Judgment O.N.Asthana, J. 1. These three criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya Sri Krishna Chandra Prasad dated 10th April, 1985 in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1981/209 of 1976, where the Trial Judge held Shree Mahto @ Shree Prasad guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Secs. 109, 147 and 323 I.P.C., and the accused Ganauri Prasad @ Ganauri Singh and Mundrika Mahto guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 148 I.P.C., and held the accused Kapildeo Mahto guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 147 I.P.C. and the accused Raghubar Mahto, Ambika Mahto and Sukhari Mahto guilty for the offence punishable under Secs. 323 and 147 I.P.C. 2. According to the prosecution version Thakur Mahto (deceased and the father of the informant Rajdeo Mahto PW 7) and his two brothers Raghubar Mahto and Sukhari Mahto (accused-appellants) partitioned their joint family properties on 27th March, 1960 and in pursuance of it the names were recorded individually in Government records and each of them possessed the allotted properties separately. In 1975 AD. Thakur Mahto raised his Marua crop and eight day£ back harvested the same. Recently the accused-appellants Raghubar and Sukhari started making their claim over 0.24 decimals land of khasra plot No. 2341 and 0.15 decimals land of khasra plot No. 2632. 3. On 22nd August, 1975 at 6 a.m. in the morning Thakur Mahto was sitting in the outer Sahan by the side of the outer door of his house in village Mohammadpur alongwith family members including his son Rajdeo Mahto PW 7, and the accused Shree Mahto @ Shree Prasad holding Lathi in his hand arrived there and questioned Thakur Mahto why he and his sons harvested Marua crop on this land when it did not belong to them; the other six accused-appellants which were armed arrived there and the accused Shree Mahto gave them the call to kill Thakur Mahto. All these seven accused-appellants formed the unlawful assembly with the common object to commit the murder of Thakur Mahto. All these seven accused-appellants formed the unlawful assembly with the common object to commit the murder of Thakur Mahto. The accusedappellant Ganauri Prasad gave Farsa blow on the head of Thakur Mahto and Thakur Mahto fell down, the accused-appellant Kapildeo Mahto gave lathi blows on the chest of Thakur Mahto and on other parts of his body; the accused appellant Mundrika Mahto picked up a brick and assaulted on the chest of Thakur Mahto; Rajdeo Mahto (son of Thakur Mahto) came forward to save his father and the accused Raghubar Mahto, Ambika Mahto and Sukhari Mahto-assaulted Rajdeo) Mahto with lathi on the head, left hand and on the back; meantime Arjun Mahto PW 8 (the other son of Thakur Mahto) who arrived there from the nearby own residential house hearing the hulla was also assaulted by the accused Ambika by lathi and by other accused persons with brick bats. Thakur Mahto died at the spot. The accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. Bhagwat Singh, Shyam Nandan Singh PW 10 and Ram Swaroop Mahto PW 3 and some others saw this occurrence. 4. Accused-appellant Mundrika Mahto was armed with Bhalla and the accused-appellant Ganauri Prasad @ Ganauri Singh was armed with Garassa and the other five accused-appellants Kapildeo Mahto, Shree Mahto @ Shree Prasad, Raghubar Mahto, Sukhari Mahto and Ambika Mahto were armed with lathi while they formed the unlawful assembly and made the assaults murdering Thakur Mahto and causing bodily injury to Rajdeo Mahto and Arjun Mahto. The injured Rajdeo Mahto arrived at the area Police Station Jehanabad situate four miles away same day at 8 a.m. and lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 2). Vashirudin Ahmad PW 18 started investigation in the case. He came to the place of occurrence same day at 10.15 a.m. and he found the dead-body of Thakur Mahto in the open Sahan outside the house. He prepared the inquest report (Exbt. 8) and sent the dead body of Thakur Mahto for postmortem. The Investigation Officer collected the blood stained mud from the place of occurrence and also took into custody the blood stained clothes of the deceased Thakur Mahto. The seizure list was prepared which is Exhibit 1. 5. Dr. Udai Pratap Narain Singh PW 15 carried the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Thakur Mahto at 4.45 p.m. same day on 22nd August, 1975. The seizure list was prepared which is Exhibit 1. 5. Dr. Udai Pratap Narain Singh PW 15 carried the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Thakur Mahto at 4.45 p.m. same day on 22nd August, 1975. He found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) incised wound 2" x 1/10" x bone deep on the front and right side of the head, with cut injury (incomplete fracture) on the tight parietal bone. (ii) Swelling 2" x 1" on the left side of the head with bruising of the soft tissues. (iii) Swelling 2" x 2" on the front of the chest with transverse fracture of sternum in the middle. (iv) Penetrating wound 1" x 1/2" x abdomen deep in the upper & middle part of the abdomen with perforation of small gut & liver with free blood 2 points in the abdominal cavity. (v) Penetrating wound 3/4" x 1/4 xmuscle deep on the right side of the back. 6. The doctor gave the opinion that injury No. (i) was caused by sharp cutting weapon like Garassa and injury Nos. (iv) & (v) were caused by sharp pointed weapon like Bhala and injury Nos. (ii) & (iii) (swellings) were probably caused by lathi, and that the death was within twelve hours from the time of the post-mortem. 