Judgment N.N.Singh, J. 1. Sole appellant, Dudhanath Bhagat, against whom charge under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC were framed, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 23.06.88, passed by Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 272 of 1976 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The brief history of the case, as unfolded by the fardbeyan (Exhibit 1) of Mahashray Bhagat (PW 4), is that on 07.10.75 at about 09.00 p.m. when he was sleeping on a chachara beneath a pakri tree in this bathan, this appellant came there and gave a (sic) blow on the chin and a second blow above the plam of his hand. Further case of prosecution is that when informants son, Dharam-nath Bhagat (PW 2) came to his rescue and tried to catch the appellant, the appellant got him freed and fled away. According to prosecution case. Harihar Bhagat (PW 1), Dahari Bhagat (not examined), Tilak Bhagat (PW 3) reached there on hulla and the informant was taken to hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded on 08.10.75 at 10.30 a.m. on the basis of which Mirganj P.S. Case No. 6(10)75, under Sections 324 and 327 of the IPC, was registered against this appellant. The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against him and after taking cognizance and commitment the appellant was put on trial and was convicted as aforesaid. 3. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. 4. Six witnesses were examined by prosecution in support of its case and the defence also examined two formal witnesses, DW 1. Neyaz Ahmad, and DW 2, Zamir Ahmad, who proved two sale deeds, Exhibits A and A/1 respectively. PW 6 is Dr. Anirudh Prasad, who had examined the informant and has proved the injury report (Exhibit 4). PW 5 is investigating officer of this case, Prabhunath Mishra. The remaining four witnesses, including the informant, PW 4, Mahashray Bhagat, are witnesses on the point of occurrence. PW 1 is Harihar Bhagat, an agnate of the informant, and PW 2 is Dharamnath Bhagat, the son of the informant, and PW 3 is Tilak Bhagat, a relation of PW 1. 5. The remaining four witnesses, including the informant, PW 4, Mahashray Bhagat, are witnesses on the point of occurrence. PW 1 is Harihar Bhagat, an agnate of the informant, and PW 2 is Dharamnath Bhagat, the son of the informant, and PW 3 is Tilak Bhagat, a relation of PW 1. 5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that learned trial Court had rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW 1 Harihar Bhagat, who claimed to have reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and yet claimed to have seen this appellant giving the blow on receiving of which the alarm was raised. For the same reasons, it was contended that PW 3, Tilak Bhagat, could also not be an eye-witness of the occurrence. In fact, PW 3 admitted not to have seen anybody running away. He, however, stated that Mahashray (PW 4) and Dharamnath (PW 2) stated the name of the appellant, who after giving dab blow fled away but this was not corroborated by PWs 4 and 2 as none of them claimed to have told PW 3 as such. Then only evidence of PWs 2 and 3 remained to be considered. 6. Shri Ashish Anshu, learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that PW 4 gave a different version of the occurrence which does not find corroboration from his own fardbeyan (Exhibit 1). In his fardbeyan, PW 4 had claimed that while he was sleeping on chachra, he was given two dab blows by this appellant resulting in injuries on his chin and above the palm of right hand but in his evidence he developed the case by stating that when this appellant, Dudhnath Bhagat, arrived theirs, PW 4 had some talk with Dudhnath and thereafter Dudhnath gave dab blow. PW 4 observed that Harihar (PW 1) and Tilak (PW 3) also saw the occurrence, but evidence of PW 1 was disbelieved by the trial Court and PW 3 himself claimed not to have a seen anybody running away. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri K. P. Gupta, submitted that assertion of PW 4 to have a talk with appellant may be treated as an embellishment to which the witnesses are generally prone to do so. In support of the contention, he put reliance on decision reported at 1919 PC, 157, and AIR 1988 SC, 1998. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri K. P. Gupta, submitted that assertion of PW 4 to have a talk with appellant may be treated as an embellishment to which the witnesses are generally prone to do so. In support of the contention, he put reliance on decision reported at 1919 PC, 157, and AIR 1988 SC, 1998. Since the informant has introduced a fact which if believed would make the identification sure shot, this cannot be treated as embellishments only and definitely it was a development made by the informant in this case. My attention was also drawn towards contradictory statement of PWs 1, 2 and 4 where PWs 1 and 2 claimed that the night was dark but PW 4 claimed that it was moonlit night. However, they loose any significance, so far as identification is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant was known to informant from before and, according to prosecution case, PW 2 had tried to catch him. 8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the assertion of the appellant that he was implicated, finds support from interpolation in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 1) where the date of recording of fardbeyan and date of occurrence both were earlier mentioned as 10.10.75 and subsequently were made 08.10.75. It was submitted that independently, this interpolation could not have meant much, but connected with the circumstance that the injury report was issued on 13.10.75 and the first information report was received in the Court of magistrate on 17.10.75, that is, after eight days, without any explanation for such abnormal delay, at least go to make the prosecution case suspicious in view of admission of PW 4 that only two days before the occurrence, he had a quarrel with the appellant. The following pertinent observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Singh V/s. State of U.P., reported at (1994) 5 SCC, 188 is quite applicable in this case : "Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment which is creature of an afterthought. On account of delay the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged, at the time it is alleged to have been recorded the courts generally look for certain external checks. On account of delay the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged, at the time it is alleged to have been recorded the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of FIR by the magistrate. If the report is received by the Magistrate late, if can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time, it is alleged to have been recorded unless of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for delay in despatching or receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate". Prosecution has led no evidence on this behalf to explain the abnormal delay of eight days. Besides this, it has been mentioned above that the informant, PW 4, has developed this case introducing a fact that he had a talk with the appellant before the occurrence. 9 The evidences of PWs 2 and 4, who happened to be father and son, have not been supported by any other independent witness though it was claimed that they had arrived. It is true that there is no absolute standard of proof in a criminal trial and the Court should not nurture fanciful doubts, but after giving my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the judgment of the trial Court and infirmities and developments in the case shown above, in the totality of circumstances, I am persuaded to hold that prosecution has not been able to establish the manner of occurrence in which the informant received the injury and in the circumstance the appellant was entitled to get benefit of doubt. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is released from the liability of his bail bond.