Y. K. Sabharwal ( 1 ) IN this appeal filed by the State the judgment of acquittal of respondent, Khem Chand is under challenge. The other respondent, namely, Sohan Lal, father of Khem Chand died during the pendency of this appeal and his name has already been struck off. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the prosecution case is that the residents of Mukimpura used to tease accused Sohan Lal, also a resident of Mukimpura, by calling him kalia as Sohan Lal was of dark complexion. On 14th May 1978 at about 5 pm Laxmi Narain teased Sohan Lal by addressing him as Kailia and on this Sohan Lal started abusing Laxmi Narain @ Babbu. At that Laxmi Narain being stronger felled Sohan Lal and over-powered him. Incidently Khem Chand came there from Gali Bhim. Khem Chand being Cobbler was carrying with him a Rampi (an instrument of leveling leather ). Sohan Lal exhorted Khem Chand "dekhta Kaya Hai, Sale Ko Jaan Se Maar De" (What are you looking at, kill the rascal ). On this exhortation Khem Chand inflicted an injury on the back of Laxmi Narain with that Rampi. Laxmi Narain fell along the wall of the gali. Thereafter, Khem Chand and Sohan Lal ran away towards Mukimpura. Vishnu Datt Kaushik, who was present at his house came out on hearing the alarm. He found Laxmi Narain lying against wall and bleeding. He gave telephonic information to Police Control Room. The telephonic call was received by Head Constable Rajbir Singh of Police Control Room. SI Vimlesh Kurnari filled in the requisite form and on the basis of that form Head Constable Rajbir Singh entered report No. 38 in the daily diary. Head Constable Darshan Kumar received the telephonic information from Sub Inspector Vimlesh Kumari of Police Control Room about the occurrence. So, the Head Constable Darshan Kumar had recorded that report in Daily Diary at No. 40 and handed over a copy thereof to Sub Inspector Ram Kishan for enquiry. ( 3 ) SUB Inspector Kali Ram who was in Police Control Room received wireless information from Police Control Room that stabbing incident had taken place in Gali Mukimpura. So, he reached the place of occurrence. Laxmi Narain was lying on a cot in an injured condition at that time. ( 4 ) ON receipt of daily diary B report No. 40, Sub Inspector Ram Kishan also reached Gali Mukimpura. So, he reached the place of occurrence. Laxmi Narain was lying on a cot in an injured condition at that time. ( 4 ) ON receipt of daily diary B report No. 40, Sub Inspector Ram Kishan also reached Gali Mukimpura. Sub Inspector Kali Ram, Suresh Chand, Dharampal and Sita Ram were present there. Sub Inspector Ram Kishan completed various formalities including lifting of blood from the place where injury was indicted and also from the place where Laxmi Narain in fell after receipt of the injury and also took control samples from nearby, preparation of rough site plan on the pointing out of Suresh Chand in the presence of Sita Ram and Dharam Pal and preparation of inquest report, recording of brief facts and the statement of Kishori Lal under Section 174 Cr. P. C. Kishori Lal, father of Laxmi Narain deceased identified the dead body. ( 5 ) DR. L. T. Ramani, Medical Officer of Police Hospital conducted the post martem examination on the body of Laxmi Narain. ( 6 ) SI Ram Krishan arrested Khem Chand vide personal search memo Ex. Public Witness19/cand Sohan Lal vide personal search memo Ex. Public Witness19/d. ( 7 ) ON 16th May 1978 SI Ram Kishan subjected Khem Chand to interrogation on which he disclosed that he could get recovered Rampi. Khem Chand led the Police Party including Kishori Lal, father of the deceased and got recovered Rampi Ex. Pl. A rough sketch Ex. Public Witness 11/d of Rampi Ex. Pl was prepared and the same was taken into possession vide Memo EX. Public Witness 11/e. ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the case property was sent to CFSL and reports Ex. Public Witness19/e and Public Witness19/f and Public Witness19/g were received. ( 9 ) THE accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. ( 10 ) THE prosecution examined three eye witnesses, namely, Suresh Public Witness-2, Dhararh Pal Public Witness-3 and Sita Ram, Public Witness-4. Suresh, Public Witness-2 also identified Rampi with which the injury had been inflicted to Laxmi Narain. Besides that the prosecution examined Vishnu Datt Kaushik (Public Witness-5) who gave telephonic information to Police Control Room and the prosecu- tion also examined HC Rajbir Singh (Public Witness-6) who received a telephonic information from Vishnu Datt Kaushik. Suresh, Public Witness-2 also identified Rampi with which the injury had been inflicted to Laxmi Narain. Besides that the prosecution examined Vishnu Datt Kaushik (Public Witness-5) who gave telephonic information to Police Control Room and the prosecu- tion also examined HC Rajbir Singh (Public Witness-6) who received a telephonic information from Vishnu Datt Kaushik. Kishori Lal, father of the deceased identified the dead body and in whose presence Khem Chand accused made disclosure statement and subsequently got recovered Rampi, was examined as Public Witness-11. Dr. L. T. Ramani who conducted the post martem examination of the body of Laxmi Narain,was examined as Public Witness 10 and SI Ram Kishan, the 10 of the case as Public Witness-19. The other prosecution witnesses who were examined were only formal in nature. ( 11 ) BY the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the First Information Report was recorded subsequently after due deliberations and the witnesses shown to be eye witnesses may not have witnessed the occurrence; the enclosed papers were prepared subsequently; post martem examination report and the articles brought after post martem examination were not deposited in the Malkhana the same day but a day later from which the tampering of these articles cannot be ruled out and that the recovery of rampi itself is doubtful. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 12 ) MR. P. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed grave illegality in not believing the eye witnesses and in giving undue weight to delay in sending special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate and delay in sending inquest papers and erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Mr. Ak. shay Bipin, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the alleged eye witnesses were of partisan character, their testimonies were not trustworthy and there was inordinate delay in forwarding the special report to the Magistrate for which there was no explanation much less satisfactory explanation and that the FIR was recorded subsequently and not when it purports to have been recorded and so also the inquest report. ( 13 ) WE would first briefly notice a few aspects in respect of the eye witnesses. All the three eye witnesses are chance witnesses. None of them either tried to separate Laxmi Narain and Sohan Lal when they were allegedly grappling. None of them tried to chase Khemchand or Sohan Lal. The deceased Lakshmi Narain was employed in the factory of Suresh sometime prior to the occurrence. Laxmi Narain was also earlier in the employment of Sita Ram. Sita Ram admitted that he, Dharampal and Suresh did not try to intervene when scuffle was going on between Laxmi Narain and Sohan Lal. Sita Ram did not even raise an alarm when the accused were running away after inflicting injury. He did not give any telephonic information to the Police Control Room or to the Police Station: He did not even go to the house of Laxmi Narain to inform his relations about the occurrence. Likewise, Dharam Pal did not give any telephonic information to the Police Control Room or to the Police Station and neither he nor Suresh nor Sita Ram went to inform the relations of Laxmi Narain about the occurrence. Further, all the three eye witnesses have stated that all of them shifted Laxmi Narain after he received injuries from the place where he fell down to the cot. Though Laxmi Narain was bleeding profusely but strangely the clothes of none of them were stained with blood of Laxmi Narain in the act of shifting him. Regarding other aspects we may notice that according to the case of the prosecution SI Ram Kishan subjected Khem Chand to interrogation on 16th May 1978 on which he disclosed that he got recovered rampi and then his disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness11/c was recorded and Khem Chand led the police party and got recovered rampi Ex. P1, but strangely, only the father of the deceased was found by the 10 to be the attesting witness to the recovery memo. No independent eye witness was joined. A look at the rough site plan Ex. Public Witness19/da of place of recovery shows that it would be almost impossible for anyone to locate the place of recovery. Moreover, the finger prints of Khem Chand were likely to be present on the rampi but the same were not found nor was rampi sent to CFSL for finding any finger prints on Khem Chand. Public Witness19/da of place of recovery shows that it would be almost impossible for anyone to locate the place of recovery. Moreover, the finger prints of Khem Chand were likely to be present on the rampi but the same were not found nor was rampi sent to CFSL for finding any finger prints on Khem Chand. According to the Investigating Officer both the accused were arrested on 15th May 1978 but the blood stained clothes of Sohanlal were never recovered. It has come in evidence that Sohanlal was under Laxmi Narain and it is difficult to believe that the clothes of Sohanlal would not be stained with blood of Laxmi Narain though the case of the prosecution is that Laxmi Narain was bleeding profously at that time. ( 14 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discrepancies we have to examine the effect of delay in forwarding the special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offence upon the Police report. The report under Section 157 Cr. P. C was sent to the Magistrate on 15th May 1978 at 10am. According to the prosecution the FIR was recorded and despatched at 6. 15 pm on 14th May 1978. The Naib court who was examined as Public Witness- 18 tried to explain that he handed over the said report to the Ahlmad of the Metropolitan Magistrate at 9. 45 AM on 15th May 1978 as the Magistrate had verbally given instructions that no such report be handed over at her residence after evening. The Naib Court,however, does not state about any such instructions before the 10. Further, no question was put by the prosecution to Anil Kumar, Ahlmad of the court that the Metropolitan Magistrate had issued any such instructions. Further, the dead body was received in the mortuary on 14th May 1978 at 7. 30pm but the inquest papers were received on the next day at about 9. 