JUDGMENT Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.:- Sri Lalit Kishore, Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General-I appears in view of the earlier direction of this Court dated 21.12.2011 wherein this Court has directed the Senior Counsel of Bihar School Examination Board to authenticate the date of birth of the appellant and file a report in this regard. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General-I has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board and submitted that duplicate certificate showing the date of birth of the appellant to be on 25.5.1969 is correct. 3. Heard learned lawyers for the parties. 4. The appeal has been preferred by sole appellant, Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.1989 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 236/52 of 1987 whereby the appellant was held guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Other two accused persons, namely, Akhileshwar Prasad @ Paryag Prasad and Ratneshwar Prasad were given the benefit of doubt and they were acquitted. 5. The prosecution case relates to an occurrence of 21.6.1986. At 5.30 a.m. fard beyan (Ext. 4) with regard to the occurrence was given by P.W. 5 Radhika Prasad before Sub-Inspector Hari Lal Yadav ( P.W. 6) of Garakha Police Station on 21.6.1986 at Garakha Bazar wherein he stated that his son Pashupati Nath Gupta (deceased) accompanied the informant to their utensil shop. When they were coming to their shop, the villagers Vishwanath Prasad (died during trial) and Akhileshwar Prasad @ Prayag Prasad (since acquitted) were catching Pashupati Nath Gupta in front of the shop and Ratneshwar Prasad (since acquitted) and Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad (appellant) were standing there. Ratanesh Prasad instigated upon which Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad repeatedly stabbed on Pashupati Nath Gupta causing injuries upon his chest, left hand, right chick and back. On hulla, Ganesh Prasad (P.W. 2), Birendra (P.W. 3) and others came and witnessed the occurrence. The motive of killing was a dispute between the informant and Vishwanath Prasad. Fard beyan was witnessed by Mundrika Prasad and Uma Shankar Prasad. Fard beyan led to registration of formal FIR (Ext. 1) of Garakha P. S. Case No. 83 of 1986 dated 21.6.1986 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Fard Beyan reached the Court on 23.6.1986. 6. The motive of killing was a dispute between the informant and Vishwanath Prasad. Fard beyan was witnessed by Mundrika Prasad and Uma Shankar Prasad. Fard beyan led to registration of formal FIR (Ext. 1) of Garakha P. S. Case No. 83 of 1986 dated 21.6.1986 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Fard Beyan reached the Court on 23.6.1986. 6. In course of investigation blood stained soil (Ext. 7) and digger (Ext. 6) which was alleged used, were seized, inquest report (Ext. 5) was prepared, post mortem report (Ext. 2) was obtained, statement of witnesses were taken, the case was found to be true and the charge-sheet was submitted. The case was triable by the court of sessions so after observing paraphernalia it was committed to the Court of Session where charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was explained to this appellant and three others to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty, so the trial proceeded. 7. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication on account of enmity from before. Their further defence was that in fact, Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad was mercilessly assaulted and remained unconscious from the date of occurrence. He was apprehended by the police on the same date but for the first time he was sent to the judicial custody on 10th July 1986 and it was a case of gross violation of human rights. The police had failed to explain as to why the appellant was not sent to the judicial custody though he was arrested on the date of the occurrence. He stated that at the time of arrest he was unconscious and having a number of serious injuries. 8. In course of trial, Vishwanath Prasad died at the fag end, so trial against him was abated. The other accused persons, namely, Akhileshwar Prasad @ Paryag Prasad and Ratneshwar Prasad were not found guilty and they were acquitted but the appellant alone was found guilty. 9. This Court is to see as to whether the prosecution had been able to prove charge against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt or not. 10. In order to substantiate the its case the prosecution had examined P.W. 1 Zahir Hassan, P.W. 2 Ganesh Prasad Singh, P.W. 3 Birendra Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Dr. Shidheshwar Prasad, P.W. 5 Radhika Prasad, P.W. 6 Harilal Yadav and P.W. 7 Jugeshwar Singh. 10. In order to substantiate the its case the prosecution had examined P.W. 1 Zahir Hassan, P.W. 2 Ganesh Prasad Singh, P.W. 3 Birendra Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Dr. Shidheshwar Prasad, P.W. 5 Radhika Prasad, P.W. 6 Harilal Yadav and P.W. 7 Jugeshwar Singh. The defence has examined D.W. 1 Rajendra Prasad, D.W.2 Dr. R. K. Sinha, D.W. 3 Vishwanath Singh, D.W. 4 Dinesh Kumar Singh, and D.W. 5 D. N. Singh. 11. D.W. 3 was an employee in Saran Treasury and he was examined to verify the arrival of Vishwanath Prasad in the attendance register (Ext. D), a person who is not in the appeal so he does not require separate discussion. 12. P.W. 4 has conducted the post-mortem examination upon the dead body of Pashupati Nath Gupta, son of Radhika Prasad of village Bibipur, P. S. Garkha District Saran. The dead body was identified by Constable No. 663 Deonarain Pathak and Dafadar Mahesh Rai (not examined). The doctor at the time of post-mortem examination i.e. 12.15 P.M. on 21.6.1986 has found following ante mortem injury:- (i) A sharp penetrating would 1 ¼” X ½” X left auricle of the heart deep on the front of the chest over the sternum, just below the root of the neck in front with collection of about 1 ½ pint of blood with mediastinum and chest cavity on the left side. (ii) Sharp punctured would 1 ½”X 1/2” muscle deep on the left side of the neck above the clavicle. (iii) Sharp punctured would 1 ¼” X ¾” bone deep on the front of the left elbow. (iv) Sharp punctured would 1” X ¼” muscle deep on the right side of the check over the mandible. (v) Sharp punctured would 1 ½” X ¼” muscle deep on the check right side in front of right ear. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged pointed weapon, may be by Chhura. Injury no. 1 was grievous and fatal in nature and rest injuries were simple in nature. Death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of injuries. Death was within 12 hours. 13. It appears that the inquest report supports the post-mortem report and the cause of death has been stated to be dagger injuries which Pashupati Nath Gupta received. Therefore, inquest report supports the manner of death of Pashupati Nath Gupta. Death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of injuries. Death was within 12 hours. 13. It appears that the inquest report supports the post-mortem report and the cause of death has been stated to be dagger injuries which Pashupati Nath Gupta received. Therefore, inquest report supports the manner of death of Pashupati Nath Gupta. The death of Pashupati Nath Gupta by use of digger is not in question which is apparent from the trend of cross-examination rather it has been stated that the death was caused in another manner. 14. Once it had been established that Pashupati Nath Gupta had met with a violent death due to use of sharp cutting instrument then the prosecution is required to establish that the offence was committed by the accused, and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing this then it would be apparent that the prosecution has succeeded in proving charge. 15. P.W. 1 has proved writing of the formal FIR and P.W. 7 has proved the writing and endorsement of a letter (Ext. 9) of Malkhana Incharge. Therefore, these two witnesses are of formal nature. 16. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the informant and other witnesses. P.W. 2 is the resident of Kadana which according to him, (in para 8) was three kilometer away from the place of occurrence. At 5.30 a.m. he was going to Chapra on a cycle and when he heard some cry then he went to the shop of Radhika Prasad Sah and saw Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad stabbing Pashupati Nath Gupta. Vishwanath Prasad, Prayag Prasad and Ratanesh were also there. According to this witness, Prayag Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad at that time were catching Pashupati Nath Gupta and at the behest of Ratanesh the present appellant gave digger blow to Pashupati Nath Gupta. According to him, occurrence was witnessed by Birendra (P.W. 3), Prabhu Nath (Not examined) and other local persons. He tried to explain the injury of present appellant Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad and stated that he was chased and mercilessly assaulted by market people. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this witness is not worth reliable and for the first time before trial court in his evidence he had tried to explain the injury of present appellant where he had stated that Pappu was assaulted by local persons. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this witness is not worth reliable and for the first time before trial court in his evidence he had tried to explain the injury of present appellant where he had stated that Pappu was assaulted by local persons. This fact is not in the fard beyan which is undoubtedly not an encyclopedia. The attention has been drawn towards the evidence of Investigating Officer whose attention was drawn towards the statement of P.W. 2. Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) in para 12 stated that P.W. 2 had not stated that Anant was assaulted there. Therefore, P.W. 2 brought the fact of assault of Anant by local people for the first time before the Court. 18. Learned counsel has also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 who in para 13 has stated that Vishwanath Prasad, Radhika Prasad and Rajendra Prasad are full brothers and Radhika Prasad is the informant of the case. Pashupati Nath Gupta is the son of Radhika Prasad whereas Prayag and Rajesh are sons of Vishwanath Prasad. Therefore, the accused as well as the prosecution party are members of the same family which is not under dispute. He has further elaborated that Pappu was caught by the police on the date of the occurrence and was taken away by them and at that time Pappu was going on foot. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) who in para 10 has stated that accused Anant Kumar Brahmchari was injured and unconscious. After having been arrested, Anant Kumar was sent to hospital with constable Alexendar Ekka and constable Dhanichhan Singh (not examined). Therefore, two versions with regard to the arrest of the appellant have come. P.W. 2 has stated that the accused had gone on his own foot but Investigating Officer has stated that the accused was unconscious and was not in a position to move. 20. P.W. 2 apparently has contradicted the Investigating Officer on various issues. 21. P.W. 3 initially supported the prosecution case when he had stated that after hearing cry he went to the place of occurrence and found the present accused Pappu stabbing Pashupati. Dagger which was allegedly used in stabbing was thrown by Pappu at the place of occurrence. He had not explained the role of others and later on he was declared hostile. Dagger which was allegedly used in stabbing was thrown by Pappu at the place of occurrence. He had not explained the role of others and later on he was declared hostile. This witness had tried to exonerate others and concentrated himself only on Pappu. If his manner is accepted, then it will make another case, according to which only one person was present and was causing injuries. The evidence of P.W. 3 that at the time of assault Pashupati Nath Gupta was caught hold by other persons stands falsified. Therefore, the manner of occurrence described by P. Ws. 2 and 3 are quite contradictory. 22. P.W. 5 is the informant and he has stated that he saw Vishwanath Prasad @ Prayag Prasad catching both hands of his son. Ratanesh Prasad and Anant Kumar Brahmchari @ Pappu Prasad were standing there. Ratanesh instigated to assault and thereafter, Pappu Prasad gave 5-6 dagger blows causing injury upon various parts of the body of his son, as a result of which he fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Birendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 3), Ganesh Prasad (P.W. 2) and Prabhu (not examined). The motive of the occurrence was an enmity with Vishwanath Prasad with whom this witness had a criminal case. Later on, this witness came to know that Pappu Prasad had been assaulted by people of Garakha Bazar. He has described that at the time of assault his son was caught hold by two accused. 23. Attention has been drawn towards the fact that this informant for the first time in his evidence in the Court had tried to explain the injury upon the Pappu because he had not stated before I. O. that Pappu was assaulted by the people of Garakha Bazar. 24. Pappu was examined by D.W. 2 who was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital Chapra. On 21.6.1986 at 10.20 a.m. the doctor has found the following injuries on his person:- (i) Multiple bruise of varying sizes between 1 ½” X ½” to 2” x ½” on both sides of back scapular region lower side of back. (ii) Lacerated injury 1 ½” X ½” X muscle deep on much inner aspect of right thumb. (iii) Punctured wound 1” X ½” X ¼” depth present on lower region of left mastoid bone. (ii) Lacerated injury 1 ½” X ½” X muscle deep on much inner aspect of right thumb. (iii) Punctured wound 1” X ½” X ¼” depth present on lower region of left mastoid bone. (iv) lacerated wound 1 ½” X ½” x muscle deep on lower side of left occipital region. (v) Multiple bruises of varying sizes between 1 ½” X ½” to 2” X ½” on left and right shoulder both upper and lower arms of both hands. (vi) Bruise on left chin ¼” X ¼”. (vii) Diffused painful inflammation on right and left wrist joint and elbow joint. (viii) Clotted blood on left nostril. The age of injury was within six hours. Opinion reserved on the injury no. (iii) and (iv) till receipt of X-ray report. Other injuries were found to be simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Later on, after receipt of X-ray plate (Ext. C and C/1) injury no. (iii) and (iv) were found to be grievous in nature and injury no. (iii) was caused by sharp edged weapon such as chhura. Plates were marked as Ex. X and X/1 for identification. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards various inconsistencies in the prosecution version in evidence. It has been submitted that the material exhibits were not produced and there was a lame excuse for non-production when it was explained that the registers have been destroyed because those had become old. The occurrence is of June 1986 and the judgment has been delivered hardly within three years of occurrence. Therefore it is definitely a lame excuse to say that the registers containing material exhibits were destroyed. Non- production of Malkhana register cannot be accepted and if prosecution comes with a case then onus is upon it to establish the manner of occurrence. 26. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that due to certain mini inconsistencies the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. If Malkhana entry register is not proved, it is not enough to doubt the prosecution version. 27. The case which has come on record is that the appellant was arrested while he was unconscious having several injuries upon his person. He was arrested on the date of occurrence itself. There are two versions of apprehension of the appellant. P.W. 6 in para 10 stated that Pappu was unconscious. 27. The case which has come on record is that the appellant was arrested while he was unconscious having several injuries upon his person. He was arrested on the date of occurrence itself. There are two versions of apprehension of the appellant. P.W. 6 in para 10 stated that Pappu was unconscious. P.W. 2 in para 18 submited that Pappu was roaming. These are two contradictory versions and both cannot be read together. Here the prosecution is trying to conceal something. One fact which has come on record is that Pappu was apprehended on the date of occurrence i.e. on 21.6.1986. Despite best efforts Investigating Officer could not explain whereabouts of the appellant between 21.6.1986 to 10.7.1986 because for the first time Pappu was produced on 10.7.1986. It is a case of serious nature and the prosecution had utterly failed to explain the whereabouts of the apprehended accused, namely, the appellant between 21.6.1986 to 10.7.1986. The appellant has also received injuries on the same date and at least two injuries were grievous in nature. The injuries were such that those could not be fabricated. It was duty upon the prosecution to establish as to in what manner the accused has also received injury and it should have been mentioned in the FIR itself or if this fact could not be incorporated in FIR then the witnesses who were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. must have given account as to how Pappu was injured but that fact was brought on record for the first time during the stage of evidence. 28. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 21.6.1986 but it was sent to the Court on 23.6.1986. The mandate of law under Section 157 Cr.P.C. is clear and it mandates that FIR should be sent ‘forthwith’. If the FIR is not sent ‘forthwith’ then there must be some explanation on the record. The purpose of sending FIR to the Court ‘forthwith’ is that the Magistrate who is incharge of the case must remain aware about the progress of the investigation. If no prejudice is caused to the accused, then it is not fatal but when it appears that something has been concealed then the FIR becomes a suspicious peace of document. The purpose of sending FIR to the Court ‘forthwith’ is that the Magistrate who is incharge of the case must remain aware about the progress of the investigation. If no prejudice is caused to the accused, then it is not fatal but when it appears that something has been concealed then the FIR becomes a suspicious peace of document. If no explanation is given for delay in sending the report to the Magistrate then this is the circumstance which provides legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded not in the manner and if recorded the correct version has been suppressed. The facts of the present case show that Anant Kumar Brahmchari & Pappu Prasad was apprehended while he was lying unconscious having grievous injury. The date of occurrence is not in dispute but the onus is always upon the prosecution to establish injury of either side also. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kashiram & Ors vs. the State of M.P., reported in 2002 (1) SCC 71 wherein it has been submitted that if the injuries sustained by the accused in the same incident in which prosecution side has also suffered injuries, is not explained then this itself would not be enough to discard prosecution case outrightly, but if it comes that the injuries which were received were of serious nature then the prosecution is definitely required to show the manner in which the accused had also received injury. The non-explanation of injury of the accused goes to the root of the case and it creates doubt that the prosecution had not given the true version of occurrence. The trial court had also disbelieved the major part of the occurrence and had acquitted others who were also attributed some overtact by the witnesses. The manner of occurrence had also been contradicted. 30. The trial court had also disbelieved the major part of the occurrence and had acquitted others who were also attributed some overtact by the witnesses. The manner of occurrence had also been contradicted. 30. Considering the facts and circumstances it is apparent that grievous injuries caused upon the accused have not been explained, there is contradiction between the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 when one said that Pappu was going on his own foot and others contradicted this saying that Pappu was unconscious, non-explanation of whereabouts of the appellant between 21.6.1986 to 10.7.1986, fake explanation that Malkhana entry register had been lost, non-production of material exhibits, FIR sent to the Magistrate after two days and non-examination of independent witnesses are enough which create doubt with regard to the prosecution version of the occurrence. 31. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and are ordered to be discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appeal allowed.