JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-As both the criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment, passed by Shri R.P. Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 132/95, arising out of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 078/94, corresponding to G.R. No. 626/94, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the three appellants have challenged their judgment and order of conviction dated 31st August, 1998 u/s, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to make payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two years. The appellant Md. Hameed [Cr. Appeal No. 247/98(R)] has been further sentenced to under go R.I. for two years for the charges u/s. 27 Arms Act, which is to run concurrently. 3.The Informant Md. Hussain (P.W. 8) who is the father of the deceased Md. Mobin was sitting at the shop of his second son Md. Moin Mistry (P.W. 7) on 21st December, 1994 at about 6.45 P.M. He saw the accused Md. Hameed, Jainul Haque and Md. Nazir called his son Md. Mobin (deceased) and proceeded towards the shop of Idrish Tailor. After some time, he also proceeded to find out his son and found his son Md. Mobin (deceased) standing with the accused persons on the Verandah (Chabutara) of Tailoring shop of Md. Idrish. As soon as the accused saw him (Informant), the accused Jainul Haque ordered to shot Md. Mobin as the Informant was coming. Immediately, thereafter, accused Md. Hameed took out his Pistol and shot in the back of the head of his son Md. Mobin and thereafter all the accused fled away. After sustaining head injury, Md. Mobin fell down by the side of Verandah (Chabutara). The Informant while lifting his son, raised alarm and by that time a number of local people also gathered at the P.O. and with their help his son was taken to the Hospital where he succumbed in course of treatment. 4. Further case of the Informant (P.W. 8) is that the accused Hameed was threatening Md. Mobin that he would forcibly hold his shop at the same place at Tat Nagar Hat where the deceased was holding his shop. 4. Further case of the Informant (P.W. 8) is that the accused Hameed was threatening Md. Mobin that he would forcibly hold his shop at the same place at Tat Nagar Hat where the deceased was holding his shop. Due to aforesaid dispute regarding holding of shop at a particular place the deceased was killed by the accused persons at the instance of accused Md. Hameed. 5. The Sadar Police Station could know of the incident on 21st December, 1994 at 19 hours through telephonic message from Muffasil Police Station, Chaibasa that one person was shot dead in Mohalla Bari Bazaar and has been taken to Hospital. It was entered in the Station Diary (Ext. 7) and on the basis of the said information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhimsen Hansda (P.W. 9) proceeded for Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa 'along with two Cantabiles. Fardbeyan of the Informant P.W. 8) was' recorded in the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa at 19.30 hours on 21st December, 1994 and a case u/s. 302/34, I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act was instituted. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution produced altogether nine witnesses in order to substantiate the charge framed against them. P.W. 1, Gopal Das and P.W. 2, Muneshwar Sinku are formal witnesses of EI.A. (Ext.1) and Fardbeyan (Ext. 2). P W. 4, Md. Mehtab Ali, another formal witness of inquest report (Ext. 3) was declared hostile. P.W. 3, Md. Rafique, an independent witness who was sitting in the Tea Stall of Akhtar stated that he had seen accused Hameed giving signal to the deceased to go with him and then took the deceased; other two accused Nazir and Jainul were not present at the PO. P.W. 5, Ansar Ali though claimed to be' a witness, could not recognize the accused Jainul and Md. Nazir, except accused Hameed. P.W. 7, Moin is a brother of the deceased. He also claims to be an hearsay witness, but his statement was never recorded by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C. P.W. 8, Md. Hussain is the Informant and father of the deceased. He seems to be the only eye witness to the case. Amongst the rest two witnesses, namely, P.W. 6, Dr. D.N. Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and P.W. 9, Bhimsen Hansda, Sub Inspector of Police was the Investigating Officer. 7. The learned 1st Addl. He seems to be the only eye witness to the case. Amongst the rest two witnesses, namely, P.W. 6, Dr. D.N. Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and P.W. 9, Bhimsen Hansda, Sub Inspector of Police was the Investigating Officer. 7. The learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa relied on tile evidence of P.W.s. 7 and 8 and the medical evidence to hold that the accused Md. Hamid was having some dispute with the deceased Md. Mobin since prior to tile occurrence. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 5 was relied upon to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 8 that the deceased Md. Mobin was sitting at the Tea Stall of Akhtar at that time, accused Md. Hameed went there and called Md. Mobin and took him in his Company. The evidence of P.W.s. 7 and 8 was relied to hold that all the accused persons were going towards the place of occurrence (Famous Tailor Shop) and the evidence of P.W.8 was completely relied upon to hold that the accused Jainul gave order to shoot the deceased Md. Mobin and accused Md. Hameed complied his order, took out his Pistol and fired on the head of the deceased. Medical evidence was also relied upon to hold all the three accused persons guilty of the charges under section 302/34, I.P.C. and in addition to that accused Md. Hameed u/s. 27 Arms Act. 8. Mr: R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31st August, 1998 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 132/95 mainly on the following grounds:- (i) There is un-explained delay of one day in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate and there is interpolation in the time of F.I.R. as recorded; (ii) There is a dispute relating to the place of occurrence i.e. whether it is Sadar Bazar or Bari Bazar. In this regard interpolation has been made at 51. No. 439 of the Station Diary by the I.O. (P.W. 9)-(Ext. 7). (iii) The Medical evidence does not support ocular evidence of solitaryeye witness (P.W. 8), on the other hand, it is contradictory. The presence of Informant (P. W. 8) is doubtful. 9. In this regard interpolation has been made at 51. No. 439 of the Station Diary by the I.O. (P.W. 9)-(Ext. 7). (iii) The Medical evidence does not support ocular evidence of solitaryeye witness (P.W. 8), on the other hand, it is contradictory. The presence of Informant (P. W. 8) is doubtful. 9. Learned A.P.P. refuting the arguments submitted that the eye witness, P.W. 8 and other witnesses i.e. P.W.s. 3, 5 and 7 have corroborated the prosecution case by stating that it was accused Md. Hameed who called the deceased Md. Mobin from the Tea Stall of Md. Akhtar. All the accused accompanied the deceased to the P.O. i.e. the Famous Tailoring Shop. The eye witness, P.W. 8 seen accused Jainul giving order to kill Md. Mobin and the accused Md. Hameed thereafter took out his Pistol and fired on the head of the deceased. The medical evidence supports the ocular evidence that the deceased was fired at his instance. 10. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) and the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2). It was brought to the court's notice that the Fardbeyan was recorded on 21st December, 1994 at 7.30 P.M. in the Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. In the F.I.R., the date of occurrence was shown as 16.45 P.M., but it was interpolated to 18.45 P.M. without any signature therein. The time of occurrence was shifted forward for about two hours. The Informant, P. W. 8 in his Fardbeyan stated that the occurrence took place on 21st December, 1994 at about 6.45 P.M. The F.I.R. appears to have been sent on 21st December, 1994 by the special messenger and reached the Court and seen by the learned A.C.J.M., West Singhbhum, Chaibasa on 23rd December, 1994. The I.O. has not explained the delay of 24 hours, nor the learned A.P.P. could through any light on it. It has been noticed that the P.W.s. 1 and 2 are formal witnesses of F.I.R. and Fardbeyan respectively. Another formal witness, P.W. 4 who was the inquest report witness stated that the inquest report was prepared by Police in the Police Station, so he was declared hostile by the prosecution. Out of the witnesses who have seen the occurrence or part of it or hearsay witness, P.W. 3, Md. Rafique is an independent witness, though he stated that he had seen the accused Md. Out of the witnesses who have seen the occurrence or part of it or hearsay witness, P.W. 3, Md. Rafique is an independent witness, though he stated that he had seen the accused Md. Hameed calling the deceased Md. Mobin by signaling, stated that accused Hameed and Md. Mobin were good friends. He further stated that he had not seen accused Md. Jainul at the said place and so he left the Tea Shop after about one month. The evidence of P.W. 5, Ansar Ali is contradictory to the evidence of P.W. 3. He stated that the deceased Mobin was with Rafique in the Tea Shop of Akhtar and he saw accused Hameed calling the deceased by signaling and then the deceased left with Md. Hameed. Thereafter, P.W. 5 left the shop to purchase Vegetable. This witness could not recognize accused Jainul and Md. Nazir who were on the Docks, except Md. Hameed. In his cross-examination at Paragraph, P.W. 5 specifically stated that he never heard the involvement of Jainul and Nazir in connection with the present case. Thus, this witness, P.W. 5 does not support the case of prosecution, as recorded in the Fardbeyan. P.W. 7, Md. Moin, is the brother of the deceased, an interested witness. He stated that he heard the sound of fire and rushed towards the Famous Tailor and found Md. Mobin in injured condition lying below the front of Chabutara of Famous Tailor. He heard from his father (P.W. 8-lnformant) that accused Md. Hameed fired at Md. Mobin. Though, he stated that he saw the three accused fleeing from the Famous Tailor, accepted that he had not stated the same before the Police. P.W. 8, Md. Hussain (Informant) who is the father of the deceased claim to be the solitary eye-witness. In one sense. He is also an interested witness, being the father of the deceased. He supported his Fardbeyan and stated that on 21 December, 1994 at 6.45 P.M., he came to the shop of his son Md. Mobin (P.W. 7) who is a Motor Mechanic and has a shop in the Bari Bazar, Chaibasa. He saw his deceased son Md. Mobin with Jainul and Hameed going towards Famous Tailor. Earlier some altercation having taken place between the deceased and accused Hameed for a particular space for selling Shoe, Chappal etc. In Tatnagar, he also left towards Famous Tailor. He saw his deceased son Md. Mobin with Jainul and Hameed going towards Famous Tailor. Earlier some altercation having taken place between the deceased and accused Hameed for a particular space for selling Shoe, Chappal etc. In Tatnagar, he also left towards Famous Tailor. When he was about 15 feet away from the Tailor Shop, he saw the three accused, namely, Hameed, Nazir and Jainul talking with his son Mobin. Having seen him (the Informant), Jainul said that father of Md. Mobin is coming, kill Mobin immediately. Thereafter, Hameed took out a Pistol from his pocket and shot at his head. Md. Mobin immediately fell below the Chabutara of Famous Tailor. Thereafter all the three accused fled away from the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination, he (P.W. 8) accepted that there were large number of shops in and around Famous Tailor and there were many persons in the market, but he could not name even a single independent person who has seen the occurrence. The Informant also accepted that he has not seen the accused quarrelling with his, son Md. Mobin, just prior to occurrence. He further stated that he was not in a position to state whether Md. Mabin was shot at the back or the front of the head. 11. From the evidence of P.W. 8, it appears that the proprietor of Famous Tailor is one Md. Idrish, father of accused Nazir. P.W. 8 has stated that he had seen Md. Idrish, father of Nazir left the Bazar at about 6.30 P.M. That being the position, in absence of his father, if accused Md. Nazir was present in his 'Tailoring Shop i.e. Famous Tailor at the time of occurrence in absence of any specific motive, otherwise it is, but natural. 12. To find out whether the ocular evidence of solitary eye witness i.e. P.W. 8 corroborated by medical evidence or not, it is desirable to discuss the evidence of P.W. 6, Dr. D.M. Jha, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Md. Mobin. In his examination-in-chief, P.W. 6 stated that he performed the post mortem examination of Md. Mobin, aged about 26 years on 22nd December, 1994 and he found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. A gun shot injury between the eye brows. D.M. Jha, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Md. Mobin. In his examination-in-chief, P.W. 6 stated that he performed the post mortem examination of Md. Mobin, aged about 26 years on 22nd December, 1994 and he found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. A gun shot injury between the eye brows. The wound of entrance between eye-brows was of W' diameter and injury of exit below the occipital region of scalp was of 1" diameter. On dissection of head he found fracture of the frontal and occipital bone with Haematomae in the brain. Neck, chest and lungs were intact. Heart was empty. Stomach was also empty. Liver, spleen and kidney were intact and pale. Bladder was empty. The deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of aforesaid injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The doctor further stated that the fire shot might have been taken place from a short range. The injury found on the deceased suggests that injury was caused from front side of the deceased. 13. P.W. 9, Bhimsen Hansda, I.O. in his evidence indicated the place of occurrence of Kacchi road in front of verandah of Famous Tailor. He further stated that the Informant (P.W. 8) in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. never stated that Jainul having seen the Informant stated that the father of Md. Mobin is coming, kill Mobin immediately. The I.O. in his cross-examination accepted that the Chaibasa Muffasil Police Station is situated just besides the place of occurrence, where the Police always present. The statement of none of the police personnel of the Muffasil Police Station were taken and except the Informant (P.W. 8), no witness stated that he has heard the sound of fire. He further stated that if some body fires at the place of occurrence, the sound of such fire can be heard from the Muffasil Police Station. At Paragraph No. 21, the I.O. accepted that the place of occurrence in the Sanha i.e. 