao, appellant in Cr. Appeal no. 380 and his wife Katoria Devi ordered for assault. Upon which Rajendra Sao, appellant in Cr. Appeal No.397 gave a Pharsa blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down. On his falling down, the case of the prosecution is that appellant Mahendra Sao, appellant in Cr. Appeal no 384 gave a chhura blow on his left Panjra and Baijnath Sao, appellant in Cr Appeal No. 384 assaulted him on his left clavicle. It was also alleged that the informant (P.W.9) ran to save the deceased but he was also assaulted by Baijnath Sao with bhala on his back and Sheo Prasad, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 380 gave a lathi blow on his right arm. The first information report also says that all the appellants fled away after inflicting injuries on the deceased as well as on the informant. The deceased was carried to the police station but he succumbed to the injuries in the way itself. 6. The informant (P.W.6) lodged the first information report (Ext 4) at the Arwal Police Station at 6.30 A.M. on the same date, which was recorded by the Officer Incharge Sri R. N. Dubey. The police took up Investigation of the case and after completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused persons before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jahanabad, who took cognizance and committed the accused persons to the Court of session for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the case convicted all the appellants under various charges and sentenced them as stated above. The police took up Investigation of the case and after completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused persons before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jahanabad, who took cognizance and committed the accused persons to the Court of session for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the case convicted all the appellants under various charges and sentenced them as stated above. The appellants being aggrieved by the said judgment preferred these three appeals. 7 From the first information it appears that some motive has been assigned for the occurrence. It is said that the appellants were always threatening that they would kill the deceased and they would inherit the entire property of the informant by inheritance. 8. The defence case is total denial of their participation in the occurrence. Their further defence was that the informant did not want to give equal share to accused Lakhan Sao in the lands which was in the name of his father but he took the entire share and, therefore, there was dispute between them. It has been further alleged that there was a dispute between the informant and appellant Lakhan Sao for entry of the name in the new survey and some type of enmity was there between the informant and the appellants as they are agnates and due to that enmity they have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been alleged that it might be that the deceased and his father were assaulted in the night by some unknown person who they could not identify and the accused persons have been falsely implicated, taking advantage of this occurrence. 9. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses out of whom P.W.s. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are said to be the eye witnesses. P.W. 7 is the Officer Incharge who took up investigation subsequently after the death of Sri R.N. Dubey who was investigating the Case prior to him. P.W. 8 is Dr. S.P. Jaiswal who examined the injuries on the informant. P.W. 9 is the Block Development Officer who is said to have recorded the so called dying declaration of Raghu Sao, informant P.W. 6 at the Arwal State Dispensary. P.W. 8 is Dr. S.P. Jaiswal who examined the injuries on the informant. P.W. 9 is the Block Development Officer who is said to have recorded the so called dying declaration of Raghu Sao, informant P.W. 6 at the Arwal State Dispensary. P.W. 10 is the doctor who held the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and P.W. 11 is a formal witness who has proved the supervision note said to have been made by the A S.P. 10. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge is (i) that the prosecution has proved the manner of occurrence as alleged by it; (ii) the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to assault the Prosecution party and to kill Rambriksha and in prosecution of the said common object accused Rajendra Sao caused the murder of Rambriksha and (iii) charges under section 302/149 of the Code against all the accused. and under section 148 against accused Baijnath, Rajendra and Mahendra and under section 147 against the remaining accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. His further finding is that the charges under section 326 and 323 of the Code have also been proved against appellants Mahendra and Sheo Prasad. Lastly, he has come to the conclusion that the charge under section 302 of the Code against Rajendra and the charge under section 324 of the Code against Baijnath for assaulting the informant Raghu Sao have been proved and on these findings he has convicted the appellants as stated above. 11. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of these appellants submitted that the whole trial has vitiated because of the fact that there has not been a fair and proper investigation by the police and as such whether it can be said to be a fair trial in which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants. His further submission is that there has been breach of direct and important provision of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as there was no fair investigation in the case the appellants deserve benefit of doubt and they be acquitted. 