JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Prasad, J. - These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.79 passed by the then learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 174 of 1979 State v. Prem Pal Singh and Others, convicting the appellants under Section 392 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to four years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Dod Ram (PW 1) and Onkar (PW 2) are real brothers. They are residence of village Gokul Nagra which is at a distance of 2 miles from the village Vikrampur where the accused reside. The accused appellants are known to Dod Ram and Onkar Singh from before. It is alleged that on 8.3.77 sister of Dod Ram and Onkar Singh has come to Qayamganj by a bus and that they were taking her to their village by a bullock-cart. At about 8.00 p.m. they reached the banjar between villages Milkia and Agrasi. Dod Ram had a torch which he flashed. He recognised the accused who were armed with guns, country made pistol and Kantor The accused stopped the bullock-cart and looted the ornaments and clothes of the sister of Dod Ram. On alarm being raised, Janki and Hem raj rushed to the scene of the occurrence. They flashed their torches. The accused appellants ran away. It is alleged that Dod Ram (PW 1) did not go to the police station to lodge the report in the night due to fear. He went in the next morning to the police station to lodge the report. Chick report was prepared on the basis of his report and a case was registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation into the case the charge sheet was submitted against the accused. 3. The prosecution examined the informant Dod Ram (PW 1), Onkar Singh (PW 2) and Constable Sheo Shanker Lal (PW 3) and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of partibandi. The accused Ganga Singh has stated that there is a criminal case in between his father Ulfat and the co-accused Suresh Singh. Suresh Singh has also stated that there is a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. in between him and the co-accused Prem Pal Singh. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of partibandi. The accused Ganga Singh has stated that there is a criminal case in between his father Ulfat and the co-accused Suresh Singh. Suresh Singh has also stated that there is a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. in between him and the co-accused Prem Pal Singh. Suresh Singh has examined himself as D.W.1. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the learned Additional Session Judge convicted and sentenced the accused vide his impugned order as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved the accused Suresh Singh and Mahendra filed the criminal appeal No. 2094/79 and the accused Prem Pal Singh and Ganga Singh filed criminal appeal No. 2095/79 against the same. 6. Heard learned Counsel for "the parties and pursued the record. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the First Information Report is delayed. 8. The incident is said to have taken place on 8.3.77 at about 8.00. There is a distance of 2 miles between the place of occurrence and the police station and yet the First Information Report was lodged on 9.3.77 at about 3.10 P.M. Dal Ram (PW 1) who is informant has tried to explain this delay saying that he had first gone to Chaukidar who is a resident of another village which is at a distance of one Kos from his village, that the Chaukidar had taken his meals and that thereafter the Chaukidar accompanied him to the police station. But there is nothing on record to show that Chaukidar had actually accompanied him to the police station. Therefore, his statement does not appear to be correct. In this view of the matter there is no explanation for the delay occurred in the lodging of the First Information Report. 9. The accused are residents of the village Vikrampur. There is a police out post in that village. This village is at a distance of 4 miles from the village Gokul Nagra and yet Dod Ram did not try to inform the police of that out post about the incident. Had he done so it was quite likely that the ornaments alleged to have been looted might have been recovered from the possession of the accused at the instance of the police men of the said out post itself. Had he done so it was quite likely that the ornaments alleged to have been looted might have been recovered from the possession of the accused at the instance of the police men of the said out post itself. His failure to do so indicates suspicion about the authenticity of the First Information Report. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be correct. 10. The accused Suresh Singh (DW 1) has stated that there are two parties in his village-one of the Thakurs and the other of the Ahirs. This statement goes unchallenged, uncrossed and unrebutted. He has further stated that the accused Prem Pal Singh and his brother Ram Pal, Ulfat and Ganga Din had beaten him and his nephew Kishan Pal Singh in connection with that incident. Consequently a criminal case is still pending in connection therewith. There are strained relations with him on the one side and the co-accused Ganga Singh, Ganga Din and Prem Pal Singh on the other. There is, therefore, no probability of all these four accused having joined hands to commit the present offence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants to this effect is not without substance. 11. In the result these appeals arc allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The appellant in both the appeals are acquitted of the offence Punishable under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. They are on bail. Their bail bonus are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender.