D. M. DHARAMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10. 4. 1980 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, acquitting the seven accused for alleged offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE version of the incident as contained in the First Information Report lodged by Nawlilbai (P. W. l), the kept of the deceased Maharaj Singh, is that she along with Maharaj Singh and her daughter Banibai were proceeding in the early morning from their house for purchase of grains. Maharaj Singh was walking ahead of the other two accompanished. They passed near the house of Veer Singh (accused/respondent No. 7), who called Maharaj Singh and asked him to allow him to listen the transistor, which was in the hand of Maharaj Singh. Maharaj Singh stopped at the house of accused Veer Singh. At that time it is alleged that Veer Singh picked up an axe from the outer portion of his house and assaulted Maharaj Singh, which resulted in chopping of his left hand beneath the wrist; thereupon the other accused armed with lathis, farsa and axe started jointly! beating Maharaj Singh, which resulted in chopping of his left leg. According to Nawlibai (P. W. 1), she then raised a cry and thereafter Gayatribai, her daughter-in-law, and Prakash Singh Dangi (P. W. 3) came on the spot. It is stated that at that time Maharaj Singh was lying in injured stage and was in a position to speak. It is stated that deceased Maharaj Singh in the injured stage narrated the incident to the above mentioned three persons. The First Information Report was lodged by Nawlibai who was accompanied by P. W. 3 Prakash Singh. The date of incident is stated to be on 12. 11. 1976 at 9 in the morning at village Tarawali. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 8 miles. On the same date a report regarding intimation of death no also recorded by the police at Gyaraspur which is marked as Ex. P!2. The so-called F. I. R. (Ex. P/i) is also stated to have been lodged at the same time when Ex. P12 report-was made. In the report, Ex. P,/2, there is no mention of the fact that the incident was witnessed by Nawlibai, Prakash Singh and Gayatribai. P!2. The so-called F. I. R. (Ex. P/i) is also stated to have been lodged at the same time when Ex. P12 report-was made. In the report, Ex. P,/2, there is no mention of the fact that the incident was witnessed by Nawlibai, Prakash Singh and Gayatribai. There is also no mention of the names of the other eye-witnesses, P. W. 2 Harisingh, P. W. 6 Hanumant Singh and P. W. 8 Shankarlal. The accused persons were arrested on 19. 11. 1976. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Maharaj Singh was done by Assistant Surgeon Dr. G. T. Khcmclwndani (P. W. 7) and, as per his post-mortem report (Ex. P12), the following injuries were found Lacerated wound Scalp occipital region transverse Line 7 C. m. x 1 c. m. Antemortem lacerated wound scalp Rt. side 3 c. m. x Yz c. m. running obliquely up and post. Lacerated wound scalp Rt. side 3 c. m. postero lateral to injury two 6 c. m. x 1 c. m. contusion scalp Lt. 3 c. m. x 3 c. m. irregular. In the said report, it is also mentioned that his following limbs were cut and his bones were fractured: - - Left hand separate cut at wrist incised wound left fore arm (illegi) above stump of wrist bones 4 x 2 ante mortem.- Incised wound left foot cut at (illegi) 6 cm. transverse line 8 cm. wide 5 cm. deep: - Left tebia fibula cut only ant. Skin attachment 2 cm. intact. ( 3 ) ONLY some lathis were recovered at the instance of the accused and a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared, which are marked as Exts. P15 to P/9. lathi and axe were seized vide seizure memos, Exts. P,/1o to P,/14. The police recorded the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses on 13th and 14tnovember, 1976, which are marked as Exts. D/1, D/3, D,/4, D/5 and D/6. In the Course of trial, the case of the prosecution was sought to be proved by the alleged eye-witness account in the deposition given by P. W. 1 Nawlibai, P. W. 2 Harisingh, P. W. 3 Prakash Singh, P. W. 6 Humant Singh and P. W. 8 Shankarlal. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses. He also held that ocular version of the incident given by the alleged eye-witnesses does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. It is also held that the eye-witnesses ha. ve considerably improved their version iii the Court from the version, which was given in the statements recorded by the police. For all the above reasons, the learned Judge did not rely on the testimony of the eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused persons holding that the possibility that Meharaj Singh was killed by some other persons who were his enemies, is not ruled out. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the State made strenuous efforts to assail the conviction on several grounds. Firstly, it is argued that looking to the nature of the incident the minor inconsistencies of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses ought to have been ignored. It is submitted that there was no justification for the trial Court to disbelieve the statement of Nawlibai, who had actually soon the incident and had made the First Information Report seen thereafter without any loss of time. It is also submitted that some portion of the testimony of the witnesses has been misread by the learned Judge, which has resulted in coming to a wrong conclusion that the guilty of the accused was not proved. ( 5 ) WE have also heard at length the learned counsel appearing for the accused, who urged additional grounds in support of the verdict of acquittal. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, we went through the relevant statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the defence. We have also critically examined the documents exhibited in the course of trial. The prosecution case mainly rests on the eye-witness account of Nawlibai, who claims to be with the deceased at the time when the incident took place and was in a position to see the part played by each of the accused. In paragraph 17 of her statement she stated that after the incident which took place at about 9. 