JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellant is absent. We, therefore, appoint Ms. Shrestha Priya, who is on the panel of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 5th March, 2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.326 of 1997 whereby the present appellant-accused has been punished for an offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code for life imprisonment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.1997 at 10.00 a.m., the informant Bamia Champia (PW.1) gave fardbeyan to police that yesterday on Sunday the informant had gone to his field for ploughing the field in the morning and his daughter-in-law Sombari Kui (PW.2) and his wife Randai Kui (deceased) were in the house. At about 11.00 a.m., the informant received the information that his wife Randai Kui, who was sleeping on cot in front of his house, was killed by informant's brother Kukna Champia (accused) by means of Tangi (Axe) at 10.00 a.m. and when informant's daughter-in-law Sombari Kui tried to save her, then accused Kukna Champa threatened her that he will also kill her. After killing informant's wife, his brother Kukna Champia after throwing Tangi (Axe) tried to flee from there, then informant's son-in-law Dakua Kimbo and Nandu Champia chased Kukna Champia and caught him. On receiving this information the informant went to his house and found his wife lying dead on cot in pool of blood outside the door of his house and he found mark of grievous injuries on her neck, head, stomach and hand and a bloodstained Tangi (Axe) was lying there and also found his brother Kukna Champia, who was tied with rope in wooden log (Khunta). Thereafter, informant gave information of occurrence to Gangadhar Gope of Chhotanagpur Panchayat and Gangadhar Gope asked about the occurrence from Kukna Champia who confessed his guilt before Sarpanch Gangadhar Gope, informant's brother Tooti Champia and other villagers that due to getting less share in the partition of land, he killed his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Randai Kui with Tangi (Axe) when she was alone lying in the cot in her house. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution PW-1 Bamia Champia He is the informant of this case and husband of deceased Randai Kui. He is a hearsay witness PW-2 Smt. Sombari Kui She is daughter-in-law of deceased Randai Kui. She is said to be the eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-3 Tooti Champia He has proved his thumb mark in the seizure list and inquest report. PW-4 Gangadhar Gope He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.1. PW-5 Rupa Champia He has proved his thumb mark in the Inquest report and seizure list. PW-6 Nandu Champia He deposed that he does not know about the occurrence. PW-7 Dr. V.K. Singh He is the doctor who has conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Randai Kui and has proved the post mortem report i.e. marked as Ext.2. PW-8 Dakua Kimbo He is a hearsay witness. PW-9 Yogendra Das He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan, Ext.3, and he has also proved the Inquest Report, Ext.4. He has proved the seizure list, Ext.5, and has also proved the formal FIR, Ext.6. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so-called eyewitness is not the eyewitness at all, especially, looking to the cross-examination of this PW.2-paragraph 5 read with paragraph 9 of her cross-examination. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW.2 has stated that PW.6 and PW.8 rushed at the place of occurrence when she raised an alarm looking to the murder committed by this appellant, but, P.W.6 has not stated that upon hearing alarm of P.W.2, he rushed at the place of occurrence. Similarly, PW.8 has stated in his examination-in-chief that PW.2 came at the house of PW.8 and thereafter he had gone at the place of occurrence. Thus, looking to paragraph 9 of the deposition of PW.2 to be read with paragraph 5 of the deposition of PW2 to be read with paragraph 1 of the deposition given by PW8, it appears that PW2 is not a trust worthy witness at all. She is not the eyewitness looking to these depositions. PW.1 who is an informant, is a hearsay witness. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the medical evidence given by PW7 – Dr. She is not the eyewitness looking to these depositions. PW.1 who is an informant, is a hearsay witness. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the medical evidence given by PW7 – Dr. V. K. Singh the injuries were capable of being caused of penetrating weapon, as per examination-in-chief of this witness. He has also narrated the weapon alleged to have been used, is Bhala-penetrating weapon, whereas, so-called eyewitness PW.2 narrated assault by another weapon. Thus ocular evidence and medical evidence are in cross contradiction with each other. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the deposition given by P.W.9 who is the Investigating Officer, the weapon which was seized, was Tangi-a sharp-cutting instrument and no FSL report has ever been presented for the proof of blood group. Even as per the Investigating Officer's evidence, penetrating weapon was never recovered. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness-PW.2 is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, even otherwise also, this appellant has remained in judicial custody since 1997. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per so called eye witness PW2paragraph 1 of her deposition the incident has taken place on 20th April, 1997 at about 09:00 a.m. whereas fardbeyan has been given after more than 24 hours and First Information Report was lodged on 21st April, 1997 at about 16:00 hours. There is no explanation of this delayed First Information Report neither by PW.1 nor by PW.2 nor by the Investigating Officer-PW.9. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1997 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State-A.P.P. that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence on record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State-A.P.P. that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is based upon eye witness PW.2, who has clearly stated that this appellant has given Tangi blow on the vital part of the body of the Randai Kui, thereafter, she raised alarm and hearing the alarm PW.6 and PW.8 rushed at the place of occurrence and the appellant was chased by these two persons and they caught the appellant and the informant was informed about the incident who is PW.1-husband of the deceased. Thus, prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the incident has taken place on 20th April, 1997 at about 9.00 a.m. as per deposition of PW.2 paragraph 1. PW.2 and the deceased Randai Kui were at their residence. PW.2 is a daughter-in-law of the deceased. This PW.2 saw this appellant causing murder of the deceased by Tangi, a sharp-cutting weapon. Thereafter, she raised an alarm and hearing the alarm, PW.6 an PW.8 rushed at the place of occurrence. PW.6 and PW.8 chased this appellant and caught hold of him. Thereafter, husband of the deceased, PW.1, was informed. He came at the house and saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, fardbeyan was given on the next day i.e. on 21st April, 1997 at about 10.00 a.m. and, thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on 21st April, 1997 at about 16.00 hours. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out by Gua Police, District Chaibasa. Statement of the witnesses were recorded, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Trial No.326 of 1997 and on the basis of the evidence given by PW.1 to PW.9, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has convicted this appellant for life imprisonment for the offence of murder of the deceased punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Thus, it appears from the F.I.R. on record that PW.1 is a informant and husband of the deceased, who has lodged the F.I.R. upon information given by PW.2. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has convicted this appellant for life imprisonment for the offence of murder of the deceased punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Thus, it appears from the F.I.R. on record that PW.1 is a informant and husband of the deceased, who has lodged the F.I.R. upon information given by PW.2. PW.2 Smt. Sombari Kui, who is eyewitness of the incident and upon raising alarm by her, immediate witnesses are PW.6 and PW.8 who chased the appellant, caught hold of the appellant and was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Thus, PW.2 is an important eyewitness. 8. Looking to the deposition given by PW.2, she has stated in her examination-in-chief in para 1 that incident was taken place on 20th April, 1997 at about 9.00 a.m. Looking to paragraph 2, she has stated that the appellant ran way from the house of PW.2 after committing murder and PW.6 and PW.8 came there and they caught hold of the appellant after chasing him. Looking to her cross-examination, it appears that she was in the house, whereas, the deceased was out of her house. When PW.2 came out of the house, the deceased had already expired. She is further stating in paragraph 5 that thereafter she raised an alarm and PW.6 and PW.8 came there and they caught hold of this appellant. Looking to the further cross-examination in paragraph 9, it appears that PW.6 and PW.8, came at the place of occurrence after half an hour. Looking to paragraphs 1, 5 and 9, it appears that PW.2 is not the eyewitness at all. Further, looking to the deposition given by PW.8, this witness has stated in paragraph 1 of his deposition that PW.2 came at his (of PW.8) house and at the house of PW.8, PW.2 informed that her father-in-law has been murdered. Thus, looking the evidence of