JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 4-12-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 19(NL)/98 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the two accused-appellants under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default further imprisonment for one month. 2. On 20th March, 1996 Nasir Ali (P.W. 1) lodged a written F.I.R. before the Police stating inter alia that on the previous day at about 3 p.m., his son Md. Tamiruddin went to Jubanagar Bazar and did not return. Subsequently, the dead body of Md. Tamiruddin has been found lying in a field near the Bank of Shingira River, the hands and neck of the deceased were found tied with rope. 3. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Ganesh Saikia, who found as follows: (i) Bruise found round the wrist joint of both forehands; (ii) Ligature marks found round the neck and it was circular and continues 2 cm. in breadth; ligature knot was found. On dissection of the ligature marks, congestion was found below the skin of the ligature marks; (iii) There is frothing in the mouth and fluids were coming down from the nostrils. Injuries were anti-mortem. In my opinion, the deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. The ligature marks found on the neck may also be caused if a rope is fastened around the neck and then it is tightened. 4. In view of the overwhelming oral and medical evidences on record, the death of the deceased as such is not disputed and the finding of the trial Court that this is a case of homicide is also not challenged. 5. The incident took place in the year 1996, when Mustt. Tahura Khatoon P.W. 2 was 7 (seven) years old and she has deposed that her father, the deceased and her mother lived together along with her and the other accused-Gajibur Rahman was a neighbour. She further deposed that on the night of occurrence, her mother and Gajibur Rahman killed her father by tying a rope around her father's neck and also tied the hands with rope and thereafter, the two accused persons took away the dead body to the river side. She further deposed that on the night of occurrence, her mother and Gajibur Rahman killed her father by tying a rope around her father's neck and also tied the hands with rope and thereafter, the two accused persons took away the dead body to the river side. On seeing the incident, she tried to scream, but Gajibur Rahman asked her to keep her mouth shut by showing a dagger. 6. In the present case, there is no eyewitness except P.W. 2. P.W. 1 is the grand father of the P.W. 2 and they used to reside in the same compound. The factum of alleged witnessing of the incident by P.W. 2 was not disclosed by her for nearly three months, as disclosed by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and during the period of this three months, she resided with her mother and grand father and the prosecution has not given any explanation as to why she remained mum for long three months. 7. The father of the victim was prompt enough to lodge the F.I.R. on the very next day of the incident and he has also deposed that P.W. 2 disclosed before him after three months that her mother and the other accused Gajibur killed her father. However, P.W. 1 remained silent and did not immediately convey this information to Police; the information was conveyed only on 1-4-1997 i.e. after 13 (thirteen) months of the incident. We have checked up the case diary and find that the statements of Mustt. Khatijan Khatoon was recorded by Police on 1-4-1997. It is not a case of negligence, either intentional or not, on the part of the Police as we know that the negligence of Investigating Police Officer does not adversely affect the prosecution. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were very specific that disclosure regarding alleged involvement of two accused per-sons was made after three months, but thereafter also, P.W. 2 was not taken to Po-lice Station. Where eye-witnesses are examined by Police after long delay, the prosecution is bound to explain the reasons, for de-lay. 8. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were very specific that disclosure regarding alleged involvement of two accused per-sons was made after three months, but thereafter also, P.W. 2 was not taken to Po-lice Station. Where eye-witnesses are examined by Police after long delay, the prosecution is bound to explain the reasons, for de-lay. 8. In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Indira Gandhi murder case), the Apex Court observed "it is well settled that even delay is said to be dangerous and if a person with an important witness does not open his mouth for a long time, his evidence is always look with suspicion." In the case of Lalli alias Chiranjib Bhowmick v. State of West Bengal reported in 1986 CriLJ 1083, the statement of the witness was recorded after 56 days and the trial Court, as well as the High Court being satisfied about the clear, cogent and satisfactory explanation, accepted the evidence in spite of the delay of 56 days and the Apex Court refused to interfere holding that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely because the statements was recorded belatedly by Police. In some cases, the delay may be intentional on the part of the Investigating Agency however, it is required to explain the delay and if the delay is properly explained, it may not have any adverse effect. 9. Now coming to the case in hand, the fact that P.W. 2 the teenaged daughter of the deceased, kept mum for three months and did not disclose anything about the incident although that she was alone with her grand father soon after the incident and thereafter also lived with them and that she might have been frightened by the threatening given by one of the accused persons, the delay of three months can be accepted as explained though not satisfactorily. How-ever, for the subsequent delay of 10 months, when P.W. 2 did not inform the matter to the Police or disclose about the witnessing of the incident by P.W. 2, prosecution has not came up with any explanation whatsoever. 10. In the case of Palanisami v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1986 SC 593 , there was a delay of three days on the part of the eye-witnesses to disclose the incident and the Apex Court held that the evidence of such witnesses is doubt-ul. 10. In the case of Palanisami v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1986 SC 593 , there was a delay of three days on the part of the eye-witnesses to disclose the incident and the Apex Court held that the evidence of such witnesses is doubt-ul. The learned trial Court has not examined this aspect of the matter. In view of the non-explanation of the reasons for delay on the part of P.W. 2 as well as P.W. 1 in not disclosing names of the culprits for long 13 (thirteen) months, we have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that the evidence of P.W. 2 is not at all reliable and in the light of the settled provision of law, ought to be rejected outright, which we do. 11. If the evidence of P.W. 2 is discarded, there remains the confession of the accused-Musst. Khatijan Khatoon, widow of the de-ceased. The relevant portion of the confession reads as follows: Accd. Gajibur has married my husband's sister. He is a regular visitor to our house. He had been trying to run away with me since a year before the occurrence. I, too, had been willing. My husband had asked me not to do it. One night, after the Ramzan Idd before the last and before Bakri Idd, I and Gajibur caught my husband who was sleeping on bed. Gajibur strangulated him with rope, while I held his feet. My husband died. Then two of us carried the body to a nearby field and left it there. After that, I made a false statement to the Court as tutored by Gajibur. Now Gajibur does not want to marry me. For that reason, I have spoken the truth. I am repenting. The above confession has been retracted by the deponent and she examined herself as P.W. 3 by stating that the confession was made under coercion of the two brothers of the deceased-husband, who had tried to sexually exploit her after the death of her husband and she was forced/coerced to make the statement before Magistrate with the help of Police. 12. The recording of the confession shows the sorry state of affairs; the incident of murder took place on the evening of 19th March, 1996, the disclosure was made by P.W. 2 on 1-4-1997 and the accused-Khatija Khatoon was arrested as an accused on 28-7-1997. 12. The recording of the confession shows the sorry state of affairs; the incident of murder took place on the evening of 19th March, 1996, the disclosure was made by P.W. 2 on 1-4-1997 and the accused-Khatija Khatoon was arrested as an accused on 28-7-1997. It may be mentioned here that her statement was earlier recorded by the Po-lice as witness under Section 161, Cr. P.C. on 21-3-1996 itself. There is no evidence or material on record to show that from the date of occurrence till her arrest after long 16 months, she was absconding or that she was not available; on the contrary, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 shows that the accused-Khatija Khatoon all along resided with them; prosecution has failed to explain this delay. Coming to the confession statement, we find that the Magistrate P.W. 10 did not inquire from the accused as to why she wants to make a confession. The learned Magistrate even failed to assure her that in case she declines to confess, she will not be sent back to Police custody. The assurance is required to be given under the law and it was needed more in this case as we find from the confession that she was kept in Police custody from 26th July, 1997 to 28th July, 1997 and the confession was recorded on 28-7-1997, on the very date, on which she was produced before the Magistrate. 13. There is another aspect of the matter also. In the FIR, it was stated that the deceased had gone to the Bazar and he did not return on the evening of 19th March, 1996. The learned counsel for the appellants have drawn our attention to the seizure list Exhibit 4 and the oral evidence to show that when the dead body was recovered at the field, a plastic bag used for the purpose of shopping along with 1 kg. of salt in a polythene bag, a pair of Hawai Sandals, couple of betel nuts and a few tobacco leaves were found lying near the dead body. The recovery of these articles clearly show that the deceased did go to Bazar and on his return after shopping the incident took place. On the other hand, the delayed statement of P.W. 2 and delayed confession of accused-Khatiza has something in common. The recovery of these articles clearly show that the deceased did go to Bazar and on his return after shopping the incident took place. On the other hand, the delayed statement of P.W. 2 and delayed confession of accused-Khatiza has something in common. The place of occurrence is shifted to the residence, otherwise accused-Khatiza could not have been entangled, and as such it was stated that the dead body was carried from the home to the field, but in that case, there was no scope for recovery of articles near the dead body. Considering the fact that the two accused persons are illiterate, unsophisticated simple villagers, it is unthinkable that they will place these articles near the dead body to mislead the Police. Moreover, P.W. 2 has also not stated that while the accused person carried the dead body, they also carried salt in a polythene bag, a couple of betel nuts and a few tobacco leave etc. In view of what has been stated above, we refuse to accept the confession statement as voluntary and true. 14. In the result, we find that there is no evidence against the two accused-appellants. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the two accused persons are acquitted, they be released forthwith from the custody if not wanted in any other case. Send down the records. Appeal allowed