JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 54/1979 (7 of 1980). The prosecution case started with the lodging of the F.I.R. at Police Station Jayal. The report was sent by Shri Om Prakash Godara to the Station House Officer, Jayal camp Rol on 22.4.1979 at at about 6.50 P.M. to Shri Pritom Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Jayal, Pritom Singh, on receipt of this report, sent it with Azim Khan to the Police Station, Jayal and the case was registered at Jayal on 22.4.1979. 2. According to the contents of the report, it was stated that on 22.4.1979 a bus was proceeding from Nagaur to Sujangarh. The bus was being driven by PW-6 Hanumana Ram and Man Singh was its conductor. At that time in that bus PW-2 Mangtu, PW-5 Salimuddin and PW-10 Bhanwaru Khan apart from other persons were travelling. When the bus arrived at about 5 p.m. Near the road at Rol Choraha, at that time all the nine accused persons stopped the bus forcibly and accused Kalu, Puna and Bhanwaru boarded the bus and asked whether there is any Mohammedan belonging to the road. At that time, Shankarlal pointed towards the Deceased Sabir Ahmad. The accused Puna caught hold the deceased and the accused Kalu and Bhanwaru started giving beatings to him. PW-2 Mangtu Khan tried to rescue Sabar Ahmad and then he was also given beatings. 3. The three accused persons Puna, Kalu and Shankarlal pushed Sabar Ahmed and got it down from the bus. The other accused persons were standing on ground. All the nine accused persons started giving beating to the deceased by slaps and fists. The bus driver was threatened to drive away the bus. Tire bus driver took the bus on Road towards Mundwa Choraha where Police constable Ram Jiwan was there. PW-1 Ram Jiwan was informed by PW-2 Mangtu and PW-10 Bhanwaru about the incident on which Ramjiwan advised them to make a report to the Police. 4. Thereafter, the witnesses and the bus left. PW-1 Ram Jiwan went to the police check post Rol there he met PW-7 Om Prakash Godara, and Ramswaroop, ASI who were posted there in connection with communal rights to maintain peace. PW-7 Om Prakash Godara after receiving the information started for the spot. 4. Thereafter, the witnesses and the bus left. PW-1 Ram Jiwan went to the police check post Rol there he met PW-7 Om Prakash Godara, and Ramswaroop, ASI who were posted there in connection with communal rights to maintain peace. PW-7 Om Prakash Godara after receiving the information started for the spot. He saw the dead body of Sabar Ali at a distance of about 100 yards. PW-7 Om Prakash Goadara in his turn sent the F.I.R. (Ex.P.-7) with Ramswaroop, A.S.I. and then Ramswaroop gave the report to Shri Pritom Singh, S.H.O., Jayal and thus the information was recorded. After recording the F.I.R. investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons. The case was made over to the trial Court, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 147-A and 302/149 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial 15 witnesses were examined. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied their complicity and stated that a day prior to the incident there was firing on the Hindu community and in that retaliation this false case has been foisted against the accused persons. 5. After considering the case of the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused appellant of the charges levelled against them and sentenced them as under: Under Section Conviction and sentence Fine In default 302/149 I.P.C. Life imprisonment Rs. 100 each To undergo 3 months' R.I. 147 I.P.C. One year's R.I. -do- -do- 6. Learned counsel for the accused appellants stated that the case is based on the testimony of three eye-witnesses PW-2 Mangtu, PW-5 Salimuddin and PW-10 Bhanwaru Khan. The incident was of 22.4.1979. The statement of these police witnesses were recorded by the Police not immediately i.e. on 22.4.1979. The statement of PW-2 Mangtu was recorded on 23.4.1979 and the statement of PW-5 Salimuddin was recorded on 6.5.1979 and Bhanwaru Khan is the witness who has been said to have turned hostile as stated by the trial Court. Thus, out of the three eye-witnesses Bhanwaru Khan stands excluded being not a witness who has supported the prosecution case. According to the statement of Bhanwaru Khan it is stated that none of the accused entered into the bus, there is none of the accused persons who beat the deceased among the accused persons. 7. Thus, out of the three eye-witnesses Bhanwaru Khan stands excluded being not a witness who has supported the prosecution case. According to the statement of Bhanwaru Khan it is stated that none of the accused entered into the bus, there is none of the accused persons who beat the deceased among the accused persons. 7. We have to see the credibility of the remaining two witnesses PW-2 Mangtu and PW-5 Salimuddin, PW-5 Salimuddin was examined by the prosecution on 6.5.1979. The time period is more than two weeks. If a witness is examined after two weeks then his testimony becomes doubtful on the account of his being examined late. His late examination is the handicap against this witness. The trial Court has described him to be a man of less understanding and of a weak character. Thus, seeing his late examination and being of weak character it can safely be said that he was hardly a witness who can be relied at all. 8. As regards PW-2 Mangtu Khan it is submitted that he is said to be the person who has informed the Police officials about the complicity of the accused in the murder. According to police papers first of all it was Ram Jiwan who received information. According to the statement of Ramjeevan Ex.D/1 it was some passenger in the bus who informed him of the incident. The informant was not identified as PW-2 Mangtu and thus, the fact that the person receiving information has not said that Mangtu was the person who identified him then his claim that he gave information to Ram Jiwan becomes doubtful. 9. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court has attempted to criticize by saying that at-least in the F.I.R. this witness is named and may be that Ramjeevan was examined after a long period and that has given a memory lapse to him but Om Prakash Godara has been named him in the F.I.R. Ex.P.-8. The trial Court has missed the important aspect that while he made enquiries he was informed by the Conductor of the bus about the incident. Then he says that two other persons informed him and their names have been said to be Bhanwaru and Mangtu. This attempt in the F.I.R. shows that the prosecution has tried to introduce eye-witness in a fashion. Then he says that two other persons informed him and their names have been said to be Bhanwaru and Mangtu. This attempt in the F.I.R. shows that the prosecution has tried to introduce eye-witness in a fashion. Out of the two named persons one has turned hostile and another has not been named in the first instance by Ram Jiwan therefore, second one deserves to be excluded. There is no other evidence supporting the prosecution case and therefore, the trial Court has fallen in error in believing the testimony of PW-2 Mangtu and PW-5 Salimuddin in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is related to communal disturbances wherein two persons were killed earlier. The witnesses could not be easily available for such cases and in that background whatever witnesses were available have rightly been considered by the trial Court for convicting and sentencing the accused appellants. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given out thoughtful consideration. Out of three eye-witnesses which has been produced by the prosecution. PW-10 Bhanwaru has turned hostile, therefore, he deserves no consideration because there is nothing in his evidence which supported the prosecution case. The case rests on the two witnesses PW-2 Mangtu and PW-5 Salimuddin, one of them has received two bruises in the process of rescuing the deceased. 12. If the prosecution story as alleged is taken to be true and the mob of the accused were out to eliminate the member of other community' then Mangtu could not have been left with simply two bruises. He was also of the same community to which Sabir Ahmed belonged and he has tried to rescue him. Number of the accused as alleged as sizable and therefore, kind of injuries do not speak that he had received the bruises in that incident. Further he has not been named by Ramjiwan in his police statement. The police officials who is being examined by the prosecution and if Ramiwan does not named him, it goes a long way. There arises whether he. was present or not. The kind of story which has come in the F.I.R. it was the conductor who is said to have informed to Om Prakash and only subsequently name of the witnesses have been incorporated. Thus, it is very difficult to believe the testimony of Mangtu without corroboration. There arises whether he. was present or not. The kind of story which has come in the F.I.R. it was the conductor who is said to have informed to Om Prakash and only subsequently name of the witnesses have been incorporated. Thus, it is very difficult to believe the testimony of Mangtu without corroboration. Further, he was not examined on 22.4.1979 itself when he was available to be examined in bus. He was examined next day. In that light without there being corroboration, we are not prepared to accept his testimony. 13. The next witness PW-5 Salimuddin who was examined roughly 15 days after the incident the trial Court has branded this witness of a weak character. A witness of a weak character and examined late is hardly considered in criminal jurisprudence a witness on whom implicit reliance can be placed. PW-2 Mangtu and PW-5 Salimuddin being the infirm witnesses cannot be considered to be the witnesses available to support the prosecution case independently. 14. An infirm witness cannot corroborate the another infirm witness and therefore, testimony of PW-2 Mangtu and PW-5 Salimuddin cannot be considered to be one which is appropriate to corroborate each other. This may also be considered important here that the report was lodged on 22.4.2007 and it reached to the Magistrate on 25.4.2007. This delay though has not been considered important by the trial Court but it is very important in the background that the witnesses have been examined late. The name of the accused and witnesses were very important and during intervening time of 22.4.2007 and 23.4.2007 it was made up to implicate the accused persons falsely. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not prepared to place implicit reliance on the testimony of PW-2 Mangtu and PW-5 Salimuddin to maintain the conviction. There is no other evidence to support the prosecution case and in that background, we are left with no alternate then to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons are granted benefit of doubt and conviction and sentence as recorded against them is set aside. They are on bail. They are not required to surrender to their bail bonds. 'Their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******