JUDGMENT : SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.1.1991 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1990, convicting the appellants under section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:- The complainant/Ghasita, lodged an F.I.R. Ex.Ka-1 alleging that he is resident of village Subasa, Police Station Lalpura, District Hamirpur and on 24.11.1989 at 4.30 P.M. complainant was returning to his home after casting his vote on the way, when he reached near house of Gangadeen Kumhar, accused, Bhagwan Deen S/o Kartarey Singh and Ram Bahadur Singh, having ballam, Shiv Bahadur Singh was holding gun, Raj Bahadur Singh S/o Sri. Bhagwan Deen Singh was holding lathi. Buddan Singh, Muluwa and Gopi Chand were also armed with lathi. Since the aforesaid person consider enmity with complainant on exhortation of accused Bhagwan Deen Singh, Shiv Bahadur Singh opened fire on complainant with intention to kill the complainant, when complainant raised alarm, witness Sughar Singh, Kallu Singh and Nathu Singh rushed towards the spot and rescued Ghasita. Accused persons were fled outside the village. The F.I.R. was registered against Bhagwan Deen, Buddan Singh, Ram Bahadur, Shiv Bahadur Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh, Muluwa and Gopi Chand under section 307/34 I.P.C. at 9.00 P.M. on same day. After registration of F.I.R. investigation of this case was handed over to Sub Inspector K.M. Sinha (PW-4). On 3.12.1989, IO received injury report of injured Ghasita and recorded statement of injured Ghasita and on pointing out of Ghasita prepared site plan which is proved as Ex.Ka-5. After recording evidence of other witnesses charge-sheet filed by Investigating Officer only against accused Muluwa and Gopi Chand under section 307 I.P.C. and other named five co-accused Bhagwan Deen Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh, Shiv Bahadur Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh, Baddan Singh was exonerated by prosecution. Chargesheet was submitted before the Magistrate on 29.1.1990 and Magistrate has taken cognizance and committed the case to sessions court where it is registered as S.T. No. 31 of 1990 and thereafter, it was transferred to IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur where the appellants face trial. 3. Chargesheet was submitted before the Magistrate on 29.1.1990 and Magistrate has taken cognizance and committed the case to sessions court where it is registered as S.T. No. 31 of 1990 and thereafter, it was transferred to IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur where the appellants face trial. 3. Learned A.S.J. Hamirpur framed charge against the appellants under section 307 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. The charge read over to the appellants and appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate charge levelled against the appellants, prosecution examined PW-1 Ghasita as complainant and injured witness, who proved F.I.R. as Ex.Ka-1. PW-2 Km. Ranno, examined as eye-witness of incident. PW-3 Dr. Satya Prakash, examined the injured witnesses, who proved the injury report of Ghasita as Ex.Ka-2 and injury report of scriber Bhura Singh as Ex.Ka-3. PW-4 K.M. Sinha, Investigation Officer of this case, who proved site plan as Ex.Ka-5 and charge-sheet as Ex.Ka-6. He also proved by means of secondary evidence Chick F.I.R. as Ex.Ka-7 and G.D. Entry as Ex.Ka-8. PW-5 Bhura Singh, who is scriber of written report also supported Ex.Ka-1. 4. PW-3, Dr. Satya Prakash examined the injured Ghasita and during examination following injuries were found on the body of injured Ghasita:- 1. Multiple fire arm injury on back of chest, neck and back of skull. Size of each wound 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm. Depth not taken. No blackening no talloing seen. 2. Contusion 2 cm x 3 cm on right thumb. 3. Face is flushed, smell of alcohol present in expesole air. Gout speed normal, orientation of time and place is present. 4. Result: Injury no. 1 caused by fire arm and injury no. 2 caused by blunt object. Injury no. 1 kept under observation advise X-ray Injury no. 2 is simple in nature. Duration is fresh. Patient has consumed alcohol at present is not in state of intoxication. He proved injury report of Ghasita as Ex.Ka-2. He further stated that on 24.11.1989 at 11.30 he also examined injured Bhura Singh and following injuries were found:- 1. Contusion 3 x 2 cm on back of left fore arm. 2. Abrasion contusion 2 x ½ cm on backside of left fore arm. 3. Linear abrasion 3 cm on back of left arm. 4. Contusion 6 x 2 cm on forehead 2 cm above left eyebrow. 5. Smell of alcohol present in empty air. Injury no. Contusion 3 x 2 cm on back of left fore arm. 2. Abrasion contusion 2 x ½ cm on backside of left fore arm. 3. Linear abrasion 3 cm on back of left arm. 4. Contusion 6 x 2 cm on forehead 2 cm above left eyebrow. 