MADAN MOHAN LAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16. 3 1978 passed by Sri M. N. Asthana, the then Hnd Addi. Sessions Judge, Banda by which he has convicted Dhanpat, Jagdeo, Pancha and Ram Pal appellants under sections 147, 364 and 302, I. P. C. and has sentenced each of them to undergo one years R. I. 7 years R. I. and life imprisonment respectively thereunder and has convicted Birja and Yadu Nandan under sections 148, 364 and 302, I. P. C. and has sentenced each of them to undergo of years R. I. 7 years R. I. and imprisonment for life respectively thereunder. ( 2 ) DHANPAT, Jagdeo and Birja appellants are real brothers, Ram Pal and Yadu Nandan appellants are their nephews, and Pancha appelant is their cousin. ( 3 ) ON account of a consolidation case etc. there was an old enmity between Jagmohan deceased on one hand and Dhanpat and Jagdeo appellants on the other. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution on 25. 10. 1974, at about sunset, when Jagmohan deceased carrying a bundle of grass on his head was comldg from his residential house to his cattle house in village Miyan Brauli, P. S. Baberue, district Banda, Dhanpat appellant, armed with the Lathi was found standing infront of his own cattle house which fell in the way. On seeing Jagmohan deceased Dhanpat appellant shouted that the enemy has come by chance and that he should be caught hold whereupon Jagdeo, Pancha and Ram Pal appellants, carrying Lathi and Birja and Yadunandan, carrying Barchchat, came out of the cattle house. They caught hold of Jagmohan deceased and after causing him some injuries took him inside the cattle house. After some time all these six appellants took away Jagmohan deceased dragging from the cattle house towards the Jungle in the west. A noise was raised by Jagmohan deceased which attracted his cousin Shiv Mohan informant his wife Smt. Devratiya, his children Jai Karan, Ram Karan and Smt. Shiv Dulari and others to the place of occurrence. They tried to save Jagmohan deceased but due to the threats of the appellants they could not do the same. Shiv Mohan went to P. S. Baberue, situated at a distance of five miles, where he logged the report of the incident on the same day at 11. They tried to save Jagmohan deceased but due to the threats of the appellants they could not do the same. Shiv Mohan went to P. S. Baberue, situated at a distance of five miles, where he logged the report of the incident on the same day at 11. 30 p. m. The 1. 0. came to the place of occurrence on the same night when the informant gave an additional report about the fact that at the time of the incident Jagmohan deceased was carrying a gun, a belt of cartridges and a sum of Rs. 50/- etc. which were looted by the appellants when Jagmohan deceased was taken by them in the cattle house. ( 5 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses. P. W. 1 Shiv Mohan, informant, P. W. 2 Smt. Devratiya, P. W. 3 Jai Karan and P. W. 4 Smt. Shiv Dulati are the eye witnesses. P. W. 5 Vma Shanker Pandey was the Head Moharrir at P. S. Baberu. He deposed that on 25. 10. 1974 at 11. 30 p. m. Shiv Mohan had come to the police station to lodge the report of the incident on which he had registered this case under sections 147, 148, 323, 342 and 364, I. P. C. He further deposed that on 26 10. 74 on the return of the 1. 0. from the place of occurrence, he had, at 8. 20 a. m. registered this case under sections 302, 201 and 404, I. P. C. as well. P. W. 6 Head Moharrir Ati Raj Singh was a formal witness. P. W. 7 Man Mohan Tiwari had originally sighted the dead body of Jagmohan. He gave information of the same to the 1. 0. who then made the recovery of the said dead body in presence of P. W. 7 Man Mohan Tiwari. P. W. 9 Shyam Sunder Nigam was an Arms Clerk. He deposed that a licence for possessing a gun had been issued in the name of Jagmohan deceased. ( 6 ) THE post mortem examination of the dead body of Jagmohan was conducted by Dr. S. C. Pandey, the then Dy. C. M. 0. Banda, on 27. 10. 78 at 11. 45 a. m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the said dead body:1. 1. ( 6 ) THE post mortem examination of the dead body of Jagmohan was conducted by Dr. S. C. Pandey, the then Dy. C. M. 0. Banda, on 27. 10. 78 at 11. 45 a. m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the said dead body:1. 1. Lacerated wound 3 em x Ii em x bone deep on left side of head about 9 em above left ear. 2. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep on the right side of head about 8 em above right ear. 3. Contusion 8 cm x 8 cm top and back of head. 4. Contusion 9 cm x 6 cm around right eye and on right cheek. 5. Maxilla bone broken into several pieces on right side, antemortem. 6. Punctured wound 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle cavity deep at the junction of body part cartilaginous part of bone Nasalseptium and cartilaginous is broken. 7. Punctured wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm X oral cavity deep about I cm below right angle of mouth. 8. Contused wound 1 cm X i cm on the lower lip. 9. Punctured wound 1 cm X 0. 5 cm X 2 cm on left cheek 3 cm from outer angle of left eye at 5o clock position to it. 10. Contusion 5 cm x 5 cm around left ear on 11 cm x 1 cm X through and through its width on the Lower part of left ear. 11. Left maxilla broken in several pieces. 12. Left lower jaw broken near mandi bular epicendyle. 13. Contusion 7 cm X 3 cm step of right shoulder. 14. Contusion 5. 5 cm X 3 cm outer aspect of right. 15. Contusion 3 cm X 2 cm outer aspect of right elbow. 16. Contusion 6 cm X 3 cm middle of back of right forearm. 17. Simple fracture of both bones of right forearm beneath No. 16. 18. Contusion 5 cm x 6 cm back of right band. The metacarpus of middle finger of right hand has simple fracture. 19. Abraded area 36 cm X 32 cm covering whole of back both halves and both shoulders. 20. Contusion 14 cm X 6 cm left buttock. 21. Multiple contusions in cm x 6 cm back and left arm. 22. Contusion 10 X 5 back of left forearm lower third. 23. 19. Abraded area 36 cm X 32 cm covering whole of back both halves and both shoulders. 20. Contusion 14 cm X 6 cm left buttock. 21. Multiple contusions in cm x 6 cm back and left arm. 22. Contusion 10 X 5 back of left forearm lower third. 23. Abrasion 1 cm X I cm front of left wrist. On internal examination the doctor found fracture of left sphenoid bone. There was also fracture on left middle cramal fossa. In the stomach there were about 4 ounces of semi digested food. According to the doctor the death had occurred due to coma and haemorrhage, as a result of aforesaid ante-mortem injuries. ( 7 ) THE investigation of this case was made by Deo Dutta Dixit, S. O. This case was registered in his presence. He started investigation at once. He immediately left for the place of occurrence where he searched for the accused persons. On J. 6. 10. 1974 at about 8. 30 a. m. when the 1. 0. was returning after searching for the accused persons, he got an information that the dead body of Jagmohan was lying at the Dera of Man Mohan, where he found the said dead body. He took the dead body in possession and prepared the Panchayatnama and other formal documents thereof. He also found blood at the different places, including Rasta in front of the door of the house of Dhanpat appellant. He took samples of blood stained and unstained earth. The 1. 0. recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 18. 11. 1974 the 1. 0. arrested one Laxmi and recovered the aforesaid looted gun of Jagmohan deceased from his possession. ( 8 ). The appellants in their statements denied the case of the prosecution. They further stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The appellants did not examine any witness in defence. ( 9 ) THE learned trial court did not believe the case of the prosecution against Laxmi who had been charged under section 412, LP. C. and acquitted him of the same. He also found that the charge under section 395, I. P. C. had not been proved against the appellants. He however, found appellants guilty under sections 147, 148, 364 and 302, I. P. C. and has accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. C. and acquitted him of the same. He also found that the charge under section 395, I. P. C. had not been proved against the appellants. He however, found appellants guilty under sections 147, 148, 364 and 302, I. P. C. and has accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal. ( 10 ) WE have heard learned counsels for the appellants and the State and have perused the record carefully. As already observed the prosecution took up a case and also produced evidence to the effect that just before the sunset on 25. 10. 74 when Jagmohan deceased was passing in front of the cattle house of Dhanpat appellant, all the six appeljants caught hold of him and after giving him some beating took him inside the cattle house 1,lnd then after some time they took him dragging out of the said cattle house in the jungle towards the west of the village. It is also stated that this incident was seen by own wife, two sons, one daughter and a cousin of the deceased, besides, Inder Ahir etc. They had also tried to save Jagmohan deceased but could not do the same due to the threats advanced by the appellants. In our view when the own family members had seen the appellants carrying away Jagmohan. towards west of the village, then most normal course taken by them could have been to take all possible steps to rescue Jagmohan. P. W. 4 Smt. Shiv Dulari, daughter of the deceased, has admitted, in her evidence that in her village Phool Chand, Baijnath and Kamta had licensed guns with them and that after the aforesaid incident none of these persons was contacted for help. We are of the opinion that even when the said licence holders were not approached for help then the next best thing, the family members could do was to rush for police help and to save Jagmohan from the clutches of the appellants with the help of the police. The record shows that the same was also not done. ( 11 ) THIS incident took place on 25. 10. 1974 just before the sunset. On that date sun had set at 5. The record shows that the same was also not done. ( 11 ) THIS incident took place on 25. 10. 1974 just before the sunset. On that date sun had set at 5. 27 p. m. P. W. 1 Shiv Mohan informant has admitted in his evidence that the distance between the place of occurrence and police station was five miles and that out of the same there was a Kachcha road for 2-3 furlongs only and the remaining distance was covered by metal road. Inspite of the same the report of the incident was lodged at P. S. at 11. 30 pm. i. e. after an interval of six hours. In our view the aforesaid distance of five miles could have easily been covered even on foot in about an hour. The fact that the informant and. the other family members of the deceased neither approached the licence holders of the village nor immediately rushed to the police station shows that they had probably not seen the appellants catching Jagmohan deceased or taking him away dragging. ( 12 ) THERE can be no dispute about the fact that the F. I. R. in this case was not lodged promptly. When the F. I. R. is not lodged promptly then it becomes the duty of the prosecution to explain the delay. The prosecution in this case neither in the F. I. R. nor in the evidence tried to explain as to how and why the F. I. R. was not lodged in time. ( 13 ) F. I. R. 