JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment & order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No.68/2010 convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. 3. An ejahar was lodged by one Jamal Uddin Barbhuiya before the Officer-in-charge, Katlicherra Police Station on 24.09.2010 stating that on 21.09.2010, the appellant No.1 came to his brother Monai Mian’s house, where he was also present, and demanded repayment of Rs.150/-which he had owed to the appellant No.1. Due to insistence for making the payment immediately, the informant started to proceed to his own house and the appellant No.1 had also accompanied him. As he had reached near his residence, the appellant No.1 asked his mother to come out with a dao(a curved instrument for cutting) and the mother, accordingly, handed over the daoto the appellant No.1. Four other accused persons also assembled there with dao and in the meantime, the nephew of the informant Imdadul Rahman Barbhuiyan came running to protect the informant and in such process, the accused Nos.1 and 2 (the appellants herein) assaulted him with dao and the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 beat him mercilessly with lathis. The injured suffered grievous injuries and the neighbourhood people who had gathered there had taken him to Katlicherra Hospital and there from to S.K. Roy Civil Hospital at Hailakandi. As the condition of the injured was critical, he was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital and while undertaking treatment, he breathed his last at 12:30 PM on 22.09.2010. 4. Based on the said ejahar, Katlicherra Police Station registered Katlicherra P.S. Case No.200/2010 under Section 147/148/149/302 IPC. 5. Six persons named as accused persons in the ejahar are from the same family. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are brothers while accused No.6 is their mother. After investigation, charge sheet was laid only against the present two appellants and the other four accused persons named in the ejahar were not sent up for trial. 5. Six persons named as accused persons in the ejahar are from the same family. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are brothers while accused No.6 is their mother. After investigation, charge sheet was laid only against the present two appellants and the other four accused persons named in the ejahar were not sent up for trial. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate to whom the case was assigned, committed the case to the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, wherein the same was registered as Sessions Case No.68/2010. 6. During trial, prosecution examined 11(eleven) witnesses. PW-1 is the grandfather of the deceased. PW-2 is the informant. PW-4 and PW-6 are the father and mother, respectively, of the deceased. PW-5 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the deceased on 23.09.2010. PW-8 is the younger brother of the informant. PWs-3, 7, 8 and 10 are persons of the neighbourhood. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. Defence adduced no evidence. 7. The learned trial Court, primarily, relied on the evidence of PWs-2, 3 and 10 in coming to the conclusion that prosecution was able to establish the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, had convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned herein before. 8. Mr. Laskar submits that there is gross delay in lodging the ejahar and therefore, the entire prosecution case is vitiated. Mr. Laskar has submitted that the sub-stratum of the prosecution case is false since different versions had come from the witnesses with regard to starting point of the incident. As per the version of the prosecution, a discussion purportedly had taken place in connection with payment of money which the informant had owed to the appellant No.1 and as there was no consistency as regards the place of discussion, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that the witnesses are also at variance with regard to the place where the alleged incident had taken place. It is submitted by him that according to ejahar, the demand for money was made in the residence of Monai Mian (PW-8) but in the evidence, PW-2 shifted his stand and stated that the demand was made in the house of his related cousin brother Sakir Ahmed, who, incidentally, was not examined. It is submitted by him that according to ejahar, the demand for money was made in the residence of Monai Mian (PW-8) but in the evidence, PW-2 shifted his stand and stated that the demand was made in the house of his related cousin brother Sakir Ahmed, who, incidentally, was not examined. PW-6, on the other hand, had stated that some discussion had taken place in her house relating to the marriage of her sister-in-law. When the accused No.6, who according to PW-2, had handed over the daowas not even sent up for trial, the entire edifice of the prosecution case has crumbled, he contends. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused/appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 9. Mr. Sarma, on the other hand, has submitted that even though there may be some exaggeration or some improvement in the evidence of witnesses, on the core issue, namely, the assault, there is no ambiguity and the prosecution has proved the assault made by the appellants with corroborative evidence. The learned trial Court was fully justified in accepting the evidence of PWs-2, 3 and 10 in its entirety, and hence, this Court ought not to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 11. While it is true that the ejahar came to be lodged on 24.09.2010 with regard to the incident that had occurred on 21.09.2010, we are of the opinion that on the ground of delay in lodging the ejahar, the prosecution case cannot be jettisoned. It is on record that initially the injured was taken to Katlicherra Hospital from where he was taken to S.K. Roy Civil Hospital at Hailakandi and when his condition started deteriorating, he was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. Evidently, the family members were busy in his treatment and only when the deceased succumbed to his injuries, the ejahar came to be filed. Though grounds of delay had not been mentioned in the ejahar, the facts and circumstances and evidence on record eloquently demonstrate the reason for which the delay had occasioned. 12. Evidently, the family members were busy in his treatment and only when the deceased succumbed to his injuries, the ejahar came to be filed. Though grounds of delay had not been mentioned in the ejahar, the facts and circumstances and evidence on record eloquently demonstrate the reason for which the delay had occasioned. 12. PW-1 had essentially deposed with regard to a statement made by the deceased that appellant No.1 had inflicted injuries upon him, about which no other witnesses had referred to. He indicated that the injured was lying in the courtyard of one Surman Ali, where the incident had taken place. He was cross-examined on the aspect of the dying declaration allegedly made by the injured and the Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW-11, had confirmed that PW-1, in his statement before the police did not say anything about a dying declaration made by the injured, implicating appellant No.1. It is in this context the learned trial Court did not place reliance on the dying declaration which was deposed to by PW-1. 13. Before coming to the evidence of PWs-2, 3 and 10, on which heavy reliance was placed by the learned trial Court, it would be apposite to have a look at the evidence of the other witnesses. 14. PW-4 had introduced an event of the accused persons along with Saidul and Fakrul chasing the injured. He claimed to be an eye witness to the infliction of injuries caused by the accused persons. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW-11 would go to show that PW-4 had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC that when he had reached the place of occurrence, he found his son lying in an injured condition. PW-11 further confirmed that PW-4 did not state before him that he had seen from a distance of 5/6 cubits (8/9 foot) the appellants inflicting blows. 15. PW-5 deposed that the death was due to coma resulting from injuries sustained due to ante-mortem injuries. According to him, the injuries were caused by blunt linear object or weapon and not by sharp cutting weapon. He also stated that the injuries may be caused by the blunt side of a sharp weapon. He noticed two incised-looking lacerated injuries in the left as well as right parietal region in the vertex area. 16. According to him, the injuries were caused by blunt linear object or weapon and not by sharp cutting weapon. He also stated that the injuries may be caused by the blunt side of a sharp weapon. He noticed two incised-looking lacerated injuries in the left as well as right parietal region in the vertex area. 16. PW-6, the mother of the deceased, had stated that PW-2, her brother-in-law, had come to her residence with regard to a discussion relating to marriage of her sister-in-law. The appellant No.1 had come to their house and had demanded Rs.150/-which was due from the PW-2. As money was not paid and as the appellant No.1 had held out a threat for non-payment of money, when the appellant No.1 left for his home, her husband (PW-4) had asked Imdadul to accompany him. As they proceeded she heard a hue and cry. She rushed out along with PWs-3, 4, 7 and 8 and saw Imdadul lying on the ground and the appellant No.2 inflicting dao blows on her son. However, PW-11, in his cross-examination, had confirmed that the PW-6 did not narrate anything in the statement before police that she had witnessed the assault and that she had also not stated about the discussion regarding marriage that had taken place in her house where PW-2 was present as well as about appellant No.1 demanding money from PW-2. 17. PW-7, though claimed to be an eye witness, it appears from the evidence of PW-11 that he had not stated before police that he had gone to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry and that he had witnessed the assault made by the appellants. 18. PW-8, who is younger brother of PW-2, had deposed that a discussion relating to marriage had taken place in their house and that he had witnessed the appellant No.1 giving daoblow on Imdadul and that it was a moon-lit night. PW-11 had stated that what was told by him before police was that PW-8 had found Imdadul in injured condition. PW-9 is a reported witness who had found Imdadul lying in the house of one Surman Ali in injured condition. 19. PW-2 stated that he was present in the house of his brother Sakir Ahmed where appellant No.1 had demanded payment of Rs.150/-, which he could not pay and asked for time for repayment. PW-9 is a reported witness who had found Imdadul lying in the house of one Surman Ali in injured condition. 19. PW-2 stated that he was present in the house of his brother Sakir Ahmed where appellant No.1 had demanded payment of Rs.150/-, which he could not pay and asked for time for repayment. Appellant No.1 went out holding out a threat that when he could pay, he can also realise the amount. When PW-2 proceeded towards his residence, he found the accused persons at the bank of a pond and he heard appellant No.1 asking someone to bring a dao. At that point Imdadul arrived at the scene and he had asked the accused persons not to restrain him and that he would pay the money. Without anything further, appellant No.1 started inflicting blows on Imdadul by daoand that thereafter the appellant No.2 inflicted two daoblows and the other accused persons had assaulted him with lathi. He further stated that when he raised alarm, PWs-3 and 7 had arrived. In his cross-examination, he had stated that mother of the accused persons had brought two daos and handed over the same to the appellants. He further stated that deceased was sitting with him in the house of Sakir Ahmed and that Sakir Ahmed had no other name. PW-11, however, had stated that PW-2 did not say before the Investigating Officer that he was sitting at the house of Sakir Ahmed and that at that time, the appellant No.1 had demanded him to pay the amount taken from him. 20. PW-3, in his evidence had stated that the incident had taken place at night at about 9:00 PM while he was at home. He stated that an altercation had taken place in the house of Sakir in connection with exchange of money. Hearing the same, PW-4 and deceased had come there. Thereafter, appellant No.1 inflicted 2/3 blows on the person of Imdadul but he could not identify the weapon due to darkness. PW-11, in his evidence had confirmed that PW-3 did not state before him that he was present at the house of Sakir and that he had stated that at the time of occurrence he was at his house. 21. Thereafter, appellant No.1 inflicted 2/3 blows on the person of Imdadul but he could not identify the weapon due to darkness. PW-11, in his evidence had confirmed that PW-3 did not state before him that he was present at the house of Sakir and that he had stated that at the time of occurrence he was at his house. 21. PW-10 had stated that the incident had taken place at 9:00/10:00 PM and before the incident he had gone to the house of PW-8 for a discussion in respect of a marriage where PW-2 was also present. The discussion was held upon a tilla. When PW-2 left for his house, deceased accompanied him. After some time, hearing hue and cry of PW-2, they rushed out and he saw the accused persons assaulting deceased by dao and on their appearance, appellant No.1 asked the other accused persons to run away. They lifted the injured to the house of one Surman Ali. In cross-examination, he stated that he had found PWs-3 and 7 in the place of occurrence. PW-11, in his evidence, had stated that PW-10 did not state before him that PW-7 and the deceased were present in the discussion and that deceased had accompanied PW-2 when he had left. 22. From the evidence on record it appears that demand of Rs.150/-by appellant No.1, which PW-2 owed to him and consequent non-payment of the same by PW-2, led to the commission of the crime. In the ejahar, which was lodged three days later, it was mentioned that demand was made in the house of PW-8. However, in his evidence, PW-2 stated that demand was made in the house of Sakir Ahmed. PW-3 had also stated that demand was made in the house of Sakir. However, as is noted earlier, presence of PW-3 in the house of Sakir is not established as in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, he had not stated that he was also present in the house of Sakir. None from the family of Sakir had been examined by the prosecution. PW-6 and PW-8, on the other hand, had stated that money was demanded by the appellant No.1 in their house. There is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the place where such demand was made, which was projected to be the beginning of the events that later on unfolded. 23. PW-6 and PW-8, on the other hand, had stated that money was demanded by the appellant No.1 in their house. There is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the place where such demand was made, which was projected to be the beginning of the events that later on unfolded. 23. Going by the statements made in the ejahar, it appears that the appellant No.1 had accompanied PW-2 while coming from the house of PW-8 and the incident took place near about the house of PW-4 and PW-6. It further appears that hearing the hue and cry, deceased came running from Dariarghat to save him. Thus, the ejahar version does not indicate presence of the deceased along with PW-2. However, in his evidence, he had stated that all the accused persons were at the bank of a pond and that he had heard appellant No.1 to bring a daoand that the deceased had arrived at the scene. According to PW-1, the place of occurrence is at the house of Surman Ali. None from the family of Surman Ali had been examined. It also appears from the evidence of PW-1 that South Dariarghat, where the residence of deceased was, is at a distance of 1 Km from the place of occurrence. PW-4, however, stated that accused persons called him to their house by stating that some people had attacked his son and then going there, he found them along with Saidul and Fakrul chasing his son. PW-6, on the other hand, had deposed that it was PW-4, who had asked the deceased to accompany PW-2 as in their house there was some altercation with regard to non-payment of money by PW-2 to the appellant No.1. She had further stated that the injured was shifted to the residence of Surman Ali. PW-8 had also stated that deceased accompanied PW-2 from his house. PW-10 had stated that he had gone to the house of PW-8 in connection with a discussion in respect of a marriage, which was held in a tilla where PW-2 and the deceased were present. He did not refer to any demand made by appellant No.1. The sketch map indicates the place of occurrence to be on the village path in front of the houses of PW-8 and PW-10. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to how the deceased appeared at the place of occurrence. He did not refer to any demand made by appellant No.1. The sketch map indicates the place of occurrence to be on the village path in front of the houses of PW-8 and PW-10. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to how the deceased appeared at the place of occurrence. It was crucial for the prosecution to have established this aspect beyond reasonable doubt. 24. The version projected by PW-2 in his evidence is that on his way home, he heard the appellant No.1 asking someone to bring a dao. In the ejahar, however, he had stated that the appellant No.1 had asked his mother to hand over a dao, which was given to him. Apparently, the appellant No.1 was not armed with a dao or a lathi. Prosecution has not established with corroborative evidence as to how the appellants came to be armed with dao or lathi. It is already noticed earlier that the rest of the accused persons named in the ejahar including the mother had not been sent up for trial. 25. In view of grave contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses in most material particulars, it appears to the Court that the prosecution had suppressed the genesis of the offence. 26. The prosecution case as presented must be coherent, consistent and inspiring and it should lead to one particular direction. When we find that the prosecution witnesses differ in material points to give diametrically opposite versions leading to the offence, it will not be safe to rely upon such testimony with regard to the assault made. 27. In the backdrop of the analysis of the evidence as discussed above, we are not persuaded to take a view that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Taking that view, we set aside the impugned judgment & order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi and acquit the accused/appellants. Appeal is allowed. Appellants are set at liberty. 28. Registry to send back the LCR.