JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction recorded on 25-3-1983 by the 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of District and sessions Judge, Jhabua at Alirajpur, in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1982, thereby convicting the appellants for an offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2. ) BEFORE proceeding further it would be pertinent to note that one of the co-accused Gacchhu s/o Naharsingh, aged 13 years is being proceeded against before the juvenile Court, while the other co-accused Gulabsingh s/o Naharsingh is reported to be absconding. ( 3. ) THE prosecution case is that on 4-4-1982 the complainant Sardar and deceased Bherla were returning home after piercing the Tadi tree for extraction of tadi, the accused persons, who were armed with bow and arrows, met them near indersinghs Bada. The accused shot arrows hitting Bherla in his chest, which resulted in his death. Sardar also suffered injuries by stones and arrows. On 5-4-1982 at 6. 30 a. M. the first-information-report (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Sardar (PW. 1) at Police, station Nanpur. After investigation the accused persons were charge-sheeted before; the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Alirajpur, who committed them to sessions and on trial they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to the accused Bherla left his home alone and as he failed to return back, Sardar (PW. 1) went out in his search and found his dead body. The defence of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. ( 5. ) IN all the following 3 injuries were found on the body of the deceased Bherla : "1- Lacerated wound, contusion, measuring about 1/2" x 1/4" x oral cavity, situated over Lt. side cheek ; 2- Incised penetrating wound (the wound of entry) about 1 1/2" x 1/2" x deep cavity, situated over left side chest over mid ancillary line over 5th costal space. Bleeding coming out from the wound ; 3- Incised wound about (wound of exit) 1/4 x 1/4" x deep, situated over middle of iliac crest (above) right side the point of arrow-palpated through the wound. Bluish discolour less present around the wound. ". An iron arrow has been found present in right iliac fossa of the abdominal cavity. Bleeding coming out from the wound ; 3- Incised wound about (wound of exit) 1/4 x 1/4" x deep, situated over middle of iliac crest (above) right side the point of arrow-palpated through the wound. Bluish discolour less present around the wound. ". An iron arrow has been found present in right iliac fossa of the abdominal cavity. In the opinion of the doctor, Bherla died of shock due to haemorrhage. " ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no reliable evidence against the appellants to sustain the conviction. According to him the only eye-witness in this case is Sardar (PW. 1), who is an interested and related witness and in absence of independent corroboration from reliable witness, he could not have been relied upon for basing the order of conviction. No doubt, the deceased was the brother of this witness Sardar (PW. 1) but that by itself would not be sufficient to discard his testimony, particularly in view of the fact that he has also sustained an injury during the incident and there is no cross-examination on this point, as is emphatically urged by the learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent state. In such circumstances the sole testimony of the eye-witness needs to be scrutinised with circumspection. ( 7. ) SARDAR (PW. 1) in paragraph 1 of his statement has stated that his father had three palm trees in village Umda and the accused for the last 3 or 4 years had been extracting Tadi from these trees. It is thus apparent that the witness did bear a grudge against the accused persons. On the date of incident while he was returning home-along with the deceased Bherla, they were suddently attacked by the accused persons, who were hiding behind a Mango tree. According to him except the accused Gacchu, other accused persons were armed with bows and arrows. This witness has deposed before the Court that the appellant Mucchu shot three arrows and one of them hit the deceased in his abdomen. Bherla, the deceased fell down on the ground and thereafter he is said to have been stoned by the accused, who also wielded the Denga. Bherla died on the spot. There is no other eye-witness to this occurrence, as Sardar (PW. Bherla, the deceased fell down on the ground and thereafter he is said to have been stoned by the accused, who also wielded the Denga. Bherla died on the spot. There is no other eye-witness to this occurrence, as Sardar (PW. 1) admits that it was on his shouting that Pratap, Jamsingh and Indersingh and others came to the spot, but by that time the accused persons had already taken to their heels. ( 8. ) IT is evident from the testimony of this witness Sardar (PW. 1) that he had inimical feelings or at any rate ill-feelings against the accused and even the trial Court, before placing reliance on this witness, has tried to seek support from the medical evidence, as well as the first-information-report. The trial court has concluded that the testimony of this witness, Sardar (PW. 1) stands corroborated in material particulars by the first-information-report (Ex. P/la)- (Para. 13 of the judgment ). ( 9. ) THE question is whether this first-information-report (Ex. P/1a) can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. It is significant to note at this stage that Ex. P/1a bears the thumb-mark of Sardar (PW. 1) and during the course of his statement it was read over to him. Can such a report, as Ex. P/1a, be said to have been duly proved. First-information-report is no doubt an important document, which requires to be strictly proved before the Court. It is significant to note that in this case the investigating Officer has not been examined. It is seen from the order sheets of the trial Court that as many as four opportunities have been given to the prosecution to produce this witness, even though no reason as such was assigned for the absence of the Investigating Officer. Ordinarily, it is expected of the prosecution to produce the investigating Officer as a witness before the Court and more so in a serious case like murder. In the instant case the examination of the Investigating Officer assumes importance for two reasons ; (a) the first-information-report (Ex. P/1a) was required to be duly proved by the scribe, and (b) Sardar (PW. 1) in his statement has categorically stated that he had reached the Police Station in the same night itself and the time he gives in a rustic manner- "the time when people go to sleep". P/1a) was required to be duly proved by the scribe, and (b) Sardar (PW. 1) in his statement has categorically stated that he had reached the Police Station in the same night itself and the time he gives in a rustic manner- "the time when people go to sleep". When he reached the Police Station, the Station Officer had been in a hotel and further adds that he had narrated the entire story to the Station Officer in the night itself and the report was written in the morning. In view of this statement it was all the more incumbent on the prosecution to produce the Investigating Officer. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid circumstances cast a serious reflection on the veracity of the first-information-report as also on the prosecution case. . The recording of the first-information-report can in no circumstance be deferred. It is the duty of the Station Officer or the incharge of the Police Station to promptly record the report as and when it comes. In this case Sardar (PW. 1) had reached the Police Station in the night itself by the time when people ordinarily go to sleep and had in fact narrated the whole incident to the Station Officer, who deferred the recording of the first-information-report till next morning. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the first-information-report and its recording is to obtain early information of the offence, circumstances leading to it, names of the culprits, the part played by each one of them and the names of the eye-witnesses and any delay in either lodging or recording of the first-information-report may result in loss of spontaneity, introduction of after-thought, coloured and exaggerated version. It is also incumbent on the prosecution that the delay in lodging the report must be satisfactorily explained. In the instant case such explanation becomes all the more necessary that, the person lodging the first-information-report, Sardar (PW. 1) says that he had narrated the whole incident to the Station Officer in the night itself, which was reduced to writing in the next morning by 6. 30 A. M. The Courts have viewed such first-information-reports with grave suspicion. The delay in the instant case has not been caused by the person lodging it but by the Station Officer, who was duty bound to record it. This causes a serious doubt about the veracity of this first-information-report, Ex. 30 A. M. The Courts have viewed such first-information-reports with grave suspicion. The delay in the instant case has not been caused by the person lodging it but by the Station Officer, who was duty bound to record it. This causes a serious doubt about the veracity of this first-information-report, Ex. P/1a. A first-information-report cannot be used as a substantive or primary evidence of the truth of its contents and before it could be used for the purpose of corroboration, it should have been duly proved by Nanhku Singh vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1973 SC 491 ). The first-information-report is based upon the earliest version of a cognizable offence. The object of the first-information-report is to obtain the earlier information of the alleged criminal activity, of recording statements before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellish [see Emperor vs. Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 PC 18)]. In this case it appears that the Investigating Officer deliberately chose to defer the recording of the first-information-report, when the whole incident was narrated to him in the night itself by Sardar (PW. 1 ). That version, as narrated, is not forthcoming. What is placed as a first-information-report is Ex. P/1a, but the question looms large whether it is in fact the first-information or it is an embellished or a coloured version. The prosecution ought to have produced the Investigating officer as a witness, not merely to explain the delay caused in recording the first-information-report but also to remove the doubt resulting from such delay. ( 10. ) EVEN for the purposes of corroboration, it is a settled rule that corroboration should itself come from reliable evidence. The discrepant piece of evidence cannot corroborate another discrepant witness. [see Muluwa vs. State of M. P. ( AIR 1976 SC 989 )]. ( 11. ) THE other witness, who has been relied upon for the purpose of corroboration is Indersingh (PW. 4 ). He is also a relation of the complainant and he claims to have seen the accused running with bows and arrows. According to the first-information-report, the assailants had ran away and taken shelter in their Tapras. He also says that he had not seen anyone shooting arrows. There is one apparent error in his statement, who had seen even Gacchu running away with bow and arrows, which is not even the prosecution case. According to the first-information-report, the assailants had ran away and taken shelter in their Tapras. He also says that he had not seen anyone shooting arrows. There is one apparent error in his statement, who had seen even Gacchu running away with bow and arrows, which is not even the prosecution case. Thus, this witness is also discrepant and unreliable even for the purposes of lending assurance to the testimony of Sardar (PW. 1 ). ( 12. ) PW. 2-Dr. Shri B. L. Khanger in his statement (para. 7) states that Bherla died of shock resulting from excessive bleeding, but he has not specifically stated about the cause of death, nor has he specified any particular injury to which the cause of death can be attributed. Absence of, medical testimony as to the nature of the injury, is in the entails and the duty of the prosecution to question the medical witness, when examined as to the nature of the injuries cannot be over emphasised neither before the court nor in his report the doctor has stated about the nature of the injury and further whether the same can be attributed as the cause of death. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the change has been brought home to the accused. The prosecution evidence, right from its inception from the Stage of the first-information-report is doubtful which has further been strengthened by non-examination of the I. P. ( 13. ) THE prosecution has failed to bring home the Charge to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The cause of death, in view of the discrepant nature of the medical evidence, cannot be specifically attributed to any of the injuries. In such circumstances, the accused appellants are entitled to an acquittal. ( 14. ) THE prosecution hinges on the sole testimony of Sardar (PW. 1 ). Although there is no impediment in law, in a conviction being based on the testimony of a single witness, but in absence of any corroboration, of the only witness against the accused, to prove a serious charge like murder and the witness is likely to modulate his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for deliberate purpose of securing conviction such a witness cannot be considered as reliable and no conviction can be based on his testimony. ( 15. ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, these appeals succeed and are allowed. ( 15. ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, these appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction sentencing the appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge. They are directed to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.