JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2/7/2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No.263/2013 whereby appellant/accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. He is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.1 Pratibha, complainant is daughter of deceased Pancham and they were residing together. On 5/8/2013 in the evening, Rakesh Fulkar, brother of accused, demanded back amount, which was borrowed by deceased Pancham from him and which deceased Pancham could not repay and, therefore, gave slap to deceased Pancham. Admittedly, no complaint of such incident is lodged. In the background of above facts, it is the further case of prosecution that on 6/8/2013, in the morning after complainant went to field and deceased Pancham was in his house, complainant's cousin Ravi alias Shailendra (not examined) came to field and informed her that her father was not keeping well. She, therefore, immediately rushed back to home and learnt that her father was taken to Sub-District Hospital, Hinganghat. Therefore, she along with Shailendra visited said Hospital where she was informed that her father was taken to Sevagram Hospital. While at Hinganghat Hospital, P.W.2 Surendra, nephew of deceased Pancham, informed that her father was assaulted by accused by stick, stone and sharp edged weapon on various parts of his body by entering in his house. On receiving such information, she visited Hinganghat Police Station and lodged report (Exh. 20), upon which P.W.9 PSI Sunil Pathak registered offence vide Crime No.253/2013, of which initial investigation was carried out by P.I. Bhandare, who prepared spot panchanama (Exh. 49) and seized articles from the spot under seizure panchanama (Exh. 50) and effected arrest of accused on the same day vide arrest panchanama at Exh. 63. Further investigation was carried out by P.W.9 PSI Sunil Pathak. 49) and seized articles from the spot under seizure panchanama (Exh. 50) and effected arrest of accused on the same day vide arrest panchanama at Exh. 63. Further investigation was carried out by P.W.9 PSI Sunil Pathak. On receiving information about death of Pancham on 7/8/2013, offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code came to be added in the present crime. After forwarding body for post mortem, statements of witnesses were recorded and accused was referred for medical examination and collecting samples. After conducting usual investigation, memorandum of statement of accused came to be recorded vide Exh.40 wherein he confessed to discover one stick and clothes concealed in the cattle shed behind his house, which articles came to be seized under seizure panchanama (Exh. 41). In addition to above investigation, Investigating Officer made query to Medical Officer vide Exh. 35 and the report is on record at Exh. 36 about possibility of injuries by the articles seized. During the course of investigation, post mortem report (Exh. 60) was received and the muddemal articles were forwarded to Chemical Analyser and the Chemical Analyser's reports are at Exhs. 75 to 77. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before competent Court. In the course of time, it was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. Charge was framed against accused vide Exh. 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty. However, he did not examine any defence witness. 4. To prove the charge, prosecution has in all examined nine witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining P.W.1 Pratibha, complainant, P.W.2 Surendra and P.W.6 Rajpal, both eye witnesses, P.W.3 Dr. Ashish, who had replied query of Investigating Officer with regards to weapons and injuries sustained by deceased Pancham, P.W.4 Yogesh, who, however, did not support the case of prosecution, P.W.5 Ramkrushna, panch on memorandums for effecting seizure of articles (Exh.40 and 41), P.W.7 Vikas, panch on spot panchanama, P.W.8 Dr. Wankhede, who had performed autopsy and concluded evidence on examining P.W.9 Sunil Pathak, Investigating Officer. 5. Heard Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for appellant/accused, and Shri Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. 6. Wankhede, who had performed autopsy and concluded evidence on examining P.W.9 Sunil Pathak, Investigating Officer. 5. Heard Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for appellant/accused, and Shri Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. 6. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for appellant/accused, has submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses, out of whom P.W.2 Surendra admittedly is related to deceased Pancham, is not at all convincing as their evidence is totally contrary to each other on material aspects. It is contended that though P.W.1 Pratibha claims to have knowledge of assault on her father from P.W.2 Surendra in Hospital at Hinganghat, her evidence on this material aspect is hearsay evidence. It is further contended that prosecution has thus, not brought on record source of information to complainant to lodge the report. Another point canvassed to doubt evidence of eye witnesses is inordinate delay in recording their statements under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Police in spite of they being available to Police from the date of incident. 7. On commenting upon the case of prosecution about recovery of stick and clothes of accused at his instance, upon which blood of group "AB" of deceased Pancham is found, said evidence is submitted to be not reliable as articles upon which such blood is stated to be found were sent to Chemical Analyser after gap of about two months and there is no evidence led with regards to safe custody of these articles before forwarding them to Chemical Analyser. It is thus contended that there is a possibility of tampering with the same. Lastly it is contended that according to history of assault given by one Shankar Lakhote (not examined) to the Doctor, deceased Pancham is stated to be assaulted by group of persons which, in fact appears to be the real case. However, by recording belated statements of witnesses projecting them as eye witnesses, accused is falsely involved. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed. 8. On the other hand, Shri Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, has submitted that evidence of complainant as well as both eye witnesses, namely, P.W.2 Surendra and P.W.6 Rajpal is convincing and as such, there is direct evidence against accused, which is corroborated by the medical evidence and Chemical Analyser's reports on material aspects, thereby establishing involvement of accused in this crime. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 9. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 9. In the background of submissions advanced as aforesaid, evidence of P.W.1 Pratibha is to the effect that on the day of incident when she was in field, her cousin Ravi alias Shailendra came there at about 1.15 p.m. and informed her that her father was not keeping well and, therefore, she returned back to her home. However, she learnt that her father was taken to Hospital at Hinganghat and thus, accompanied Ravi to Hinganghat where she was further informed that her father was referred to Sevagram Hospital. She has further deposed that while at Hinganghat Hospital, P.W.2 Surendra informed her about assault on her father by accused by stick, stones and sharp edged weapon on his hands, both legs and head and, therefore, on receipt of such information, she lodged report (Exh. 20). 10. P.W.1 Pratibha admits to have personally not witnessed the incident, which is also not the case of prosecution and in fact, admits that on the basis of information received from P.W.2 Surendra, she lodged report and that P.W.2 Surendra accompanied her to Police Station. No explanation is put forth by prosecution for P.W.2 Surendra not lodging any report though he claims to be an eye witness to the incident and source of information to P.W.1 Pratibha. This witness in fact denied when suggested that while in Police Station, Police had also enquired with him and admitted that he voluntarily did not inform anything to Police. Such conduct on the part of P.W.2 Surendra also speaks volumes, who since is related to deceased Pancham as his nephew and though claims to have witnessed the incident, prefers to remain silent in the Police Station when he accompanied P.W.1 Pratibha, who lodged report immediately after the incident. In fact, evidence of P.W.1 Pratibha of her having knowledge of incident from P.W.2 Surendra is hearsay evidence as perusal of evidence of P.W.2 Surendra would nowhere reveal that he had disclosed her said fact of assault on her father by accused at any point of time nor at Hospital at Hinganghat. In that view of the matter, evidence of P.W.1 Pratibha does not inspire confidence since not an eye witness to incident nor her evidence about getting knowledge of incident from P.W.2 Surendra is convincing being hearsay evidence. 11. In that view of the matter, evidence of P.W.1 Pratibha does not inspire confidence since not an eye witness to incident nor her evidence about getting knowledge of incident from P.W.2 Surendra is convincing being hearsay evidence. 11. The evidence of P.W.2 Surendra, eye witness when perused, would reveal that at the time of incident at 1 p.m. he was in his house situated in the neighbourhood of deceased Pancham and on hearing shouts from the house of deceased Pancham, rushed towards his house where his brother Shailendra (not examined) also arrived and they had seen accused assaulting deceased Pancham in his house and thereafter dragging him out of the house by pulling his hand and after bringing him out of house, assaulted by wooden log, which was lying there on the ground, on his hands, legs and other parts of body when P.W.4 Yogesh, P.W.6 Rajpal and others arrived. He further states that at that time accused picked up one stone and in spite of his along with others present on the spot telling him not to cause any injury by stone, put it on the body of Pancham, due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter he speaks of deceased Pancham having been carried to Hospital at Hinganghat and then to Hospital Sevagram. 12. Evidence of P.W.2 Surendra when compared with evidence of P.W.6 Rajpal, who is cited as another eye witness, reveals that there is variance in the ocular testimonies of both these witnesses when P.W.6 Rajpal has deposed that on the day of incident after hearing cries, he came in front of house of deceased Pancham and saw accused assaulting deceased Pancham by wooden log and thereafter by stone and thereafter deceased Pancham was taken to Hospital. He attributes presence of P.W.2 Surendra. However, evidence of P.W.2 Surendra as aforesaid does not establish presence of P.W.6 Rajpal when incident of assault was in progress by wooden log as according to P.W.2 Surendra, P.W.4 Yogesh and P.W.6 Rajpal arrived on the spot when accused picked up stone and caused injuries to deceased Pancham. Even otherwise, P.W.2 Surendra admittedly is an interested witness being nephew of deceased Pancham and P.W.6 Rajpal though is an independent witness, his evidence is not convincing for the reason that his statement was recorded by Police on 10/8/2013, i.e. on the fourth day of incident. Even otherwise, P.W.2 Surendra admittedly is an interested witness being nephew of deceased Pancham and P.W.6 Rajpal though is an independent witness, his evidence is not convincing for the reason that his statement was recorded by Police on 10/8/2013, i.e. on the fourth day of incident. Said fact thus creates doubt in the case of prosecution of P.W.6 Rajpal witnessing the assault on deceased Pancham as it has come in his evidence that on the following day of incident, he was called by Police and in his presence, inquest panchanama was drawn and he has also proved this document at Exh. 50, however, did not find it necessary to disclose about incident to Police immediately on the following day. 13. Similarly, evidence of P.W.2 Surendra, who also claims to be an eye witness, needs to be discarded on the same footing when he admits that his statement was recorded by Police on 9/8/2013, i.e. after three days of incident though he is an eye witness to the incident. In that view of the matter, there is much substance in the defence of the accused when it is suggested to these witnesses that they are deposing falsely and had not witnessed the incident, which suggestion is denied by them, as prosecution has not brought on record any evidence explaining such delay. 14. In the light of above discussed evidence of two eye witnesses, we thus, find it useful to refer to the decision in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gian Chand, AIR 2001 SC 2075 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the effect of delay in recording statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure has observed as under : "If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding entire prosecution case." The effect of delay was also considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2007 SC 3234 {2007 ALL SCR 2430} and it was observed : "In criminal trial, one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the Police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case." Admittedly delay is nowhere explained in the case in hand. 15. Evidence of P.W.2 Surendra being nephew of deceased Pancham cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being relative as according to settled law, evidence of such witness is required to be scrutinised with greater caution and circumspection and conviction could be awarded on the basis of same, if the same is found to be trustworthy, cogent and reliable. However, for the reason as aforesaid and for the unexplained delay in recording statements of eye witnesses, testimonies of aforesaid witnesses is in a shadow of doubt. The doubt is further found substantiated when post mortem report (Exh. 60) when perused would reveal that history of assault given to Doctor by one Shankar Lakhote (not examined) is that deceased was assaulted by a group of people with sticks at around 2 p.m. on 6/8/2013 wherein he received injuries and was taken to Hinganghat Hospital and then to Sevagram Hospital where he was declared dead. 16. In the background of above facts, though from the evidence of P.W.5 Ramkrushna together with memorandum statement, it is proved that there was seizure of clothes and stick as per seizure panchanama (Exh. 41), which articles as per Chemical Analyser's reports (Exh.75 to 77) are certified to be stained with blood of "AB" group, which is of deceased Pancham. 16. In the background of above facts, though from the evidence of P.W.5 Ramkrushna together with memorandum statement, it is proved that there was seizure of clothes and stick as per seizure panchanama (Exh. 41), which articles as per Chemical Analyser's reports (Exh.75 to 77) are certified to be stained with blood of "AB" group, which is of deceased Pancham. This evidence by itself is too short to connect accused with the crime, more particularly when seizure of articles vide Exh. 41 is of 12/8/2013 while same were received for analysis by the Office of Chemical Analyser on 17/10/2013, i.e. almost after two months and there is no evidence led with regards to safe custody of these articles till they were forwarded to Chemical Analyser or were in sealed condition, which aspect, therefore, raises doubt as tampering of such articles cannot be ruled out, before forwarding same to Chemical Analyser. 17. In view of above discussed evidence and reasons, recovery of articles at the instance of accused also does not appear to be sufficient to connect him with the present crime. In that view of the matter, such evidence relied by learned trial Court about discovery of weapon cannot be the basis to record order of conviction since ocular evidence, which has been discussed by us, leads us to the only conclusion that benefit of doubt will have to be extended to accused. We find that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and appellant/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. As such, appeal needs to be allowed. 18. In the result, criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences charged with. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any paid, be refunded to him.