MADAN MOHAN LAL, J. This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 29-3-1978 passed by Shri S. N. Misra, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Basti by which he has convicted the appellants under Sections 148, I. P. C. and 324/149, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for one year and two years respectively thereunder. 2. Lal Man and Sheo Man, appellants, are real brothers. Raja Ram and Ghiram, appellants are also real brothers. Hari Lal appellant is the son of Raja Ram appellant. There was close association between the appellants. 3. Ram Samujh, injured and Shanker injured are cousins. Both the parties reside in the same village i. e. Doma Deeh, Police Station Mahuli, District Basti. 4. There is a piece of land regarding which there was a dispute between the parties. The said land is situate towards east of the house of Ram Samujh, injured and towards south of the hose of Deoman who is the real brother of Lalman appellant. According to the case of the prosecution the said land was in possession of Ram Samujh, informant and he had stored his manure over the san r. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 29-3-1977 at about sunset all the appellants came there and started throwing away the aforesaid manure. The appellants wanted to keep their khaliyan over the said land to which Rani Samujh, informant, raised an objection. The appellants got annoyed and abused him. The appellants then started beating Ram Samujh, informant, who raised hue and cry which attracted Baldeo and Shanker to the place of occurrence but the appellants beat them as well. The prosecution side also wielded "lathies" in self-defence which caused injuries to the defence side, 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined four witnesses. P. W. 1 Ram Samujh is the informant and P. W. 2 Shanker is an injured. Both of them have given an eye-witness account of the incident. P. W. 3 Ram Bali Yadav was Head Moharrir at Police Station Mahuli. He had deposed that on 29-3-1977 at 11. 10 a. m. he had received a written report of the incident on the basis thereof registered the case. P. W. 4 Dr. S. P. Singh had examined the injured persons oo 29-3-1977 at P. H. C. Nath Nagar. 6. He had deposed that on 29-3-1977 at 11. 10 a. m. he had received a written report of the incident on the basis thereof registered the case. P. W. 4 Dr. S. P. Singh had examined the injured persons oo 29-3-1977 at P. H. C. Nath Nagar. 6. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the case of the prosecution. The appellants did not examine any witness in defence. 7. The learned lower court found the case against the appellants having been established and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellans as afore said. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 9. The learned lower court did not accept either the case of the prosecution that the appellants were aggressors or even the case of the defence that the injuries to the prosecution side were caused in the exercise of private defence. The learned trial court has held that this was the case of free fight in which both the parties were guilty and were liable for their action. In our opinion when the learned lower court took the view that this was a case of free and sudden fight then the appellants could not have possibly been convicted and sentenced under Section 324 I. P. C. with the and of Section 149 I. P. C. because in a case of free and sudden fight each individual becomes liable for his own individual act. In a case of free and sudden fight there was no question of any vicarious liability. In this respect reference may be made to Vishwas v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) Cr. LJ p. 484 (SC) in which it has been observed that it is well settled that in a free fight each individual is responsible for his own acts. In view of the said legal position we are of the opinion that none of the appellants could be convicted and sentenced under Sections 324/149 I. P. C. as has been done by the learned trial court. 10. In view of the said legal position we are of the opinion that none of the appellants could be convicted and sentenced under Sections 324/149 I. P. C. as has been done by the learned trial court. 10. The learned lower court has also convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 148, I. P. C. Obviously the conviction and sentence under Section 148 I. P. C. can be made only when one is armed with deadly weapon at the time of indulging in rioting. In this case the appellants were armed merely with lathis, which cannot be described to be a deadly weapon. Therefore, the con viction and sentence of the appellants under Section 148 I. P. C. as well cannot be susiained. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, the appellants could be held guilty only if it is found that they were aggressors. As already observed, prosecution has taken a case that the land in question belonged to Ram Samujh, informant and he had stored his manure over the same, which the appellants started throw ing. In our view the prosecution failed to make out a case that either the land in question was owned by or was in possession of the informant. The said land is situate towards the east of the house of the informant and towards west of the house of Deoman who is the real brother of Lal Man appellant. The said land is s said to be a part and parcel of plot No. 55/1i. P. W. i Ram Samujh, infor mant, has admitted in his evidence that Rajtnan deceased, who is brother of Lal Man appellant, has also got a sale-deed of a part of plot No. 55/11 registered in his name. It appears that plot No. 55/11 had not been demarcated and many persons had got sale-deeds of portions of the said plot No. 55/11 executed in their favour. There is no evidence on record to show that the portion of the land, where this dispute occurred, was that portion of the land of which Ram Samujh, informant, got sale-deed executed in his favour or that he was in possession There of We are accordingly in agreement with the view taken by the learned lower court that none of the parties had been able to establish their title and possession over the land in dispute. It is thus clear that the prosecution in this case failed to prove that the appellants had committed aggression with respect to the land inclispute and consequently that the incident had started and taken in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 12. The prosecution in this case did not examine any independent witness. It merely examined Ram Samujh P. W. 1 and Shanker P. W. 2. Both of them were injured. They are also accused persons in the cross-case. They are thus highly interested and inimical witnesses. The prosecution has not produced any independent witnesses, although they were said to have witnessed the incident. 13. P. W. 2 Shanker on his part has admitted that he had rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the noise but Marpit had already started when he reached the place of occurrence. Therefore, according to his own version he was not the best witness regarding the manner in which the incident started. 14. As regards the informant Ram Samujh P. W. 1 he lodged the first information report with a lot of delay. It may be noted that whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 28-3-1977 at about sun- set, the first information report was lodged at P. S. Mahuli, situated at a distance of 9 Kms. on the next day i. e. 29-3-1977 at about 11. 10 a. m. i. e. after interval of about 17 hours. With respect to delay P. W. 1 Ram Samujh simply stated that because of enmity and night he went to the police station on the next day. In our opinion, the said explanation is not satisfactory because from the other side as many as four persons were injured They had received serious injuries so much so that subse quently on the same day Rajman succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. All of them had gone to the hospital on the same day. In our view when the opponents having been injured had gone to the police station and hospital, the expla nation of delay given by Ram Samujh, informant, P. W. 1 that on account of enmity and night he did not go to the police station to lodge the report of the incident is not satisfactory. In our view when the opponents having been injured had gone to the police station and hospital, the expla nation of delay given by Ram Samujh, informant, P. W. 1 that on account of enmity and night he did not go to the police station to lodge the report of the incident is not satisfactory. First Information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be over estimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of Commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the place of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. On account of delay the report not only gets benefits of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of delibera tions and consultations. In our view when the occurrence in this case was not reported for more than 17 hours it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the appellants on the evidence given by the informant, Ram Samujh, P. W. 1 further more P. W. 1 Ram Samujh, informant, has stated in his evidence that all the armed appellants with lathis, accompanied by Rajman deceased, armed with kudal and lathi, came all of sudden and started throwing away his manure. In our opinion, had the incident taken place in the said manner, i. e. when the five appel lants accompanied by Rajman deceased, came to the place of incident duly prepar ed and armed and attacked Ram Samujh etc. by surprise then they would have suffered very many injuries. It may be noted that from the side of the defence Rajman deceased had suffered the following two injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 2 cm x skin deep on left side of fore head 1 cm above of the medial border of left eye brow. 2. by surprise then they would have suffered very many injuries. It may be noted that from the side of the defence Rajman deceased had suffered the following two injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 2 cm x skin deep on left side of fore head 1 cm above of the medial border of left eye brow. 2. Incised punctured wound 2 cm X 1 cm x 7 cm deep on the front of left thigh 16 cm above the knee joint. Margins clean, bleeding on touching, arround directions inwards. 15. The said injuries sustained by Rajman proved to be so serious that he died on the same a few hours after the incident in the same night. 16. Lalman, appellant was found to have been inflicted the following injuries :- 1. Traumatic swelling of 2. 5 cm X 2 cm on the right side of fore-head 3 cm above the right eye-brow. 2. Abrasion of 1 cm X. 3 cm in the middle of the injury No. 1. 3. Contusion 12 cm X 1 cm on the left side of foot crossing the medial border of left scapula. Sheo Man, appellant, had suffered the following injury :- 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x. 5 cm x scalp deep with medial aspect 16 cm above left upper ear pinna. Smt. Teja widow of Rajman deceased on her part also suffered the follow ing injuries :- 1. Abrasion of. 8 cm x. 2 cm on the lower and of it. ulna, ant. aspect of left forearm. 2. Linear abrasion of 2 cm x. 2 cm x 5 cm above injury No. 1. 17. As against the aforesaid so many injuries suffered by the appellants side, only three persons namely, Ram Samujh informant, P. W. 1, Shanker P. W. 2 and Baldeo got following injuries from the side of the prosecution :- Ram Samujh: 1. Lacerated wound of 3. 5 cm x. 5 cm X scalp deep at back of right side head 10 cm above the right upper ear pinna with clot formation. Shanker: 1. Abrasion wound 1 x. 5 cm x on left side Nose 1 cm below medial of left eye. 2. Lacerated wound of 1 X. 2 cm x. 3 cm on left side tip of nose with clot formation. 3. Scabed abrasion of 3. 5 cm x. 5 cm on right shoulder joint. Baldeo: 1. Shanker: 1. Abrasion wound 1 x. 5 cm x on left side Nose 1 cm below medial of left eye. 2. Lacerated wound of 1 X. 2 cm x. 3 cm on left side tip of nose with clot formation. 3. Scabed abrasion of 3. 5 cm x. 5 cm on right shoulder joint. Baldeo: 1. Lacerated wound of 1. 5 cm x. 5 cm x. 5cm x. 1 cm above the 1st border of right eye brow. 2. Lacerated wound of. 7 X. 4 x 3 cm by one cm on left angle of right eye brow. 18. At the risk of repetition we may state that had the appellants been aggressors then they would not have suffered so many injuries as noted above. The evidence given by both P. W. 1 Ram Samujh and P. W. 2 Shanker does not inspire confidence and cannot be believed. The prosecution has not placed true facts before the Court and has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence. 19. In the result, therefore, we are of the opinion that the case against the appellants has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants under Sections 324/149 I. P. C. and 148 I. P. C. are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which hereby stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .