Judgment Nunumani Prasad Singh, J. 1. The eleven appellants and one Muzaffar Hussain were tried on the charge, under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Bilayat Ali. Muzaffar Hussain was, however, acquitted and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 8.10.1973 at about 8 P.M. Bilayat Ali was returning to his home from Kolasi Mela along with his co-villagers Siddique Hussain, P.W.1, Muzaffar Hussain, P.W. 8 and Anisur Rahman, P.W.11. When they reached near a bridge the accused persons variously armed with lathi, Bhala appeared and surrounded them and started assaulting Bilayat Ali. When Siddique, Muzaffar and Anisur intervened they were threatened on which Muzaffar and Anisur fled towards the Meta while Siddique fled towards the village and went to the house of Bilayat Ali and narrated about the occurrence to his son Abdul Haque, P.W.2 who rushed to the place of occurrence along with his uncles Abid Ali, P.W.5, Rushtam Ali, P.W.7, other villagers and Siddique, P.W. 1. Meanwhile; Chaukidar Amrit Turi, P.W. 4 Dr. Aminuddin, P.W. 3 and Dafadar also arrived there. Dr. Aminuddin gave first aid to Bilayat Ali arid asked Abdul Haque to remove his father to the hospital. On a qurry by Dr. Aminuddin, Bilayat Ali disclosed the name of the assailants to him. While Bilayat Ali was being taken to the hospital he died on the way. 3. In the morning, Abdul Haque went to the Police station and submitted a written report (Ext.1) about the occurrence, on the basis of which First Information Report, Ext.4, was drawn up and police took up investigation of the case. After the charge sheet and cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The defence was that they are innocent and they had committed no offence. 5. Further, defence was that the deceased had illicit relation with the daughter of Ansu Lohar and he might have been done to death on that account. There was also alibi defence of appellant Ibrahim Biswas. The defence also adduced evidence of 2 D.Ws, out of whom D.W.1 proved the discharge certificate (Ext. A) of Ibrahim Biswas from Korha State Dispensary and entry dated 5.7.1973 (Ext. There was also alibi defence of appellant Ibrahim Biswas. The defence also adduced evidence of 2 D.Ws, out of whom D.W.1 proved the discharge certificate (Ext. A) of Ibrahim Biswas from Korha State Dispensary and entry dated 5.7.1973 (Ext. B) of out door register of Korha State Dispensary, D.W.2 brought. Out door register of Korha State Dispensary. 6. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses in support of the case. Out of whom P.W.4 Amrit Turi Chaukidar, has turned hostile. P.W.12 Amir Hussain is a witness on the inquest. P.W.2 Abdul Haque is informant. P.W.3 Dr. Aminuddin had given medical aid to the deceased Bilayat Ali and in whose presence the deceased had disclosed the name of the appellants. P.W. 5 Abid Ali, P.W. 7 Rushtam Ali are the brothers of the deceased. They went to the place of occurrence along with P.W.2 and other villagers and in their presence the deceased disclosed the name of the appellants. P.W. 9 Dr. A.K. Chaudhary held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 1 Siddique, P.W. 8 Muzaffar Hussain and P.W. 11 Anisur Rahman are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They were returning to their home along with deceased at the time of occurrence. P.W.10 Radhey Shyam Prasad and P.W.13 Sukhdeo Das have investigated the case in part. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was abnormal delay in lodging the First Information Report in this case. The First Information Report was also not sent to the court promptly. The First Information Report was received in, the court a week after the recording of the case. There is no explanation for the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court. The delay in sending the First Information Report creates a suspicion as to the genuineness of the prosecution case. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the case of Ishwar Singh V/s. State of U.P.1 wherein the Supreme Court has held that extra-ordinary delay in sending the a F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting the F.I.R. which was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvement and embellishment and set up the distorted version of the occurrence. 8. 8. In the instant case the First Information a Report was drawn up on 9.10.1973 while it was received in the court on 17.10.1973. In the first information report no date is mentioned when that was sent to the court. The prosecution has not given any explanation for the extra - ordinary delay in sending the First Information Report to the court of Magistrate. It further transpires that there is interpolation in the date of written report on the basis of which First Information Report has been drawn up. The written report appears to have been prepared on 17.10.1973 which has been corrected as 9.10.1973. This interpolation in the date on the written report creates a doubt as to the existence of written report on 9.10.1973. The evidence of P.W. 1 Siddique Hussain at para 30, indicates that he had gone to the police station in the night of the occurrence and lodged information about the occurrence at the police station and stayed at the police station in the night. P. W. 2 the informant Abdul Haque has also stated that he had sent 4-5 persons to the police station in the night of the occurrence to lodge information about the :1 occurrence. The first information report lodged by the P.W. 1 Siddique Hussain has not seen the light of the day. Thus there is reason to believe that the first information report is anti dated and investigation is tainted. Moreover the evidence of eye witness in this case cannot also be accepted at its face value. 9. The informant, Abdul Haque, P.W. 2 has deposed that at about 8.30 in the night, P.W. 1 iddique Hussain came to him and informed that is father was being assaulted by the accused persons near a bridge. On the said information he rushed to the place of occurrence along with his No uncles Abid Ali, P.W. 5, Rushtam Ali, P.W. alongwith 15-20 villagers. On querry his father disclosed the name of the accused persons. He sent Ataur Rahman for Dr. Aminuddin who came and gave first aid to his father and told him to remove him to the hospital. He returned to his house with the dead body and sent 4-5 persons to Police station and on the next morning he went to the police station and submitted a written report at the Police station. Aminuddin who came and gave first aid to his father and told him to remove him to the hospital. He returned to his house with the dead body and sent 4-5 persons to Police station and on the next morning he went to the police station and submitted a written report at the Police station. In his cross - examination he has stated that appellant Ibrahim Biswas had filed prosecution case against his father and his two uncles namely Abid Ali and Rustam Ali. That was false case and the same was filed on account of action in the village. 10. P.W. 5 Abid Ali and P.W. 7 Rustam Ali lave supported the evidence of informant, P.W. 2 hat they also went to the place of occurrence alongwith the other villagers and they found Biayat Ali lying injured near a bridge. On querry by he informant the deceased had disclosed the lame of the appellants. 11. It is evident from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 that several villagers had also gone to the place of occurrence alongwith them, but none if those villagers have come to support the case of he prosecution. 12. P.W. 3 Dr. Aminuddin who went to the place of occurrence and gave first aid to the deceased has deposed that the voice of deceased was not audible and he did not disclose the name of the accused persons before him. The Chaukidar Amrit Turi, P. W. 4 was also present at the place of occurrence when Bilayat Ali is said to have disclosed the name of assailants but he has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 5 and 7 for want of corroboration by any independent witness on the point of disclosure of the name of the accused persons by the deceased. 13. Siddique Hussain, P.W. 1, Muzaffar Hussain P.W.8 and Anisur Rahman, P.W. 11 have deposed as an eyewitnesses to the occurrence in this case. P.W.1 has stated that at the time of occurrence he was returning to his home along with the deceased, P.W. 8 Muzaffar Hussain and P.W. 11 Anisur Rahman. When they reached near a bridge the accused persons suddenly surrounded them variously armed with weapons and started assaulting Bilayat Ali. P.W.1 has stated that at the time of occurrence he was returning to his home along with the deceased, P.W. 8 Muzaffar Hussain and P.W. 11 Anisur Rahman. When they reached near a bridge the accused persons suddenly surrounded them variously armed with weapons and started assaulting Bilayat Ali. Accused persons threatened them with dire consequences and he fled away towards the village and on reaching the village he narrated about the occurrence to P.W. 2 Abdul Haque and thereafter he went to the place of occurrence along with the villagers. 14. P.Ws.8 and 11 have supported the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was returning to his home along with them and when they reached near a bridge the accused persons surrounded them and assaulted the deceased. They fled away from there and went towards the Mela. P.W.6 Jitendra Sah has deposed that he saw P.Ws 8 and 11 going towards the Mela when he was returning to his home. He saw some miscreants assaulting Bilayat Ali but he did not identify the miscreants. 15. The P.Ws.11, 8 and 9 in their evidence have not disclosed the means of identification of the accused person nor the source of identification is mentioned in the First Information Report. The learned State Counsel has contended that the occurrence took place in a bright moon lit night. Therefore, the identification of the accused persons in the moon light cannot be doubted. 16. It is true that a known person can be identified in the bright Moon light from close proximity. But it appears from the evidence of P.Ws 1, 8 and 11 that there is nothing in their evidence to show from what distance they had identified the appellants. They have also not stated which of the appellant was armed with what weapon. This indicates that P.Ws 1, 8 and 11 had not seen the assailants from a close proximity. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws.1, 8 and 11 as to the identification of the accused person in the commission of the alleged offence. 17. As regards, the motive for the false implication of the appellants is concerned, it is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that there are two factions in the village. The appellants belonged to one faction and the prosecution party members belonged to other faction. 17. As regards, the motive for the false implication of the appellants is concerned, it is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that there are two factions in the village. The appellants belonged to one faction and the prosecution party members belonged to other faction. It is also admitted that the appellant Ibrahim Biswas had instituted a criminal case against the deceased and P.W.5 and 7. The defence of the appellants was that the deceased had illicit relation with the daughter of Lohar and it is just possible that the deceased might have been done to death on that account. Therefore, the false implication of the appellant on account of group rivalry cannot be ruled out. 18. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and they acquitted and exonerated from the liability of bail bonds and in the result this appeal is allowed.