NAVRANG LAL TIBREWAL J,—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 11, 1979 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case Mo. 1/79 by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s 307 IPC to four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further R.I. for three months. 2. The appellant Keshav Kumar was married to P.W, 2 Smt. Sudha, d/o Om Prakash. It appears that the appellant Keshav Kumar resided in a house belonging to P.W. 8 Kushal Raj Bhandari, along with his father, two brothers and wife; as a tenant. There were other tenants also in the said house. One Mst. Kaushalya used to come to the house of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant had developed some relations with Mst. Kaushalya, on account of which his wife Smt. Sudha and other family members were annoyed. 3. The prosecution case is that in the night intervening 3rd of Nov. 1978 when the appellant was sleeping in the room along with his wife Smt. Sudha, after bolting the door from inside, the other family members hear the noise of crying coming out from the room which got them awakened. It is said that the other tenants and the land lord of the house also came there. The prosecution case further is that inspite of knocking the door from outside, it was not opened by the accused. Then one Rameshwar gave kick, on account of which the inner bolt of the doors was broken and the doors of the house were opened. The protection case further is that when some of these persons went inside the room they found that the appellant was sitting on the breast of his wife Smt. Sudha and with a towel he was trying to throttle her after putting the towel around the neck with the help of one Khurpi. It is said that the mother of the appellant helped Smt. Sudha to get up and enquired from her about the incident. Thereafter, all other persons went back to their respective houses. 4. Smt. Sudha was sent to the house of P.W. 5 Kailash Nath. who happened to be a common relation of both the parties. It is said that the mother of the appellant helped Smt. Sudha to get up and enquired from her about the incident. Thereafter, all other persons went back to their respective houses. 4. Smt. Sudha was sent to the house of P.W. 5 Kailash Nath. who happened to be a common relation of both the parties. The prosecution case further is that a telegram was given to the father of Smt. Sudha but her father could not come as he was appearing in LL.B. Examination at Aligarh. It is also said that the brother of Smt. Sudha, namely, Sunil had come to Jodhpur and the father came subsequently on 2 of November and there after a typed report was made to the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur by the father of Smt. Sudha which was forwarded to S.H.O., Sadar kotwali; Jodhpur where the case was registered. The police after investigation, submitted charge sheet u/s 307 IPC subsequently the appellant was tried in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, for the offences u/s 307 IPC. 5. During the trial of the case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. P.W. 1 Om Prakash is the father of Smt. Sudha. Smt. Sudha has appeared as P.W. 2. P.W.3 Jagdish and P.W. 4 Gordhan are the tenents who resided in the same house, while P.W. 5 Kailash Nath is a common relation where Smt. Sudha lived after the aforesaid incident. P.W. 6 Rameshwar is also the tenant being s/o of P.W. 3 Jagdish. P.W. 7 Smt, Sushila Devi is the mother of the appellant. P.W. 8 Kushal Raj Bhandari, who is the landlord in whose house the appellant reside alongwith Smt. Sudha at the time of the incident. P.W. 9 Bhana Ram is the S.H.O. and P.W. 10 is Dr. Narsingh Kothari, who examined the injuries of Smt. Sudha. 6. In defence, five witnesses were examined, which includes D.W. 1 Shiv Kumar who is brother of the appellant, D.W. 2 Thakur Dass who is a friend of the appellant, D.W. Sharvan Kumar who is an employee in the department where the appellant was working and who proved the attendance Register. D.W. 4 is Mst. Kaushalya and D.W. 5 is Vishveshwar Dayal who is the relative of the appellant. 7. The learned trial court, after completion of the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 8. Mr. D.W. 4 is Mst. Kaushalya and D.W. 5 is Vishveshwar Dayal who is the relative of the appellant. 7. The learned trial court, after completion of the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 8. Mr. P.N. Mohnani, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the present case is a concocted one as there was apprehension that the appellant was having relations with Mst. Kaushalya, on account of which his wife Smt. Sudha was not happy. He contended that if the incident had taken place in the manner as stated by the prosecution in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of November 1978, then there was hardly any reason that no attempt was made by any person to lodge the report at police Station. The report came to be lodged after twenty day of the incident and that too when Mst. Kaushalya had disappeared with the appellant, for which a case was registered against him and he was released on bail on November 11, 1978. According to the learned counsel for the appellant there was a number of occasions and that too for so many persons to lodge the report at the police station but no attempt was made by any person including the brother of Smt. Sudha, who had come to Jodhpur and remained for a week but no effort was made even by him to lodge the report. It was further contended that the report Ex. P/l is a typed one and the manner in which it has been written clearly shows that it was made after seeking the advice from some lawyers. It was further contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. It was also brought to my notice that subsequently a Divorce petition was also filed by Smt. Sudha in the court of District Judge, Hissar, where decree of divorce has been obtained by her. 9. On the contrary the learned, Public Prosecutor, has vehmently supported the findings and the judgment of the learned trial court. According to him, there is hardly any ground to disbelieve the statement of PW7 Smt. Sushila Devi who is real mother of the appallant and it is not expected from the mother to speak against her own son, to seek his conviction and imprisonment. According to him, there is hardly any ground to disbelieve the statement of PW7 Smt. Sushila Devi who is real mother of the appallant and it is not expected from the mother to speak against her own son, to seek his conviction and imprisonment. It was also contended that no report was made at the police Station earlier as Smt. Sudha wanted to seek advice from her father before taking criminal proceedings against the appellant. He, therefore contends that no interference is warranted in the present appeal and as the appellant has tried to Strangulate his own wife, no leniency should be shown in the matter of sentences also. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel. I have also gone through the entire record, including the statement of the eye witnesses and the judgment of the learned trial court. In order to appreciate the case it is necessary to point out the following facts which are either not disputed or they are fully established from the material on record— 1. Mst. Kaushalya used to visit the house of the appellant and she had developed friendship with the appellant though outwardly the relation between Mst. Kaushalya and the appellant was shown to be of sister and brother, but in fact their relations were something more than that; 2. that Smt. Sudha, the wife of the appellant was not happy with the aforesaid relation of Mst. Kaushalya with the appellant; 3. that on 3rd November 1978 Mst. Kaushalya disappeared along with the appellant and a report of her abducting by the appellant was lodged by her father in which he was granted anticipatory bail on November 11, 1978 4. that no report was made by any person just after the incident on 3rd of Nov 1978 or subsequently thereafter: 5. that the brother of Smt. Sudha had also came at Jodhpur and he remained about a week but still no report was made by him also; 6. that Smt. Sudha is a graduate, as such she her self could have managed and lodged the report or could have managed to get the report lodged at the policy station but no effort was made by her also; 7. that Smt. Sudha is a graduate, as such she her self could have managed and lodged the report or could have managed to get the report lodged at the policy station but no effort was made by her also; 7. that a telegram is said to have been sent after the incident to the father of Smt. Sudha but the said telegram has not been produced in the court; 8. Similarly, a letter is said to have been sent by the brother of Smt. Sudha, after his arrival at Jodhpur, to his father, namely, P.W. 1 Om Prakash, but the said letter has suppressed. But inspite of the telegram and letter the father of Smt. Sudha did not come to Jodhupr, immediately after the occurrence and the report came to be lodged after 20 days of the incident. 11. In the aforesaid background, we have to judge the prosecution case. It needs hardly any comment that in a criminal case prompt lodging of the report at the police Station is of vital importance as when delay in lodging the report always gives an opportuity to made out a concocted and manufactured stroy about the incident. A delay in lodging the report creates doubt and suspicion on the prosecution case as well as the prosecution story. In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of November 1978 and it is the admitted case of the prosecution that as many as about 25 persons had assembled at the time of the incident, including the land lord, the tenants in the said house and other persons. It is strange that nobody made any effort either to lodge the report at the police station and to take Smt. Sudha for medial aid. 12. Thereafter, Smt. Sudha is said to have lived at the house of P.W. 5 Kailash Nath who also appears to be her relation, but Kailash Nath also did not lodge any report nor Smt. Sudha got the report lodged even after going to the house of Kailash Nath. It is also strange that Sunil, the brother of Smt. Sudha had came at Jodhpur but still he did not lodge any report. It is also strange that Sunil, the brother of Smt. Sudha had came at Jodhpur but still he did not lodge any report. The manner in which the report has been lodged, after 20 days of the incident and the fact that the report was lodged after Mst, Kaushalya was alleged to have been taken away by the police on 3.11.1978 goes to show that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the story was invented subsequently on account of anger which preveiled with Smt, Sudhas parents as well as the parents of the appellant also. Neither the mother of the appellant could have liked the relationship of the appellant with Mst. Kaushalya nor the same would have been liked by Smt. Sudha. The fact that Mst. Kaushalya disappeared along with the appellant on 3.11.1978 and, thereafter, the appellant got anticipatory bail on November 11, 1978, goes to show that the relations between Smt. Kaushalya and the appellant had become known to all and it also became known to all that their relations were not that of brother and sister as was being claimed either by him or by Mst, Kaushalya. 13. It is further note worthy that if the incident had taken place in this manner then some attempt must have been made to get the injuries examined by a Doctor or atleast to get some medical aid. This fact also creates doubt about the story which has been given by the prosecution. So far the medical evidence which has been produced in the instant case, it may be stated that P.W. 10 Dr. N.S. Kothari, who examined Smt. Sudha on 22.11.78 has categorically stated that on her examination he did not find any visible injury on the neck of Smt. Sudha. The doctor had found bilateral sub-conjuctural haemorrage (haematoma) on the lateral part of scarea dark reodish coloured, partially absorbed. But with regard to this injury also the doctor has stated that no opinion can be given that it was related to any of the pressure on the neck or not as there was no visible injury on the neck. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. 14. But with regard to this injury also the doctor has stated that no opinion can be given that it was related to any of the pressure on the neck or not as there was no visible injury on the neck. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. 14. P.W. 1 Om Prakash, who is the father of Smt. Sudha has stated in examination-in-chief itself, that he had received the telegram at Hisar, which was delivered by his son Sunil who told him that the condition of Sudha was serious at Jodhpur and the said telegram was sent by Kailashnath. He has stated that he asked Sunil to go to Jodhpur and he i.e. Om Prakash, went to Aligarh to appeal in the examination. He also admitted his relationship with P.W. 5 Kailashnath and stated that he is Nandoi of his elder daughter. In his cross-examination, this witness further admitted that he had a talk on telephone with his son Sunil on 8th of November and he said during the talks that some incident has taken place. He also admitted that Sunil had written a letter also which was received by him but in the said letter nothing was written about the incident. He further stated his son Sunil is aged 20 years. He also admitted that Mst, Kaushalya used to visit the house of the appellant since the marriage of Sudha with the appellant and on account of their relations his daughter Smt. Sudha was annoyed. 15. From this statement one things is clear that if this witness had received the intimation about the serious condition of his daughter then in the normal course it was expected from him to have rushed to Jodhpur, either immediately on receipt of the telegram or after some time immediately as and when it was convenient to him. This witness has admitted that no examination took place from 6th to 8th of November and subsequently as there was a curfew on account of Hindu Muslim riots at Lucknow. He had ample opportunity to come to Jodhpur, had in fact he had received the intimation about the serious condition of his daughter. The letter received by him has also not been produ-ced in the court and then he could have known the fact of the incident at the time of his talk on telephone with Sunil. He had ample opportunity to come to Jodhpur, had in fact he had received the intimation about the serious condition of his daughter. The letter received by him has also not been produ-ced in the court and then he could have known the fact of the incident at the time of his talk on telephone with Sunil. Inspite of all these facts, the attitude of the witness and his son to be quite inactive and the manner in which the report came to be lodged after 20 days of the incident, seriously creates a doubt that in fact the incident was so serious and in fact it had taken place in the manner stated by the prosecution, It might be possible that some altereations between the husband and the wife had taken place on account of the intimacy which the appellant was having with Mst, Kaushalya which caused annoyance to Smt. Sudha and other family members of the appellant also. But if in fact the appellants had tried to commit murder of Smt. Sudha Stringulating with a towel and her condition had become precarious at that time then immediate steps would have been taken to get medical aid from a qualified doctor and also to get the injuries medically examined. The witnesses also would not have remained as silent spectators having seen the entire episode from their own eyes. 16. Taking the broad features of the case and the background under which the report came to be lodged, after 20 days of the incident, it creates a reasonable doubt on the entire prosecution. It is a fit case, in the facts and circumstances, where the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused-appellant. 17. Consequenty, I allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the appellant by the learned trial court. He is acquitted from all the charges. He is on bail and need not surrendera. His bail bonds are discharged.