JUDGMENT V. Kumar, J. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 8th June, 1982, passed by the Sessions Judge, Gonda upholding the conviction of the revisionist under Section 506 I.P.C. and reducing it from one year R.I. to six months R.I. The Learned Sessions Judge has already acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. of which he was convicted by the Court of Munsif-Magistrate - 4, Gonda. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that there was going on a murder case against the revisionist who was enlarged on bail. The informant in that murder case was Srimati, wife of Matadin, who was the victim in that murder case. While the revisionist was on bail he had threatened and intimidated , Smt. Srimati, wife of Matadin, at about 6.45 P.M. on 15th December, 1980 when the lady was moving on a rickshaw. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged by Srimati, P.W. 2 on 16th December 1980 in respect of the incident. The accused was tried for the offences under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. 3. The accused denied the charges. 4. I have heard both the sides and carefully gone through the record. 5. Relating to the occurrence in question the oral evidence in this case, on which reliance has been placed by the State, is that of Srimati, wife of Matadin, P.W. 2, P.W. 1 Ram Jag who was cited as another witness to the incident, was declared hostile. There are material contradictions in the prosecution version and evidence. According to the prosecution case the incident took place on 15th December, 1980 at about 6.45 P.M. but P.W. 2 Srimati, wife of Matadin is clearly mentioned that the incident took place in the month of Magha-Phalgun. These months started after the month of Dec. rather some time in the month of Feb. and March. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that a lady of village will hardly commit mistake in giving Hindi months when known to her, carries force and substance. The cross-examination of the witness further shows that the incident had taken place after she was returning from the police station but in the examination-in-chief she had stated that it was after the happening of the incident that she went to the police station the next day and lodged the first information report about the incident. The cross-examination of the witness further shows that the incident had taken place after she was returning from the police station but in the examination-in-chief she had stated that it was after the happening of the incident that she went to the police station the next day and lodged the first information report about the incident. Further, according to her deposition, the incident had not taken place in Lalman Ka Purwa. This again is inconsistent to the prosecution case. According to the site plan the place of occurrence in question is shown in Lalman Ka Purwa. Further, in her deposition before the Court she has for the first time stated that she recognised the accused revisionists by voice. No such thing had been mentioned in the first information report which is a detailed document and is said to have been written at her instance. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that necessity was realised by the prosecution side to take up this after thought case of recognition of the accused by voice because the time of occurrence given by the prosecution was 6.45 P.M. It was in the middle of December. At that time there. was no source of light shown to exist at the place of occurrence. Hence it was realised that recognition by the voice of the accused would constitute a better and more reliable evidence to fix the identit of the accused correctly. 6. Thus apart from the contradictions, the prosecution version and evidence is not free from serious doubts and suspicion. 7. It is also urged from the side of the revisionist that since Srimati (P.W. 2) was an important witness in the murder case and the accused had succeded in getting bail in that case the police was working to create material for getting the bail of the accused cancelled and with that purpose in view the case was concocted against the revisionist. 8. It is fit case in which the revision deserves to be allowed. The lower Courts have not come to correct, proper or legal finding of conviction against the revisionist. 9. The revision allowed. The conviction and sentence against the revisionist is set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. Sureties a discharged.