JUDGMENT 1. - These four appeals/revision are directed against the judgment dated March 31, 1980, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants Lala for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and accused Vesat and Smt. Homli for offence under Section 307 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code and awarded a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment to each of them and a fine of Rs. 5000/- to each of the accused appellants. Since all the aforesaid three appeals and one revision arise out of the same judgment, I, therefore, propose to decide them by this common judgment. 2. Accused Lala was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and accused Vesat and Smt. Homli were tried for offence under Section 307 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, which was lodged at the Police Station, Panarwa, on January 6, 1979, by one Datta Ram, is that on January 3, 1979, at about 7.00 p.m. he had gone to Narsa's house to call him to bring water at the Police Out post. After asking Narsa, he had gone towards the river and when he reached near the house of Nalu, accused Vesat and his wife Homli and his son Lala were going towards their house and were abusing Haliya. When he asked them not to do so, all the three accused-appeallants enraged and Vesat told, ^^ekjks lkys dks A^^ In the meanwhile Smt. Homli caught-hold of him and Lala, in order to kill him, inflicted an injury with a knife. On hearing the alarm, Hallu and Narsa came there. During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, produced four eye witnesses of the occurrence, namely, PW 1 Datta Ram, PW 2 Halu, PW 3 Narsa and PW 4 Dalla. PW 5 Thawra was produced as a 'MOTBIR' witness to show the recovery of the blood-stained Bushirt accused Besat. PW 6 Nath lal is the Station House Officer, who conducted the investigation and presented the challan PW 7 Dr. G.L. Verma and PW 9 Dr. J.S. Matha were produced by the prosecution to prove the injury and the X-ray Report. PW 8 Veerji has been produced to show the recovery of "CHURRI" - the weapon of the offence. PW 6 Nath lal is the Station House Officer, who conducted the investigation and presented the challan PW 7 Dr. G.L. Verma and PW 9 Dr. J.S. Matha were produced by the prosecution to prove the injury and the X-ray Report. PW 8 Veerji has been produced to show the recovery of "CHURRI" - the weapon of the offence. The accused did not produce any witness in support of his defence. The learned trial Court did not place reliance over the testimony of PW 2 Halu, PW 3 Narsa and PW 4 Dalla - the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, as they have not supported the prosecution case. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the evidence of PW 3 Thawra and PW 8 Veerji were, also, of no consequence as the Blood stationed shirt and "CHURRI" in question were not found blood stationed in the Forensic Science Laboratory's report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance only on the testimony of PW 1 Datta Ram for convicting the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 307 and 307 read with 114 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused Lala under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and accused Besat and Smt. Homli under Section 307/114 Indian Penal Code. It is against this judgment, convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid, that the present appeals have been filed by the accused alongwith the revision petition filed by the District Probation Officer for releasing the accused-appellant on probation of good conduct. S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 170 of 1980 Besat v. the State of Rajasthan and S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 171 of 1980 Lala v. the State of Rajasthan have been filed by the accused through jail, while S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1980 Lala and Ors. v. the State of Rajasthan has been filed by all the accused-appellants through their Advocate. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 85 of 1981 has been filed through the District Probation Officer for granting the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused appellants. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 4. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 85 of 1981 has been filed through the District Probation Officer for granting the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused appellants. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 4. The three alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz., PW 2 Hallu, PW 3 Narsa and PW 4 Dalla have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not place any reliance over their testimony. There, thus, remains the only evidence of PW 1 Datta Ram the injured which requires the consideration. PW 1 Datta Ram, in his statement before the learned trial Court, has stated that on the relevant date, he was posted as Constable at Police Out post, Daya, where Narsa used to supply water. On the relevant day, Narsa did not come and as there was no water in the pitcher, he therefore, went to the house of Narsa to call him. After asking Narsa to bring water, he went towards the river to wash himself. In the way, Lala, Besat and Smt. Homli met him, who were hurling abuses to Dalla and Hallu. When he asked them not to abuse them, the accused pickedup quarrel with him. Smt. Homli came from behind and caught hold of him and thereafter accused Lala and Besat, also, came. Besat asked to kill him, where upon accused Lala inflicted injuries to him with the 'CHURRF. On receiving the injury, he fell down and became unconscious. Jail, while S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1980 Lala and Ors. v. the State of Rajasthan has been filed by all the accused appellants through their Advocate. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 85 of 1981 has been filed through the District Probation Officer for granting the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused appellants. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. The three alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz., PW 2 Hallu, PW 3 Narsa and PW 4 Dalla have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not place any reliance over their testimony. There, thus, remains the only evidence of PW 1 Datta Ram the injured which requires the consideration. 6. The three alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz., PW 2 Hallu, PW 3 Narsa and PW 4 Dalla have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not place any reliance over their testimony. There, thus, remains the only evidence of PW 1 Datta Ram the injured which requires the consideration. PW 1 Datta Ram, in his statement before the learned trial Court, has stated that on the relevant date, he was posted as Constable at Police Out post, Daya, where Narsa used to supply water. On the relevant day, Narsa did not come and as there was no water in the pitcher, he, therefore, went to the house of Narsa to call him. After asking Narsa to bring water, he went towards the river to wash himself. In the way, Lala, Besat and Smt. Homli met him, who were hurling abuses to Dalla and Hallu. When he asked them not to abuse them, the accused picked up quarrel with him. Smt. Homli came from behind and caught hold of him and thereafter accused Lala and Besat, also, came. Besat asked to kill him, whereupon accused Lala inflicted injuries to him with the "CHURRI". On receiving the injury, he fell down and became unconscious. He regained consciousness at the Police Station Panarwa. He has, further, stated that when the accused Lala inflicted injury with the "CHURRI", Dalla, Hallu and Narsa had seen the accused inflicting injury to him. In cross examination, he has admitted that the Head Constable was not at the Police Out post when the incident took place and the Head Constable came at the Police Out post at about 11.00 p.m. in the night and no report of the incident was entered at the Police Out post. 7. I have gone-through the statement of this witness. This witness, in the First information Report, has stated that the accused Lala inflicted injury by knife to him and after receiving the injury, he became unconscious while in the statement before the Court, he had made improvement that the injury was inflicted by "BARCHHI". The weapon of the offence has been changed by this injured witness. He has stated that he became unconcious after receiving the injury and regained the consciousness only at the Police Station, Panarwa. The weapon of the offence has been changed by this injured witness. He has stated that he became unconcious after receiving the injury and regained the consciousness only at the Police Station, Panarwa. If we look to the injury received by the injured PW 1 Datta Ram, the nature of the injury is not such that on receiving of which the injured could have become unconscious. The doctor has not opined even in the injury report whether the injury was grievous or simple in nature, but looking to the diamension of the injury, received by him, it appears that the injury was simple in nature. There is another aspect of the case, also. The incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. and no report of the incident was lodged at the Police Out Post, Daya, and it was lodged on the next day in the evening at about 7.30 p.m., i.e., after about twenty four hours. This Creates a doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Even this First Information Report, which was lodged after a delay of twenty four hours, did not reach in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate till January 20, 1979, an no explanation has come on record why the FIR was received in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on January 20, 1979. A specific question was asked to the Station House Officer PW 6 Nath Lal regarding this delay and he had replied that he despatched the FIR on January 7, 1979 and he cannot say why it dit not reach the Court before January 20, 1979. When no independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case then whether the evidence of PW 1 Datta Ram, who is an injured witness and who is a Police Constable and who lodged the First Information Report after twenty four hours but the report reached the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on January 20, 1979, can be regarded as trustworthy? It is, no doubt, true that merely because the First Information Report did not reach the Court for fourteen days, solely on this ground the prosecution case cannot be thrown away in its entirity, but this extraordinary delay in sending the FIR is a circumstance which provides a basis for suspecting that the First Information Report was recorded much latter, than the stated time and which has aforded the prosecution the opportunity to introduce improvements and embellishments. This suspicion in sending the report after fourteen days, coupled with the circumstance that in the FIR the injured has stated that the injury was inflicted by a knife while in the trial he has made improvement and stated that the injury was inflicted by "CHURRI" and that "CHURRI" has, also, not been connected with the crime because it was not found blood stained by the Forensic Science Laboratory, is fatal to the prosecution. When there is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW 1 Datta Ram, which I do not find to be reliable evidence, the conviction of the accused appellants for offence under Section 307 and 307/114 Indian Penal Code, thus, cannot be maintained. There is no other evidence to connect these accused appellants with the crime. The bushirt of the accused appellant Besat, which according to the prosecution was found blood stained, was sent for FSL examination but the report of the Forensic Science Labouratory is nil, so far as the human blood in concerned. Thus, neither there is any independent witness to support the prosecution case or to support the evidence of PW 1 Datta Ram, which according to me is not a reliable witnesses, nor is there any recovery made from the accused appellant (s), which connects the accused with the crime. There is, also, no other circumstance which could connect the accused with the crime. The witness PW 1 Datta Ram, to me, is not of starling worth and is not a reliable witness. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. 8. Since the accused appellants are going to be acquitted, the revision petition filed through the District Probation Officer for extending the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused appellants, has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. 8. Since the accused appellants are going to be acquitted, the revision petition filed through the District Probation Officer for extending the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused appellants, has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Consequently, the aforesaid three appeals, filed by the accused appellants, are allowed. The judgment dated March 31, 1980, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, convicting and sentencing the appellants, is set aside and the accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******