Hon'ble VYAS, J.—The instant cr. appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan to challenge the judgment dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu in Special Case No.6/96 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charge levelled against them under Section 302, 323 IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per the brief facts of the case on 13.12.1995 at 12.30 pm the complainant Sadhu Ram (P.W.11) filed a written report (Ex.P/1) before the SHO, Police Station, Taranagar, camp Sahawa stating therein that on 12.12.1995 at about 5.00 pm in the evening an information was given to him by P.W.1 Sunder S/o Shivkaran and Pratap S/o Ladhu Ram that your son has been killed by the respondents Balu Ram and Govind Singh and his body is lying on the way. Upon receiving such information, the complainant immediately went on spot and saw that body of his son Golu Ram was lying on the street and blood was spread near the body and prayed that action may be taken against Balu Ram and Govind Singh in accordance with law. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the FIR no.149 dated 13.12.1995 (Ex.P/2) was registered at Police Station Taranagar at 1.30 pm under Section 302 and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid FIR, the SHO commenced investigation. During investigation site plan (Ex.P/10 and P/10A) was prepared in the presence of witnesses Ram Kumar, Ridmal, Pala Ram and complainant Sadhu Ram. The body of the deceased Bhalu Ram was taken to the Primary Health Center, Sahawa for post mortem where Senior Medical Officer Dr. Prashant Khatri conducted post mortem and gave post mortem report (Ex.P/3) on 13.12.1995. After post mortem, the body of the deceased Bhalu Ram was handed over to the family members. Soon after the occurrence, Panchnama of dead body was also prepared on 13.12.1995 in the presence of witnesses Sadhu Ram, Ram Kumar, Ridmal, Pala Ram and Kheraj Ram. After necessary investigation respondent Balu Ram And Govind Singh were arrested vide Ex.P/27 and Ex.P/25 on 14.12.1995. After arrest upon information given by Balu Ram under Section 27 of the Evidence Act blood stained knife was recovered vide Ex.P/24 in the presence of two witnesses Bhagwana Ram and Surendra Singh. 5. After necessary investigation respondent Balu Ram And Govind Singh were arrested vide Ex.P/27 and Ex.P/25 on 14.12.1995. After arrest upon information given by Balu Ram under Section 27 of the Evidence Act blood stained knife was recovered vide Ex.P/24 in the presence of two witnesses Bhagwana Ram and Surendra Singh. 5. After completing investigation, the SHO Police Station Rajnagar filed charge-sheet against the respondents in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar from where the case was committed to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge for trial, later transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu for trial. 6. In the trial, after hearing arguments, charge under Section 323 IPC was framed against respondent Govind Singh and charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act was framed against the respondent Balu Ram. After framing charge, the prosecution produced evidence to prove its case. In all statements of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded and after recording statement of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied all the allegations made by the witnesses. The respondents Balu Ram said that he has been falsely implicated in the case and the respondent Govind Singh said that he has also been falsely implicated in the case because one Hanuman Singh is having enmity with his family and Hanuman Singh and Sadhu Ram are having good relations, therefore, with the connivance Hanuman Singh, his name has been mentioned by Sadhu Ram in the FIR to implicate him in criminal case. In defence statement of DW-1 Raju and DW-2 Suraj Bhan were recorded, thereafter, case was finally heard and vide judgment dated 30.10.1995 the learned trial court acquitted both the respondents from the charges levelled against them. 7. In this appeal, the State of Rajasthan has challenged the validity of the judgment on various grounds. 8. In defence statement of DW-1 Raju and DW-2 Suraj Bhan were recorded, thereafter, case was finally heard and vide judgment dated 30.10.1995 the learned trial court acquitted both the respondents from the charges levelled against them. 7. In this appeal, the State of Rajasthan has challenged the validity of the judgment on various grounds. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that although all the all the eye witnesses turned hostile, but one eye witness P.W.1 Sunder categorically stated before the court that injury by knife was inflicted to the deceased by the respondent Balu Ram and that fact is corroborated by P.W.11 Sadhu Ram, author of the FIR, so also, by the medical evidence, therefore, the finding of the learned trial court to acquit the respondents from the charges levelled against them is totally perverse and far from the truth. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statement of eye witness P.W.1 Sunder, who was very much present when the occurrence took place. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the finding recorded by the learned trial court upon wrong assessment of statement of P.W.1 Sunder deserves to be quashed because the finding of acquittal is based on some contradiction in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the court, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that even if other eye witnesses turned hostile, then also, the conviction can be upon independent eye witness because the witness P.W.1 Sunder who was present at the time of occurrence categorically stated that injury by knife was inflicted by the respondent Balu Rama and the incident took place in his presence. P.W.1 Sunder further stated in his statement that an information was given by him to the complainant P.W.11 Sadhu Ram, father of the deceased soon after the occurrence, upon that information, FIR was filed by him, therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it is a case in which eye witness P.W.1 Sunder stated whole story so as to connect the respondents with the crime, unfortunately, without proper application of mind, the learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of eye witness P.W.1 Sunder on erroneous consideration. 10. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it is a case in which eye witness P.W.1 Sunder stated whole story so as to connect the respondents with the crime, unfortunately, without proper application of mind, the learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of eye witness P.W.1 Sunder on erroneous consideration. 10. As per learned Public Prosecutor the learned trial court has gravely erred in fact as well as law while giving finding that FIR was lodged belatedly. Further, the learned trial court committed a grave error while observing in the judgment that witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses. The knife was recovered as per information given by respondent Balu Rm and injuries found upon the body of the deceased were the injuries caused by sharp edged weapon, therefore, it was the duty of the learned trial court to assess the entire evidence in right perspective but the learned trial court committed a grave error while giving erroneous finding to disbelieve the testimony of eye witnesses and other witnesses. 11. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no question to say that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because testimony of sole eye witness cannot be ignored in casual manner, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and respondents may be convicted for the alleged offence committed by them for which charge was framed by the learned trial court. 12. Per contra learned counsel Mr. SG Ojha and Pradeep Choudhary appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal is based upon sound appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in this case the challan was filed on the basis of testimony of 4 eye witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sunder, P.W.5 Pala Ram, P.W.6 Dina Ram and Pratap but unfortunately, out of 4 eye witnesses, Pratap was not produced before the court and other two witnesses P.W.5 Pala Ramand P.W.6 Dina Ram both turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. The testimony of P.W.1 Sunder has not been corroborated by any other independent witness on the contrary there are major contradiction in the statement of P.W.1 Sunder recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the trial, therefore the learned trial court, rightly disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1 Sunder so as to acquit the respondents from the charges leveled against them. 13. While inviting our attention towards the fact that P.W. 1 Sunder gave information to the complainant Sadhu Ram (P.W.11) and after receiving said information Sadhu Ram immediately went on spot in the evening on 12.2.1995 but no FIR was filed by Sadhu Ram, father of the deceased immediately, and on next date, at 12.30 pm on 13.12.1995, the written report was submitted by him. Learned trial court gave finding that there is no explanation for such delay, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has not come with clean hands before the court so as to prove the case against the respondents, therefore, learned trial court gave finding that conviction cannot be based upon such information which is given after delay. More so, it creates serious doubt upon prosecution case. 14. With regard to recovery of blood stained knife it is submitted that both the witnesses before whom knife was recovered, P.W.8 Bhagwana Ramand P.W.9 Surendra Singh did not depose in their statements that knife was stained with the blood. In the FSL report (Ex.P/30) also it is reported that no blood was detected upon the knife which is said to be recovered on 14.12.1995 itself, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial court while assessing the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses gave finding that respondents are entitled to be acquitted from the charge levelled against them. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the finding given by the trial court for acquittal in the judgment from the charges levelled against them. Admittedly, the prosecution case was based upon the testimony of four eye witnesses namely P.W.1 Sunder, P.W.5 Pala Ram, P.W.6 Deena Ram and one Pratap, but Pratap did not turn before the court to support the prosecution case. Out of remaining three eye witnesses, two eye witnesses P.W.5 Pala Ram and P.W.6 Deena Ram turned hostile. Admittedly, the prosecution case was based upon the testimony of four eye witnesses namely P.W.1 Sunder, P.W.5 Pala Ram, P.W.6 Deena Ram and one Pratap, but Pratap did not turn before the court to support the prosecution case. Out of remaining three eye witnesses, two eye witnesses P.W.5 Pala Ram and P.W.6 Deena Ram turned hostile. The author of the FIR P.W.11 Sadhu Ram submitted a written complaint on 12.12.1995 before the SHO Police Station, Taranagar camp Sahawa at about 12.30 pm with regard to the incident took place at about 5.30 pm in the evening on 12.12.1995 in which allegation was levelled that the respondent Balu Ram inflicted injury to the deceased Bholu Ram and due to those injuries, he died on spot. The learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1 Sunder, so called eye witness because there are major contradiction in his statements. The learned trial court also considered the important fact with regard to delay in filing FIR by the father of the deceased P.W.11 Sadhu Ram because according to contention mentioned in the FIR information was received by the witness Sadhu Ram (P.W.11) soon after the occurrence from P.W.1 Sunder and one Pratap on 12.12.1995. 16. To consider the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor we have examined the finding given by the learned trial court upon the registration of the FIR after delay. P.W.2 Jeeta Ram, SHO, Taranagar stated before the court that wireless message was received by him on 12.12.1995 in which it was informed that in the village Sahawa one person has been murdered. In pursuance of such information I immediately went to the village Sahawa and upon bus stand I got information with regard to the place of occurrence where incident took place therefore, I reached upon the spot and saw that other police officials of Police Chowki, Sahawa were already present and so many other persons were also standing there. At that time, one Sadhu Ram came and said that the body which is lying upon road is the body of my son to whom Balu Ram and Govind Singh has killed. At that time, one Sadhu Ram came and said that the body which is lying upon road is the body of my son to whom Balu Ram and Govind Singh has killed. Then I asked him to give written report then he said that - ^^mlh le; lknwjke uke dk O;fä esjs ikl vk;k vkSj crk;k fd ekSds ij esjs yM+ds dh yk'k iM+h gSA vkSj bls ckywjke tkV o xksfoUnflag jktiwr us ekjk fn;k gSA bl ij eSaus lknwjke dks fjiksVZ nsus dsk dgk rks mlus dgk fd ;g ekeyk vuqlwfpr tkfr dk gS blfy;s iqfyl ds mPpkf/kdkjh ds vkus ij gh fjiksVZ nsaxsA bl ckcr~ eSaus mlh le; iqfyl vf/k{kd o lh-vks- lkgc dks fyf[kr esa lwpuk HksthA** The aforesaid facts loudly speaks that soon after the occurrence even if the police went on spot, no report was submitted by complainant Sadhu Ram, in spite of fact that whole of the night the body remained upon place of occurrence and on next date, i.e., on 13.12.1995 the Circle Inspector came on spot at 12.30 pm then Sadhu Ram P.W. 11 gave written report (Ex.P/1) in which allegations were levelled against the respondents. Upon perusal of the statement of all the witnesses, there is no explanation for such delay. 17. Upon perusal of the statement of P.W.2 Jeeta Ram it is abundantly clear that Sadhu Ram nowhere informed that incident was reported to him by the witness P.W.1 Sunder. More so, he refused to give report immediately. In our view, the reason given by the complainant not to submit the FIR till higher authorities come on spot is not sustainable in law. 18. We have perused the statement of Circle Inspector Rajgarh P.W.11 Kanti Prasad. He said that upon receiving information I went on spot in village Sahawa where at the instance of complainant site plan was prepared and other proceedings were undertaken including Panchnama (Ex.P/6) but no inquiry was made by complainant Sadhu Ram soon after the occurrence and report was not given by him to the police and why the SHO did not register the case when offence was cognizable offence. After perusing the entire evidence and finding given by the learned trial court, we are of the opinion that delay in registration of the FIR creates serious doubt because soon after the occurrence police was on spot, complainant was on spot, body was lying on spot, but no written FIR was submitted by the complainant till 12.30 of next date i.e., on 13.12.1995. The learned trial court after discussing the entire evidence rightly arrived with the finding that delay in filing FIR seems to be caused for framing concocted story. There is no error in the finding given by the court for delay. 19. We have examined the finding given by the learned trial court for disbelieving the testimony of eye witness PW —1 Sunder. To examine the finding it is worthwhile to observe that in the FIR filed by the P.W.11 Sadhu Ram complainant he has specifically said that the incident was reported to him by two persons Sunder S/o Shiv Karan and Pratap. The following report (Ex.P/1) was given by the P.W. 11 Sadhu Raml which reads as under: ^^lsok esa] Jheku~ S.H.O. lkgc] Fkkuk iqfyl rkjkuxj dsEi lkgok Jheku~ th] fuosnu gS fd eSa lk/kwjke S/o Jh jkepUnz tkfr ckfYedh fuoklh lkgok rglhy rkjkuxj ftyk pw: vki ls fuEu fuosnu djrk gwWA Jheku~ th fnukad 12-12-95 lke djhc 5 cts esjs ikl lqUnz S/o ';ksdj.k ok izrki S/o yknwjke ckfYedh us vkdj dgk fd rqEgkjs iq= Hkksywjke dks ckywjke ok xksfoUnflag us tku ls ekj fn;k rc esa ok esjs ifjlj ds lnL; ?kVuk LFky ij x;s rc ogka esjs iq= Hkksywjke dk e`r 'kjhj jsr ij iM+k Fkk ok vktw cktw dkQh txg [kqu fc[kjk iM+k FkkA esus pksdh iwfyl esa vkdj eksf[kd dgk fd esjs iq= dks ckywjke ok xksfoUnflag us tku ls ekj fn;k gSA dk;Zokgh djsaA vr% izkFkZuk i= Jheku~ th dh lsok esa is'k dj fuosnu gS fd dk;Zokgh djsaA fnukad 13-12-95 izkFkhZ lk/kwjke S/o jkepUnz] tkfr ckfYedh] fuoklh lkgok] rglhy rkjkuxj] ftyk pw: ¼jktLFkku½ 20. The Ex.P/2 was registered upon above written report (Ex.P/1). Admittedly, out of two persons Pratap S/o Ladhu Ram Valmiki did not turn up to support the prosecution. The Ex.P/2 was registered upon above written report (Ex.P/1). Admittedly, out of two persons Pratap S/o Ladhu Ram Valmiki did not turn up to support the prosecution. The other two eye witnesses P.W.5 Pala Ram turned hostile and said that - ^^eSaus Hkksyw dks xksfoUnflag o ckywjke tkV }kjk ekjihV djrs o ckywjke }kjk pkdw ekjrs eSaus ugha ns[kkA eSaus rks dqN ?kVuk ugha ns[khaA The P.W.6 Deena Ram the other eye witness stated that - ^^eSaus dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[khA eSaus rks dqN ugha ns[kkA eSaus Hkksywjke dks xksfoUnflag o ckywjke }kjk ekjihV djrs ugha ns[kk o uk gh Hkksyw dks pkdw ekjrs eSaus ns[kkA 21. We have perused the finding given by the learned trial court to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1 Sunder. The statement of P.W.1 Sunder under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) were recorded by the Investigating Officer in which he said that on the date of incident Bholu Ram deceased came to him and used filthy words towards respondent Balu Ram Jat at that time, Govind Singh called him and said why you are using abusive words and pushed him, at that time, deceased Bholu Ram catch hold to him and both fell down. All of sudden Balu Ram Jat respondent inflicted injury by knife upon neck of deceased and due to that injury blood come out from his neck. After inflicting the said injury they run away to the village. All of sudden Balu Ram Jat respondent inflicted injury by knife upon neck of deceased and due to that injury blood come out from his neck. After inflicting the said injury they run away to the village. In the statement recorded in the trial, P.W.1 Sunder stated altogether different story and said that - ^^djhcu 6 eghus igys dh ckr gSA 'kke ds djhc 5 ikSus 5 cts dh ckr gSA fd xksfoUnflag o ckywflag cktkj x;s FksA vkSj eSa psts ij dke dj jgk FkkA ogka ij psts ij ikykjke feL=h] nhukjke] xksfoUnflag] ckywjke vkfn FksA ogka ij Hkksyw vk;k tks ckyw ls iSls ekaxus ds fy;s vk;kA ckyw us dgk fd ckn esa feysaxs vkSj mlus dgk fd vc gh ys tkÅaxkA bl ckr dks ysdj FkIiM+ eqDds gks x;s vkSj xksfoUnflag us Hkksyw ds FkIiM+ ekj dj uhps fxjk fn;k rFkk xksfoUnflag us ckyw dks dgk fd ekj ys vkt ekSdk gS lkys <s< D;k esjk cky mikM+sxk ;g xkyh Hkksyw us xksfoUnflag dks fudkyh FkhA rc xksfoUnflag us mlds FkIiM+ dh ekjh FkhA xksfoUnflag us ckyw dks dgk fd Hku pkSn pwMs ds pDdw ekj ns rks ckywjke us pdw dh ukM+ esa ekjhA pdw ekjus ls [kwu [kwu fudyus yx x;k rc ckywjke o xksfoUnflag gekjs ik vk x;sA fQj Hkksyw [kM+k gksdj djhc 10 ikaoM+k pyk fQj iM+ x;k rc xksfoUnflag o ckyw us dgk fd rqe ?kj pys tkvks rc eSa cl vìs ij pyk x;k o lk/kw dks eSaus lkjh ckr crk nhA** Upon perusal of both the statement of P.W.1 Sunder it emerges from the facts that the said witness improved his statement as a whole in the trial, therefore, the learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of this eye witness and observed that P.W.1 Sunder was planted as eye witness by the prosecution. To examine the correctness of finding, we have not only considered the fact that two eye witnesses turned hostile and one Pratap was not produced before the court and there are major contradiction in the statement of P.W.1 Sunder but we have also considered the important fact of the case that in the post mortem report (Ex.P/3) 7 injuries were reported upon the body of the deceased including incised wounds and abrasions but in the statement of P.W.1 Sunder recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in the court, the allegation is for inflicting only one injury by the respondent Balu Ram. Meaning thereby, there is no corroboration about the allegation of so called eye witness P.W.1 Sunder so as to accept the prosecution story. The learned trial court after due consideration has rightly arrived at with the finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. With regard to recovery of knife we have examined the finding given by the learned trial court. As per the prosecution case the knife was recovered vide Ex.P/24 on 14.12.1995 as per information given by the accused Balu Ram after his arrest. In Ex.P/24 the Investigating officer observed that knife recovered is to be use for cutting vegetables. The said recovery was made in front of two witnesses Bhagwana Ram and Sunder Singh. Both these witnesses examined in the court as P.W.8 and P.W.9. Upon perusal of statements of both the witnesses it is revealed that both these witnesses accepted that recovery of knife was made from open space, so also, it is nowhere stated by them that knife was blood stained and in the FSL report (Ex.P/3)) it is reported that no blood was found upon the knife. Meaning thereby, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to connect recovery of knife with the crime because no blood was found upon the knife and none of the witnesses before whom knife was recovered by the investigating officer said that knife was blood stained. In the FSL report also there is finding that no blood was found upon the knife. 23. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the finding given by the learned trial court to disbelieve the prosecution case on the basis of recovery of knife is in consonance with law. 24. In the FSL report also there is finding that no blood was found upon the knife. 23. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the finding given by the learned trial court to disbelieve the prosecution case on the basis of recovery of knife is in consonance with law. 24. Upon above discussion, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to give finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, so also, to disbelieve the prosecution case. 25. Consequently, the instant appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu in Special Case No.6/1996 is hereby dismissed.