Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The appellant Dilip Kumar Singh aged 23 years was tried before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Hajipur having been charged under Section 307, IPC. The charge against the appellant was that he shot and injured Abhay Kumar with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstance that if by that act he would have caused death of Abhay Kumar he would have been guilty of murder. The appellant was further charged under Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a country made revolver in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act. The charge under Section 25(1)(a) failed. The appellant was convicted under Section 307, IPC and has been sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and also under Section 27 Arms Act for which he has been sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. 2. The event culminating in trial and conviction of the appellant may be summarised as follows. On 31-07-87 there was a function of Shradh of aunt of Abhay Kumar at village Bedaulia in the District of Vaishali. A large number of guests had assembled on the occasion. Abhay Kumar was resident of another village. He had come to attend Shradh on 30-07-87. The villagers had been invited at the Shardh feast. Abhay Kumar was sitting at the Sahan of the Darwaja of his Mama. The case of the prosecution is that at about 9.00 p.m. the appellant came to the informant Abhay Kumar and request him to lend him his motorcycle for going to the market. The motorcycle was parked in the Sahan. Abhay Kumar turned down the request of the appellant on the ground that it was night. The appellant is said to have threatened the informant that in case the motor cycle was not given to him he would shoot him. Abhay Kumar did not take the threat very seriously. The appellant tried to take the motorcycle by keeping his hand on the motorcycle. It is then alleged that the appellant took out a country made revolver from his bag and shot at Abhay Kumar hitting him on the upper portion of his neck. Abhay Kumar fell down with his motorcycle. When he tried to rise up the appellant fired another shot which hit the left arm of Abhay Kumar. The people assembled there chased the appellant to some distance but he could not be caught. Abhay Kumar fell down with his motorcycle. When he tried to rise up the appellant fired another shot which hit the left arm of Abhay Kumar. The people assembled there chased the appellant to some distance but he could not be caught. 3. The injured was first taken to Hajipur Police Station on 01-08-1987. The Police officer on duty at the police Station prepared injury report and forwarded the injured to the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur for treatment and medical opinion. 4. Dr. Ram Govind Prasad (PW-11), who at the relevant time was Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur examined the injured on 1st August, 1987. The doctor in his evidence has not stated the time the injured was examined. Following injuries were found on the person of the injured : (i) Lacerated wound 4" X 2"X1" on the upper part of neck extended to chin obliquely from right to left. Dangerous to life. (ii) Lacerated with wound of entry in diameter on the medial side of middle of left arm. (iii) Lacerated wound of exit 1/2" diameter on the outer portion of the left arm 1 (1-1/2)" obliquely to injury No. 2. (iv) Pin head size numerous tattooing marks on the right side of the face, right shoulder and upper right arm with a few on fore-head, left side of the face left arm. (v) Injuries to both eyes halting eye-lids. Injuries No. 1 to 3 were grievous in nature. Injury No. 4 was simple in nature. Opinion regarding injury No.5 was kept reserved for the opinion of the eye specialist. 5. On the same day Dr. Anjani Kr.Singh (PW-12) eye specialist in Sadar Hospital Hajipur examined the injured and found following ocular injuries in his eyes : (i) Both eyes-Swellings upper and lower lids 2" X 1/2". (ii) Multiple circular burnt areas present both on upper and lower lids of both eyes of pin head size. (iii) Both eyes-conjectival congestion corneal abrasion with foreign bodies. (iv) Both eyes-Romantic cateract. (v) Both eyes-Dimination of vision with visual acquity limited to hand movement in both eyes. The injuries were grievous in nature. 6. It is not clear from the evidence of the injured whether the appellant was known to him from before. As stated earlier, the injured was resident of another village and he had come to attend Shradh of his aunt at village Badaulia. The injuries were grievous in nature. 6. It is not clear from the evidence of the injured whether the appellant was known to him from before. As stated earlier, the injured was resident of another village and he had come to attend Shradh of his aunt at village Badaulia. The appellant is resident of village Badaulia where the occurrence took place. A number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to bring home charge framed against the appellant. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone into the evidence with all thoroughness. As stated earlier the occurrence took place at about 9.00 p.m. in the night. The evidence of the informant is that there were a large number of persons present at the Shradh Asthal This witness, however, admitted that only a lantern was kept on the dalan of Mahendra Singh (Mama of the victim). According to the evidence of the informant, Mahendra Singh, Lal Babu Singh, Sunyana Devi, Chitranjan Singh, Binod Singh and Pawan Singh were present at the Dalan where the informant was shot. The informant became senseless after a few minutes and could not see what happened. According to the fardbeyan the persons named by the informant came after he had cried for help. The informant has given a different version in his evidence when he stated that witnesses were already there at the time of occurrence. 8. Lal Babu Singh, who was examined as the first witness for the prosecution is resident of village Badaulia and is cousin of the informant. The version of this witness is that he was with Abhay Kumar in the Sahan. He repeated the version given by the informant. The evidence of this witness is not in confirmity with the fardbeyan and evidence of the informant. He stated that he was sitting in the Dalan when the appellant approached the informant for the Motorcycle. 9. Next witness for the prosecution was Chitranjan Singh, of village Bedaulia. He is a school teacher by profession. On the evening of the date of occurrence he was sitting at the Darwaja of his house. His house is adjacent to the house of Mahendra Singh. According to the testimony of this witness, he saw Abhay Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh, talking on a cot. The appellant suddenly came and demanded key of the motorcycle from Abhay Singh. On the evening of the date of occurrence he was sitting at the Darwaja of his house. His house is adjacent to the house of Mahendra Singh. According to the testimony of this witness, he saw Abhay Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh, talking on a cot. The appellant suddenly came and demanded key of the motorcycle from Abhay Singh. His request was turned down by Abhay Singh which was followed by an altercation between them. The appellant then tried to take possession of the motorcycle and he was seen being caught by Abhay Singh. The appellant is said to have threatened to shoot Abhay Singh if motor-cycle was not given to him. The appellant then took out a revolver and shot at Abhay Singh, hitting on the neck. The appellant fired for the second time when Abhay Singh tried to get up. From the evidence of this witness it appears that the shooting took place in the Sahan of Mahendra Singh. 10. There is no doubt that the consistent case of the prosecution is that the appellant had shot bullet on the informant in the Sahan of Mahendra Singh, where many persons were present. But no report of the occurrence was given at the Police Station on 31-7-1987. The fardbeyan was recorded on 1-8-1987 at 16.30 hours. The inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report has not been explained. The whole case is rendered doubtful on account of inaction on the part of prosecution in informing the police promptly \when the assailant was known man of the village. 11. Learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the explanation for delay in lodging the case that since the informant had become senseless and was removed to Hospital. The fardbeyan was recorded on the information sent to the police after the informant regained consciousness. 12. On review of the entire evidence it appears that the evidence against the appellant is not free from doubt mainly because of the delay in lodging the case has not been explained. Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae argued that there was serious contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. 12. On review of the entire evidence it appears that the evidence against the appellant is not free from doubt mainly because of the delay in lodging the case has not been explained. Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae argued that there was serious contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. It is not necessary to consider the discrepancies in the evidence as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant since in my view the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt on account of the fact that for more than 17 hours no report was sent to the police. 13. This appeal accordingly succeeds. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. 14. Before, I part, I must record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Raj Kumar, as Amicus Curiae. Let a copy of this Judgment be handed over to Mr. Raj Kumar.