ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Two persons namely, Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto and 6-7 unknown persons were involved in the incident in which Chintaman Verma has been killed. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 503 of 2007, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for Three years under section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The informant of this case is wife of Chintaman Verma, the deceased. Her fardbeyan was recorded at 10.30 a.m. on 12.06.2006 at village-Gurha. In her fardbeyan, she has stated that last evening at about 5:00 p.m. she along with her husband were returning after dumping waste straws in the field. As soon as they reached near a jilebi tree, south of the village, six persons on two motorcycles came from the village side and started chasing her husband. After some chase they caught hold of her husband in the forest and Thakur Mahto fired a shot from country-made pistol. Amongst the miscreants she has identified Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto. Her husband died after sometime and the miscreants fled away from the place of occurrence. On hearing her cries, several villagers assembled there, amongst them one was the chowkidar, namely, Jagdish Turi. With the help of the villagers the dead body of her husband was brought at Bajrangbali Temple. The informant has claimed that due to past enmity Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto with 6-7 other unknown persons have killed her husband. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant is P.W.4. 5. The defence set up by the appellant is that Chintaman Verma was a history-sheeter, involved in several criminal cases and a member of M.C.C, a band organisation and he was killed by M.C.C people or some other person. The accused-appellant has examined one Rup Lal Mahato-D.W.1 to lead evidence on antecedent of Chintaman Verma and that his dead body was first found by D.W.1 and on his information the police has arrived at the place of occurrence. 6. The accused-appellant has examined one Rup Lal Mahato-D.W.1 to lead evidence on antecedent of Chintaman Verma and that his dead body was first found by D.W.1 and on his information the police has arrived at the place of occurrence. 6. In her examination-in-chief, the informant has stated that she has given her fardbeyan to the police on 12.06.2006 regarding the incident which has happened on 11.06.2006. She has narrated a similar story of her going to the field with her husband and her return after throwing waste straws in the field, three persons each on two motorcycles coming towards them, her husband trying to flee away, the accused persons catching hold of her husband and Thakur Mahto firing a shot on him from a country-made pistol. In paragraph no. 4 of her examination-in-chief, she has stated that after the incident Hemraj Mahto and Ashok Prasad Verma came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away. In her fardbeyan as well as in her evidence in the court, she has stated that a dispute had started between her husband and Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto due to theft of solar plates. 7. The prosecution has relied on the testimony of Jagdish Mahto-P.W.1, Ashok Prasad Verma-P.W.2 and Hemraj Mahto-P.W.3 to corroborate the eye-witness account of Sumitra Devi. 8. The other prosecution witnesses, namely, Dhanuki Mahto-P.W.5 and Surendra Yadav-P.W.6 have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. 9. Jagdish Mahto-P.W.1 is the brother of Chintaman Verma. He has stated that on hearing gun shot when he reached the forest near village he has found his brother dead. He was shot dead. He claims that he has seen 8-9 persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence and his sister-in-law, the informant, informed him that Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto have shot dead Chintaman Verma. He has claimed to identify Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto who are co-villagers. Ashok Prasad Verma-P.W.2, another brother of the deceased, has claimed that he has seen the miscreants coming on two motorcycles. At that time his brother was returning from the field and his wife was also coming along. The miscreants started chasing his brother and after some chase Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto caught hold of him whereupon his brother raised hulla. At that time his brother was returning from the field and his wife was also coming along. The miscreants started chasing his brother and after some chase Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto caught hold of him whereupon his brother raised hulla. In the meantime, he also reached there and saw that Thakur Mahto whipped out a pistol and shot fire on his brother. Hemraj Mahto-P.W.3 is also brother of the deceased. At the time of the incident he was at home and on hearing gun shot he has gone towards the forest where he has found his brother injured with gun shot. His sister-in-law was present there and on enquiry she has informed him that three persons came on a motorcycle amongst them were Thakur Mahto and Suresh Mahto and it was Thakur Mahto who has fired shot on her husband. 10. It is well-settled that when the prosecution comes out with a definite case it must prove its case on all material points beyond all reasonable doubt [refer, “Mohinder Singh Vs. The State” reported in AIR 1953 SC 415 ]. 11. The testimony of the informant reveals that she has exaggerated her statement. In her fardbeyan she has not spoken about presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the place of occurrence or that they have arrived there on hearing gun shot or her cries. In her fardbeyan she has stated that several villagers had assembled there, one amongst them was Jagdish Turi, a chowkidar, but she has not stated about the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are her own brothers-in-law. That there is no whisper in the First Information Report about presence of the family members at the place of occurrence is a relevant fact. This fact assumes significance when it is found that the First Information Report was not lodged instantly rather it has been lodged more than 12 hours after the incident. On prompt lodging of the First Information Report, in “Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N.” reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “12. ……………First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. ……………First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.......” 12. The prosecution has set up a case that Thakur Mahto has fired shot from a country-made pistol at Chintaman Verma which has caused his death, however, testimony of the prosecution witnesses – P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 – is not consistent. P.W.1 says that on hearing gun shot he has rushed to the place of occurrence. He does not talk about the number of shots fired by the miscreants. P.W.3 has simply stated that Thakur Mahto has fired a shot from pistol on his brother which hit him on his forehead, above the nose. However, P.W.4 says that four shots were fired at her husband. From the place of occurrence, neither empty cartridges were found nor has the bullet been recovered by the investigating officer. The investigating officer has deposed in the court that he has not found any sign of trampling at the place of occurrence. He has also not seen any blood-mark at the place of occurrence. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the distance between village-Gurha and the place of occurrence is about 500 yards and, therefore, it is unlikely that someone would have heard gun shot from a distance of 500 yards and gone in the right direction. He has also not seen any blood-mark at the place of occurrence. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the distance between village-Gurha and the place of occurrence is about 500 yards and, therefore, it is unlikely that someone would have heard gun shot from a distance of 500 yards and gone in the right direction. Moreover, narration of the incident as disclosed by the informant would reveal that immediately after firing shot at Chintaman Verma the accused persons have fled away and, if that is so, it is just impossible that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would have seen the actual occurrence or the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence after travelling 500 yards. There is another aspect of the matter which creates serious doubt on the prosecution story that the appellant came along with 7-8 other accused persons and killed Chintaman Verma. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4, all have deposed in the court that the accused persons have chased Chintaman Verma, caught hold of him and then killed him. The informant says that her husband was chased for about 1 k.m before he was shot dead by Thakur Mahto. And, it has to be kept in mind that at that time she was carrying her child with her. If that is so, she would not have run behind her husband and seen Thakur Mahto firing shot on her husband. 13. During their cross-examination, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have denied that Chintaman Verma was a veteran criminal, involved in several cases of murder and rape and a member of M.C.C, however, they have admitted that he was an accused in a case of murder of Lakhpat Mahto; Thakur Mahto belongs to the family of Lakhpat Mahto. But, Jagdish Mahto, the other brother of the deceased, has admitted in his cross-examination that Chintaman Verma was accused in several cases of rape and murder and he was a member of M.C.C. 14. From the evidence of the informant and the investigating officer it appears that dead body of Chintaman Verma was removed from the place of occurrence and brought at Bajrangbali Chabutra in the village. Except the family members of the deceased, no one from the village has come forward to depose how and in what manner dead body of Chintaman Verma was brought to Bajrangbali Chabutra. 15. Except the family members of the deceased, no one from the village has come forward to depose how and in what manner dead body of Chintaman Verma was brought to Bajrangbali Chabutra. 15. The mistakes committed during the investigation may not create a doubt on the prosecution story if the prosecution has led cogent and consistent evidence through eye-witnesses, however, in a case like the present one particularly when it has been proved by the defence that the deceased was a veteran criminal, failure of the investigating officer to examine the villagers, to seize the blood-stained soil and cloths of the deceased and to recover the bullet and the empty cartridges from the place of occurrence, would dent the prosecution's case. In absence of any explanation by the prosecution on the aforesaid lacuna in its case, delay of more than 15 hours in sending information to the police about the incident becomes relevant. 16. In the aforesaid state of affairs, having examined the records of Sessions Trial No. 503 of 2007, we are of the opinion that there is serious doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime and, accordingly, he is held entitled for the benefit of doubt. 17. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to R.I for life and R.I for Three years under section 27 of the Arms Act inflicted upon him for the said offence are set-aside. 18. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Thakur Mahto shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 510 of 2011 is allowed. 20. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned Amicus. 21. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus as per Notification dated 23.11.2017. 22. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX. 23. Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.