00 in the morning, she had reached the police station at about 10. 00 and Prakash Singh (P. W. 3) by that time had already reached the police station. In paragraph 17 of her statement she stated that after the incident which took place at about 9. 00 in the morning, she had reached the police station at about 10. 00 and Prakash Singh (P. W. 3) by that time had already reached the police station. According to her, the report was first lodged by Prakash Singh which was recorded, and thereafter, she got recorded the alleged F. I. R. (Ex. P/i ). In cross-examination, the contents of Ex. P/2, the so-called intimation of death recorded in the police station, was confronted to her. She states that she had stated at that time that she was eye-witness to the incident, she is unable to explain. That fact is not to be found in the report (Ex. P/2 ). According to her both the reports (Exts. P/l and P/2) were lodged at the same time, i. e. 11. 00a. m. In paragraph 19, she states that she went to police station on foot and it took place about 4 hours to reach there. Realising that the inddent had taken place according to her at 9. 00 in the morning and the report (Ex. P/i) records the time of 11. 00 in the morning, she immediately changed her statement in the next sentence in the deposition. She states that Prakash Singh (P. W. 3) had brought a tonga and they had first gone to the hospital and thereafter within an hour of the incident had reached the police station. According to her version, she witnessed the assault on Maharaj Singh for about one and half hour admitted in cross-examination that there are several omissions with regard to the details of the incident in F. I. R. (Ex. P/i) and murg intimation (Ex. P12 ). In paragraph 40 of her cross- examination, she states that when she had left for making the report to police station, Maharaj Singh was alive, but she is unable to state that there is mention of the fact of death of Maharaj Singh as a result of injuries in the contents of the F. I. R. P-3 Prakash Singh, in his deposition in the Court, states that when he reached the place of incident, Maharaj Singh was alive; he was given water to drink and thereafter he named all the accused persons as having jointly assaulted him. In paragraph 19, he explains that he did not think it necessary to carry Maharaj Singh in the tonga to the hospital, as according to him, he would have felt helpless because Maharaj Singh died in the way. In paragraph 29, in his deposition, he states that the first report was written in his presence and on that report he had put a signature and Nawlibai (P. W. 1) had put her thumb-impression. P. W. 2 Harisingh and P. W. 6 Hanumant Singh claimed to have witnessed the incident after Nawlibai raised a cry and started running for help. ( 7 ) APART from the reasons assigned by the trial Court in disbelieving the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses, we find that there are several other infirmities in the prosecution case, which deserve confirmation of the verdict of acquittal by this Court. The F. I. R. although said to have been recorded on 12. 11. 1976, was not sent to the Magistrate till 15. 11. 1976 and the Investigating Officer, K. N. Jaiswal (P. W. 11) was unable to give any acceptable explanation for the same. There is no mention of the eye-witnesses in the version of Ex. P/i. Prakash Singh (P. W. 3) states that they had made a joint report; it was signed by both of them. That report had not been produced before prosecution. There is much efforts in the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused that the F. I. R. produced by the prosecution is not a genuine report and may have been ante dated and fabricated. Unexplained delay in sending the F. I. R. to the Magistrate certainly creates doubt in the prosecution story. See, Ishwar Singh v. The State of Vttar Pradesh and Maharaj Singh v. State of U. P. If the names of the accused were made known to the police two hours after the incident, it has not explained why the accused were arrested as late as on 19. 11. 1976 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 13th and 14th November, 1976. It has come in the testimony of the Investigating Officer Shri K. N. Jaisawal (P. W. 11) that he went to the village on the same dale of the incident. He has not explained non-recording of the statements of eyewitnesses on the same date or immediately thereafter. That makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. It has come in the testimony of the Investigating Officer Shri K. N. Jaisawal (P. W. 11) that he went to the village on the same dale of the incident. He has not explained non-recording of the statements of eyewitnesses on the same date or immediately thereafter. That makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. See, State of Orissa v. Mr. Brahamananda Nanda. Since the statements of Nawlibai and Prakash Sincih, which are the main alleged eye-witnesses on which the entire prosecution story rests, are found to be unworthy reliance, the conviction could not have been vested on the alleged testimony of other witnesses, such as, P. W. 2 Harisingh, P. W. 6 Hanumant Singh, who merely corroborate the version of the incident given by the above named two main witnesses. It has come in the evidence mat the deceased was a history-sheeter and because of his past character and conduct he was unpopular in the village. The possibility is not ruled. out that some other enemies of the deceased in the village had killed him in the early hours of the morning and the alleged witnesses only saw his deadbody. ( 8 ) IN appeal against acquittal this Court would not interfere and convert the verdict of acquittal into conviction unless the judgment under appeal suffers from perverse reasoning or misreading of statements. A minor misreading of one of the statements of the witnesses docs not impair the verdict recorded by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, we find that the learned Judge committed to no error in acquitting the accused persons. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .