JUDGMENT : Anjana Prakash, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The Appellant has been convicted under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and three years by a Judgment dated 26/31.03.2011 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2009 arising out of Baghaila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2008, G.R. No. 587 of 2008. 3. The case of the Informant Suryabansh Sah (P.W.5) is that on 25.04.2008 at about 8:30 pm. while he was sitting at his door along with rest of his family members, the Appellant came and started to abuse him on the ground as to why he was cracking jokes with the wife of Kamti Ram. He replied that since she was his sister-in-law (bhabhi), he could do so. At this, the Appellant went to his house and pulled an iron rod and attempted to assault him but he hid himself. When his father deceased Raghu Ram came there, the Appellant’s daughter Rinki Kumari, with a pistol hiding it in her sari ordered her father (Appellant) to shoot him at which he fired which hit at the chest of the informant’s father and he fell down. The statement was given on 26.04.2008 at 9:00 am. i.e., more than 12 hours after the occurrence even though as per the Investigating Officer the Police Station was merely 5 kilometers away. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. P.W. 1 Satyaban Sah, P.W. 2 Sheo Shankar Sah, P.W. 3 Lal Muni Kunwar, P.W.4 Lalita Devi, P.W. 5 Suryabansh Sah deposed as eye witnesses belonging to the same family. 5. P.W. 6 Hari Shankar Ram is Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 7 Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad, who conducted the postmortem and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : External Injuries : 1. About ½” x ½” x cavity deep lacerated over back slightly right side to the vertebral column at the level of about 10th thorosic vertebra. Skin around wound black margin inverted. 2. Lacerated wound over upper part of abdomen just lover part of the sternum about 4” x 3” x cavity deep margin of skin inverted. On probing wound nos. About ½” x ½” x cavity deep lacerated over back slightly right side to the vertebral column at the level of about 10th thorosic vertebra. Skin around wound black margin inverted. 2. Lacerated wound over upper part of abdomen just lover part of the sternum about 4” x 3” x cavity deep margin of skin inverted. On probing wound nos. 1 and 2 are communicating each other, hence injury no.1 is wound of entry and injury no.2 is wound of exit. On Dissection : Skull-Cranial bone intact. Brain and maniges intact and pale. Chest – Thorasic cavity containing blood. Right lung lacerated. Hear – Intact. Both chambers empty. Abdomen – Abdominal cavity containing blood. Liver lacerated. Spleen and kidney intact and pale. Stomach intact containing fluid. Small intestine contains fluid and gas. Large intestine contains fluid and gas. Large intestine contains faucal matter and gas. Urinary bladder contains about 50 mls. of urine. 6. P.W. 1, Satyaban Sah, who was also inquest witness, stated that while he was sitting near his door, he saw the Appellant asking an explanation as to why the Informant was cracking jokes with the wife of Kamti Ram to which he replied that she was his sister-in-law, therefore, he could do so. Then the Appellant pulled out an iron rod and his daughter brought a pistol and gave it to the Appellant and asked him to fire at the Informant at which he fired which hit his father Raghu Ram, who died on the spot. He proves his signature on the Inquest Report, which is marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, he stated that initially, there was an altercation and thereafter, free fight between both the parties for about 4-5 minutes. He also stated that when he reached there, the accused persons had already run away. He was examined on the date of occurrence and fardbeyan was given 10:00 pm. It was suggested to him that the Informant had attempted to outrage the modesty of wife of Kamti Ram i.e. D.W.1 Umrawati Devi, in course of which the occurrence took place when the Informant himself fired, which hit his father. 7. He was examined on the date of occurrence and fardbeyan was given 10:00 pm. It was suggested to him that the Informant had attempted to outrage the modesty of wife of Kamti Ram i.e. D.W.1 Umrawati Devi, in course of which the occurrence took place when the Informant himself fired, which hit his father. 7. P.W. 2 Sheo Shankar Sah, brother of the Informant, who also stated that while he was sitting at the door, the Appellant came and asked an explanation from the Informant as to why he was cracking jokes with D.W. 1 Umrawati Devi, wife of Kamti Ram and then he pulled out an iron rod and assaulted his brother Suryabansh Sah but anyhow he saved himself. Thereafter, Rinki Kumari, daughter of the Appellant Dular Paswan came with pistol hiding it in her saree and gave it to her father, who fired upon the deceased. He identified his signature on the Inquest Report, which was already proved. In cross-examination, he stated that on the date occurrence, the family members of Kamti Ram had gone for performing the marriage of his son Awadesh and only the ladies were there. It was suggested to him that the Informant had entered into the house full of ladies and attempted to misbehave with them which was resisted by the ladies. Then his father apologized for the acts of his son, the Informant. 8. P.W. 3 Lal Muni Kunwar is the wife of the deceased, who stated that on the date of occurrence, there was a free fight between her son, Informant and the deceased, in course of which the daughter of the Informant brought out the pistol and ordered her father to fire, on account of which he fired which hit at the chest of the husband and he died. In cross-examination, it appears that her son had cracked jokes with a lady, who had come to the house of Kamti Ram and D.W.1 Umrawati Devi and she and her son, the Informant had thrown water on each other while on the family members of Kamti Ram had gone to perform the marriage of his son. She also stated that when grappling between the Appellant and Informant was going on, her husband had reached there. She also stated that Kamti Ram was Chowkidar of her village, who had come to her house next morning. She also stated that when grappling between the Appellant and Informant was going on, her husband had reached there. She also stated that Kamti Ram was Chowkidar of her village, who had come to her house next morning. It was disclosed to him that the Appellant had shot the deceased. She also stated that Subhash and Informant had gone to the Police Station early in the morning and had returned along with Darogajee. It was once again suggested to her that the occurrence had taken place in another manner. 9. P.W. 4 Lalita Devi, wife of the Informant, who supports her husband, the Informant. In cross-examination, she stated that while her husband was going to the fields, D.W. 1, Umrawati Devi, had thrown water at him, upon which he had cracked jokes with her. On the said date, the male members had gone another village to perform a marriage. She stated that initially for about half an hour an altercation had taken place between the Appellant and the Informant. It was also suggested to her that in fact, deceased had gone to intervene in the fight which was going on in between Informant and the Informant Suryabansh Sah had fired which hit the deceased. 10. P.W. 5 Suryabansh Sah, the Informant, supported the factum of the First Information Report and he proves the fardbeyan, which is marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, he had stated that he had no enmity with the Appellant and that the house of Kamti Ram was closed to Dhoda Paswan, who is Chawkidar of the village. He was also called Mahendra Paswan. From his cross-examination, it appears that the village was heavily populated. He denied the suggestion that he had tried to outrage the modesty of the women of the house of Kamti Ram and Dodha Paswan had been seen to inform the Police. It was once again suggested to him that the deceased had died on account of his firing, which of course he denied. 11. P.W. 6 Hari Shankar Ram is the Investigating Officer, who stated on 26.04.2008, he received information that somebody had been killed at which he went to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan, which is marked as Exhibit-3. He recorded the statements of the rest of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence, which was near the house of the Informant. He recorded the statements of the rest of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence, which was near the house of the Informant. He also got conducted the Postmortem Examination Report. From the cross-examination, it appears that he was asked to explain the delay in instituting the First Information Report and its dispatch to the Court but he could not do so satisfactorily. At this juncture, it would important to state while the occurrence had taken place on 25.04.2008 at about 8:30 pm. the matter was reported on 26.04.2008 at 9:00 a.m. and even though the First Information Report was purportedly instituted on the very same day but it was received in the Court on 28.04.2008 i.e. two days later. The Investigating Officer also stated that he did not find any signs of firing at the place of occurrence. He conceded that he had examined independent witnesses, such as Dadan Sah, Vijay Dom, and Umrawati Devi (D.W.1) but had not cited their names as witnesses in the charge sheet. 12. D.W. 1 Umrawati Devi is the wife of Kamti Ram on account of which the occurrence is said to have taken place. She stated that she had four sons namely, Awadhesh, Bindhyachal, Deepak and Chandan. On the date of occurrence, his son Awadhesh was to be married so the male folks had gone to perform the same. In the meanwhile, the Informant in a drunken state came into the house and started to misbehave then she went to call the Appellant who happened to be her relative and he tried to sort out the matter. The deceased, i.e. father of the Informant came and apologized on his behalf but the Informant was not placated and instead he fired which hit the deceased. From her cross-examination, we do not find any thing which would, in any manner, create a doubt in relation to the veracity of the witness especially because she was examined during investigation. 13. D.W. 2 Krishna Paswan has also given a similar statement but it appears that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. He had given statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police in regard to the occurrence. 14. On going through the evidence on record, undoubtedly, there is more than 12 hours delay in instituting the case and earliest version given by the Chowkidar has not been brought on record. He had given statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police in regard to the occurrence. 14. On going through the evidence on record, undoubtedly, there is more than 12 hours delay in instituting the case and earliest version given by the Chowkidar has not been brought on record. The further reason for doubting veracity of the manner of the occurrence are the consistent suggestions and also the evidence of D.W. 1 and P.W. 7, who is the Doctor, did not find any injury on the front but on the back of the deceased which completely contradicts the prosecution case, as stated by the witnesses. We are, thus, inclined to give benefit of doubt to the Appellant. 15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26/31.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2009 is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of charges. He is in jail custody, therefore, he directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.