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 overestimated 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 F. I. R. quite often results in embellish which is a creature of afterthought. Delay in lodging the F. I. R. quite often results in embellish which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the intruduction of coloured vision, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. should be satisfactorily explained. (Thutlia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu ). At the risk of repetition we may state that when the F. I. R. was lodged with delay and the delay in lodging the F. I. R. had not been explained, it would be unsafe to base conviction of the appellants upon the evidence produced by the prosecution. ( 14 ) THERE is another material improvement made in this case which shakes our confidence in the truthfulness of the case set up by the prosecution. Although there was not a word in the F. I. R. that at the time of the incident Jagmohan deceased was carrying any gun or ammunition yet at the stage of the evidence the prosecution introduced the case that Jagmohan deceased was carrying a gun and a belt of cartridges, besides a cash of Rs. 50/- which were looted by the appellants. The said gun was said to have been recovered from one Laxmi wbo was charged under section 412, I. P. C. Learned trial court found the case against Laxmi under section 412, I. P. C. was false inter alia on the ground that after the death of Jagmohan the said gun was found to have been deposited in the Malkhana, Banda. The learned trial court also found that the charge under section 395, I. P. C. levelled against the appellants was not proved and accordingly they were acquitted of the same. Furthermore it may be observed that after the F. I. R. had been lodged and investigation had started the informant had given an additional report Ex. Ka. 1 to the 1. 0. in the village on 26. 10. 1974 to the effect that Jagmohan deceased was carrying a gun, a belt of cartridges and a sum of Rs. 50/- which he has not been able to get. Ka. 1 to the 1. 0. in the village on 26. 10. 1974 to the effect that Jagmohan deceased was carrying a gun, a belt of cartridges and a sum of Rs. 50/- which he has not been able to get. When the said wordings are read in the context of the statement made by P. W. 2 Smt. Devratiya in her cross-examination that on the second day, the 1. 0. had searched for the gun in her house and that when the gun was not traceable, the 1. 0. got the report of the same written by her son, it becomes clear that none had seen at the time of the incident that Jagmohan was carrying any arm or ammunition or that when Jagmohan deceased was taken out of the cattle house by the appellants, he was not carrying the said arm and ammunition, meaning hereby that the gun and ammunition had been looted in the cattle house itself. This discrepancy and contradiction as well leads to the inference that she aforesaid eye witnesses examined in this case had not at all seen the incident. ( 15 ) ALL the eye witnesses examined in this case are the kith and kin of the deceased. P. W. 1 Shiv Mohan informant is the cousin, P. W. 2 Smt. Devratiya is the wife, P. W. 3 Jai Karan is the son and P. W. 4 Smt. Shiv Dulari is the daughter of Jagmohan deceased. P. W. 4 Smt. Shiv Dulari was married in another village at the time of the incident. According to her she was not interrogated by the 1. 0. All these four eye witnesses would not have seen this incident had they been present at their house. P. W. 1 Shiv Mohan has stated that as per chance he was standing at the door of one Ram Bhawan when he saw this incident. It does not stand to reason as to why all the family members of Jagmoban deceased, i. e. his wife, two sons and the daughter, had come out from their residential house to the cattle house. It is not a case where no independent witness was present. It was stated in the F. I. R. that this incident was seen by Inder Ahir etc. but none of those persons had been examined in this case. It is not a case where no independent witness was present. It was stated in the F. I. R. that this incident was seen by Inder Ahir etc. but none of those persons had been examined in this case. In view of the aforesaid shortcomings and discrepancies in the case of the prosecution, it shall not be safe to rely only upon the evidence of these interested and inimical witnesses. It may not be out of place to state here that according to the prosecution the appellants had committed this crime due to enmity. Enmity is a double edged weapon. Whereas persons can commit crime/due to enmity. It is also equally possible that due to enmity persons may be falsely implicated in a case. We are of the view that in this case it shall not be safe to base conviction of the appellants upon the evidence of the aforesaid family members of the deceased, to the exclusion of the independent witnesses who were also present. ( 16 ) TO sum up, therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to make out its case against the appellants or any of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY this appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences of Dhanpat, Jagdeo, Pancha and Ram Pal appellants under sections 147, 364 and 302, I. P. c. and convictions and sentences of Birja and Yadu Nandan appellants under section 148, 364 and 302 I. P. C. are set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which hereby stand discharged. .