Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-4-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, is that on 8-11-1988, Chunni Lal S/o Shri Roopa Meena came to the house of Ramji. At that time Ramji was not at his house but his son Shanker was present in the house. Chunni Lal asked Shanker that he did not care for Ramji. After saying so, Chunni Lal left the house. Sometime thereafter Ramji came and Shanker informed him regarding the arrival of Chunni Lal and let him known what Chunni Lal uttered. Ramji, on hearing this, went to enquire from Chunni Lal. While Ramji was returning from the house of Chunni Lal, accused Chunni Lal and Nathu Lal, armed with Lathis, Followed him and inflicted injuries with Lathis to Ramji in the field of one Shanker S/o Kala. Ramji raised alarm and on hearing the same, Hartan and Nathu reached there and saw accused Chunni Lal inflicting injuries with Lathi to Ramji. On seeing Harthan and Nathu, the accused ran away. Certain other persons, also, reached at the place of the occurrence. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. PW 3 Nathu and PW 4 Harthan are the two eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 2 Bhanji reached at the place of the incident immediately after the occurrence and lodged the First Information Report at Police Station, Rishabdev. PW 1 Teja and PW 8 Moti Singh are the two Motbir witnesses and Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were prepared in their presence, while the recovery of Lathi, vide Ex. 5, was also made in the presence of PW 8 Moti Singh. PW 5 Shanker and PW 7 Narain are the two witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution to prove the motive. PW 5 Shanker is, also, the witness who reached at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and was informed by PW 4 Harthan that the accused had inflicted injuries with Lathi on the body of deceased Ramji. PW 5 Shanker is, also, the witness who reached at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and was informed by PW 4 Harthan that the accused had inflicted injuries with Lathi on the body of deceased Ramji. PW 6 Kala, PW 9 Kanku and PW 10 Laxmi have not supported the prosecution case during the trial and, therefore, they were declared hostile. PW 11 Dr. B. L. Malviya examined the deceased and, also, conducted autopsy on 9-11-1993. PW 12 Durga Narain is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and after completion of the investigation, submitted the challan in the Court. The prosecution has, also, placed reliance over the recovery of the Lathi on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant vide Ex. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated at the very out-set. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by this appeal. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive with the appellant to kill deceased Ramji. His further contention is that the First Information Report, in the present case, was lodged by PW 2 Bhanji after a delay of about fourteen hours and the delay in lodging the report has not been properly explained. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the F. I. R. has been shown to be registered at Police Station, Rishabdev at about 10. 30 a. m. on 9-11-1988, but it reached in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, on 15-11-88, when it was personally delivered by Suraj Mal L. C. in the Court. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that only interested and relative witnesses have been examined by the prosecution while the independent witness, viz. , Shanta, who, as per the prosecution case itself, was present and reached at the place of incident immediately after the occurrence, has not been produced in spite of the fact that he was present in the Court. , Shanta, who, as per the prosecution case itself, was present and reached at the place of incident immediately after the occurrence, has not been produced in spite of the fact that he was present in the Court. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Lathi, which was alleged recovered at the instance of the appellant, was neither stained with blood nor it can be said to have been recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant and the doctor has not supported the prosecution case and no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned lower Court. His further contention is that the evidence, produced by the prosecution inspires confidence as the witnesses produced by the prosecution are reliable and uninterested witnesses and their presence at the scene of the occurrence at the time of the incident was most natural as they reside near the place of the occurrence and merely because they are relatives of the deceased, they cannot be said to be interested witnesses, particularly when they are, also, related to the accused. His further contention is that these witnesses have narrated the true version of the incident and no reasons have been assigned why they are telling a lie to implicate the accused-appellant and leaving the real culprits. It has further been submitted that the delay in lodging the report has properly been explained and after the institution of the First Information Report, the investigation started and as such the delay in reaching the F. I. R. in the Court will not affect the prosecution case in any manner. ( 4 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. ( 5 ) THERE are two eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz. , PW 3 Nathu and PW 4 Harthan. PW 3 Nathu has stated that he, alongwith Harthan and Shanta, was sitting in the house of Kalu, whose son was unwell. ( 5 ) THERE are two eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz. , PW 3 Nathu and PW 4 Harthan. PW 3 Nathu has stated that he, alongwith Harthan and Shanta, was sitting in the house of Kalu, whose son was unwell. At that time, Ramji passed through the way near the house of Kalu and on enquiry, Ramji informed them that Chunni Lal had gone to his house and asked his son why he was living with Narain and he does not care about Shanker. After stating so, Ramji left the place and after ten minutes or so, Ramji cried that Chunni Lal was giving beatings to him, upon which he, Shanta and others went running to the place of occurrence and saw accused-appellant inflicting injuries with a Lathi on the back of Ramji. Harthan asked Chunni Lal not to inflict injuries to Ramji. Co-accused Nathu Lal was, also, standing at a distance of about eight to ten paces and was armed with a Lathi. On seeing them, the accused ran-away. When they tried to pour some water in the mouth of Ramji, Ramji could not gulp the water down and they found him dead. Ramji had an injury on his back and chest. Certain other persons came there by that time. In the cross examination, this witness stated that the accused and the deceased were related to each other and there was no bad-blood between them. He has further stated that the distance in between the place of the incident and the house of Kalu, where they were sitting, is about two hundred feet and the place of the incident was visible from that place and they saw the accused-appellant inflicting injuries on the body of Ramji. He has, however, admitted that certain persons were detected by him and let known to the police but their names did not find place in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. Though this witness has denied his knowledge about the condition of Ramji but PW 2 Bhanji has specifically stated that at the time when they reached at the place of the occurrence, the body of Ramji had lost its warmth and was cooled-down and became stiff. P. C. Though this witness has denied his knowledge about the condition of Ramji but PW 2 Bhanji has specifically stated that at the time when they reached at the place of the occurrence, the body of Ramji had lost its warmth and was cooled-down and became stiff. This witness, i. e. , PW 3 Nathu, has, also, stated that near the place of the incident, there are houses of other persons, also, which were inhabitated at that time and the time, when the incident took place, was that of sun-set. He showed his inability to show the exact time. He has, also, admitted that after the incident, they went to the house of the Sarpanch who had a motor-cycle in a workable condition, but they did not go to lodge the report because the Sarpanch asked them that they would go to lodge the report in the morning and all of them remained at the house of the Sarpanch for the whole night. Similar is the statement of PW 4 Harthan. From the statement of these two witnesses, it is clear that the house situated near the place of the occurrence were inhabited by some independent persons, who were not related either to the deceased or to the accused, but none of those witnesses have been produced in evidence by the prosecution. Admittedly, one Shanta, who is the resident of that very locality and who was present at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place and who accompanied Nathu and Harthan when they reached the place of the incident after hearing the out-cries of Ramji, has not been produced in evidence by the prosecution and the prosecution rest contended with the production of the witnesses who were related to the deceased only and did not produce any independent witness of the locality who were available at that time. The evidence of these witnesses further create a doubt looking to the condition of the place that these witnesses reached at the place of the occurrence. It appears that neither these witnesses have seen the occurrence nor they reached the place of the occurrence immediately after the occurrence. It appears that somebody had killed Ramji and in the morning these witnesses had seen the dead body and thereafter this story has been developed. It appears that neither these witnesses have seen the occurrence nor they reached the place of the occurrence immediately after the occurrence. It appears that somebody had killed Ramji and in the morning these witnesses had seen the dead body and thereafter this story has been developed. Had these witnesses would have seen the occurrence in the evening itself then certainly they would have taken the deadbody of Ramji to the hospital at that very moment and would have lodged the report with the police. Not lodging the report in the night itself in spite of the fact that the motor cycle in a workable condition was available with the Sarpanch and the distance of the police station was only about eighteen kilo meters and the time was, also, not the late hours of the night, speak a volumes against the late lodging of the F. I. R. and is fatal for the prosecution. Further suspicion crepts-in on account of the fact that the F. I. R. , alleged to have been registered at the Police Station and entered in the Rojnamcha on 9-11-1988 at about 10. 30 a. m. , reached in the Court only on 15-11-1988 and that too through Suraj Mal, L. C. The delay in lodging the F. I. R. and extraordinary delay in reaching the F. I. R. to the Court form the basis for suspecting that the report was not lodged at the time when it is alleged to have been recorded and it has been recorded later on. It, also, stands proved, to some extent, from the Memos prepared by the Investigating Officer which bears only the F. I. R. number and not the other particulars of the case. The Memos do not mention the names of the accused even. ( 6 ) SO far as the recovery of the Lathi is concerned, the Lathi, allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, was not found stained with blood, what to say of the same group of human blood the deceased was having. Further the recovery of the Lathi has not been made from the exclusive possession of the accused-appellant. Thus, the recovery of the Lathi, also, does not connect the appellant with the crime. ( 7 ) FURTHER, even PW 11 Dr. Further the recovery of the Lathi has not been made from the exclusive possession of the accused-appellant. Thus, the recovery of the Lathi, also, does not connect the appellant with the crime. ( 7 ) FURTHER, even PW 11 Dr. B. L. Malviya, who examined the deceased and conducted the autopsy, has not stated that the injuries found on the person of deceased Ramji were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 8 ) THUS, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case connecting the accused-appellant with the crime beyond a reasonable manner doubt and as such the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted. ( 9 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Chunni Lal; set-aside the conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, against the accused-appellant and acquit the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 302, IPC. , for which he was convicted and sentenced. The accused-appellant is in jail. He may be released forth-with if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.