N.P. SINGH & AMIR DAS, JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1988 passed by Sri Damodar Prasad, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 142/87, T.R. No. 67/87, whereby he has convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Appellant Binay Mini has been further convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed. 2. On 24.10.1984 informant Gregory Dhan gave his statement before P.N. Tiwary, S.I. of Bariatu Police Station in R.M.C.H. to the effect that in the last night at about 10 P.M. his Mama Suleman Kujur came to his quarter and told him that his younger brother Naresh Dhan was brutally assaulted by some one and had been admitted in R.M.C.H. He required blood transfusion. On this information he rushed to R.M.C.H. on his Motor cycle along with his Sala Tenulia Kujur and by the time be reached the Hospital, brother had died. His mother Teresa Dhan and Mausa Patras Marandi were there. He enquired from his mother about the incident but she could not tell any thing. His Mausa Patras Marandi, however told him that in the night at about 8-9 P.M. the deceased was assaulted by Some one near the shop of Gorkha which was situated at a distance of 100 yards from his quarter. The statement of the informant was recorded in his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) on the basis of which a formal F. I. R. (Ext. 6) was drawn up and this case was registered. 3. After investigation and charge sheet cognizance of the offence was taken and the case as committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The defence was denial of participation in the commission of the alleged offence and false implication of the appellants. 5. The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses at the trial. Out of whom, P.W. 1 Kuldip Tirky and P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Lakra have been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Ajay Tirky has been tendered. P.W. 4 Sushil Kumar Toppa has claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence though he is not cited as a witness in the F.I.R. P.W. 5 Dr. Jogendra Nath has held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has proved post mortem report (Ext. 2). P.W. 3 Ajay Tirky has been tendered. P.W. 4 Sushil Kumar Toppa has claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence though he is not cited as a witness in the F.I.R. P.W. 5 Dr. Jogendra Nath has held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has proved post mortem report (Ext. 2). P. W. 6 Gregory Dhan is the inform ant of this case. P.W. 7 Constable Jagarnath Ram has proved fard beyan (Ext. 4) inquest report (Ext. 5), formal F.I.R. (Ext, 6) and injury reports of Sushil Kumar Tappa (Exts. 7 & 8). 6. The learned trial court relying upon the sale testimony of Sushil Kumar Tappa (P.W. 4) convicted the appellants and sentenced them in the manner as mentioned in the proceeding paragraph. 7. Sri P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there was in ordinate delay in dispatch of the F.I.R to the court of the magistrate which is situated at a distance of about 10 to 12 K.M from the Police Station. The FIR was drawn up on 24.10.1984, whereas it was received in the Court of C.J.M, Ranchi on 27.10.1984. There if no explanation for the delayed receipt of the F.I.R in the Court of C.J.M. The delayed receipt of the F.I.R in the Court of C.J.M. provides reasonable basis to doubt the prosecution case. There is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. 8. In this connection it is relevant to mention Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as follows :- 157- "If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered order section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance, of such offence. 9. It is evident that the F.I.R is required to be sent forthwith to the court of magistrate. The Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. 9. It is evident that the F.I.R is required to be sent forthwith to the court of magistrate. The Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court-2423, has observed:- "The extra ordinary delay in sending the F. I. R is a circumstance Which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the First Information Report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce, improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence." 10. Here in this case, there is no explanation for the delayed receipt of the F.I.R. in the court of C.J.M. The delayed receipt provides legitimate basis to doubt the prosecution case. 11. Apart from this, it appears that P.W. 4 Sushil Kumar Toppo has claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence, but his name is not cited as a witness in the F.I.R He has deposed that on the date of occurrence he was on leave from his duty and has come to Kankey. A month prior to that Naresh Dhan, since deceased, had told him that appellant Binay Mini and his friends had teased Strela Marandi, his cousin, daughter of his 'Mausa' Patras Marandi Again on 21.10.1984 when he had come to Kankey from Tata, Naresh Dhan had told him that appellant Binay Minj had assaulted him near the hotel of Raghu when he had objected, him against teasing Strela. On one occasion the deceased had protested to the appellant Binay Minj against teasing Strela in his presence. 12. On 23.10.84 in the night at about 8-9 P.M. he had gone to play Badminton alongwith deceased Naresh Dhan infront of the shop of Gorkha. P.W. 1 Kuldip Tirky, P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Lakra and P.W. 3 Ajay Tirky were playing game there from before. At that time appellants came there variously armed with weapons sensing the mood of the appellants to commit the crime, he tried to escape from there, but was caught hold by appellant Robert Khalkho from behind. He however, managed to escape, meanwhile appellant Binay Minj came there and made an attempt on his neck by 'Katari'. He warded off the attack by raising hands which caused injury on his palm and he fell down. Then appellants rushed towards Naresh Dhan and assaulted him. He however, managed to escape, meanwhile appellant Binay Minj came there and made an attempt on his neck by 'Katari'. He warded off the attack by raising hands which caused injury on his palm and he fell down. Then appellants rushed towards Naresh Dhan and assaulted him. Appellants Himansu Toppo, Pramod Toppo and Robert Khalkho were armed with dagger and appellant Ranjan Minj had an iron rod. Meanwhile, he escaped from there and concealed himself in his house. The appellants had also come to his house in search of him. On the next morning he learnt that Naresh Dhan had been seriously injured and he was admitted in the Hospital. His mother took him to a Compounder for his treatment. On the next day when police arrived he submitted a written report (Ext. 1). In his cross examination he stated that he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone in the house nor any inmates of his house enquired from him as to how he had sustained injury. He had not stated the details about the occurrence to the police. He told the police only those facts which the police had enquired from him. This witness kept mum for about two days and did not inform anybody about the occurrence which is against the natural human conduct. The alleged written report (Ext. 1) was submitted two days after the occurrence when the F.I.R held already been lodged and investigation started. The mother and sister of this witness have not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of this witness that he was chased by the appellants and they had come to their house in the night in search of the witness. The Doctor and the Compounder who treated the injury of the witness have also not been examined by the prosecution though injury reports (Exts. 7 & 8) have been brought on record. The abnormal conduct of the witness for not reporting the incident to his family members or to the relatives of the deceased casts a serious reflection on the testimony of this witness as an eye witness to the occurrence. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chandan Singh vs. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1971 Supreme Court-1554. 13. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chandan Singh vs. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1971 Supreme Court-1554. 13. Kuldip Tirky, Vijay Lakra and Ajay Tirky who were playing Badminton at the time of occurrence have been examined by the prosecution as P. Ws. 1, 2 & 3 respectively, but they have not testified the evidence of P.W. 4 Sushil Kumar Toppo. The evidence of P.W. 4 Sushil Kumar Toppo as to the manner of injury caused to the deceased is also not supported by medical evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Jogendra Nath. P.W 4 has istated that appellants Himansu Toppo, Pramod Toppo and Robert Khalkho had a 'Chhura' in their hands and appellant Ranjan Minj had an iron rod, but neither 'Chhura' injury nor injury caused by hard blunt substance was found by the Doctor. P.W.5 Dr. Jogendra Nath who held post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the injury found on the person of the deceased were caused by 'Katari'. There is nothing in his evidence that dagger and 'Katari' are one and the same weapon. The evidence available on the record does not prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellants. 14. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed. Appellant Binay Minj is directed to be set liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The remaining appellants are exonerated from the liability of the bail bonds. Appeal al1owed.