JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1983, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 60/1978, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:- (a) Under Section 302/149, IPC life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. (b) Under Section 307/149, IPC 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. (c) Under Section 148, IPC One years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrenly. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated thus. A report was lodged at the Police Station, Chechat by Nand Singh (PW 6) on 15th July, 1978, about an incident said to have taken place near Boraji-ki-Kui at about 6.45 p.m. It was alleged in the report that on 15th July, 1978, deceased Manak Chand and his brother Ashok Kumar (PW 22), Nand Singh (PW 5), Mohan Lal (PW 12) Banwari Lal (PW 13), and Bhaonre (PW 24) had gone to Ramganjmandi for securing bail and when they were returning in the evening to their village in bus No. RJU 1198, which was being driven by Fakir Mohd (PW 2). Prem Chand (PW 1) was the conductor of the bus. There were many passengers of Chechat and other villagers in the bus. It was further alleged that when the bus left the village Modak, Aslam and Laxmi Chand alias Lakhama also boarded the bus. When the said bus after departure from village Modak had reached near Boraji-ki-Kui Laxmi Chand asked the driver of the bus to stop the bus. He pointed a knife towards the Driver and removed the keys of the bus and jumped down. Immediately thereafter near about 15-16 persons who were all armed with weapons encircled the bus and asked the passengers to get down from the bus, as they had their dispute with Manak Chand, Ashok Kumar and their party. It was also alleged in the report that in the bus there was a constable by name Banshi Lal (PW 11). The prosecution case is that they advised the persons, who came there, not to raise any dispute. But, they did not hear him and threatened him to kill. It was also alleged in the report that in the bus there was a constable by name Banshi Lal (PW 11). The prosecution case is that they advised the persons, who came there, not to raise any dispute. But, they did not hear him and threatened him to kill. It is further the case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the evidence that Banshi Lal left the bus and reached Chechat to report the matter. The further case of the prosecution is that passengers got down from the bus and went away from there, in the bus, there remained only the deceased, Manak Chand, his brother Ashok Kumar, Nand Singh, Bhanwar Lal, Mohan and Bhairu. The persons who encircled the bus were named as Ramesh, Gopal, Mohan Meena, Peeru Dhakad, Kanwaria Gujar, Phool Chand Joshi, Kanhaiyalal Joshi, Parasram Joshi, Shankar, Kasturchand, Banshi Lal and two or three other persons. The case of the prosecution further is that Ramesh inflicted a ballam blow on Manak Chand and thereafter the other accused persons, inflicted injuries on Manak Chand his other colleagues had sword, ballam, gandasi. Believing that the injured Manak Chand had died, the accused party left the bus and thereafter the passengers, driver and conductor of the bus came to the bus and the driver took the bus to the Police Station, Chechat along with the injured. Injured Nand Singh (PW 6) lodged a report Ex. P 9. By that time, Manak Chand died. The other injured persons were removed to Maharaja Bheem Singh Hospital, Kota for treatment. The injured were examined by the Doctor at Kota, in the night between the 1.30 a.m. to 3.45 a.m. on 16th July, 1978. At 11 a.m. the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manak Chand was conducted. The accused were arrested and on the information given by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act certain articles were recovered. At the instance of the accused, during the investigation, blood-stained clothes and other articles were seized. The blood-stained clothes were sent to the Serologist. The reports of the Serologist are Ex. P 88, Ex. P 89 and Ex. P 90. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota for trial. The reports of the Serologist are Ex. P 88, Ex. P 89 and Ex. P 90. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota for trial. The accused were charged for an offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149, IPC. Accused Kanhaiyalal expired during the course of trial and the proceedings against him stood abated. The accused persons denied the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 33 witnesses, including the five injured persons. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC wherein they stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity and the plea of alibi was also set up in defence. It was stated by the accused that Ashok Kumar, Bhairu, Banwari, Nand Singh and others had formed a party which had separate territory in Ramganjmandi, Chechat and nearby areas. It was further stated that these witnesses were involved in beating a large number of persons. The defence examined 28 witnesses. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing arguments, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1985, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Shri A.K. Gupta, A.K. Sharma and Biri Singh, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants and on behalf of the State, Shri G.C. Chattarji pleaded the case. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law and no conviction can be based on the basis of the material on record. It was submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the FIR, post-mortem reports and the injury reports. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy was not examined. It was also submitted that the FIR was also not proved as Bhanwar Lal who was the scribe of the FIR (Ex.P 9) was not examined. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants,submitted that the testimony of Banshi Lal (PW 11) cannot be relied upon. Shri Gupta also pointed out that there is interpolation in the FIR. There is also delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellants,submitted that the testimony of Banshi Lal (PW 11) cannot be relied upon. Shri Gupta also pointed out that there is interpolation in the FIR. There is also delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. Shri Gupta referred to the post-mortem report Ex.P 25 and inquest report Ex.P 17 and pointed out that the inquest report was prepered after the post-mortem was conducted. Lastly, Shri Gupta very vehemently urged that the FIR was recorded after the inquest report and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. He controverted the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. 5. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. We have carefully gone through the entire record. FIR Ex.P 9 was lodged by Nand Singh (PW 6). It was lodged at the Police Station Chechat on 15th July, 1978, at 7.30 p.m. The FIR was received by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate on 18th July, 1978. The scribe of the FIR is Bhanwarlal Sharma, Station Incharge, Police Station, Chechat. It may be mentioned that Bhanwar Lal Sharma has not been examined, Bhanwar Lal Sharma was a calender witness. He was present on 28th October, 1983, but he could not be examined on that date. On 28th October, 1983, the evidence was further adjourned to 22nd November, 1983. The statements of some witnesses were recorded on 22nd November, 1983 and the case was adjourned for further evidence of the prosecution on 30th November, 1983. On that date, Gajanand Sharma (PW 39) was examined by the prosecution and the Learned Public Prosecutor closed the evidence. It is, thus, clear that Bhanwar Lal Sharma, SHO Police Station, Chechat was not examined. In the FIR, Ex.P 9, there is a clear addition of one line-" ca'kh yky flikgh Fkkuk pspV esa FkkA " Ex.P 15 is roznamcha. The report bears No. 589 dated 15th July, 1978. The time mentioned is 7.30 p.m. It was written by constable Banshi Lal (PW 11). In the FIR, Ex.P 9, there is a clear addition of one line-" ca'kh yky flikgh Fkkuk pspV esa FkkA " Ex.P 15 is roznamcha. The report bears No. 589 dated 15th July, 1978. The time mentioned is 7.30 p.m. It was written by constable Banshi Lal (PW 11). From this report, it is clear that he made the entry in the roznamcha at 7.30 p.m. He reached the police station immediately after the incident had taken place and Nand Singh, who lodged the FIR Ex.P 9, could not have reached at 7.30 p.m. From the appreciation of evidence, which we will discuss later on, it would be evident that it was not possible for Nand Singh to reach at 7.30 p.m. at the Police Station, Chechat to lodge the report. From Ex.P 15 and Ex.P 8 it would be further evident that in the story given in Ex.P/9 and Ex.P 15 there is a variation. In Ex.P/9, there is no mention as to in what manner the accused inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased, and other persons. In the inquest report, Ex.P 17, the date of occurrence have been mentioned is 15th July, 1978 and the time given for commencing investigation is 6.46 p.m. The post-mortem report Ex.P 25 is dated 16th July, 1978. The post-mortem examination was conducted at MBS Hospital, Kota. From the evidence it is borne out and, even not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the inquest report was made after the post-mortem examination was conducted. Statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded by PW 32 Chandra Singh and Bhanwar Lal SHO. The statement of Nand Singh (PW 