JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant, namely, Mahendra Ram has suffered the conviction and sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 3 years under section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses; the informant is PW-5. 3. The prosecution has projected BiganThakur-PW-1 and the informant-PW-5 as eye witnesses. 4. The informant of this case, namely, Dhananjay Singh is a covillager. On the basis of his fardbeyan, which according to him was recorded at 1:30 a.m. in the night of 1.2.2007 in his village, Meral P.S. case no. 06 of 2007 was registered at 4 a.m. on 1st February, 2007 against the appellant. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that in the evening of 31.1.2007 he was returning from Meral on a Commander jeep. At that time, Ram Nath Sao, Mahendra Ram and Khalasi of the jeep were with him, but Mahendra Ram got down at the railway crossing and Bigan Thakur boarded the jeep. They proceeded ahead and when the jeep reached near the hotel, Mahendra Ram again came there and sat in the jeep. After moving about one and half kilometre, Mahendra Ram whipped out a pistol and forced stop the vehicle. He brought down Ram Nath Sao from the jeep and shot him in his chest. Afraid, he along with others fled away on the jeep. On the way he heard sound of another firing. After reaching the village, he informed the villagers about the incident but before they could go to the police station, the police arrived there. The reason for the incident was money dispute in relation to a contract for construction of a water tower. 5. In his examination-in-chief, the informant has stated that after the jeep crossed the railway crossing, a quarrel started between Ram Nath Sao and Mahendra Ram whereupon Mahendra Ram forcibly stopped the jeep, stepped down from the jeep, whipped out a pistol and shot at Ram Nath Sao. He has also stated that he has heard sound of another firing. On reaching village, he informed the villagers about the incident and they have gone to the police station where his statement was recorded. In paragraph no. He has also stated that he has heard sound of another firing. On reaching village, he informed the villagers about the incident and they have gone to the police station where his statement was recorded. In paragraph no. 4 of his examination-in-chief the informant has identified his fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.2, but he says that his statement was recorded in the village. On such facts, the registration of the First Information Report on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant; whether at the police station or the village, becomes suspicious and doubtful. It is more so because in his crossexamination, the informant has stated that he reached the police station at 6 a.m. and at that time the dead-body was at the police station. He further says that he has no knowledge who has brought the dead-body at the police station and according to him his statement was recorded by the police at 6 a.m., though the fardbeyan which is proved by the prosecution was recorded at 1:30 a.m. in the village. In paragraph no. 14 of his cross-examination, the investigating officer has stated that he has recorded the fardbeyan at village Sangberia at 1:30 a.m. and the dead-body was identified by the family members at the police station, but, in the same breath he further says that fardbeyan of Dhananjay Singh was recorded at the police station. 6. In " Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393 ", the Hon''ble Supreme Court has emphasized prompt lodging of the First Information Report for the following reasons: "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. 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. 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." 7. A glance at the First Information Report reveals that an information about the occurrence was received in the police station at 9 p.m. on 31.1.2007, the First Information Report was lodged at 4 a.m. on 1.2.2007 and the inquest report, which was prepared at 7:15 a.m. on 1.2.2007, mentions that the dead body was lying at the railway crossing at 9:30 p.m. on 31.1.2007. 8. The following facts appear about the crime scene as described by the prosecution witnesses: (i) at about 7:30 p.m. the appellant has fired a shot at Ram Nath Sao, (ii) fardbeyan of the informant is recorded at 1:30 a.m. in the village Sangberia, (iii) the inquest report is prepared at 7:15 a.m. next day, (iv) the Investigating Officer says that fardbeyan of Dhananjay Singh was recorded at the police station, (v) the informant also says that his fardbeyan was recorded at the police station, (vi) the informant has gone to the police station with the villagers, and (vii) the First Information Report is lodged at 4:00 a.m. on 01.02.2007. It has also come on record that the inquest report was not prepared at the place of occurrence and though the police had arrived in the village in the night itself the dead body was identified at the police station. Thus, the unexplained discrepancy in the timings of the Inquest Report, fardbeyan and the First Information Report cannot be brushed aside lightly. In " Moti Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 7 SCC 454 ", it has been observed that a faulty investigation may not be a determinative factor but in a case where no explanation is offered even to explain the discrepancies in the prosecution''s case the credibility of the accusations would become doubtful. 9. According to the prosecution, Bigan Thakur-PW-1 is another eyewitness. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 7 SCC 454 ", it has been observed that a faulty investigation may not be a determinative factor but in a case where no explanation is offered even to explain the discrepancies in the prosecution''s case the credibility of the accusations would become doubtful. 9. According to the prosecution, Bigan Thakur-PW-1 is another eyewitness. He has claimed that in the evening of 31.1.2007 he had boarded the jeep at the railway crossing and the appellant also boarded the jeep there, whereas the informant has in his fradbeyan stated that the appellant had got down at the railway crossing and he boarded the jeep again at the hotel. On his own saying, PW-1 is a chance witness whose presence at the railway crossing has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, presumably to a suggestion by the defence, he has denied that before the police he has stated that one Rajendra Ram son of Laxman Choukidar had fired the shot. He says that he had gone to the police station next day and in the morning at 8 a.m. he has seen the dead-body of Ram Nath Sao. His testimony, thus, does not corroborate the evidence of the informant. The informant seems to suggest that they all have come to the village and the police had arrived in the village in the night. The informant has also said that along with the villagers he had gone to the police station. Apparently, conduct of PW-1 was suspicious. 10. Above all, the informant has stated in his fardbeyan that after he reached the village he deliberated the matters with the villagers and in paragraph no. 4 of his examination-in-chief he has again said that he had discussed the incident with the villagers and, thereafter, he came to the police station with the villagers where his statement was recorded. 11. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the First Information Report was lodged after deliberations with the villagers. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out altogether that the appellant was implicated in this case in consultation with the villagers. In " Kailash Gour and Others Vs. 11. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the First Information Report was lodged after deliberations with the villagers. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out altogether that the appellant was implicated in this case in consultation with the villagers. In " Kailash Gour and Others Vs. State of Assam, (2012) 2 SCC 34 ", a case in which the FIR was drawn up after people from locality assembled and deliberated upon the matter, the Supreme Court has observed that it is doubtful if the FIR prepared after wide consultation and deliberations would carry a spontaneity to be credible in a criminal trial. 12. The accused-appellant has set-up a defence that on account of previous enmity Dhananjay Singh has implicated him in the case. During his cross-examination, the informant has denied that in Misc. Case no. 650 of 1981 which was initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a decision had come in favour of the father of the accused. 13. The wife of deceased, namely, Anita Kumari-PW-10 has been examined to prove motive. She has stated that the accused had threatened her husband and there was some dispute between them regarding well. She has not supported the prosecution story of money dispute regarding a contract. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not remember whether the accused had contested for Mukhiya and her husband and others had opposed him. She has admitted that her statement was not recorded by the police. She has seen two fire-arm injury and surgery mark over the abdomen of her husband when his dead body was brought home. Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh PW-8 has found two wounds of entry caused by fire-arm, but, in his cross-examination he says that he cannot say exact time of death. 14. The other prosecution witnesses, namely, Ashok Yadav-PW-3 and Shambhu Prasad Sao-PW-6 have been declared hostile. PW-7 is a seizure witness. He has stated that he was at the hotel when police called him at the place of occurrence and asked him to put his signature on a paper. Though, he has identified his signature on the seizure memo, in the cross-examination he says that it was prepared by the police at the hotel and he has no knowledge what is written on the paper. PW-9 is another seizure witness. He has stated that he was at the railway station near village Sangberia. Though, he has identified his signature on the seizure memo, in the cross-examination he says that it was prepared by the police at the hotel and he has no knowledge what is written on the paper. PW-9 is another seizure witness. He has stated that he was at the railway station near village Sangberia. The police came at the station and took his signature on the paper. 15. Therefore, except PW-1 and PW-5, the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution on time of death, place of occurrence, preparation of seizure memo and motive for the crime. The prosecution''s case is further weakened by mistakes during the investigation. The investigating officer has stated that he did not prepare a sketch map of the place of occurrence. He did not collect blood-stained soil and did not prepare the inquest at the site. He has admitted that he has not recorded in the case diary the time when he proceeded from the police station and he has also not recorded the name of family members of the deceased who had come to the police station. In case of this nature, in which registration of the First Information Report is doubtful, the above mistakes during the investigation have seriously affected the prosecution case. 16. Having examined the records of Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2007, in the end, we are of the opinion that there is reasonable doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime and, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 17. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act dated 29th April, 2010 and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act dated 03.5.2010 passed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial no. 171 of 2007 are set-aside. 18. The appellant, namely, Mahendra Ram is acquitted of the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act framed against him. 19. The appellant, who is in jail, shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 20. 171 of 2007 are set-aside. 18. The appellant, namely, Mahendra Ram is acquitted of the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act framed against him. 19. The appellant, who is in jail, shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 20. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 476 of 2010 is allowed. 21. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.