JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - This is an appeal by Karan Singh against his conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. and a sentence of 10 years R.I. and Rs. 1,000 as fine awarded to him and a sentence of further 2 years R.I. on default of payment of fine awarded to him. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, in the evening of December 7, 1977 in village Sheikhpur P. S. Chhatari District Bulandshahr at about 6 p.m., the appellant demanded 'Gur Bhela' from Mohan Singh, the, injured, at later's crusher and Mohan Singh declined and on that the appellant got annoyed. According to the prosecution in the same evening at about 7-8 p.m. When Mohan Singh was writing his crusher accounts sitting over a cot on his Chabutra in the lantern light, the appellant came and inflicted Gandasa blows causing injury to Mohan Singh. The witness cited in the first information report are said to have seen the incident. 3. The F.I.R. relating to this incident was lodged at P.S. Chhatari on December 9, 1977 at 8-30 a.m., the distance of the police station from the place of incident being 7 Kms. The explanation for the delay, as given, is that on 7th night the appellant could not lodge the first information report by proceeding to the police station on account of fear and on 8th he first proceeded to Bulandshahr for treatment there and came to the Police Station Chhatari from the hospital on December 9, 1977 and then lodged the report. 4. The prosecution examined three witnesses on the incident namely the victim Mohan Singh P.W. 1, Kunwar Pal P.W. 3, Lal Singh P.W. 4. On the aforesaid alleged motive Ram Swarup P.W. 2 was examined to support Mohan Singh. There is the single testimony of Mohan Singh P.W. 1 namely the victim, on the identity of the culprit. The other 2 witnesses Kunwar Pal and Lal Singh while supporting the prosecution on the place and time of incident do not disclose the identity of the culprit and were treated hostile witnesses. 5. While a conviction can be maintained upon the solitary testimony also but a very cautious approach has to be made. The F.I.R. has always been considered to be a strong piece of corroborative evidence. In the present case the F.I.R. is much belated and is not spontaneous. 5. While a conviction can be maintained upon the solitary testimony also but a very cautious approach has to be made. The F.I.R. has always been considered to be a strong piece of corroborative evidence. In the present case the F.I.R. is much belated and is not spontaneous. That being the position it has lost its importance as corroborative evidence. While the explanation for not lodging the report in the night on 7th May be understandable the explanation or not lodging the report even on 8th is unconvincing. The distance of the Police, Station being 7 Kms., while proceeding to Bulandshahr the victim could have gone to P.S. Chhatari and lodge the report. He could have at least asked some one to lodge the report. As many as four eye-witnesses to the incident were cited, at least one of them have proceeded to lodge the F.I.R. Besides if the anxiety was to first rush to Bulandshahar proper a F.I.R. could have been lodged even at Bulandshahar. A written F.I.R. could have been sent on 8th direct to the Superintendent police even by post. In the case of Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R, 1973 S.C. 501 stress was laid upon the importance of prompt F.I.R. as an important piece of corroborative evidence and a delay of 20 hours was held fatal. 6. There is one more striking feature in this case; the nature of injuries would show that there must have been prof used bleeding. In fact, the clothes of the 'victim were also smeared with blood. It is very strange that no blood-stains were found either on the cot on which the deceased was sitting or on the copy book in which he was writing the accounts on the Chabutra where the cot was spread. Taking all these features into consideration it will be highly unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant on the strength of the solitary evidence of the victim Mohan Singh. This appeal succeeds and I hold that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him are set aside and he is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The amount of fine, if any already paid, shall be refunded.