JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st July, 1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, by which the accused appellants (Phool Chand & Gyan Prakash) have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and each of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default, further to undergo two months' RI). Accused appellant Gyan Prakash has also been convicted under Section 324 IPC for having voluntarily caused a simple hurt by sharp edged weapon to Ka jai Mal (P.W.1) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment). 2. The facts in brief are that one, Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4) was running a studio in Jobner town where Jagmohan (P.W.3) was employed for the last 2 or 21h months to the day of incident. Kajod Choudhary (P.W.1) is resident of Khatipura, Jaipur, and deceased Surendra Dhaka and Vijendra (P.W.2) were residents of Jagnnathpura, Jaipur, and as per the prosecution case, on 8th July, 1987, they had gone to the studio of Bhanwarlal to bring clothes of Jagmohan (P.W.3), who, as said earlier, was employee of that studio. It is further the case that there was some enmity between Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4) and the accused appellants, and some litigation was going on in respect of a piece of land in between Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4) on the one hand and accused appellant Phool Chand, on the other. The accused appellants are said to have met Jagmohan and others on 8th July, 1987, and gave an impression by twisted their moustaches but nothing more happened on that date. On 10th July 1987, as per the case of the prosecution, on a motor cycle, deceased Surendra Dhaka, along with Vijendra (P.W.2) and Kajod Mal (P.W. 1) had gone to the studio of Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4) to take photos which are said to have been taken on the marriage ceremony of Vijendra (P.W.2). Bhanwar Lal was not found there, so they waited for him in front of the betel shop nearby bus-stand. At that time, both the accused appellants along with three and four others came there and started hurling abuses to which they protested. Bhanwar Lal was not found there, so they waited for him in front of the betel shop nearby bus-stand. At that time, both the accused appellants along with three and four others came there and started hurling abuses to which they protested. Accused appellant Phool Chand picked up a hatchet from nearby a sugar-cane juice shop (Theta) which was nearby, and is said to have caused an injury with it in the abdomen of Surendra Dhaka (deceased). The accused appellants are said to have been armed with knife and hatchet, and caused the injuries with it. Each of the accused appellants has inflicted two/three blows on the deceased. Kajod Choudhary (P.W.1) ran away from that place and went to police station Jobner, Jaipur, and lodged a report (Ex. P/1). A case was registered and the investigation was set in motion, the SHO prepared necessary memos. Dr. B.K. Aggrawal (P.W.16) arrived at the spot and under a Pipal tree conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Surendra Dhaka and found multiple injuries on the person of Surendra Dhaka caused by a sharp edged weapon. We do not consider it necessary to state here all the injuries and suffice it to say that the injuries found were incised as well as stab wounds. The accused appellants were arrested. The accused appellants are said to have made their statements and on the information of Phool Chand, a hatchet was recovered, which was sent to the state forensic Science Laboratory but was not found to be stained with human blood, so also the knife (chaku) was not found to be stained with human blood. Each of the accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to express the circumstances appearing against each of them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but the plea of each of the accused appellants was a bare denial. Accused appellant Gyan Prakash has pleaded alibi and said that he was not present at the scene of occurrence, and so far as Phool Chand is concerned, he was also not present at the spot and was in the shop of one Jagdamba Tent House. Accused appellants have examined three witnesses in defence. Accused appellant Gyan Prakash has pleaded alibi and said that he was not present at the scene of occurrence, and so far as Phool Chand is concerned, he was also not present at the spot and was in the shop of one Jagdamba Tent House. Accused appellants have examined three witnesses in defence. The learned Trial Court discussing the evidence on record, while did not place reliance on two eye witnesses, namely Vijendra (P.W.2) and Jagmohan (P.W.3) but has placed reliance on the evidence of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as aforesaid. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the evidence on record. 4. As said earlier, the case is based on the sole testimony of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1), who, had received two injuries. It is settled law that when the case is based and rests on the statement of a solitary witness, such witness must be of sterling worth before the Court can consider the same so as to convict the accused persons. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused appellants is that the FIR (Ex. P/I) was lodged at 7.30 p.m. but, in fact, was lodged at 10.00 p.m. He has also contended that the FIR was not sent immediately to the Magistrate and it only reached in the Court of the Magistrate on 13-7-1987 and the delay has not been explained. He, therefore, contends that the FIR is not a reliable piece of evidence and therefore it cannot be said that it can corroborate the statement of informant i.e. Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1). Learned Counsel further contends that a look at the statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) will show that he has made an improvement over his previous statement as well as version in the FIR (Ex. P/1) and therefore it will not be safe to rely upon his statement more so, there has been no motive for the murder. Furthermore, so far as the accused appellants arc concerned, they were not known to the deceased prior to the occurrence, besides when the deceased was not even a friend of Bhanwarlal (P.W.4) with whom there was an enmity of the accused appellants. The learned Counsel contends that it is not disputed that the deceased received multiple injuries, and he died. Furthermore, so far as the accused appellants arc concerned, they were not known to the deceased prior to the occurrence, besides when the deceased was not even a friend of Bhanwarlal (P.W.4) with whom there was an enmity of the accused appellants. The learned Counsel contends that it is not disputed that the deceased received multiple injuries, and he died. But, according to him, the deceased was resident of Jagannathpura (Khatipura), Jaipur, and not of Jobner while the incident took place at Jobner, and the possibility is that the incident happened in some other manner and did not take place in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses. And the possibility that so far as accused appellants are concerned, at the behest of Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4), they have been falsely implicated, cannot be excluded. 6. It has come in the statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) that only after the police had come to the spot and had prepared certain memos and thereafter the first information report was lodged. Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1), has stated that first he told everything to the SHO. The police station is at half a kilometre away from the place of incident. He further states that it is correct to say that the police had taken the report (Ex. P/1) after seeing the site and the police remained at the spot for about an hour and thereafter had returned with him to the police station, and he further states that only thereafter he had written the report (Ex. P/1). It can, therefore, be said that the report could not have been written at 7.30 p.m. When it is purported to be written and was written thereafter. Even the Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) has stated that he had returned to the police station at 10.00 p.m. Generally mere delay in sending the FIR to the Court of Magistrate is not sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution case, but can be looked into the background of the aforesaid statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W. 1). Under subsection (1) Section 157 Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the office-in-charge of the police station that in a case from an information received, he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. Under subsection (1) Section 157 Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the office-in-charge of the police station that in a case from an information received, he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. The use of the word "forthwith" is not without any significance and, as said earlier, the report must be sent forthwith which was not sent as aforesaid and in the back ground of the delay as it does not appear that it has been lodged at 7.30 p.m., the delay in sending the report to the Magistrate, in our opinion, gains importance and creates doubt on the version of the case of the prosecution as contained in the First Information Report. Learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be wrong when he contends that there is material that the accused appellants are involved in many cases and the possibility is that the occurrence might have taken place in some other manner and to settle the scores, at the behest of Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4), the names of the accused persons might have been falsely implicated. 7. We will now proceed to take up the statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1). As said earlier, unless we can satisfied that he is a witness of sterling worth, it will not be safe to convict both the accused appellants for an offence which entails capital punishment. In the First Information Report which was lodged by Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1); he came out with the case that when he along with the deceased, was awaiting on a motor cycle and found the studio of Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4) as lying closed, all of a sudden, both the accused appellants along with few others who were standing nearby the accused appellants started abusing to the deceased (Surendra Dhaka). There is no material that deceased Surendra Dhaka was known to the accused appellants prior to the occurrence. Even Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) admits that he only saw them about six months in a picture hall and then came to know their names. There is no material that deceased Surendra Dhaka was known to the accused appellants prior to the occurrence. Even Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) admits that he only saw them about six months in a picture hall and then came to know their names. We fail to understand as to how all of a sudden the accused persons would have started abusing a stranger unless there should have been some immediate cause which might have led to the exchange of abuses, but it is not the case of the prosecution. This statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) is that when both the accused persons came, they were unarmed, further that it is not their case that they have any prior information of Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4) that they would reach on 10th July, 1987 at Jobner to take the photos of the marriage of Vijendra (P.W. 2). Even, as per Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1), the occurrence took place all of a sudden and as per the first information report accused is said to have picked up a hatchet (Gandasi) from a nearby sugarcane juice shop with which the accused is said to have inflicted injury on the abdomen of the deceased and thereafter another accused appellant is said to have caused injury with a knife. It is the case of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W. 1) in the First Information Report that after he had seen about two or three injuries inflicted by the appellants, he went there from. He does not say that the other injuries were also caused in his presence. Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) does not state that accused appellant, Phool Chand was armed or had picked up knife from nearby sugarcane juice shop and states that only a gandasa was picked up from a nearby Thela. It will appear from the statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) that the first gandasi blow was given on neck of the deceased by accused appellant, Phool Chand, but in the First Information Report with which he was confronted, he states that the first blow was given on the abdomen of the deceased, that so with a knife. He does not state that it was given with a gandasi. He does not state that it was given with a gandasi. A perusal of the statement of Jagmohan (P.W.3) which show that at every stage of his statement, he has tried to make the improvement either from the first information report or his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We are, therefore, of the opinion that after going through the statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W. 1), we are unable to say that he is a witness of sterling worth. Admittedly, there were independent witnesses of the occurrence which is said to have taken place at about 7.30 p.m. and a reference to the site plan (Ex. P.2), will show that at place 'P' has been shown the sugarcane juice 'theta' of Madan Jogi, from where the accused appellant, Phool Chand, is said to have picked up a gandasi. Madan Jogi has been examined as (D.W.2) and he states that he was present when the occurrence took place but according to him the occurrence had taken place in a different manner and none of the accused appellants were present. According to his statement, the occurrence had taken place in two groups and the accused appellants were not in any of the groups. A statement to this effect was also made by Ramchandra (P.W. 9), that though he was declared hostile. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel is that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and took place in some other manner and the possibility of false implication of the accused persons at the behest of Bhanwar Lal cannot be excluded and in our opinion it cannot be brushed aside lightly. As said earlier, no independent witness has been examined and even Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) does not belong to Jobner, he belongs to Khatipura, Jaipur, and in the absence of any documentary evidence that an order was placed for the marriage photographs of Vijendra (P.W. 2) by Bhanwar Lal (P.W.4). It cannot be said that the story which has been made out by the prosecution that Kajod Mal Choudhary and other including the deceased, had gone to take the photographs at the studio of Bhanwar Lal, in our opinion, cannot be believed. So many persons might have gone for some other reason as alleged by the defence witness, cannot be disbelieved. So many persons might have gone for some other reason as alleged by the defence witness, cannot be disbelieved. At any rate, we are unable to place faith on the statement of Kajod Mal Choudhary (P.W.1) who, does not appear to us a witness of sterling worth and his statement is discarded. There remains no other evidence against any of the accused appellants. 8. Consequently, we hereby allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 31st July, 1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, and acquit both the accused appellants of the charge under Section 302 IPC and further acquit accused appellant, Gyan Prakash, of the charge under Section 324 IPC. The sentences awarded to each of them are set aside. Accused appellant Phool Chand is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The other accused appellant is on interim bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, which shall stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******