JUDGMENT N. Pandey & I. P. Singh, JJ. These two appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 518 of 1989/5 of 1991 whereby, they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the First Information Report (Ext. 2) is that on 8.2.1985 at about 8.00 p.m. while deceased Rakesh was returning from the house of Daroga Ram and arrived near the house of accused Rajan Sahani, both the appellants took him inside their house. Mahavir Ram (P. W. 4) raised alarm that accused persons had taken away the deceased in order to kill him. The informant on hearing alarm of Mahavir Ram wanted to go to the house of appellant Rajan Sahani but due to threat of being killed, he returned to his house. Ultimately, in the morning at about 9 0’ Clock the went to Bechaha Police Station and narrated the incident before the police. The first Information Report further discloses that prior to this incident, deceased Rakesh had taken the daughter of accused Ranjan Sahani to Delhi and remained there for about one and half month, Ultimately, on a case filed on behalf of accused Rajan Sahani at Delhi, the deceased Rakesh was remanded to jail for some time. 3. The police on the basis of the aforesaid statement, visited the place of occurrence and recovered the dead body. He also examined different witnesses and having found a prima facie case, submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of Sessions calling upon the appellants to explain charges. 4. The defence of the appellants, as would appear from their statements, recorded under Section 313 of the code of criminal Procedure, and the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is total denial of the allegation. 5. The prosecution, as would appear from the records, has examined altogether twenty one witnesses in support of its case, Out of them, P. Ws. 2 (Paniya Devi). 4 (Mahavir Ram), 7 (Baij Nath Ram). 9 (Nawal Ram), 11 (Rajesh Kumar) and 18, Ram Briksh Sahani) have been declared hostile, p. w. 20 (Dr. 5. The prosecution, as would appear from the records, has examined altogether twenty one witnesses in support of its case, Out of them, P. Ws. 2 (Paniya Devi). 4 (Mahavir Ram), 7 (Baij Nath Ram). 9 (Nawal Ram), 11 (Rajesh Kumar) and 18, Ram Briksh Sahani) have been declared hostile, p. w. 20 (Dr. chandar Shekhar Lal) is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination. p. w. 21 (Abdul Rashid) is the formal witness. The Investigating officer in this case was not examined Though the remaining witnesses were not declared hostile but none of them has claim to have seen the occurrence nor they were able to show any circumstance to hold the actually these appellants had committed the murder of the deceased, According to the doctor. However, the death of the deceased was caused on account of the injuries which he has sustained. 6. The court below after examining the evidence of the witnesses arrived at a conclusion that in this case there was no direct evidence. The informant had not seen the occurrence. p. w. 4 (Mahavir Ram), through whom the information had learnt about the occurrence, has been declared hostile But since the dead body or Rakesh (deceased) was recovered from the house of the appellants, the court assumed that murder in question was committed by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that there is no iota of evidence in this case on the basis of which it can be established that the appellants had committed the murder. He contended that simply because the dead body of deceased was recovered from their house. no conviction can be recorded, since admittedly other family members were also available in the house. Therefore, until and unless there is a direct or circumstantial evidence that these appellants had committed the murder, they can not be held guilty. 8, He further contended that according to the court below itself, the prosecution had failed to establish its case that appellants had committed murder of the deceased. It was next contended that the delayed dispatch of the First Information Report from the police station to the Chief Judicial Magistrate also raises a doubt whether the prosecution has came forward with a true version. It is sated that the first Information Report was lodged on 9.2.1985 but the same was received before the Magistrate on 14.2.1985. It was next contended that the delayed dispatch of the First Information Report from the police station to the Chief Judicial Magistrate also raises a doubt whether the prosecution has came forward with a true version. It is sated that the first Information Report was lodged on 9.2.1985 but the same was received before the Magistrate on 14.2.1985. Though similar question was raised before the trial court but the prosecution completely failed to explain such delay. 9. Mr. Jaiswal contended that in absence of any explanation by the appellants under what circumstances the deed body of the deceased was recovered from their house, the Court had no option but to infer that such a murder was committed by these appellants. He further contended that having regard to the previous incident, undisputedly both the family were on inimical terms. Therefore, this was also a reason to suspect that these appellants had committed the murder of the deceased. 10. In our view, having regard to the facts, brought on record, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants appears quite justified. Because mere recovery of dead body from the house of the appellant particularly when other family members were residing, it would be completely unsafe to hold the appellants guilty for the murder of deceased Rakesh. The apex Court while examining the case of shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 765 had held that mere recovery of a dead body from the house of the accused will not be enough to hold him guilty for the murder. The prosecution, therefore, will be required to establish circumstances in order to connect the accused guilty for the murder. In the present case, even from the judgment of the trial court, it would appear that there was no evidence whatsoever either direct of circumstantial to connect the appellants for the alleged occurrence, 11. Apart from what bas been noticed above, it would appear that the informant had learnt from Mahavir Ram P. W. 4) about the occurrence on 8. 2. 1985 at about 8.00 p. m. The police station was situated in the same village. But no intimation whatsoever was given to the police about the incident and on the next day at 9.00 a. m. such intimation was given. 2. 1985 at about 8.00 p. m. The police station was situated in the same village. But no intimation whatsoever was given to the police about the incident and on the next day at 9.00 a. m. such intimation was given. Therefore, having regard to the previous incident, the normal conduct of the informant would have been to inform the police then and there. 12. The prosecution version can further, be discredited from the conduct of P.W.4 (Mahavir Ram), who, according to the informant, had seen there appellants taking the deceased inside the house. Because in his evidence this witness has completely denied to have seen any such occurrence. Therefore, having taken into consideration all the surrounding facts, noticed above, in our view, neither the prosecution nor the defence have come for word with true version of the case. 13. That apart the delayed receipt of the First Information Report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate further raises doubt whether the case of the prosecution as brought before the court was the true version of the occurrence. Because, having regard to all the facts, noticed above, such an unexplained delay will certainly raise a doubt that the version of the prosecution brought before the court is disported and not correct one. 14. Therefore, having taken info consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. a doubt certainly arises whether the appellants can be held guilty for the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the trial court. In the result the appellants are given benefit of doubt and they are acquitted accordingly. Since both the appellant are in custody there fore, they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.