6), under Section 161, Cr.P.C., is said to have been recorded by Bhanwar Lal. The statement of Ratan Lal (PW 7) was recorded on 16th July, 1978. These statements have been respectively marked as Ex.D 1 and Ex.D 2. The statement of Madan Lal (PW 8) was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 20th July, 1978, which is Ex.D 3. The statement of Mohan Lal under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex. D 4) recorded by Bhanwar Lal. The statement of Banshi Lal (PW 11) was recorded by Chandra Singh, Cl and it is Ex.D/5; but no date has been given under his signature as to when this statement was recorded. The statement of Mohan Lal (PW 12) under Section 151, Cr.P.C. is Ex.D 6. D 4) recorded by Bhanwar Lal. The statement of Banshi Lal (PW 11) was recorded by Chandra Singh, Cl and it is Ex.D/5; but no date has been given under his signature as to when this statement was recorded. The statement of Mohan Lal (PW 12) under Section 151, Cr.P.C. is Ex.D 6. It was recorded on 16th July, 1978, at hospital, Kota. The statemeut of Banwari Lal (PW 13) was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and it is Ex.D 7. It was recorded on 15th July, 1978 by Bhanwar Lal Sharma. The statement of Bhainru Lal (PW 23) under Sec, 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16th July, 1978 at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota in the night. Similarly, the statement of Ashok Kumar Jain (PW 22), which is Ex.D 10, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was taken at M.B.S. Hospital in the night of 16th July, 1978. As per the prosecution, Nand Singh (PW 6), Banwari Lal (PW 13), Ashok Kumar (PW 22), Mohan Lal (PW 12), Fakir Mohd (PW 2), Prem Chand (PW 1) and Banshi Lal (PW 11) are the eys-witnesses in the case. The prosecution has placed a great reliance on the statement of PW/6 Nand Singh and PW/11 Banshi Lal PW 6 Nand Singh has been cross-examined at length from his police statement Ex.D 1 and FIR Ex.P 9. Nand Singh in Ex.D.1 did not state about the presence of Banshi Lal (PW 11). Nand Singh in his statement in the Court has deposed that on 15th July, 1978, he along with Ashok Kumar, Banwari, Bhairon Lal, Mohan Bagari and Manak Chand was crossing from Ramganjmandi, where he had gone for his bail from Ramganjmandi, he along with the aforesaid persons took the bus which comes from Karol and goes to Chechat. This witness has further deposed that from Modak, two persons by name Aslam and Lakhama accused also boarded the bus. Aslam took his seat near the drivers seat and Lakhama stood at the window, in the middle of the bus. Ratan, Madan and Keshar Singh also boarded the bus at Ramganj Mandi. The witness has further deposed that when this bus reached near Boraji-ki-kui, accused Aslam at the point of knife asked the driver of the bus to stop it. He took out the key of the vehicle and dragged the driver of the bus outside. Ratan, Madan and Keshar Singh also boarded the bus at Ramganj Mandi. The witness has further deposed that when this bus reached near Boraji-ki-kui, accused Aslam at the point of knife asked the driver of the bus to stop it. He took out the key of the vehicle and dragged the driver of the bus outside. Nand Singh has also stated that at that place there were near about 14-15 persons who encircled the bus. Amongst the persons who encircled the bus were Ramesh, Kanhaiyalal, Phool Chand, Paras Ram, Gopal, Mohan Kistoor Gujar, Shankar Devilal, Peeru Kanwar Lal and Mohan Lal. The witnesses also stated that Ramesh, and Phool Chand asked the passenger of the bus to alight from the bus. His statement further goes that all the passengers, except Manak Chand, Ashok Kumar, Bhairon Lal, Banwari Lal, Mohan and the witness himself remained in the bus. Ramesh accused came in the bus. Ramesh inflicted an injury by ballam in the stomach of Manak Chand. Bhanwar Lal, Bhainru, Kanhaiyalal, Phoolchand, Parasram, Banshi Lal, Gopal and others also came in the bus. They were having sword, and gandasi in their hands. As the ballam, which was inserted by Ramesh, could not be taken out of the stomach, Bhainru, Kanhaiyalal and Phool Chand took out the ballam after giving it a turn in the stomach. Aslam inserted the same ballam in the back of Ashok, Kanhaiyalal, Bhainru and Phool Chand inflicted sword injuries on Manak Chand. Gopal and Lakhama inflicted injuries on the person of Ashok. The witness has stated that Devi Lal, Gopal and Parasram inflicted injuries with sword and gandasi on the person of Booran Lal. The witness also narrated that Kanhaiyalal and Kistora inflicted injuries with gandasi on the person of Banwari.The witness himself also sustained a ballam injury by the hand of Ramesh. The witness also sustained injuries by the hands of Kistoor, and Kanhaiyalal and Banshi with sword. Manak Chand died in the bus. The witness also stated that out of them only Mohan Bagari remained unhurt. But before the accused persons alighted the bus they also inflicted injuries on the person of Kanhaiyalal Bagari. Shankar accused chopped of the nose of Mohan. The witness further disclosed the prosecution story that they asked the driver to take the bus to the Thana. The bus was taken to the thana and, there he lodged the report Ex. But before the accused persons alighted the bus they also inflicted injuries on the person of Kanhaiyalal Bagari. Shankar accused chopped of the nose of Mohan. The witness further disclosed the prosecution story that they asked the driver to take the bus to the Thana. The bus was taken to the thana and, there he lodged the report Ex. P 9. After that, the injured persons were taken to the hospital. From there all the injured persons were sent to Kota Hospital. In the identification parade, this witness did not identify Devi Lal and Kebhara but identified the other persons. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that a number of criminal cases are going on against him. In one case, he is an accused for an offence under Section 307, IPC for assaulting Phool Chand. The witness admitted that along with him Bhainru, Mohan Ashok and Banwarilal also accused in the same case. He also admitted that Chandra is also an accused with them in the said case. The witness further disclosed that at the instance of the accused-party, a case under the Gunda Act is also pending against him. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that, though, he asked the police to record the names of Madan, Sunar, Madan Harijan and Ratan Lal in the FIR Ex. P 9; but he could not say why their names were not written. The witness was confronted with his statement under section 161, Cr. PC. and he agreed that he did not state the incident of chopping of the nose of Mohan Bagari either in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C.This witness did not state the name of Banshi Lal (PW 11) either in his Court statement or in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The witness was also confronted with his statement under section 161, Cr, PC for suggesting that the witness did not see the incident as he hid himself behind the back of a seat in the bus. In Ex. D 1, the witness heated that he hide himself under the seat of the bus and that Banwari was over him. The witness also agreed that the cases are pending in the Court against Ashok Kumar, Bhainru Lal and Ramesh. In Ex. D 1, the witness heated that he hide himself under the seat of the bus and that Banwari was over him. The witness also agreed that the cases are pending in the Court against Ashok Kumar, Bhainru Lal and Ramesh. One more significant fact stated by this witness is that when the bus reached at Bonanji-ki-kui, i.e. near the place of the incident, it was 6.30 or 7 p.m. and, from the evidence it is clear that the incident itself took enough time and thereafter the bus was taken to the police and, thus, it was not possible to have reported the matter at 7.30 p.m. It may also be mentioned here that Banshi Lal is said to have visited the place of occurrence immediately when the accused-party encircle the bus. He went to the Police Station by cycle. In Ex. P 15 time is mentioned as 7.30 p.m. and, thus, the same could not have been for the FIR also. 6. The next important witness is PW 11 Banshi Lal. Banshi Lal has deposed that he was in the bus and that when the bus was encircled by the accused party he advised the accused not to behave in that manner and he was threatened by Ramesh and Gopal. The witness has deposed that Gopal wanted to inflict gandasi blow on him and, therefore, he ran away. He lodged a report in the roznamcha which is Ex. P 15. From perusal of Ex. P 15 and his statement made by him before the trial Court, it would be evident that Banshi Lal has given a story which is an improved version of the story given by him in Ex. P 15. None of the prosecution witnesses in their statements under Section 161, Cr. PC or in their statements before the trial Court have indicated his presence in the bus. In FIR Ex. P 9 his name has been added in the last line. The statement of PW 11 is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. His disclosure in Ex. P 15 that when the report was being written and Bhanwar Lal, Incharge Thana was about to leave for investigation in the case, the bus No. RJU 1197 came there with Nand Singh and other injured persons, does not appear to be correct. His disclosure in Ex. P 15 that when the report was being written and Bhanwar Lal, Incharge Thana was about to leave for investigation in the case, the bus No. RJU 1197 came there with Nand Singh and other injured persons, does not appear to be correct. As we have discussed above, there should have been much time leg between the arrival of Banshi Lal and reaching of the bus at the police station. In this view of the matter, the statement of Banshi Lal does not inspire confidence and we are not prepared to give any credence to his statement. 7. The other injured witnesses are Ashok Kumar (PW 22), Banwari Lal (PW 13), Mohan Lal (PW 12), and Bhainru Lal. Ashok Kumar (PW 22) received as many as 24 injuries. His injury report is Ex. P 26. Banwar Lal (PW 13) received 12 injuries. His injury report is Ex. P 27. Mohan Lal (PW 12) received 20 injuries and his injury report is Ex. P 28 Bhainru Lal (PW 28) received 13 injuries, and his injury report is Ex. P 29, Nand Singh (PW 6) received only one injury and his injury report is Ex. P 13. In the statements made by Ashok Kumar (PW 22), Banwari Lal (PW 13), Bhainru Lal (PW 28) and Mohan (PW 12), there is a slight variation in the matter of taking place of the incident and the names of the accused who inflicted injuries on deceased Manak Chand or the other injured persons. The rest of the story is more or less similar. 8. There is another set of witnesses who are said to be in the bus and they are Ratan Lal (PW 7), Madan Lal (PW 8), Keshar Singh (PW 9) and Mohan Lal (PW 10). The uninjured witnesses have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the fact as to who inflicted the injury upon whom. These witnesses have stated that they were present in the bus and that they had not seen the persons inflicting injuries upon Manak Chand or the injured persons. Thus, there remains only the statements of the injured persons. The injured persons are inimical to the accused party. Admittedly, there are cases pending against them and in the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses, it is not easy to believe their testimony. Thus, there remains only the statements of the injured persons. The injured persons are inimical to the accused party. Admittedly, there are cases pending against them and in the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses, it is not easy to believe their testimony. The injured witnesses have implicated falsely three persons Chuni Lal, Devi Lal and Keshara. Their names were not mentioned in the FIR. Nand Singh (PW 6) has not disclosed their names in his statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. The learned trial Court has dismissed this part of the prosecution case thoroughly and have came to the right conclusion that Chuni Lal, Devi Lal and Keshara were wrongly and falsely implicated in the case. This is also a circumstance which goes against the testimony of the injured persons as to whether their testimony should be believed or not. A person who is inmical is likely to implicate the other persons also. The relations between the accused party and injured were inimical. Nand Singh has received only one injury. But the prosecution witnesses have said that Ramesh inflicted a ballam injury on his back. Injuries by sword were inflicted by Kastura, Kanhaiyalal and Banshi. Thus, there is immediately in the medical evidence and the occular evidence. This also goes against the prosecution. 9. Another aspect of the matter is that as per the post-mortem report Ex.P 25 the cause of death of Manak Chand was injury on his heart.But the evidence which has been disclosed in the case is that Ramesh accused thrust ballam in his stomach which could not be taken out and, therefore, Peeru, Kanhaiyalal and Phool Chand took it out by giving a turn in the stomach. This part of the evidence is absolutely wrong as there is no such injury on the stomach. The injured persons have said about the exchange of weapons from one another. But this stands contradicted from the statement under Section 167, Cr. P.C. In this view of the matter, there are serious contradictions and omissions and the witnesses have tried to give coloured version and exaggerated the prosecution story. The real question turn upon the credibility of the evidence of the injured witnesses and the injured persons, who are also eye-witnesses. We have discussed some of the points which tell heavily upon the prosecution case. 10. The real question turn upon the credibility of the evidence of the injured witnesses and the injured persons, who are also eye-witnesses. We have discussed some of the points which tell heavily upon the prosecution case. 10. Now, we would like to examine the prosecution story as disclosed by the injured and uninjured eye-witnesses in the light of the first information report and the inquest report. Nathu Singh (PW 27) was posted at Police Station, Chechat on 5th July, 1978, as Head Constable. This witness has admitted that the inquest report was prepared in 16th July, 1978; after the post-mortem examination was done by Doctor on the dead body of Manak Chand in the hospital. The inquest report is Ex.P/17. In the inquest report the time of the incident has been given as 6.45 p.m. on 15th July, 1978. The time and date of the incident has been given as 15th July, 1978, at 6.45 p.m. and then number of the report is given as 43178. From Ex.P 17, it is also clear that the deceased was taken to the dispensary at Chechat on 15th July, 1978 at 6.45 p.m. and from the Dispensary Chechat, the deceased was taken by the witness Nathu Singh, Head Constable at 10-30 to Kota. In the inquest report, only the injuries on the dead body of Manak Chand have been described, but there is no mention of the story of occurrence. Thus, the time given in the inquest report Ex.P 17 by Nathu Singh (PW 27) does not tally with the time given in Ex.P 9 or Ex.P 15; The prosecution has not explained the inconsistency in the time mentioned in Ex.P/17 and the FIR Ex.P/9. It may be mentioned that the inquest report is a very valuable document. It is enjoined upon the prosecution agency to prepare the inquest report promptly because this is to be handed over to the Doctor along with the dead body to be sent for post-mortem. In case the facts of the case are mentioned in the inquest, it would go to show that true version has been given about the occurrences. Therefore, in the case the facts of the incident are not given in the inquest report, it can easily be said that the prosecution agency was not definite about the factual position. 11. Now, we would discuss the allegations made by the defence against the FIR. Therefore, in the case the facts of the incident are not given in the inquest report, it can easily be said that the prosecution agency was not definite about the factual position. 11. Now, we would discuss the allegations made by the defence against the FIR. The FIR in the case was received by the Court on 18th July, 1978, as would be evident by the Magistrate on Ex. P 9. There is no explanation given by the prosecution for the inordinate delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The incident had taken place on 15th July, 1978. The distance between the police station and the Court is only 13 kilometers. It is well settled that the FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and a very valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced by the trial. It gives an oral information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. It also discloses the name of the actual culprits and the part played by them. It is also useful in ascertaining the names of the eye-witnesses. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in emblishment which is a creation of after thought. On account of delay, there is always danger of introduction of coloured version and exaggerated account of the concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations. In Bir Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1978 SC 59 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the FIR must be sent to the Magistrate as early as possible and that it should be proved by the prosecution like any other fact as to when it reached the Magistrate. This was not a matter on which judicial notice should be taken. In Ishwar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1976 SC 2483 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the importance of the FIR, observed that the extraordinary delay in sending the FIR is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the importance of the FIR and the inquest report observed that in case FIR is found to be written after the inquest report was prepared, then the FIR loses its authenticity. In this case the first information report was written by Bhanwar Lal Sharma, incharge of the Police Station, Chechat. He recorded some of the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr. PC. But the prosecution has not produced him as a witness. There is insertion of the name of Banshi Lal in the report Ex. P 9 as we have already discussed above. Ex. P 9 could not have been written just immediately after Ex. P 15. There is delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The statement of Nand Singh (PW 6) was not recorded immediately, but in fact it was recorded at Kota. From his statement, it is clear that Bhanwar Lal who recorded the statement of Nand Singh PW 6 under section 161, Cr. PC has not given date under his signature, when he has given the date for recording the statement of Ratan Lal in PW 2 under his signature. As discussed above, the inquest report was prepared on 16th in the hospital at Kota, after the post-mortem examination was conducted. There are major contradictions and ommissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr. PC. All the injured eye-witnesses are inimical to the accused. In the circumstances which we have pointed out above, it appears that the First Information Report was not lodged on 15th July, 1978 at 7.30 p.m, but it was recorded after some time, suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when the inquest report was prepared on 16th July, 1978, after the post-mortem examination was conducted. This suspicion becomes more pro found when the prosecution failed to produce Bhanwar Lal Sharma who was the scribe of the FIR. Doubt also craps in as we have not believed the testimony of Banshi Lal (PW 11). Doubt also fortifies by the fact that at different times the statements of the injured persons and other eye-witnesses were recorded by the prosecution at different place, in so much so that the statement of Madan Lal was recorded on 20th July, 1978. Doubt also craps in as we have not believed the testimony of Banshi Lal (PW 11). Doubt also fortifies by the fact that at different times the statements of the injured persons and other eye-witnesses were recorded by the prosecution at different place, in so much so that the statement of Madan Lal was recorded on 20th July, 1978. In view of the fact that the FIR was not promptly lodged, no inquest report was timely prepared. There are insertions in the FIR and that all the prosecution witnesses belong to one party who are all inimical to the accused an all the witnesses had implicated the three persons who were involved by the prosecution. It would not be safe to base conviction on the basis of scorn testimony of the injured witnesses when their testimony is not corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses who are uninjured, who were travelling in the same bus where the incident had taken place. It is true that there are five injured persons who are alleged to have received injuries and they have given a parrot like version of the entire case regarding the assault by the various accused persons and the injuries caused by them to the witnesses. All the eye-witnesses have contradicted their statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. They have concocted the story; they have exaggerated the incident and they have implicated the persons. The truth and falsehood have been so mixed up that it is not possible to separate the truth from falsehood. 12. The following are some of the circumstances which compel us to believe that the story of the prosecution as disclosed in the prosecution evidence is not truthful and we arc left with no alternative, but to give benefit of doubt to the accused. (a) The FIR is said to have been lodged on 15th July, 1958; but it was received by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate on 18th July, 1978, when the distance between the police station and the Court is 13 kilo-meters only. The prosecution has not explained the delay in any manner. (b) The inquest report was not prepared on 15th July, 1978, his just after the death of deceased Manak Chand. Admittedly, it was prepared on 16th July, 1978, after the post-mortem was conducted. (c) In the inquert report, the time of occurrence has been given for commencement of the investigation. The prosecution has not explained the delay in any manner. (b) The inquest report was not prepared on 15th July, 1978, his just after the death of deceased Manak Chand. Admittedly, it was prepared on 16th July, 1978, after the post-mortem was conducted. (c) In the inquert report, the time of occurrence has been given for commencement of the investigation. There is, thus, inconsistency between the facts mentioned in the inquest report and the FIR, Ex.P/9. (d) In the inquest report, it has been stated that the injured persons were taken to the dispensary and from there they were taken to M.B.S. Haspital, Kota. This link is completely missing in the prosecution story, as told by the prosecution witnesses Dhanna Lal, Keshra and Devi Lal were falsely implicated in the case. Neither their names were given in the FIR nor their names were disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in their statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. (e) The injured eye-witnesses have exaggerated the story in all material particulars. They have concocted the story. They have falsely implicated three accused, viz. Dhanna Lal, Keshara and Devi Lal. (f) PW 33 Banshi Lal cannot be believed as none of the injured witnesses in their statements, under Section 161, Cr. PC or in their statements before the Court have disclosed the presence of Banshi Lal. (g) Ex. P 15 Roznamcha report prepared by Banshilal speaks volumes against the prosecution story. In Ex. P 15 Banshi Lal has written that when the report was being written by him and when the Head Constable, Bhanwar Lal, was to proceed for investigation, the bus carrying the injured persons came with PW 6 Nand Singh and other injured persons. Ex. P 15 thus makes it clear that it was written later on. (h) Bhanwar Lal Sharma, head constable is the scriber of the FIR. He was the investigating officer also. He recorded some of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. But he was not produced by the prosecution. His non-production deprived the defence of ascertaining the truthfulness of the FIR. The statements of Nand Singh, Ratan Lal, Mohan Lal and Banwari Lal were recorded under Section 161, Cr. PC., by Bhanwar Lal Sharma. These statements have been respectively marked as Ex. D 1, Ex. D 2, Ex. D 3 and Ex. D 4. (i) PWs. His non-production deprived the defence of ascertaining the truthfulness of the FIR. The statements of Nand Singh, Ratan Lal, Mohan Lal and Banwari Lal were recorded under Section 161, Cr. PC., by Bhanwar Lal Sharma. These statements have been respectively marked as Ex. D 1, Ex. D 2, Ex. D 3 and Ex. D 4. (i) PWs. 1 and 2 have stated that when the incident had taken place there was darkness as the sun had already set in. Most of the witnesses have given time of incident between 6.45 to 7 p.m. Ex. P 15 Roznamcha report was written at 7.30 and same is the time for FIR, which is not possible. Banshi Lal is the scriber of Ex. P 15 who had left the place of occurrence even when no injuries were inflicted on the member of the complainant party. There is evidence that considerable time elapsed between the stopping of the bus and, when the bus had left for thana. The entire matter becomes doubtful. When we look at the inquest report, which has given time for commencement of the investigation as 6.45. (j) The injuries found on the dead body of Manak Chand are at variance with the injuries said to have been inflicted by the accused persons. The prosecution evidence is that Ramesh inflicted ballam blow in the stomach of deceased Manak Chand and, this ballam was taken out by 2-3 persons after giving a turn from the stomach. Such an injury is not found on the body of the deceased. (k) Nand Lal has deposed that he received injuries by sword and other weapons and the injuries were inflicted by number of accused; but his injury report is completely silent in this regard. (1) Mohan Bagari implicates Shankar for chopping of his nose, while Banwari Lal (PW 13) has deposed that it was Laxman alias Laxma who chopped of the nose of Mohan Lal Bagari. (m) None of the Motbirs with regard to the recovery of weapon of offence, were examined. None of the weapons recovered had any human blood on them except gandasi. The way in which the incident had taken place, it was difficult for the witness to have identified the weapon of offence; but still the witnesses had the courage to say that they have identified the weapons of offence. The identification parade was merely an eye-wash. None of the weapons recovered had any human blood on them except gandasi. The way in which the incident had taken place, it was difficult for the witness to have identified the weapon of offence; but still the witnesses had the courage to say that they have identified the weapons of offence. The identification parade was merely an eye-wash. All the witnesses have said that they know the accused previously. (n) The statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr. PC were recorded by different persons at different times. Number of criminal cases were pending against the injured eye-witnesses. The prosecution witnesses are inimical to the accused. (o) There is interpolation in the FIR about the name of Banshi Lal. There is no consistency between the statement of the injured eye-witnesses about the name of the accused. (p) There were material omissions, contradictions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The statements of the injured inimical eye-witnesses have not been corroborated in any manner by any independent evidence. PWs. 6, 12, 13, 22 & 24 were wholly unbelievable witnesses and even the trial Court has disbelieved them qua the co-accused Chunni Lal, Keshara and Devi Lal. 13. It is true that in the occurrence of the nature disclosed in the prosecution case, where one person was murdered and other persons were severely injured, the case is resulting in acquittal, for which it is the prosecution that alone is to be blamed. The prosecution has not faithfully discharged its obligation. 14. In the result, the appeals of the accused-appellants are allowed. Their conviction and sentences are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Accused Banshi Lal, Ramesh, Phool Chand, Para Ram, Mohan Lal, Kastoor and Laxmi Chand are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail bonds are discharged. Accused Peeru Lal, Kanwarlal, Aslam, Shankar and Gopal are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******