Judgment R.N.Prasad and M.L.Visa JJ. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7-10-1986 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.T. No. 36/5 of 1986 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Secs. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that one Khedan Chaudhary gave his fardbeyan a on 17-9-1985 at about 5 p.m. that he along with Jagat Chaudhary. Harihar Chaudhary, Shambhu Chaudhary, Sita Chaudhary, Motilal Chaudhary and bailor Tilak Chaudhary, Parmeshwar Chaudhary, Sangam Chaudhary and Shiv Chaudhary had gone to Court for bail on 16-9-1985. The accused-persons also came to the Court. Accused-persons returned to their house prior to the informant and his men. While he, along with his men, was returning to their house and came near village Manikpur at about 6 p.m. the accused-persons surrounded them. Accused Singhasan Chaudhary ordered to kill. He, along with his men, tried to run away but the accused-persons caught Sita Chaudhary and threw him on the ground. Thereafter, the accused-persons put a lathi below the neck and also on the neck and pressed causing death of Sita Chaudhary. They also ran to assault them but they ran away. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan a formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellants as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and had falsely been implicated in the case out of enmity. They denied the charges levelled against them. They also examined one witness, namely Satyendra Prasad Singh as D.W. 1 to say that no occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 proved formal First Information Report. P.Ws. 6. 9 and 10 have been tendered. P.W. 3 is hearsay witness, P.W. 4 is witness to the inquest, P.W. 5 had seen the dead body, P.W. 11 is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. P.W. 12 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 13 stated about the relationship, PWs. 2, 7 and 8 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 3 is hearsay witness, P.W. 4 is witness to the inquest, P.W. 5 had seen the dead body, P.W. 11 is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. P.W. 12 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 13 stated about the relationship, PWs. 2, 7 and 8 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 14 is the informant and claimed to be eyewitness to the occurrence. 6. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16-9-1985 at about 6 p.m. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 17-9-1985 at about 5 p.m., i.e., after about 23 hours of the occurrence. It is an admitted position that there was enmity between the parties and litigation was pending. However, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be thrown out only on the ground that there was enmity and litigation between the parties rather in such a situation the requirement of law is to scrutinise the evidence with care and caution. 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid well settled rule of law we proceed to examine the evidence of witnesses. P.W. 12 claimed to be eye-witness to the occurrence. He supported the prosecution case but the Investigating Officer. P.W. 12, stated in his cross examination that he did not record the tatement of Jagat Chaudhary, son of Motilal Chaudhary rather he recorded the statement of Jagat Chaudhary, son of Ramjas. P.W. 2 is Jagat Chaudhary, son of Motilal Chaudhary. Therefore, it is evident that the statement of this witness was never recorded by the Police. He for the first time came to the Court to depose in the case. Therefore, his evidence is of no use. 8. P.W. 14 is the informant. He stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he was returning from Gopalganj. When he reached near village Manikpur the appellants variously armed with Lathi and bhala came. On the order of appellant Singasan Chaudhary they caught hold Sita Chaudhary. They threw him on the ground and thereafter Singasan Chaudhary caught his head and appellant Sita Ram Chaudhary caught his leg. When he reached near village Manikpur the appellants variously armed with Lathi and bhala came. On the order of appellant Singasan Chaudhary they caught hold Sita Chaudhary. They threw him on the ground and thereafter Singasan Chaudhary caught his head and appellant Sita Ram Chaudhary caught his leg. They put Lathi under the neck of Sita Chaudhary and also on the neck and thereafter, four appellants, namely, Lalan Chaudhary, Bishwanath Chaudhary, Sundar Chaudhary and Jagannath Chaudhary on the one side and appellant Kanhai Chaudhary, Sheodhyan Chaudhary and Indrasan Chaudhary on the other side pressed the Lathi causing death of Sita Chaudhary. It was raining at the relevant time. He along with his men ran away to their village. On way, however, he met his sister at village Khairatia and disclosed about the occurrence. On the next day, when the rain stopped, he went near the dead-body. The Police came and he gave his fardbeyan at the spot. He along with Motilal Chaudhary, Sita Chaudhary, Shambhu Chaudhary and Harihar Chaudhary had gone to Court and was returning together from the Court. The accused persons had also gone to Court for bail. The appellants returned prior to them. In cross-examination the witness stated that the appellants had gone to Court armed with Lathi and bhala. He returned to his house but did not disclose about the incident to anyone. He reached near the dead body at about 2 p.m. The Sub-Inspector of Police came at the place of occurrence at about 3 p.m. He sent the Chaukidar to the Police Station who came with the Sub-Inspector of Police at the place of occurrence. Suggestion was given to the witness that he did not see the occurrence and implicated the appellants out of enmity which he denied. 9. P.W. 7 stated in his evidence that while he and his associates were returning from the Court and reached near village Manikpur, the appellants came from the sugarcane field and on the order of appellant Singasan Chaudhary the other appellants caught Sita Chaudhary and threw him on the ground. Lathi was put under the neck of Sita Chaudhary and also on the neck and four persons from one side and three persons from the other side pressed the lathi which caused death. One person was catching head of Sita Chaudhary and one person was catching leg of the deceased. Lathi was put under the neck of Sita Chaudhary and also on the neck and four persons from one side and three persons from the other side pressed the lathi which caused death. One person was catching head of Sita Chaudhary and one person was catching leg of the deceased. The rain stopped at about 12 Oclock on the next day and then Khedan Chaudhary went to the Police station and gave his fardbeyan. In cross examination, the witness admitted enmity and litigation between the parties. He stated that the appellants had no Lathi, in their hands. When he started from Gopalganj it was raining and it had become dark. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he along with the informant. P.W. 14 and 2-3 persons had gone to the Police Station at about 2 p.m. He gave his statement at the Police Station. He along with Sub-Inspector of Police reached the place of occurrence at about 5 p.m. His statement was not recorded at the place of occurrence. He did not state before the Police that Lalan Chaudhary. Sundar Chaudhary, Jagannath Chaudhary on the one side and Kanhai Chaudhary. Singasan Chaudhary and Sheodhyan Chaudhary on the other side pressed the lathi. Sita Ram Chaudhary was catching the leg and Singasan Chaudhary was catching the head. The witness further stated that the dead body was in the water. He, the informant and others brought the dead body from the water. The Investigating Officer was also present. P.W. 8 is another eye-witness to the occurrence. The witness stated that it was raining on the date of occurrence. He and other persons were returning to their house from the Court. When they reached near village Manikpur the appellants came out from the bush. He further stated that at the place of occurrence there were sugarcane field and orchards. On the order of Singasan other accused persons caught hold of Sita Chaudhary and threw him on the ground and thereafter they put lathi under the neck and on the neck of the deceased and four persons from one side and three persons from other side pressed the lathi causing death of Sita Chaudhary. They were raising alarm but none came to the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan of the informant, P.W. 14 was recorded at the Police Station. The witness stated that he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. 10. They were raising alarm but none came to the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan of the informant, P.W. 14 was recorded at the Police Station. The witness stated that he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. 10. It is manifest from the discussion of evidence of witnesses that their evidence is not consistent on the material points. On the point of recording of fardbeyan P.W. 14 stated that his fardbeyan was recorded at the place of occurrence and the Police reached at the place of occurrence at 3 p.m., whereas P.W. 8 stated that fardbeyan of P.W. 14 was recorded at the Police Station. P.W. 7 stated that he along with P.W. 14 the informant had gone to the Police station at about 2 p.m. His statement was recorded there. However, P.W. 12 the Investigating Officer stated that he reached the place of occurrence at about 5 p.m. on hearing rumour and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. P.W. 14 further stated that he sent the Chaukidar to the Police Station who informed the Police and he came with the Police at the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer stated that he found the dead-body on the ridge whereas P.W. 7 stated that dead body was in the water and he along with P.W. 14 and others brought the dead body from the water and the Investigating Officer P.W. 12 was present at that very time. Therefore, it can safely be said that the evidence of witnesses is not consistent. 11. Further more, the occurrence took place on 16-9-1985 at about 6 p.m. The fardbeyan was recorded on 17-9-1985 at about 5 p.m. i.e., after about 23 hours of the occurrence. It is evident from the First Information Report itself that First Information Report was sent to the Court through special messenger on the same day but it reached to the Court on 19-9-1985, i.e., after three days of the occurrence. Sec. 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to send the report to the Magistrate forthwith. Sec. 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to send the report to the Magistrate forthwith. Sec. 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that on receiving such report the Magistrate may direct an investigation the purpose and object of the aforesaid Section is to avoid possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch in the progress of investigation. Admittedly, nothing has been brought on the record as to why the First Information -Report was received in the Court after three days of the occurrence. In such a situation, the possibility of concoction cannot be ruled out. In the case of Arjun Marik and Others V/s. State of Bihar the Apex Court has held that the delay in sending receipt of the First Information Report in the Court may cause genuine suspicion with regard to concoction of the case. 12. It is obvious that the occurrence took place on 16-9-1.985 at about 6 p.m, The fardbeyan was recorded on 17-9-1985 at about 5 p.m., i.e., after about 23 hours of the concurrence. The witness stated in the evidence that it was raining at the relevant time. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State pointed out that delay has been explained as the witness stated that it was raining. The explanation offered by learned Counsel for the State does not appear to be convincing. The Informant is elder brother of the deceased. He claimed to be fulfledged eyewitness to the occurrence but surprisingly even after commission of murder of his younger brother he did not care to inform the Police. The conduct of the informant in such a situation is not free from doubt. Not only this, the informant himself stated that he ran away from the place of occurrence to his village house. The other persons also ran away to their houses but surprisingly the witness stated that he did not disclose about the incident-to any person. This is not the evidence only of P.W. 14 the informant rather P.W. 8 also stated that he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. The other persons also ran away to their houses but surprisingly the witness stated that he did not disclose about the incident-to any person. This is not the evidence only of P.W. 14 the informant rather P.W. 8 also stated that he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. In natural course, it is expected that if any offence is committed the person who had seen the occurrence would disclose about the incident to other persons but conduct of the witness as stated above does not appear to be natural. Therefore, evidence of the witness does not inspire confidence. 13. It would not be out of place to mention herein that the informant in his fardbeyan stated that bailor had also gone with them. There is no evidence on the record as to where they had gone. None of the bailors has come forward even to support that the informant and others had gone to Court for bail. Although one of the witnesses stated that bailors were also returning along with the informant but surprisingly none of them has been examined. In the circumstances as discussed above, it appears that they have purposely not been examined so that real version may not come on the record. 14. Therefore, on consideration as discussed above, we find that the evidence brought on the record does not inspire confidence. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants whereas on bail are discharged from the liability of the bail-bonds.