JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Session Trial No. 19 of 1989, whereby the appellant Jaipal Lal alias Jaspal Lal has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. In a nutshell the prosecution case is that deceased Lakshman Singh was tenant in the upper storey of the house of one Ghananand Soti in village Bheeri within police station Ukhimath, district Chamoli. On 18-5-1989 the appellant came at the house of Lakshman Singh and laid on a cot. At that time Smt. Saroj Bist and Dhan Singh, wife and brother of Lakshman Singh respectively, were present in the home. Smt. Saroj asked he appellant to go away from the house but he did not leave the place. Thereupon Smt. Saroj asked Dhan Singh to call some persons and on his call Virpal, Narendra and Namendra Singh came there, who also persuaded the appellant to go out of the house but still he did not leave the place. Then those persons turned him out of the house of Smt. Saroj forcibly, When Lakshman Singh came to his house, Smt. Saroj Bist narrated to him entire happening, who scolded the appellant. The appellant felt offended and told that now his chief guest would be Lakshman Singh. On the fateful night, i.e. 19/20th of May, 1989, appellant came on ths roof of Lakshman Singh at about 1.30 a m. where Smt. Saroj Bist and her husband Lakshman Singh were steeping and inflicted a blow on the head of Lakshman Singh, who became unconscious. Meanwhile Dhan Singh, brother of Lakshman Singh, also arrived there. Lakshman Singh was taken to August Muni Hospital, while Dhan Singh left to village Jalai at about 6 30 a.m. to inform Ghananand Sati, the landlord, about the incident. Ghananand came to village Bheeri and made inquiry about the incident from different persons. Kamal Singh Bhaadari, Dr. Dayali Singh, Sujan Singh and others told him that when Lakshman Singh along with his wife was sleeping on the roof of his house, Dhan Singh was also there. In the night they heard noise and went to the roof of Lakshman Singh where Smt. Saroj Bist and Dhan Singh vere weeping and shouting that appellant Jaipal Lal had assaulted Lakshman Singh with a Kudal from its sharp and edge side. In the night they heard noise and went to the roof of Lakshman Singh where Smt. Saroj Bist and Dhan Singh vere weeping and shouting that appellant Jaipal Lal had assaulted Lakshman Singh with a Kudal from its sharp and edge side. The blood was oozing from the wound and Lakshman Simgh was not it a position to speak. In the meantime two constables had came there, who apprehended the appellant when he was roaming on the road. Then Ghananand Sati went to police station Ukhimath la the Goraptny of those constables and lodged an FIR there at 12.45 p.m. on 20-5-89 and handed over the accused and Kudal to the police where a recovery memo about Kudal was prepared. On the basis of the FIR a case was registered against the appellant under section 324 IPC Lakshman Singh was brought to August Muni Hospital where first aid treatment was given but the Doctor advised to shift him to Shrinagar Hospital where he was taken but no medical aid was provided there. From there he was referred to Meerut Hospital where he was medically examined at 8.30 a.m. on 21-5-1989 by Dr. D. Dyagi, who found one abraded contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the left side of head, 5 cm above the left ear and advised X-ray. The injury was kept under observation and in the opinion of the Doctor the injury was about a day old at the time of medical examination which possibly might have been sustained by accidental fall as stated, vide Ext. Ka 11. Thereafter Lakshman Singh was taken to Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, Delhi, where he was admitted at 6.25 p.m. on 21-5-1989 and on the same day he died there at 7.00) p m. The dead-body was handed over to the family members, who creamated the same at Kotta. 3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri Surajbhan, Sub- Inspector (PW 7), who recorded the statement of Jagdamba Prasad, Head Muharrir (PW 6) who had registered a case against the appellant. He prepared recovery memo of Kudal and the chick: report. He also recorded the statement of Ghananand Sati under section 161 CrPC at the police station. On 24-5-1989 he went to village Bheeri. He prepared recovery memo of Kudal and the chick: report. He also recorded the statement of Ghananand Sati under section 161 CrPC at the police station. On 24-5-1989 he went to village Bheeri. There he recorded the statements of certain other persons, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and recovery memos of blood stained quilt and the shawl, which the appellant was allegedly using for wrapping his body at the time of incident and had left the same on the spot. After recording statements of certain persons the case was converted into one under section 30)4 IPC. He also collected copy of the injury report, prescription slips and other certificates from different places. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to another Sub-Inspector Sri Jasvir Singh (PW 5) on 16-8-1989, who also recorded the statements of Dhan Singh, Bahadur, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Smt. Saroj, wife of the deceased, and also of Dr. Jai Swarup (PW 4) in August Muni Hospital and after completing the investigation then submitted charge sheet in court against the accused- appellant. 4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of them, Smt. Saroj Bist (PW 3) is the only eye witness. PW 2 Sujan Singh is a witness who deposes about the facts which were disclosed to him by Smt. Saroj soon after the incident, that Lakshman Singe was assaulted by the accused-appellant with a Kudal. Ghananand Sati PW 1 is the informant, who lodged the FIR on the basis of the information gathered from the residents of the locality. Dr. Jai Swarup (PW 4) is the Medical Officer, who at the relevant time was posted in August Muni Hospital and had medically examined the injury of the deceased. He has stated that the head injury of Lakshman Singh was grievous and at the time of his medical examination he was unconscious. After giving first aid treament he had referred the injured to Sadar Hospital. PW 6 Jagdamba Prasad is Head Moharrir, who was examined to prove the chick report of the first information report and the G. D. entry, while Suraj Bhan (PW 7) and Jasmin Singh (PW 5) are the Investigating Officers who conducted investigation in the case at different stages. PW 6 Jagdamba Prasad is Head Moharrir, who was examined to prove the chick report of the first information report and the G. D. entry, while Suraj Bhan (PW 7) and Jasmin Singh (PW 5) are the Investigating Officers who conducted investigation in the case at different stages. The accused appellant has denied the prosecution version and alleged false implication, but he admitted his arrest by the constables and then being locked up at police station Ukhimath The learned trial Judge has believed the evidence and held the accused-appellant guilty. Accordingly, he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid against which he has come up in this appeal filed from jail. Sri Lal Chand Pandey, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State have been heard and the evidence has been thoroughly scrutinised. 5. Post mortem examination is a must in medico legal cases. Medical Opinion about cause of death is by and large the foundation of the prosecution story. In this case the only Doctor who has been produced is PW 4 Dr. Jai Swarup. He may have examined the injuries of the victim in the P.H.C. but no injury report has been proved by him He says that since the condition of Lakshman Singh was serious, he was advised to be taken to District Hospital. However, no post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted as the victim was creamated without it. Smt. Saroj Bist, wife of the deceased is the only witness about the assault as also the cause of death of Lakshman Singh. She remained with the victim throughout, even in August Muni Hospital where some sort of treatment was given, but no injury report was prepared. Thereafter the patient was taken to Shri Nagar Hospital where also no treatment was given nor the injury was examined but he was referred to Meerut Hospital, where the injured was examined and the injury report was prepared. A copy of the injury report is Ext ka 11 on record which indicated that the companion (Includiug the wife) of Lakshman Singh informed the Doctor that the injured had sustained head injury due to accidental fall from the roof of the house which in the opinion of the Doctor was possible. A copy of the injury report is Ext ka 11 on record which indicated that the companion (Includiug the wife) of Lakshman Singh informed the Doctor that the injured had sustained head injury due to accidental fall from the roof of the house which in the opinion of the Doctor was possible. No doubt, on a look sit the injury report it appears that Lakshman Singh had sustained one abraded contusion but it cannot possibly be said that deceased died due to that) head injury inasmuch as no autopsy on the dead body was conducted. It is true that initial treatment was given by Dr. Jai Swarup (PW 4) and had issued a prescription slip (Ext Ka 4) regarding some medicine but in that prescription there is a note "injury not recorded, and referred the injured to [District Hospital". The bald statement of PW 4 Dr. Jai Swarup that when he attended Lakshman Singh his condition was grievous and he was in an unconscious state is not supported by any injury report. There is no corroboration available on the point whether the victim was hit on the head region by any weapon, much less a Kudal, as the prosecution case now is. The nature of the injury has not been noted in the prescription itself. There is no medical report about the