12 In order to appreciate the point raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to give some facts regarding this aspect of the case. 12 In order to appreciate the point raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to give some facts regarding this aspect of the case. It is admitted that the occurrence took place at about 5 A.M. On 24.5.1974 and on the same day at 6.30 A.M. the first information was lodged by the father of the deceased (P.W. 6) which are recorded at the police station by Sri R.N. Dubey, Officer Incharge of the police station and it is the admitted position that Sri Dubey after recording the first information report made certain investigation into the case and examined some of the witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 3 who is the wife of the deceased shows that she also made some statement before the Officer Incharge on that date. She has stated in her disposition that "MAI THANA PAR APNA BEYAN LIKAYHI THI KI KEON KI MERE SASUR MAR SE BEHOSH HO GAYE THE. DOROGA JI MERE BEYAN LIKH LIYE THE." Therefore, it is not disputed that some of the witnesses were also examined by Sri Dubey. From the records it appears that R.N. Dubey died of heart failure on 27.5.1974 and subsequently P.W.7 took up the investigation of the case from 3.6.1974. Mr. Prasad vehemently argued that the case diary does not say anything what happened to the statement or the report of the investigation which was done by R.N. Dubey and not a single document was ever furnished-to the appellants as required under section 207 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Section 207 lays down that in any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused free of cost, a copy of the police report or the first information report or the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes or examine as its witnesses. From the perusal of the record I am satisfied that certain statements of the witnesses were recorded by R.N. Dubey but those statements were not made available either to the appellants or to this Court. In support of his first submission the learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Pulukari Kottaya and others Vs. From the perusal of the record I am satisfied that certain statements of the witnesses were recorded by R.N. Dubey but those statements were not made available either to the appellants or to this Court. In support of his first submission the learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Pulukari Kottaya and others Vs. Emperor and has drawn our attention to the facts that since there has been a violation of the provision of section 207, the whole trial has vitiated in law. In the decision of the Privy Council it has been held that the right to be furnished with copies of statements made by witnesses to a police officer given to an accused person is a very valuable one and often provides important material for Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. But, on the other hand, the Privy Council has held that it is merely an irregularity which can be cured at a subsequent stage. Therefore, in view of the decision aforesaid I am not inclined to accept so far as the first submission is concerned. 13. So far as the second submission is concerned I find that there is considerable force in this submission. I examined the records and the deposition of the witnesses and I am satisfied that there has not been a proper investigation in this Case. Mr. Prasad has drawn our attention to the first information report which is Ext. 4 and he has shown doubt that whether this first information has been lodged by the informant himself or not. He has drawn our attention to the signature of the informant Raghu Sao. His signature does not seem to be a genuine one when I compared it with his signature which he has made on his deposition in court and as well as on the so-called dying declaration recorded by P.W. 9. His contention was that in view of the statement made by P.W. 3, which I have quoted earlier, her father-in-law was unconscious and this fact is also strengthened by the fact when I read the so-called dying declaration where he has not made even a whisper about this fact that his son was killed in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The Case of the informant is that he carried his son to the police station on a Khatia and he died in the way while going to the police station. The informant was himself accompanying him in the morning at about 6.30 A.M. and when he made a subsequent statement at about 12.30 P.M. at the Arwal State Dispensary it seems peculiar why these fact do not find place in that so-called dying declaration. Even from the examination of medical report and the deposition of the doctor (P.W. 8) who examined the informant it appears that he had received only simple injuries, therefore, it dose not stand to reason that if a man who was carrying his son and who died in the way, in his subsequent statement would not mention these facts The omission of these facts also makes it clear that the informant has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. In a criminal case. it is well settled that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused need not prove his defence. If the defence is probable and reasonable and it creates doubt in the credibility of the prosecution case, the accused will get the benefit and shall have to be acquitted. In the instant case as I have observed the entire investigation and trial seems to be doubtful and no person can be convicted on the basis of the evidence procured by such investigation after a lapse of about ten days. It is clear in the instant case that the conviction had been based upon the investigation made by the subsequent Officer Incharge who took up the investigation admittedly on 3.6.1974. So there has been a delay of atleast ten days and the prosecution has not given any reasonable explanation for not bringing on record the statements of the witnesses or any document collected by the Officer Incharge Sri Dubey before whom the first information report was lodged. If the evidence of P.W. 3 is examined, on the trend of her statement, it will appear that even the motive assigned in the first information report is not corroborated in her evidence it has come to light that the occurrence took place due to the fact that the widow of the deceased was a witch. If the evidence of P.W. 3 is examined, on the trend of her statement, it will appear that even the motive assigned in the first information report is not corroborated in her evidence it has come to light that the occurrence took place due to the fact that the widow of the deceased was a witch. Therefore, it is not clear which of the statement should be accepted. All these things in my opinion, makes the prosecution case doubtful. 14 Having considered all these facts I am or the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not correct in convicting the accused-appellants on the basis of such investigation and, in my opinion, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. In the result all the three appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants are set aside and they are set at liberty. I agree. Appeals allowed.