Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The appellant was charged and tried for committing the murder of Navin Kumar Singh by inflicting knife injury on him on 14-11-81 at Mohalla Rajendranagar, P.S. Arrah Nawadah in the district of Bhojpur. 2. In the night on 13-11-81 at 10-30. p.m. Girjanandan Singh, a practising lawyer in the Civil Court was in the office at his residence along with his clerk Ramawtar Singh and client Shivnanda Singh, Binod Kumar Singh, son of Girjanandan Singh along with Balajee Singh after taking their meal went out of their house to take betel in a shop in the main road. After some time Girjanandan Singh heard hulla. He came out of his house along with Ramawtar Singh and Shivanand Singh. He saw appellant running away towards north with a blood-stained dagger. Navin Kumar Singh was crying at the gate of one Brij Bihari Srivastava situate to the south of the house of Girjanandan Singh. Navin Kumar Singh was lying seriously injured. In the meantime, Binod Kumar Singh and Balajee Singh arrived. Girjanandan Singh was told by Binod Singh and Balajee Singh that while they were going towards main road for taking betel they had seen the deceased Navin Kumar Singh and accused Ashok Kumar Srivastava talking and they had asked Navin Kumar Singh to go back home. They proceeded east and Navin Kumar Singh proceeded towards west. The appellant attacked the deceased with dagger. Navin Kumar Singh was removed to Arrah Sadar Hospital in unconscious condition where he was given medical aid. He was taken to Patna Medical College Hospital On 14-11-81 where he remained unconscious and ultimately on 18-11-81 he succumbed to his injuries. 3. No information was given to the police. The information was given to the police on 16-11-81 when Girjanandan Singh returned from Patna. The explanation for the delay was that he remained busy in attending the deceased at Arrah and Patna. A case under Sec. 307, I.P.C. was registered at Arrah Nawada police station on 16-11-81 which was subsequently converted into a case under Section 302, I.P.C. as on 18-11-81 the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. He asserted that he had no animous against the deceased. The prosecution purposely introduced a false case against him. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. He asserted that he had no animous against the deceased. The prosecution purposely introduced a false case against him. It was also the case of the appellant that the deceased was assaulted at another place and not in Mohalla Rajendranagar. The deceased died due to stab injuries in P.M.C. H on 18-1.1-81 which cannot be disputed. Just after the incident Navin Kumar Singh was examined by Dr. Ugra Pratap Nr. Singh. Three stab injuries were found on his person. Similar injuries wee found in post-mortem examination. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Girjanandan Singh, Binod Kr. Singh, Baldeo Singh, Shibnandan Singh and Ramawtar Singh. The main witnesses were Binod Kumar Singh, own brother of the deceased and Shibanand Singh, cousin of the deceased. The evidence of these two witnesses was that after taking meal they were going to betel shop near Motimahal Cinema Hall and when they proceeded east towards clinic of Dr. K.B. Sahay, they saw the deceased talking to the appellant, whereupon they asked the appellant to go back home and proceeded to betel shop. They had gone a few steps when they heard alarm of Navin Kumar Singh and they looked backward to find the appellant giving knife blows to the deceased. Navin Kumar Singh after receiving injuries ran towards his house being chased by the accused. These two witnesses ran towards the deceased to save him. The deceased fell down near the gate of one Brij Bihari Srivastava where appellant attempted to assault him again by means of Chura but on their arrival the appellant ran towards north. The informant has corroborated what he had stated before the police. 6. Shivanand Singh deposed that he heard alarm of Navin Kumar Singh and ran towards the gate of Brij Bihari Srivastava where the injured Navin Kumar Singh was lying. According to the defence the story narrated by Binod Kumar Singh and Balajee Singh suffered from inherent improbabilities. According to the evidence of these two witnesses after receiving stab injuries the deceased ran to a considerable distance which was highly improbable. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did to find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the defence. No independent witness of the Mohalla was examined. The learned Addl. According to the evidence of these two witnesses after receiving stab injuries the deceased ran to a considerable distance which was highly improbable. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did to find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the defence. No independent witness of the Mohalla was examined. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not find any serious infirmity to discared the testimony of the witnesses. He found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 8. Sri Sarvendra Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously questioned the legality of the conviction of the appellant on various scores. He has submitted that the conviction of the appellant on the evidence of Binod Kumar Singh, own bother of the deceased and Balaji Singh cousin of the deceased is plainly unsustainable because these two witnesses gave their statements, for the first time, on 19-11-1981. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a neighbour of the deceased. It is difficult to believe the appellant would be so desperate to state his friend when Binod Kumar Singh and Balaji Singh were present in the lane. It must be presumed that they had arrived after the incident. Not a single witness was examined even to corroborate the fact that Navin Kumar Singh was found injured. The motive for murder too weak to be accepted. No motive was alleged in the F.I.R. 9. Learned Counsel for he appellant has contended that cause of delay in institution of the case was that the prosecution was not sure about the identification of real culprit. The prosecution and the Investigating Officer in this case were deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case. He has placed reliance on -- . It was further contended that explanation for lodging FIR after three days is absolutely unsatisfactory and should not have been accepted. The informant in his evidence has stated that in P.M.C.H. He did not disclose the name of the assailant to their doctor. The informant named the four persons, namely, Moniababa Sadhu, Rmnagina Singh, Shrinath Singh and one another person. Surprisingly, all these persons were not examined by the police. 10. S.I. Krishna Ram had gone to Arrah Sadar hospital but he did not record the statement of any body. He was not examined in this case. The informant named the four persons, namely, Moniababa Sadhu, Rmnagina Singh, Shrinath Singh and one another person. Surprisingly, all these persons were not examined by the police. 10. S.I. Krishna Ram had gone to Arrah Sadar hospital but he did not record the statement of any body. He was not examined in this case. The police station was hardly one kilometre from the place of occurrence. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in his evidence officer incharge Nawada police station has stated that on receiving rumour of the incident made entry in the station diary, which mentions that there was a rumour that in Rajendranagar Mohalla, the deceased Navin Kumar Singh had been stabbed by the appellant. No body has come forward to give the statement about the occurrence. 11. Learned Counsel next contended that in order to remove any loophole a maliciously false motive for the alleged assault was subsequently introduced which was not in the F.I.R. There is no evidence to support the motive. 12. Learned Counsel contended that it is impossible to believe that the appellant would have taken the risk of stabbing the deceased in presence of two eye-witnesses. As noticed the evidence is that the deceased and the appellant were engaged in a hot discussion. This evidence was purposely created as a device so as to fit in the concocted prosecution story when there was no clue available and a mere rumour floated in the air that the deceased was stabbed. 13. Learned Counsel again contended that there was no explanation why no information was lodged for about three days by Girjanandan Singh. The explanation was that since the informant was perturbed, he could not lodge the information. This explanation can hardly be accepted 14. Learned Counsel has argued a number of points which are relevant but in my view the appeal deserves to be allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The explanation furnished by the informant does not appear to be credible. On close scrutiny of the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge was not justified in accepting the prosecution evidence, 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. He is discharged from the liability of bail-bond. 16. S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. I agree.