7. Dr. Udai Pratap Narain Singh also examined the injuries of Rajdeo Mahto, Arjun Singh and Smt. Gayatri Devi daughter of the deceased Thakur Mahto in the same afternoon. Rajdeo Mahto had the following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/10" scalp deep on the left side of the head. (ii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the right side of the head. (iii) Abrasion 1/10" x between left index & middle finger which diffuse swelling of the left hand. (iv) Hametoma 1/2" x 1/3" on the tip of right ring finger. These injuries were simple and they were caused by Lathi. 8 Arjun Singh had one swelling 2" x 1" on the left elbow. Gayatri Devi complained of pain in the lower part of the back and no visible injury was found on her body. 9. The defence of the accused-appellants is that they have been implicated due to dispute of the land of the Gali (Rasta). Further the accused-appellants Shree Mahto and Ganauri Singh pleaded the alibi. Gayatri Devi complained of pain in the lower part of the back and no visible injury was found on her body. 9. The defence of the accused-appellants is that they have been implicated due to dispute of the land of the Gali (Rasta). Further the accused-appellants Shree Mahto and Ganauri Singh pleaded the alibi. They examined the defence witnesses and filed the papers in support of the alleged pleas of their alibi. The defence witnesses are Ram Chela Singh D.W. 1 and Parmeshwar Prasad D.W. 5 in support of the plea of alibi of Ganauri Singh. Further Dineshwar Prasad D.W. 3 brought the acquaintance register (Exhibit-B) to give the alleged support to the plea of alibi of Ganauri Singh that he collected the payment of medical reimbursement bill. 10. Kapil Singh D.W. 2 and Baikunth Singh DW 4 are the witnesses in support of the alleged plea of alibi of the accused appellant Shree Mahto. 11. The Trial Judge examined the pleas of alibi raised by the accused Shree Mahto and the accused Ganauri Singh. We heard the Advocates of these appellants relating to the pleas of alibi. We have also examined the assessment of evidence and the reasonings given by the Trial Court rejecting these alleged pleas of alibi. For good reasons the Trial Judge has rejected the pleas of alibi raised by the accused-appellants Shree Mahto and Ganauri Singh. 12. After examining the evidence on record, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings of the Trial Judge that the pleas of alibi raised by the accused-appellants Shree Mahto and Ganauri Singh are not proved. 13. Accepting the statements of PWs 1,2,7 and 8 the Trial Judge held the accused appellants guilty. 14. The prosecution has examined eighteen witnesses. The witnesses Richa Sharma PW 4, Ram Nandan Prasad PW 5, Kanhaiya Prasad PW 6, Mohan Prasad PW 11, Jagdish Narain PW 12, Ram Padarath Singh PW 13, Bindeshwari Prasad PW 14, Devendra Kumar Singh PW 16 and Krishna Nandan Pandey PW 17 are the formal witnesses. 15. For the reasons best known to the prosecution witnesses of the alleged facts, who have been named in the First Information Report, have not stated the occurrence on oath in the Trial Court. Ram Swaroop Mahto PW 3 has been tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. 15. For the reasons best known to the prosecution witnesses of the alleged facts, who have been named in the First Information Report, have not stated the occurrence on oath in the Trial Court. Ram Swaroop Mahto PW 3 has been tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. This witness PW 3 has also been mentioned by the informant to be his sisters son. Shyam Nandan PW 10 stated he reached the spot late, and Thakur Mahto was lying dead and that none of the accused were there. The other named witness in F.I.R. namely Bhagwat Singh has not been examined by the prosecution in the Trial Court. 16. The witnesses of fact for consideration are Musafir Mahto P.W. 1, Jagded Prasad, brother of the informant PW 2, Arjun Singh, brother of the informant PW 8, Ram Naresh Sharma PW 9, Shyam Nandan Singh PW 10 and the informant Rajdeo Mahto PW 7. Ram Naresh Sharma PW 9 and Shyam Nandan Singh PW 10 did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 17. Shyamdeo @ Shyam Nandan Singh PW 10 was named as eye-witness in the First Information Report. Bhagwat Singh has been named as eye-witness in the First Information Report. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution this witness Bhagwat Singh has not been examined in the case. Advocate for the accused-appellants urged rightly that non-examination of Bhagwat Singh, tendering the statement of Ram Swaroop Mahto PW 3, and Shyam Nandan Singh @ Shyamdeo not supporting the prosecution case and declared hostile by the prosecution, who are the witnesses named in the First Information Report create much doubt in the prosecution version. 18. Musafir Mahto PW 1 is said to be the only independent witness examined from the side of the prosecution. He has narrated in Court supporting the prosecution case. Advocate for the appellants pointed out that the name of Musafir does not find mention in the First Information Report and the statement of this witness Musafir PW 1 was recorded by the Investigation Officer after forty days, and no explanation has been offered either by the witnesses himself or by the Investigation Officer why there has been so much delay in recording the statement of this witness during the investigation. Learned Advocate for the State made a reference to the decision Raj Mangal V/s. State, and urged unless the accused-appellants satisfy the Court that there has been unfair progress on the part of the Investigating Agency, mere delay in recording of the statement of the witness by the Investigation Officer is no ground enough to reject the testimony on the ground of delayed recording of statement, by the Investigation Officer. In this reported case the witness was named in the First Information Report and the statement was taken down by the Investigation Officer after a lapse of two days. The delay in recording the statement of this witness Musafir after forty days, and that no explanation before the Court makes it difficult for the Court to believe the testimony of this witness Musafir PW 1. Further on facts Musafir PW 1 has stated that he saw the dead-body of Thakur Mahto lying inside the house in the inner courtyard, and this is material variance as the Investigation Officer found the dead-body of Thakur Mahto in the outer Sahan of the house outside the main door of the house. Further in cross examination this witness Musafir PW 1 excludes the presence of the informant Rajdeo PW7 and his brother Arjun PW 8, where he stated in the last paragraph 5 of his statement that Rajdeo and Arjun arrived later when Thakur Mahto was already assaulted. These statements of Musafir PW 1 also caused much doubt if really this Musafir was present at the place of occurrence when Thakur Mahto was murdered. The testimony of Musafir PW 1 is not accepted to us. The Advocate for State, urged that the statement of this PW 1 which finds corroboration from the statement of the informant be taken into consideration to establish the prosecution case. Uncorroborated testimony of a witness alone is acceptable to prove the charge if that witness is entitled to full credit. If open to doubt the Judge will require corroboration. Where the charge is murder substantial corroboration be there from in dependent and reliable evidence, and not from the testimony of interested witness or tainted witness. 19. Uncorroborated testimony of a witness alone is acceptable to prove the charge if that witness is entitled to full credit. If open to doubt the Judge will require corroboration. Where the charge is murder substantial corroboration be there from in dependent and reliable evidence, and not from the testimony of interested witness or tainted witness. 19. Jagdeo Prasad PW 2 (son of the deceased) has stated on oath that he was in the log cabin inside the agricultural field two hundred yards away from his house and when he heard the cries he came to the place of occurrence and he saw that his father was lying, dead and he saw that the accused persons were standing there with lathi, Garassa and Bhala in their hands and the Garassa and Bhala were blood stained. Arjun PW 8 the other son of the deceased stated that hearing the cries he came from the old house where he was sleeping and he saw that his father was lying dead and these accused-appellants were standing there with lathi and blood stained Bhala and Garassa in their hands and the accused Ambika made a lathi assault on his left elbow. Both these sons of the deceased are in the category of interested witness. Jagdeo PW 2 has stated in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination when he arrived at the place of occurrence he saw that all these accused persons were standing close to the dead-body of his father while his father was already dead. In the natural course it does not seem probable when Thakur Mahto was already dead why the accused-appellants would have remained standing there close to him. 20. Rajdeo PW 7 the informant (son of the deceased) narrated the prosecution case on oath. Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out that he reported in the First Information Report that the accused-appellant Mundrika hit on the chest of his father with brick and this witness Rajdeo PW 7 made improvement in the case on oath implicating the accused-appellant Mundrika stating that Mundrika gave Bhala blow on the chest of his father Thakur Mahto. Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out that he reported in the First Information Report that the accused-appellant Mundrika hit on the chest of his father with brick and this witness Rajdeo PW 7 made improvement in the case on oath implicating the accused-appellant Mundrika stating that Mundrika gave Bhala blow on the chest of his father Thakur Mahto. Farther the Advocate for the appellants pointed out that this witness Rajdeo PW 7 gave the statement on oath that he collected Marua crop from the plot only yesterday (a day prior to the occurrence) in order to bring a strength to the prosecution case making the motive more probable for the commission of murder. Advocate for the appellants contended that these two material variations making improvement in the prosecution case make the testimony of Rajdeo PW 7 unacceptable. Rajdeo PW 7 stated that his statement was not correctly recorded by the Police Officer at the Police Station, and he saw two of the accused persons sitting at the Police Station from before and his report was taken down on the telephone by the D.S.P. to the station office. This witness Rajdeo PW 7 made the statement on oath in paragraph 2 that the D.S.P. and the Incharge Police Station together came at the place of occurrence same day in the afternoon. Thus it is not believable that the First Information Report was taken down incorrectly and the investigation started on the strength of the alleged incorrect First. Information Report. It appears later on when the Informant came to know from the Hospital or from the copy of the postmortem report that Bhala injuries were there in the chest of the deceased the Informant tried to make a written complaint to the Magistrate. In the first complaint dated 20th September, 1975 (Exhibit 3) the Informant disclosed to the Magistrate that the Police had gone in collusion with the accused persons and thus the absconded accused persons were moving freely and threatening the witnesses not to give the evidence, and that the Investigation Officer was not taking; evidence properly and was not arresting the absconding accused persons. Later on 17th October, 1975 through an Advocate the informant gave an application again to the Judicial Magistrate of the area that his First Information Report was not taken down correctly. Later on 17th October, 1975 through an Advocate the informant gave an application again to the Judicial Magistrate of the area that his First Information Report was not taken down correctly. As suggested by the Advocate for the appellants this late petition by the Informant on 17th October, 1975 was simply to give a colour to the prosecution case and to make improvement at a last stage. 21. Had it been informed by the D.S.P. or other Police official that the Police Officer has not recorded the First Information Report correctly that Police Officer would not have been allowed to carryon the investigation in the case. 22. In View of the above, we hold that the First Information Report was taken down correctly at the Police Station and the investigations were carried in due course and properly; and that the informant of late tried to change the prosecution case to give a colour to the case. The deposition of the informant witness Rajdeo PW 7 is not trustworthy. 23. Gayatri Devi has been introduced as an injured for medical examination. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated how Gayatri Devi was injured and at what place in this occurrence. The injury of Arjun PW 8 small swelling 2" x l" too does not go to create enough confidence if PW 8 arrived at the place of occurrence when the accused appellants were there. It appears to us that the informant got examined Gayatri Devi and Arjun, his sister and brother and got recorded the name of Arjun PW 8 in the First Information Report to create evidence further in the case. 24. The occurrence is of the month of August. The presence of Jagdeo (son of the deceased Thakur Mahto) in the log-cabin of the agricultural field is an indicator that the culprits killed Thakur Mahto and assaulted Rajdeo in early dark hours of the morning. Further the fact that Bhala assaults went unnoticed too is an indicator that this occurrence took place in early dark hours of the morning. Further the depositions of Ram Naresh Sharma PW 9 and Shyamdeo Singh PW 10 too go to show that it was dark in the morning when they heard the hulla that Thakur Mahto was murdered. 25. Further the fact that Bhala assaults went unnoticed too is an indicator that this occurrence took place in early dark hours of the morning. Further the depositions of Ram Naresh Sharma PW 9 and Shyamdeo Singh PW 10 too go to show that it was dark in the morning when they heard the hulla that Thakur Mahto was murdered. 25. Considering the circumstances, the probabilities and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges of murder and assault against these accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 26. Accordingly these three appeals are hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge awarding the conviction to the accused-appellants of the three Appeals are hereby set aside. The bail bonds of the accused-appellants stand discharged.