'Sadar Bazar' was penned through and it was changed to 'Sari Bazar'. While he stated that it was a mistake which was corrected, accepted that the station diary was not written by him and was written by one D.N. Singh who had not corrected the same. While he stated that it was a mistake which was corrected, accepted that the station diary was not written by him and was written by one D.N. Singh who had not corrected the same. The I.O. corrected the entry on 22nd December, 1994, without any information from Shri D.N. Singh. 14. In the present cases, there is only one solitary eye witness i.e. PW 8 and that too an interested witness being father of the deceased. There is no dispute that the conviction of an accused can be based on the testimony of the solitary witness, but it should be free from blemish so that it can be acted upon by the Court without insisting upon corroboration. It must inspire confidence and should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the eye witness. There is a major contradiction in the evidence of Informant (P.W. 8) with his own Fardbeyan. In his Fardbeyan, P.W. 8 stated that Hameed took out Pistol from his pocket and fired on the head of the deceased from his back, but in his cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that he had not seen whether the bullet hit the back side or front side of the head of his son. The medical evidence shows that the fire shot was taken from a short range from front side of the deceased. The evidence of the Informant (P.W. 8) is also contradictory with the evidence of P.W. 3, an independent witness who stated that Jainul and Nazir were not present at the place of occurrence. P.W. 5, Ansar Ali also stated that he never heard the involvement of Jainul and Nazir in the present case. 15. It has already been noticed that there is interpolation in the F.I.R., wherein the time of occurrence was changed from 16.45 P.M. to 18.45 P.M. The prosecution failed to give any explanation to the same. The change of time of occurrence raises doubt on the question whether the occurrence took place at that particular moment or not. The prosecution also failed to explain in spite of suggestion to the I.O. as to why no F.I.R. was lodged in the nearest Police Station i.e. Muffasil Police Station situated just by the side of the place of occurrence, even no sound of fire was heard by any person nor in the Police Station. The prosecution also failed to explain in spite of suggestion to the I.O. as to why no F.I.R. was lodged in the nearest Police Station i.e. Muffasil Police Station situated just by the side of the place of occurrence, even no sound of fire was heard by any person nor in the Police Station. The place of occurrence is also doubtful in view of over-writing in the Station Diary (Ext. 7), which is the first document relating to the occurrence. Therein the P.O. was originally shown as 'Sadar Bazar' but it was changed to 'Bari Bazar' on the next date i.e. 22nd December, 1994, not by the Officer, Shri D.N. Singh who made the entry in the Station Diary, but by the I.O., who had no authority to pen-through the Station Diary written by other Officer. It has also been noticed that the date of occurrence is of 21st December, 1994, the Fardbeyan was recorded on the same date and it was also registered on 21st December, 1994. In spite of the same why the F.I.R. was sent to the Magistrate on the 3rd day i.e. 23rd December, 1994 has not been explained by the prosecution. 16. From the aforesaid discussions, it will be evident that there is a solitary eye witness; he is an interested witness being father of the deceased; such evidence of the solitary eye witness is full of infirmities and contradictions; his ocular evidence is doubtful, it having interpolated in the F.I.R.; place of occurrence is also doubtful, in view of interpolation made in the Station Diary (Ext. 7). There is un-explained delay of 2 days in sending the F.I.R. to the Court of Magistrate. The learned court below has not considered all these aspects, resulting erroneous finding of conviction and sentence, passed against these appellants, which cannot be sustained in view of my above reasoning. 17. In the result, I find merit in these appeals, which are hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st August, 1998, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 132/95, arising out of Sadar P.S. case No. 78/94 (G.R. No. 626/ 94), are hereby set aside. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges. 18. As the appellant Md. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges. 18. As the appellant Md. Hameed of Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1998 (R) is in custody, he is ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. So far as the appellants, namely, Jainul Haque and Md. Nazir of Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1998 (R) are concerned, since they are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bond. Lakshman Uraon, J.- agree.