Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 29, 1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which both the accused- appellants were convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that an December 25, 1986 at about 10 P.M., Mohidner Singh deceased under the intoxication of liquor started abusing both the accused near the Bus Stand of village Kheri Sharaf Ali. At that time Mohidner Singh deceased was standing in front of the shop of Dr. Kewal Singh. On hearing abuses being hurled upon them by Mohinder Singh, both the accused emerged out of their house, which was situated nearby, and reached the spot. They asked Mohinder Singh not to abuse them, but he did not pay any heed. Then both the accused started giving lathi blows to Mohinder Singh. After receiving injuries, Mohinder Singh fell down on the ground. The occurrence was witnessed by Amarjit Singh (P.W. 4) and Chanan Singh (P.W. 5), who were standing nearby. After causing injuries to Mohinder Singh deceased, both the accused left the spot and went to their house with their respective weapons. Amarjit Singh (P.W. 4) and Chanan Singh (P.W. 5) took the injured to his house, which was situated in the village abadL Ranjit Singh (P.W. 9) is the elder brother of Mohinder Singh deceased. The house of both the brothers were adjacent to each other with a common courtyard. Both the eye-witnesses, i.e., Amarjit Singh (P.W. 4) and Chanan Singh (P.W. 5) narrated the entire incident to him, and they went back to their respective house. Mohinder Singh died at about 12 mid-night/1 A.M. 3. On the day of occurrence, Igbal Singh (P.W. 3), father-in-law of Mohidner Singh deceased, had gone to Karnal in order to meet his other daughter. When he reached back his village the next day, i.e., December 26, 1986 at about 10 A.M., he came to know about the present occurrence. Then he went to Police Station Assandh and he lodged the first information report there at about 12.15 P.M. on December 26, 1986, S.I. Fateh Singh made the endorsement on the F.I.R. and went to the spot accompanied by A.S.I. Yad Ram and other Police constables. S.I. Fateh Singh prepared the inquest report. Then he went to Police Station Assandh and he lodged the first information report there at about 12.15 P.M. on December 26, 1986, S.I. Fateh Singh made the endorsement on the F.I.R. and went to the spot accompanied by A.S.I. Yad Ram and other Police constables. S.I. Fateh Singh prepared the inquest report. A.S.I. Yad Ram took the dead body to Civil Hospital, Karnal, in order to get the dead body post- mortemed. 4. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mohinder was carried out on December 27, 1986 by Dr. Amar Nath Bajaj (P.W. 1), who found as many as 7 injuries on the dead body. All the injuries were caused with a blunt weapon and were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. The accused were arrested on January 5, 1987 at about 4.30 P.M., when A.S.I. Yad Ram was present at the Bus Stand of village Kheri Sharaf Ali (P.W. 11) and had seen the accused getting down from a bus. Both the accused were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day, when both of them were remanded to judicial custody. Both the accused were interrogated on January 7, 1987 at about 7 A.M. in the presence of Ghasita Ram and Sahab Singh. During the course of interrogation, both the accused got recovered the respective lathis, with which they had caused injuries to Mohinder Singh deceased, which were taken into possession. 6. After the investigation, both the accused were challaned under Section 304 read with Section 34, Indian penal Code. However, they were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. 7. Besides the formal prosecution witnesses, the prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Amar Nath Bajaj (P.W. 1), Iqbal Singh complainant (P.W. 3), Amarjit Singh (P.W. 4), Chanan Singh (P.W. 5), Ranjit Singh (P.W. 9), S.I. Fateh Singh (P.W. 10) and A.S.I. Yad Ram (P.W. 11). 8. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused controverted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. They took the plea that they were apprehended on December 26, 1986 but they were made to sit illegally in Police Station Assandh up-till January 6, 1987, when they were implicated falsely in the present case. 8. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused controverted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. They took the plea that they were apprehended on December 26, 1986 but they were made to sit illegally in Police Station Assandh up-till January 6, 1987, when they were implicated falsely in the present case. In defence, Bhawan Singh accused examined Hukam Chand A.C. No. 268, Police Station Assandh (D.W.1) He deposed that a case under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. Which was covered by F.I.R. No. 317 dated September 3, 1987 had been registered against Narinder Singh alias Soma son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village Kheri Sharaf Ali for the alleged recovery of 180 Kgs. of Lahan. The age of this Narinder Singh, as mentioned in the F.I.R., was 21-22 years. The other accused, namely, Dilsher Singh alias from Kaku did not lead any evidence in defence. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and pursuing the evidence brought on the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence brought on the record. 11. It has been contended by Mr. R.S. Cheema that there is an unreasonable delay of 14 hours in lodging the first information report. He has contended that though the occurrence had taken place at about 10 P.M. on December 25, 1986, which had been allegedly witnessed by Amarjit Singh (P.W. 4) and Chanan Singh (P.W. 5), and the death of Mohinder Singh had allegedly taken place at 12 mid-night/1 A.M. in the night intervening 25/26 December 1986, but the report was lodged by Iqbal Singh, who had not witnessed the occurrence at all, at 12.15 P.M. on December 26, 1986. According to him, this unreasonable delay of about 14 hours is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution evidence is based on the interested witnesses, who are related to the deceased. According to him, though the occurrence had taken place near the Bus Stand of the village and in front of the shop of Dr. Kewal Singh, but in spite of that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. According to him, though the occurrence had taken place near the Bus Stand of the village and in front of the shop of Dr. Kewal Singh, but in spite of that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. Thus, he contends the prosecution evidence depends upon tell tale evidence. 12. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has controverted the contention of Mr. R.S. Cheema, by contending that mere delay in lodging the first information report cannot be termed as fatal to the case of the prosecution. In support of his contention he placed reliance on two authorities of Honble the Supreme Court reported as Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1973 S.C. 1; and Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 227 : [2001(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 87 (SC)]. He further contended that the reason for delay in loading the first information report had amply been explained by the prosecution. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the entire case of the prosecution is based on intertested witnesses. Both the eye-witnesses, namely, Amarjit Singh (P.W.5) are closely related to the deceased, Chanan Singh is stated to be the son of the real sister of Mohinder Singh deceased. Amarjit Singh is the real brother of the husband of the sister of Chanan Singh. In this way, Amarjit Singh and Chanan Singh are also closely related to each other. They allegedly narrated the occurrence to Ranjit Singh (P.W.9), who is the brother of Mohinder Singh deceased. Ranjit Singh further narrated the occurrence to Iqbal Singh (P.W.3), who on the narration made by Ranjit Singh, lodged the first information report at Police Station Assandh. The said report was lodged after an unreasonable delay of 14 hours at the instance of Iqbal Singh. It does not appeal to reason why Amarjit Singh and Chanan Singh, who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence, did not lodge the first information report. It is the case of the persecution that Chanan Singh had been sent to Delhi in order to bring the married daughter of the deceased, whereas Amarjit Singh P.W. was sent to inform the relatives of the deceased. This explanation on the part of the deceased seems to be quite unnatural. It is the case of the persecution that Chanan Singh had been sent to Delhi in order to bring the married daughter of the deceased, whereas Amarjit Singh P.W. was sent to inform the relatives of the deceased. This explanation on the part of the deceased seems to be quite unnatural. If these two eye- witnesses could not lodge the first information report, then Ranjit Singh, whom they had narrated the entire occurrence, could go to the Police Station immediatedly after the occurrence to lodge the report. He too did not take the trouble to inform the Police about it. He further narrates the occurrence to Igbal Singh (P.W.3), who is the father-in-law of the deceased. Then Iqbal Singh lodges the report after a gap of 14 hours of the occurrence. Mohinder Singh deceased had six sons. His eldest son is stated to be 20 years old. He too does not come forward to lodge the first information report. Rather, there is another unreasonable conduct of the eye-witnesses, i.e., Amarjit Singh and Chanan Singh. They go to inform Ranjit singh, brother of the deceased, about the occurrence " and Did not to the sons and wife of the deceased. Further unnatural conduct of the close relations is that they did not think it proper to inform the Police about the occurrence, but they continued to wait for the father-in-law of the deceased. Another unnatural conduct of the close relations of the deceased is that they did not take the trouble to take Mohinder Singh deceased to the hospital immediately after the occurrence, when he was still alive, so that timely medical aid could be provided to him to save his life. Rather they kept on waiting after keeping him in an injured condition at his house. He died after about 2/3 hours of the occurrence. Even after that the dead body was kept in the house for a considerable period of 12 hours, rather than reporting the matter immediately to the Police. This unnatural conduct on the part of the very close relations of the deceased is fatal to the case of the prosecution. I have gone through the authorities cited by the learned Assistant Advocate General, but the facts of this case are quite different from the facts of the authorities cited by him. 14. This unnatural conduct on the part of the very close relations of the deceased is fatal to the case of the prosecution. I have gone through the authorities cited by the learned Assistant Advocate General, but the facts of this case are quite different from the facts of the authorities cited by him. 14. Still further, the occurrence had taken place at a busy public place, i.e., near the Bus Stand of the village and in front of the shops of Dr. Kewal Singh and Dr. Harbhajan Singh, but nobody from the native village of the deceased has come forward to support the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is based only on the testimony of the interested witnesses, whose conduct is very unnatural. 15. In the light of the above discussion, I allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. They are on bail. Their bail bonds shall standi discharged Appeal allowed.