reason due to which the injured may have become unconscious and his condition became grievous and later on he may have died. 6. So far as the testimony of Sujan Singh (PW 2) is concerned, his statement is based on hear-say. He had not witnessed the actual incident. What he deposed was that Smt. Saroj and Dhan Singh had informed him that the appellant gave a blow on the head of Lakshman Singh with a Kudal and thereafter had run away. Dhan Singh has not been examined by the prosecution though he is alleged to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after giving blow by the appellant. If (Ms was really so, why no. FIR was lodged by Dhan Singh. There is no ostensible reason for awaiting arrival of Sujan Singh. In any case, Smt. Saroj could herself have lodged a report with the police. According to the prosecution case now, the only witness about the occurrence is Smt. Saroj and none else. If (Ms was really so, why no. FIR was lodged by Dhan Singh. There is no ostensible reason for awaiting arrival of Sujan Singh. In any case, Smt. Saroj could herself have lodged a report with the police. According to the prosecution case now, the only witness about the occurrence is Smt. Saroj and none else. Now the question that arises for determination is whether the solitary statement of Smt. Saroj Bist inspires confidence and is worthy of acceptance. It may be noted here that her statement was recorded by Jasvir Singh (PW 5) under section 161 CrPC on 19-8-89 i. e. after about three months of the incident. Suraj Bhan, Sub - Inspector (PW 7) did not care to record her statement under Section 161 CrPC on or soon after 20-5-89. There is no explanation coming forward from his side as to why her statement was not recorded promptly. It is true that delay in interrogation of a witness by the Investigating Officer may not be the sole ground for rejecting the testimony of a witness. But this omission necessitates a thorough scrutiny before placing reliance on the testimony of the witness. As noted above, the injury report Ext. ka 11 indicates that the Doctor who medically examined Lakshman Singh was informed by Smt. Saroj that the injury was received by the victim as a result of accidental fall from the roof. In the opinion of the Doctor, as indicated in the said injury report. the said version was possible. Lakshman Singh was brought to and admitted in Meerut Hospital by Smt. Saroj herself where his injury was medically examined. Had she not been in the company of her husband and was not available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer after 22-5-1989, then the situation would have been different. Therefore, it is quite unsafe to sustain the conviction and sentence of the appellant by placing implicit reliance upon the shaky and uncorroborated testimony of Smt. Saroj Bist. 7. As the entire prosecution case rests on the solitary statement of Smt. Saroj, which too has been found unreliable, no reliance can also be placed on the evidence of Ghanand Sati, maker of the resport, and Sujan Singh (PW 2), who had deposed on the basis of information furnished by Smt. Saroj. 7. As the entire prosecution case rests on the solitary statement of Smt. Saroj, which too has been found unreliable, no reliance can also be placed on the evidence of Ghanand Sati, maker of the resport, and Sujan Singh (PW 2), who had deposed on the basis of information furnished by Smt. Saroj. According to the own version of the prosecution various prosons, including Dhan Singh, own brother of the deceased, had come on the spot immediately after the assault. If so, rather proceeding to village Jalai to call Ghanand, Dhan Singh should have gone to the Police Station Ukhimath to lodge the FIR promptly. The delayed FIR after more than 11 hours does not exclude the possibility of giving a coloured version of the incident after due consultation and deliberation with the persons of the locality. 8. Even according to the prosecution, the appellant was not arrested at the spot and no evidence has been produced by the prosecution regarding the time and place of arrest of the appellant. In our opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and bring home guilt against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and consequently the conviction and sentence of the appellant as; returned by the learned Sessions Judge have to be set aside. For the reasons disclosed above, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant as passed by the court below is set aside. The appellant is in Jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other crime. 9. In the end, the court expresses its happiness at the way Sri Lal Chand Pandey, the Amicus Curiae, has prepared the case and assisted the Court. 10. A copy of this judgment be furnished to the Amicus curiae within two weeks communication shall also be sent to the Jail Authorities within three days for compliance as directed above. Appeal allowed.