PW.8 it appears that he never rushed to the place of occurrence hearing the alarm raised by PW.2, on the contrary, PW.2 had gone to the residence of PW.8. Moreover, PW.2 has stated that murder of father-in-law has taken place, whereas, here in the instant case, the murder taken place is mother-in-law of the PW.2. Thus, looking the evidence of PW.8 it appears that he never rushed to the place of occurrence hearing the alarm raised by PW.2, on the contrary, PW.2 had gone to the residence of PW.8. Moreover, PW.2 has stated that murder of father-in-law has taken place, whereas, here in the instant case, the murder taken place is mother-in-law of the PW.2. Thus, looking to paragraph 5 and paragraph 9 of the deposition of PW.2, to be read with deposition of PW.8, it appears that PW.2 is not an eyewitness at all and she is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. This matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. 9. Looking to the medical evidence given by PW.7 Dr. V.K. Singh, who has carried out post mortem of the body of the deceased which is marked as Ext.2, the following were the injuries in the opinion of the doctor: Ante mortem wound i) Penetrating wound left sid eof the neck 1½” x ¼” x 4”-5” depth. ii) penetrating wound left temporal region 1½” x ¼” x Brain deep. iii) Penetrating wound abdomen 1½” x ¼” x penetoriem deep iv) Incised wound 4” x ¼ x ½ over the left hand dorsum. v) Incised wound 5” x 1/4” x 1/2” over the right hand dorsum. On dissection – Brain damaged blood in cranium, skull fractured, left cartidartery lacerated, muscle of the neck incised, heart collapsed, chambers empty, lungs collapsed, abdomen full of blood, omentum lacerated, intestine punctured, abdominal organ pale, stomach contained mutoid material, time since death 1 to 2 days, death in his opinion due to above injuries leading to shock and death. The injuries grievous in nature caused by some penetrating weapon. 10) Looking to the aforesaid evidence given by PW.7 it appears that the injuries were capable of being caused by penetrating weapon, whereas, PW.2, so-called eyewitness, has stated that the weapon Tangi which is not a penetrating weapon at all. There are penetrating wounds also which are at serial Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii). Looking to this evidence given by PW.7, there is a grossest contradiction between the deposition given by eyewitness (PW.2) and PW.7. Injuries No.(i), (ii) & (iii) are unexplained. Thus, so-called eyewitness has not seen the incident at all, otherwise, there would have been explanation of three penetrating wounds. Looking to this evidence given by PW.7, there is a grossest contradiction between the deposition given by eyewitness (PW.2) and PW.7. Injuries No.(i), (ii) & (iii) are unexplained. Thus, so-called eyewitness has not seen the incident at all, otherwise, there would have been explanation of three penetrating wounds. Out of total five injuries, three are penetrating wounds, which are as per the medical opinion given by PW.76 are capable of being caused by penetrating weapons like Bhala. PW.2 has never stated before the Court, nor before PW.1, informant, that the penetrating weapon 'Bhala' has been used in causing murder of the deceased. Thus, looking to the medical evidence given by PW.7, PW.2, eyewitness, is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. 11. Looking to the evidence given by PW.9, Investigating Officer, delayed F.I.R. has not been explained at all. Looking to the evidence given by PW.2, so-called eyewitness, the incident was taken place on 20th April, 1997 at about 9.00 a.m., fardbeyan was given on 21st April, 1997 at about 10.00 a.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on 21st April, 1997 at about 16.00 hours. No explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer for delayed F.I.R. It ought to have been kept in mind that delay in lodging the F.I.R. per se is not fatal to the prosecution, but, when there is only one eyewitness who is close relative of the deceased and when the best evidence is not coming to the Court and when certain injuries are unexplained, there ought to have been immediate F.I.R., otherwise, there are all chances of false implication of the accused. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the offence of murder of deceased Randai Kui allegedly committed by this appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. As a cumulative effect of evidences on record, as discussed herein above, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1997 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 12. As a cumulative effect of evidences on record, as discussed herein above, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1997 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. Since the appellant, namely, Kukna Champia, is in judicial custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.