30 AM. There is yet another vital circumstance and it is that in Daily Diary while recording the substance of FIR the name of the accused persons, the name of the witnesses and the substance in which the offence was committed have all not been mentioned. ( 15 ) THE First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. ( 15 ) THE First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the FIR can hardly be over estimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the Police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and part played by them as well as the name of the eye witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence. The delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is,therefore, essential that delay in lodging of the First Information Report should be satisfactorily explained (See: Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501 ). ( 16 ) ONE of the object behind the requirement to send special report to the Magistrate with utmost despatch is that once the Magistrate receives the said report it may not be possible for prosecution to subsequently change its case on vital aspects. In this case special report was sent the next day. Further, the names of the accused and eye witnesses, though said to be known, are not recorded in daily diary nor are the same recorded in the brief facts recorded by the Investigating Officer alongwith the inquest report. ( 17 ) MR. SHARMA relying upon the observations of Justice Venkatarama Ayyar in His Lordship s minority opinion in Aherraja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra , AIR 1956 SC 217 that the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police officer as all other persons and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect than without good grounds, contends that in absence of any finding about animosity between Police witnesses and the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have disbelieved the police witnesses and relying upon their testimony, the accused should have been convicted. We have noticed hereinbefore various circumstances which cast serious doubts about the prosecution caseand various discrepancies which have remained unexplained. We may have adopted a different approach about the non mention of the names of the eye witnesses in the inquest report and brief facts if the testimonies of eye witnesses was otherwise credible but, as noticed hereinbefore, there are vital flaws in their testimonies. In view thereof the non recording of the substance of information in the Daily Diary register and not sending the special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate with utmost despatch and delay in sending the inquest papers assumes vital importance. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of the testimony of police witnesses, as contended by Mr. Sharma. The question is not about absence of finding of animosity between police witnesses and the accused. The question is when there are serious doubts about the truthfulness of eye witnesses, and there are vital discrepancies in the investigation and in the evidence of police witnesses, should the accused be convicted by holding that there is nothing on record to show animosity between the police witnesses and the accused. The answer to the question has to be no . Apart from the circumstances noticed above, we may notice another circumstance which casts a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution. The 10 (Public Witness-19) deposed that on 29th June, 1978 he had sent rampi for the opinion of the Police Surgeon. However, from the testimony of HC Inderjit Singh (Public Witness 13) it appears that on 29th June, 1978 SI Ram Kishan took the parcel said to contain rampi sealed with the seal of CFSL and another parcel said to contain the clothes of the deceased sealed with the seal of CFSL, to doctor for his opinion. On 29th June, 1978 Ram Krishan SI redeposited the same and he again took the same on 30th June, 1978 and thereafter redeposited the same in the evening of 30th June, 1978 and at that time those sealed parcels contained the seal of Police Surgeon. Thus, it is clear that the parcel was taken on 29th June, 1978, re-deposited and were again taken on 30th June, 1978 and sent for opinion of Police Surgeon on 30th June, 1978. Thus, it is clear that the parcel was taken on 29th June, 1978, re-deposited and were again taken on 30th June, 1978 and sent for opinion of Police Surgeon on 30th June, 1978. The Investigating Officer does not explain this and rather says that the parcels were sent for opinion of the Police Surgeon on 29th June, 1978. If the testimony of Public Witness 13 is believed then parcels were taken on two dates i. e. on 29th June, 1978 and then returned and again taken on 30th June, 1978 and then sent for opinion of Police Surgeon. The possibility of tampering with the parcel when it was taken on 29th June, 1978 and re-deposited thus cannot be ruled out and in any event there is no explanation for this discrepancy. ( 18 ) IT is a settled proposition of law that where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. There must be substantial and compelling reasons for this court to hold that the trial court was wrong and it is not enough for us to take a different view of the evidence if the view of the trial court is reasonable view of the facts of the case. On the facts and circumstances of the present case it is not possible to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court was not reasonable. There are no compelling reasons to reverse the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Session Judge. ( 19 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed.