M. M. L. LAL, J. These two appeals have been filed against a judgment dated 19-6-1978 passed by Sri L. S. Shukla, the then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahajanpur by which he has convicted Jhaboo-appellants under Section 302 l. P. C. and Sita Ram and Nokhey appellants under Sections 302/34, I. P. O. and has sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a sum of Rs. 500 as line. 2. Sita Ram appellant is the nephew of Nokhey appellant. Jhaboo appel lant is friendly to Sita Ram appellant and has also joint cultivation with him. 3. The appellants and Chandra Pal deceased were residents of the same village Ratoli. P. S. Tihar district Shahajanpur. The mendh of the informant and Sita Ram appellant were common, 10-15 days prior to the incident, the said common mendh was broken, which gave rise to an alteration between Bhoop Ram informant and Chandra Pal deceased on one hand and Sita Ram appellant on the other hand. Sita Ram appellant is said to have advanced a threat at that time. 4. According to the case of the prosecution Chandra Pal deceased and his wife Smt. Ram Wati were sleeping in the khapra in front of their "kothas" on the night between 20/21st November, 1976. A burning lantern was hanging on the northern side of the said khapra. At about mid-night, Jhabho- appellant armed wit gandasa, Nokhey-appellant armed with gun and Sita Ram bare handed came to the said khapra. Whereas Nokehy-appellant stood as a guard at the door, Sita Ram-appellant pressed his hand over the stomach of Chandra Pal. Jhabboo-appellant on his part hit the gandasa at the neck of Chandra Pal as a result of which he died at the spot. Smt. . Ram Wati had raised a hue and cry, which had attracted Bhoop Ram informer P. W. 1, Ram Bharosey P. W, 2 and Natthu P. W. 6 etc. to the place of occurrence. They had seen the appellants going away from the place of occurrence after committing the aforesaid crime. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati who gave an eye-witness account of the incident as also P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram. P. W. 2 Ram Bharosey and P. W. 6 Natthu, who were said to have seen the appellants going away after committing the aforesaid crime. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati who gave an eye-witness account of the incident as also P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram. P. W. 2 Ram Bharosey and P. W. 6 Natthu, who were said to have seen the appellants going away after committing the aforesaid crime. The investigation of this case was conducted by P. W. 7 Matroo Singh. He also proved the lodging of the F. I. R. and registration of the case. 6. The post-mortern examination of the dead body of Chandra Pal was made by P. W. 8 Dr. Sudhir Singh, the then Medical Officer, District Hospital Shahajanpur. He found the following ante-mortem injury on the dead body of Chandra Pal : "incised wound 14 cm. x 4 cm. in front of neck middle extending towards left side of neck. Cutting trachea, blood vessels and esophagus reaching upto the vertebra. " 7. On internal examination, there was found 20 gms. of half digested material in the stomach. According to the doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. 8. The appellants, in their statement, denied the case of the prosecution. Sita Ram appellant, however, further stated that his uncle Nokhey appellant had got the uncle of Ram Bharosey P. W. 2 sentenced. He also stated that Ham Bharosey P. W. 2 had desired to open a Chakroad in the land allotted to his (appellant) brother which, he did not allow. He also slated that his uncle Nokhey had got Chhotey, who was the uncle, of Natthu witness sentenced. 9. Jhubboo-appellum stated that lie was an old and innocent person and could walk only with the help of stick. 10. Nokhey-appellant stated that his son Daya Ram had been given three acres of land adjoining to the field of Ram Bharosey. Ram Bharosey P. W. 2 wanted to create a Chakroad, to which he was not obliged, and that he (appellant) had got the uncles of Ram Bharosey P. W. 2 and Natthu P. W. 6 sentenced, in a case. 11. The appellants, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. 12. The learned Sessions Judge believing the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution has convicted and sentenced the appellants as afore said. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. 13. 11. The appellants, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. 12. The learned Sessions Judge believing the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution has convicted and sentenced the appellants as afore said. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State, and have perused the record. 14. There was a delay in lodging the F. I. R. . Whereas incident is alleged to have taken placed on the night of 20/21-1975 at about mid-night, the first information report was lodged at the Police Station Tihar, which is situated at a distance of 7 miles on 21-11-176 at 8. 15 a. m. that is after an interval of eight hours. No explanation, whatsoever, of the delay was given in the F. I. R. P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram, informer also did not try to explain the delay in making the report in his examination-m-chief. However, when he was pressed in the cross-examination all that he could say was that on the early morning, he had gone to the Police Chauki, where he was met by a Police Constable to whom he narrated the incident but he advised him that he should go (to the Police Station) only after the day back, whereupon he returned to his house and then went to the Police Station Tihar later on. This version is not only an after-thought but can hardly be believed. Anyway, in this respect P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram is believed by P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati, who has stated in her evidence that before his father-in-law, that is P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram, left for Tiihar, he constantly remained-by the side of the deadbody in the village. Thus, the fact remains that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. . and that there is no proper explanation for the same. 15. F. I R. . in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable price 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. and that there is no proper explanation for the same. 15. F. I R. . in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable price 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 circumstance 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 embellishment, which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of colour version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. 16. In our view when there has been delay in lodging the F. I. R. and there has been no proper explanation to explain the said delay, the F. I. R. . . loses its corroborative value. 17. In order to prove its case, the prosecution besides examining P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati, the widow of Chandra Pal, has examined three other witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram Informant, P. W. 2 Ram Bharosey and P. W. 6 Natthu. None of the said last three witnesses was present in the house where this crime was committed. They were examined with a view to show that on hearing hue and cry, these three witnesses had rushed to the place of occurrence to see the three appellants coming out of house after commuting the aforesaid crime. The burned Trial Judge has discussed their evidence in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that these three witnesses could not have come in time to see the appellants coming out of the house after committing the murder of Chandra Pal. Although Bhoop Ram informant (P. W 1) clearly stated in his F. I. R. . The burned Trial Judge has discussed their evidence in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that these three witnesses could not have come in time to see the appellants coming out of the house after committing the murder of Chandra Pal. Although Bhoop Ram informant (P. W 1) clearly stated in his F. I. R. . that on reaching at the spot, he and other witnesses had challenged the appellants and that the appellants had also advanced threats to them yet he did not say such thing in his evidence but on that other hand deposed that he had reached at the place of occurrence after the assailants had gone away. P. W. 2 Ram Bharosey was merely a chance witness. According to him, he was returning from the Pond after seeing his singhara crop when in the way he heard noise and along-with P. W. 6 Natthu, who was hard of hearing, reached in the house of Chaudra Pal P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram was also sleeping in his nearby Gonda. P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati at one stage of her evidence has deposed that she had raised noise after the assailants went running after committing the murder. We are, thus, in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that none of these witnesses could have come in time to see the assailants coming out of khapra of the deceased Chandra Pal. 18. Now the only evidence which remains on record is that of, Smt. Ram Wati P. W. 4. The question is whether her solitary evidence could be believed and relied upon. 19. Smt. Ram Wati P. W. 4 has tried to depose that on hearing the noise created by the coming of the assailants, she had got up. However, there appears to be no doubt that Chandra Pal remained sleeping and had not got up. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that had the assailants created any noise while coming to the place of occurrence then Chandra Pal would have also woke up and would have struggled for his life, which would have resulted in injuries other than the only incised wound sustained by him on neck. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that had the assailants created any noise while coming to the place of occurrence then Chandra Pal would have also woke up and would have struggled for his life, which would have resulted in injuries other than the only incised wound sustained by him on neck. Any way, the version given by P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati that on arrival Sita Ram Appellant, while standing, had kept his hand on the stomach of Chandra Pal in order to enable Jhabbo-appellant to strike gandasa on his neck, does not inspire confidence because the same was unnecessary and would have unnecessarily made Chandra Pal to wake up and to struggle for his life. To say in other words when Chandra Pal was sleeping and had not woken up then without touching his body, the appellants could not struck the gandasa on his neck. 20. P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati has also resoled from the statement and version which she gave before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , that the witnesses had come in time to see and recognise the assailants going running away after the incident. In this respect, we have also observed that the witnesses could not have possibly come in time to see the assailants going away. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged before us that when Jhabboo-appellant was 75 years old then in the presence of younger persons, i. e. Sita Ram and Nokhey, he would not have been made to strike the gandasa on the neck of Chandra Pal. His submission is that by stating that Sita Ram had placed his hand on the belly of Chandra Pal and that Nokhey appellant carrying a gun had stood outside as a guard, P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati simply tried to implicate innocent persons. To us there appears to be a force in the said argu ment. His submission is that by stating that Sita Ram had placed his hand on the belly of Chandra Pal and that Nokhey appellant carrying a gun had stood outside as a guard, P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati simply tried to implicate innocent persons. To us there appears to be a force in the said argu ment. We are of the view that when one of the assailants was carrying a deadly weapon like gun then either the said gun could have been used or at/east die younger persons, i. e. Sita Ram and Nokhey, would have been made to strike und give blow to Chandra Pal and old man of 75 years as Jhabboo, specially when no direct motive was alleged against him, would not have been assigned the said role. 22. P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati, in her evidence, has stated that the cot of her husband was lying in the East West direction with the head towards West and that her cot. on the other hand was placed towards the left side thereof, i. e. towards North of the cot of Chandra Pal. It has come on record that position of the cots was shown by P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati to the I. O. at the time of the local inspection but in the site plan, the Investigating Officer has shown the cot of Smt. Ram Wati much towards South from the cot of Chandra Pal. Besides, P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati has deposed that "gandasa" was struck at neck of Chandra Pal by Jhabboo-appellant while standing towards the left side of the said cot, i. e. towards north. To say in other words if the assistants were towards the left side of the cot of Chandra Pal and the cot of P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati was towards north thereafter then in that situation Smt. Ram Wati P. W. 4 could probably see the back and not the faces of the assailants. 23. We have carefully gone through the evidence of P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati but we have not been impressed with her evidence. 24. Sum up there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. . and the said delay has not been properly explained. 23. We have carefully gone through the evidence of P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati but we have not been impressed with her evidence. 24. Sum up there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. . and the said delay has not been properly explained. There has been improvement in the date of the prosecution so much so that P. W. 1 Bhoop Ram, P. W. 2 Ram Bharosey and P. W. 6 Natthu were cited with a view to prove that the assailants were seen by the said witnesses while going away from the place of occurrence after commit ting the aforesaid murder but it is clear that these witnesses had no opportunity to see the assailants. These witnesses were thus got up witnesses. In the said contract, and for the other reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the solitary evidence of P. W. 4 Smt. Ram Wati was not such on the basis of which the conviction and sentence of the three appellants may be sustained. 25. Accordingly these appeals are allowed and the conviction of Jhabboo under Section 302 I. P. C. and of Sita Ram and Nokhey appellants under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and also sentence of life imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 500 to each of the said appellants are, hereby, set aside. 26. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which hereby stand discharged. 27. The amount of fine, if already paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Appeal allowed. .