JUDGMENT : S.L. KOCHAR J. 1. By this appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants seek to challenge their conviction u/s 302 and 302/34 of the Indian penal Code and consequent sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for one month respectively/-, vide judgment dated 06.01.2006 passed in Special Case No. 72/2004 by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (For short, herein-after referred to as the Act) Dhar. 2. Prosecution case as put forth before the trial Court in nut shell is that on 01.06.2004 in the night at 2.00 AM complainant PW-4 Govind lodged a report Ex. P/9 at police Station to the effect that the complainant and his son Lal Singh were sitting outside their courtyard. At that juncture the appellants along with acquitted co-accused persons Mohan, Gulab, Sejal Bai, Madiya and Dharmendra, armed with Denga and stones came there and while abusing them filthily uttered that they would not allow the complainant party to install motor pump in the hand-pump and with intent to kill Lal Singh, co-accused Mohan, Gulab and Sejal Bai caught hold of Govind and Laxman Pressed his neck and started assaulting him by fists and kicks. Appellant Kolu with intent to kill Lal Singh struck Denga-blow on his head as a result of which Lal Singh struck Denga-blow on his head as a result of which Lal Singh became unconscious. Thereafter, the co-accused and appellants assaulted him by kicks and fists because of which Lal Singh sustained injuries on his abdomen and back. On hearing the cry, PW-5 Antar Singh, PW-3 chain Singh and one Shri Ram reached over there and made intervention. Police of Police Chowki Nisarpur registered Cr.No.41/04 for the offences punishable under sections 148,307 and 294 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused persons and sent the matter to PS. Kukshi for investigation where Kukshi Police registered Crime No. 174/04 and injured Lal Singh was sent to Primary Health Centre Nisarpur for examination and treatment where Lal Singh breathed his last His MLC report is Ex. P/1. Information of death of Lal Singh Ex.P/4 was sent by the doctor. On death of Lal Singh Section 302 of the Indian penal code was added. P/1. Information of death of Lal Singh Ex.P/4 was sent by the doctor. On death of Lal Singh Section 302 of the Indian penal code was added. Police reached to the hospital and prepared Panchnama Ex.P/6-A and after completion of inquest proceedings, dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-1 Dr Liladhar Pukwal who issued postmortem report Ex.P/3. Police prepared spot map Ex.P/7 and from the spot stones were seized, memorandum whereof is Ex.P/8. Statements of the witness acquainted with the facts of the case were recorded. On disclosure statement by appellant Kolu Ex.P/18, a Denga (heavy wooden stick) was seized. All the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P/21 and its report is Ex.P/22. On due investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for commission of the aforesaid offences. 3. Accused persons denied the charge and took the plea of their false implication. Their defence was that accused Mohan was having an electric motor and there was a dispute between the complainant party and the appellants in regard to use of electric motor in a public hand-pump in the village. According to them, acquitted co-accused persons Madiya and Mohan were assaulted by the complainant party for which they had lodged the report and were got medically examined by the police. In cross-examination of PW-7, their First Information Report, medical reports and spot map filed as Ex. D/l to D/4 were got proved it was argued on their behalf before the trial Court that the complainant party concocted a false case against them to save themselves from their prosecution, However. They did not examine any witness in defence. Learned trial Court after examining prosecution witness and hearing arguments of both the sides. While acquitting co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein-above. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire record carefully. 5. It is argued that the First Information Report Ex.P/9 is not a genuine piece of document and brought into existence later on after lodging of the report by the accused persons. It is also urged that there was no fair investigation because of which the entire prosecution case is liable to be thrown over the board. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. 7. It is also urged that there was no fair investigation because of which the entire prosecution case is liable to be thrown over the board. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. 7. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is gathered that the conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of four eye witnesses namely, PW-2 Hatribai, PW-3 Chain Singh, PW-4 Govind and PW-5 Antar singh learned trial Court sought corroboration to their testimony from medical evidence of PW-1 Dr. Liladhar Pukwa. 8. Ex.P/9 is the First Information Report shown to be lodged by PW-4 Govind in the Police Out post Nisarpur in the intervening night of 31st may and 1st June, 2004 at 2.00 AM recorded by PW-7 Sub Inspector Shri Premchand Bhalse. 9. PW-2 eye witness Hatribai-aunt of deceased Lal Singh has deposed that on the date of incident in the night at 8.00 PM, she herself, her father-in-law, Sathiya and mother-in-law Godawaribai were their in their house. The house of her brother-in-law PW-4 Govind was located nearby to her house At that moment, appellants and acquitted co-accused persons while hurling filthy abuse to Govind reached at his house where the deceased Lal Singh was also present Further say of this witness is that after hearing the out cry, she came out of her house and saw the appellant Laxman pressing the neck of Lal Singh had disclosed her about his injuries. In para 13, she has stated whereas appellant Kolu striking Denga-blow and acquitted co-accused persons pelting stones. She has also stated that her brother-in-law PW-3 Chain Singh, PW-5 Antar Singh and one Shri Ram had reached on the spot when the incident was over and they had taken Lal Singh and Govind on motor-cycle to Nisarpur. In cross-examination para 12 she has stated that Lal Singh was taken on motor cycle, and he was alive and speaking. Lal Singh that before taking Lal singh to Nisarpur, police had already reached in the village, inspected the assailants from deceased Lal Singh and Lal Singh had disclosed the names of all the accused person. According to this witness in the head-light of motor cycle police saw the injuries of Lal Singh. Lal Singh that before taking Lal singh to Nisarpur, police had already reached in the village, inspected the assailants from deceased Lal Singh and Lal Singh had disclosed the names of all the accused person. According to this witness in the head-light of motor cycle police saw the injuries of Lal Singh. Statement of this witness on this aspect not corroborated by any other withness including the police witnesses PW-6 S,S. Solanki PW-7 S.I. Shri Bhalse, PW-8 Jagdish Dawar and PW-9 Amrit Meena. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and she was also not re-examined on this point, therefore, the prosecution is bound by her statement. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Rajaram vs. State of Rajasthan [(2005) SCC (Cri) 1050 wherein in para 9 the Supreme Court has observed thus: 9. But the testimony of PW-B Dr Sukhdev Singh, who is another neighbour, cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in very clear terms that he saw PW-5 making the deceased believe that unless she puts the blame on the appellant and his parents she would have to face the consequences like prosecution proceedings. It did not occur to the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court to seek permission of the court to heard (sic declare) PW-8 as a hostile witness for reasons only known to him. Now, as it is, the evidence of PW-8 is binding on the prosecution. Absolutely no reason, much less any good reason, has been stated by the Division Bench of the High Court as to how PW-8's testimony can be sidelined. 10. In view of the aforesaid legal preposition, the prosecution is bound by the Statement of the prosecution witnesses who have not been declared hostile. 11. PW-3, eye-witness Chain Singh uncle of the deceased has deposed in his cross-examination that there was pelting of stones at the time of incident and stone of acquitted co-accused Mohan Sigh hit the deceased. At the same time, he also stated that appellant No.2 Kolu dealt a lathi blow on the head of deceased whereas the Autopsy Surgeon PW-1 Dr Liladhar Pukwal found only one injury on the head and underneath the said injury there was fracture of vertico parietal region. At the same time, he also stated that appellant No.2 Kolu dealt a lathi blow on the head of deceased whereas the Autopsy Surgeon PW-1 Dr Liladhar Pukwal found only one injury on the head and underneath the said injury there was fracture of vertico parietal region. In the light of these facts, it would be difficult to say whether injury on the skull of the deceased was caused by hitting of stone pelted by acquitted accused Mohan Singh or by lathi blow given by appellant No.2 Kolu. DR Pukwal also found fracture of hyoid bone and cause of death of deceased was asphyxia. PW-3 Chain Singh has also stated that when the incident was over, they had taken Lal Singh and PW-4 Govind on motor cycle to Nisarpur Police Outpost which was situated at the distance of five kilo meter and lodged the report at 9.00 PM. Thereafter, Lal Singh was sent to hospital for medical examination who fell unconscious after the incident. He has also stated that Lal Singh was taken to the hospital after 12.00 O'Clock in the night and on examination Doctor declared him dead whereas in the Police Outpost, he was in semi conscious condition. He has denied assaulting to one Sathia, accused Mohan Singh and madiya, but admitted his prosecution along with other persons on the basis of the report lodged by Mohan Singh. He has specifically denied lodging of any report in the Police Outpost at 2.00 AM. 12. Witness Chain Singh has also stated that he and one Shri Ram gone to Nisarpur Police Outpost and told the police about quarrel going on in the village and for sending police personnel or else there was possibility of some casualty. Further say of this witness is that along with them, in-charge of Outpost proceeded for the village, but the in-charge returned back before reaching to the village and on the way they met accused persons and villagers. It is also stated by this witness that after returning from the Police Outpost again they had gone to police Outpost taking the deceased Lal Singh and it was 9.00 O'Clock. It is also stated by this witness that after returning from the Police Outpost again they had gone to police Outpost taking the deceased Lal Singh and it was 9.00 O'Clock. According to this witness, for reaching to Police Outpost on motor cycle, it took four to five minutes and in the hospital, he had seen acquitted co-accused Madiya and Mohan Singh along with other villagers in the same night and his statement was recorded by the police after one or two days of the incident in the village when spot was inspected and map was prepared. This witness Chain Singh has also not been declared hostile by the prosecution or re-examined by the Public Prosecutor with regard to going twice to the police Out post and lodging the report in the night at 9.00 PM whereas the report Ex.P/9 was recorded at 2.00 AM of 1st June, 2004, as stated by its scribe PW-7 S.I. Shri Bhalse. 13. The eye-witness PW-4 Govind has deposed in para 5 of this examination-in-chief that after witnessing the incident and rescuing his brother they went to the police Outpost and returned back with Head Constable Maru, but Shri Maru had returned back seeing the accused persons coming from opposite direction and again his brother took him to Police Outpost along with deceased Lal Singh where he lodged the report Ex.P/9. In cross-examination, he admitted that the incident occurred at 8.00 PM which came to an end within ten to fifteen minutes. Thereafter, his brother PW-5 Chain Sihgh went to the Police Outpost Nisarpur with Shri Ram. At that time, they had not taken Lal Singh to police out post. According to this witness, his brother had gone to Police Outpost under the apprehension of further quarrel. Govind has specifically stated in para 13 that his report was recorded at 9.00 PM and not at 2.00 AM in the night and when the report was being written down, the accused Madiya and Mohan Singh were sitting in the Police Out post. He has also admitted that on the report lodged by Mohan Singh Police had registered the case against them and case was pending in Kukshi Court. In para 21 he has deposed that he had studied and passed fifth class. 14. He has also admitted that on the report lodged by Mohan Singh Police had registered the case against them and case was pending in Kukshi Court. In para 21 he has deposed that he had studied and passed fifth class. 14. PW-5 Antar Singh, the fourth eye-witness brother of the deceased, has stated that when Govind and his brother had gone to lodge the report, Lal Singh was not taken by them to the Police Out post and when police reached in the village, Lal singh was speaking, but was not in a position to disclose the names of the assailants. 15. On visualization of the statements of all the four eye-witnesses and lodger of the First Information Report PW-4 Govind, it is crystal clear that after the incident, they had gone to the Police Outpost and the deceased was not taken at that time, then why their report was not recorded by the Police by that time and Head Constable who was coming with them, returned beck to Police Outpost. Witness Govind and Chain Singh are very emphatic regarding lodging of the report at 9.00 PM, but at the same time, according to the report Ex.P/9. and its scribe PW-7 Sub Inspector Shri Bhalse, it was recorded on 01.06.04 at 2.00 AM whereas the report Ex.D/1 lodged at 1.10 AM by accused persons was earlier in point of time then the report Ex.P/9 lodged by the complainant. 16. It is also clear from the statement of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses that the police had come to the spot in the same night then, why the report was not recorded immediately when the distance of Police Outpost was 5 to 7 Kilo meters and the same could be crossed within five to ten minutes on motor cycle. In the case of Bachhu Narain Singh V/s Naresh Yadav (AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3055) the Supreme Court has discarded the prosecution case on the ground that though Investigation Officer had reached on the spot, but no report was lodged for one and a half hours when Investigation Officer was preparing inquest report. In the instant case, it appears that though both the parties had reached at the Police Out post at the same time but the police did not record their reports and after more than four hours their reports were recorded. In the instant case, it appears that though both the parties had reached at the Police Out post at the same time but the police did not record their reports and after more than four hours their reports were recorded. In such circumstance, the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses cannot be relied upon. The Supreme Court has considered the importance of the First Information Report in a Catina of judgments and in a recent judgment passed in the case of Remesh Baburao Devaskar and others V/s State of Maharashtra [(2009)1 SCC 212 and held as under: - 17. The principal question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the second first information report can be treated to be the first information report in relation to the incident and in any event any reliance can be placed thereupon. 18. An information received by the officer in charge of a police station for commission of a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing so as to enable him to start investigation. PW-13 met the investigating officer at the police station. He informed him about the incident. However, he did not disclose the details for whatever reason. First information report although need not be encyclopaedic, but in this case PW-9 did not say that he was not aware of the details. He named Accused 9. He disclosed about the murder of his brother, the alleged eye-witnesses had disclosed all the details about the incident to all whom they had met including another brother of the deceased viz. Baba Saheb. Why he did not lodge the first information report, has not been disclosed. 19. Strangely enough, the first information report was recorded at the spot. Panchnamas were also held immediately thereafter. Inquest penchnamas were taken. In the inquest report, only again Accused 9 was named. In the inquest panchnama, it was stared that the panchas felt that "the deceased was attacked by some unknown assailants with sharp-edged weapons and have stabbed and seriously injured him due to which he might have died." Why it was recorded like that is a mystery. 20. In the first information report, PW-11 was named as the only eyewitness to the occurrence. So for as PW-12 is concerned, he evidently was a chance witness. His name was not disclosed in the first information report. 21. 20. In the first information report, PW-11 was named as the only eyewitness to the occurrence. So for as PW-12 is concerned, he evidently was a chance witness. His name was not disclosed in the first information report. 21. Lodging of a first information report is necessary for setting the criminal law in motion. It can be lodged by any body. It however, should not be too sketchy so as to make initiation of investigation on the basis thereof impossible. Only information in regard to commission of an offence may not for all intent and purport satisfy the requirement of the first information report. When, however, the first information report is lodged by a person who clams himself to be aware of not only the commission of the offence. The name of the deceased and at least one of the accused who had committed the same, could have been recorded on the basis thereof. It may however, be another thing to say that any information in regard to commission of an offence is given by way of a telephonic or by person who does not disclose his identity and such message is so cryptic that it may not satisfy the requirement of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (See: OM Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal). 22. In the case at hand, all the witnesses have stated that immediately after the incident, when two witnessed had gone to the Police Outpost and gave information to the police then as to why their report was not recorded, remained unexplained. When Head Constable Maru was coming to village along with the eye-witnesses, he returned back to the police outpost on seeing the accused persons coming from opposite direction probably going to Police Outpost then why he did not go to the village. According to the lodger of the First Information Report, Govind and his brother eye-witness Chain Singh, report was lodged in the night at 9.00 PM whereas its scribe Sub Inspector Bhalsehas deposed that the report was lodged at 2.00 AM on the next day and this situation is not reconcilable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and under these circumstances, it is clear that the Investigation Officer was consuming time for giving shape to the prosecution case so as to make a case against as many as seven accused persons. In these circumstance, the version of the prosecution cannot be relied upon against the present appellants. 23. A reasonable presumption can also be raised that the report lodged by the complainant at 9.00 PM was suppressed because the same was not in the line of the prosecution case. 24. In the wake of the factual and legal analysis as aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, hence, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants as passed by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. Appellant No.2 Kolu is on bail his bail and surety bonds are discharged. Learned trial Court is directed to immediately set at liberty appellant No.1 Laxman, if not required in connection with any other criminal case. 25. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for immediate compliance.