5. Smell of alcohol present in empty air. Injury no. 1, 2 and 3 are simple in nature and injury no. 4 kept under observation advise X-ray. Injury no. 1, 2 and 4 caused by blunt object and injury no. 3 caused by friction. Duration fresh. Patient has consumed alcohol but he is at present conscious. He proved the injury report of Bhura Singh as Ex.Ka-3. 5. This witness also prepared x-ray report and on the basis of x-ray plate, he proved multiple radiopaque shadow of metallic density pellet seen in skull, two radiopaque shadow of metallic density pellet seen in neck and three radiopaque shadow of metallic density pellet seen in chest. This witness proved x-ray report as Ex.Ka-4. 6. I have heard Sri. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. 7. In this case prosecution produced PW-1 Ghasita, as an injured witness as well as main star witness of this case. He deposed in his statement that on 3.12.1990 an incident occurred one years ago from today. At that time M.L.A. Elections were going on and after casting his vote he was returning to his village and when he reached near Ganga Deen Kumhar's house, he saw Muluwa and Gopi Chand were sitting near their house having country made pistol and after looking Ghasita both fired at him with country-made pistol. Due to which Ghasita become unconscious and fell down on the ground. On hearing noise Km. Ranno and Dharam Singh reached at the spot and witnesses the occurrence. Thereafter Kallu Singh and Sughar Singh also rushed to the spot and saw the incident and taken Ghasita to the Police Station in unconscious state and a written report scribed by Bhura Singh (PW-5) and PW-1 put his signature on written report. Ghasita further stated that he told Bhura Singh that only name of Gopi Chand and Muluwa be incorporated in the written report but name of other accused were incorporated by scriber Bhura Singh. Ghasita further stated that he told Bhura Singh that only name of Gopi Chand and Muluwa be incorporated in the written report but name of other accused were incorporated by scriber Bhura Singh. He only put his signature on the written report, which is proved by him as Ex.Ka-1 and further stated that afterward he filed an affidavit before the court in which he clearly stated that only Muluwa and Gopi Chand were accused in this case. He further stated that there was old enmity regarding construction of his house between the appellants and PW-1. 8. PW-2 Km. Ranno, an eye-witness, although he is not named in the F.I.R. as an eye-witness, stated in her statement that Ghasita is her cousin and at 4.30 P.M. and she was sitting at her Chabutra, saw that Gopi Chand and Muluwa were armed with country made pistol open fire upon Ghasita and due to this Ghasita got injury on his back side and chest. This occurrence witnessed by Dhammu Singh. 9. PW-3 Dr. Satya Prakash, who has medically examined injured Ghasita and Bhura Singh. As per prosecution version Bhura Singh is neither an injured nor an eye-witness in this case and it is also not clear that in what circumstances and how Bhura Singh had got injury on his body. This witness proved injury report of Ghasita as Ex.Ka-2 and injury report of Bhura Singh as Ex.Ka-3 and he also proved X-ray plate Ex.M-1 and M-2 and X-ray plates depicts several metallic pellets in the head, throat and chest of Ghasita and proved as Ex.Ka-4. 10. PW-4 IO/K.N. Sinha, S.O. Police Station Lulpura had investigated this case. He stated in his statement that on 25.11.1989 after registration of case and after making G.D. entry he reached at the spot but complainant was not present there. After getting injury report on 3.12.1989 he recorded statement of injured, Ghasita, and prepared site plan on pointing of Ghasita and same is proved by I.O. as Ex.Ka-5. That on 9.12.1989 after conducting formalities of investigation, I.O. Submitted charge-sheet against Muluwa and Gopi Chand and proved the charge-sheet as Ex.Ka-6. He further stated in his statement that a Chick F.I.R. was lodged by Rajvant Singh, Head Muharrir, who was posted with him at that time, thus, he proved Chick F.I.R. as Ex.Ka-7 and G.D. Entry as Ex.Ka-8. 11. That on 9.12.1989 after conducting formalities of investigation, I.O. Submitted charge-sheet against Muluwa and Gopi Chand and proved the charge-sheet as Ex.Ka-6. He further stated in his statement that a Chick F.I.R. was lodged by Rajvant Singh, Head Muharrir, who was posted with him at that time, thus, he proved Chick F.I.R. as Ex.Ka-7 and G.D. Entry as Ex.Ka-8. 11. PW-5 Bhura Singh, who is the inscriber of written report Ex.Ka-1, stated in his statement that after lodging F.I.R. he alongwith Ghasita and Home-guard were going to Hamirpur for examination of injury by tempo then an accident occurred between tempo and jeep in which home-guard as well as he himself sustained injuries. He further stated that name of Bhagwan Deen Singh, Ram Bahadur, Shiv Bahadur, Raj Bahadur and Buddan Singh were incorporated as stated by complainant on his oral dictation but during investigation without assigning any reason police party exonerated the above named accused so statement of PW-5 is of no use. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that lower court without appreciating true facts and evidence wrongly convicted the appellants and further submitted that there are several contradictions between the statements of injured. It is also submitted that as per version of F.I.R. Muluwa and Gopi Chand were armed with lathi only but during examination-in-chief, they have completely turned their version and stated that both were armed with gun. Since only gun shot injury was found on the body of inured so it is not clear now in what circumstances he got fire arm injury. He next submitted that at the time of examination of Ghasita, he was under influence of alcohol, so this possibility could not be ruled out that Ghasita have got injury in any manner elsewhere. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that as per version of F.I.R. exhortation was done by Bhagwan Deen Singh. But as per statement of Ghasita name of Bhagwan Deen Singh was not disclosed by him regarding exhortation. He further submitted that Sughar Singh, Kallu and Balram Singh were named witnesses in the F.I.R. but none of them were examined by prosecution but Investigating Officer cited Dharam Singh and Km. Ranno as eyewitnesses of the case. Prosecution examined Km. Ranno as PW-2, who is a child witness and cousin of injured. He further submitted that Km. Ranno is related and tutored witness. Ranno as eyewitnesses of the case. Prosecution examined Km. Ranno as PW-2, who is a child witness and cousin of injured. He further submitted that Km. Ranno is related and tutored witness. Hence, no reliance can be placed on her testimony. It is next contended that as per version of F.I.R. both appellants were armed with lathi but as per statement recorded in the court during trial both the appellants were armed with country made pistol. PW-1 stated in his statement that both of them fired upon him but only one fire arm injury found on the body of PW-1 during medical examination. Injury no. 2 of PW-1 caused by hard and blunt object but prosecution has failed to explain how injured has sustained this injury. PW-1 stated that one side injury inflicted on front side at a distance of 15 pace but on perusal of injury report one gun shot injury found on back side of injured, which shows that injured was not able to see assailant and appellants were wrongly implicated in this case due to enmity. Learned counsel further submitted that prosecution witness Bhura Singh stated in his statement that there is an old enmity between the Ghasita and the appellants as one case related to set the house on fire and another is breaking of house. It is also submitted that incident was about 4.30 P.M. and F.I.R. was lodged at 9.10 P.M. and there is no explanation regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is also submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to establish place of occurrence. No blood stain lifted by the Investigating Officer from place of occurrence. No independent witness produced by the prosecution. Neither time nor place of occurrence were proved beyond reasonable doubt. So all the evidence adduced by prosecution is not cogent and reliable and also not inspired the confidence so conviction recorded by learned trial court is frivolous and against established principle of law, hence appeal is liable to be allowed. 14. Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is cogent and credible evidence present before the court. Oral evidence of injured is supported with the statement of PW-2, eye-witness, and ocular version of PW-1 is supported to the injury. He further submitted that there is minor contradiction in the statement of injured witness, so the evidence cannot be disbelieved. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of prosecution case. 15. Oral evidence of injured is supported with the statement of PW-2, eye-witness, and ocular version of PW-1 is supported to the injury. He further submitted that there is minor contradiction in the statement of injured witness, so the evidence cannot be disbelieved. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of prosecution case. 15. On perusal of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 it is clear that statements are not corroborating with each other on material particulars. It appears that Sessions Court has unmindfully given greater importance to evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 without looking into version of their statements. If credence is given to the statement of PW-1, genesis and genuineness of F.I.R. is undoubtedly questionable. 16. One of the argument of learned counsel for appellants is that occurrence has taken place on 24.11.1989 at about 4.30 P.M. and F.I.R. was lodged at about 9.00 P.M. on same day. There are many factors which have to be taken into consideration while looking into factum of delay in criminal cases. It is true that court has duty to take notice of delay and examined the same in a back draft of a factual score whether there is any expectable explanation offered by the prosecution but when delay is satisfactorily explained no adverse inference is to be drawn. It is to be seen whether there has been possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay. In this connection it will be useful to take note of the following observation made by Apex Court in Tara Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 63 : “The delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go the police station for giving the report. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go the police station for giving the report. Of course, in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the Courts should be cautious to scrutinize the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Thus delay in lodging F.I.R. has been very satisfactorily and reasonably explained which has also been discussed by trial court and in this case delay is not at all fatal for prosecution case. 17. So far as the second argument is concerned that PW-2, Km. Ranno is related witness examined by the prosecution. No other independent witness is produced so no reliance can be placed in the statement of interested and related witnesses. In Nagappan vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 660 Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 10 has observed as under:- “10. As regards the first contention about the admissibility of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 being closely related to each other and the deceased, first of all, there is no bar in considering the evidence of relatives. It is true that in the case on hand, other witnesses turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. The trial court and the High Court, in view of their relationship, closely analysed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear, cogent and without considerable contradiction as claimed by their counsel. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. The trial court and the High Court, in view of their relationship, closely analysed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear, cogent and without considerable contradiction as claimed by their counsel. This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that where the evidence of “interested witnesses” is consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness.” (Emphasis added) In Sheesh Ram and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 689 Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 10 has observed as under:- “10. It is submitted that all these witnesses are related and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon. Assuming they are related to each other and, hence, interested witnesses, it is well settled that the evidence of interested witnesses is not always suspect. It has to be scrutinized with caution and can be accepted if it is found reliable.” Hence, statement of a relative or interested witness could not be thrown out only on the ground that the witness is relative or interested witness, rather, such statement is to be scrutinized with caution. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1978) 3 SCC 327 , has observed in paragraph no. 11 as under:- “11. True, they were interested witnesses, related to the deceased. Far from undermining the circumstances of the case, it guaranteed the truth of their testimony. Being relations, they would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant, or substitute him in place of the real culprit. In short, the murder charges had been proved to the hilt against the appellant.” As the law propounded by apex court statement of relatives and interested witnesses could not be thrown out only on the ground that witnesses are relatives. Rather such statement of the witnesses is to be scrutinized with caution. It is made clear that related or interested witnesses will never like to save the real culprit and falsely implicate some other innocent person. In this case alleged occurrence has taken place near the house of the deceased and presence of these witnesses are quite natural. Rather such statement of the witnesses is to be scrutinized with caution. It is made clear that related or interested witnesses will never like to save the real culprit and falsely implicate some other innocent person. In this case alleged occurrence has taken place near the house of the deceased and presence of these witnesses are quite natural. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn that witnesses are related and interested witnesses. In the backdrop of the legal situation now it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been succeed to prove the charges against the accused. 18. On perusal of statement of PW-2 Km. Ranno is not cited as an eye-witness in the F.I.R. During investigation statement of PW-2 is recorded by Investigating Officer as an eye-witness. She deposed in her testimony that she saw the occurrence and she clearly deposed that both accused/ appellants, Muluwa and Gopi Chand, were armed with gun and both of them inflicted gun shot injury to Ghasita on his head, back and chest. But perusal of medical report shows that only one gun shot injury found on the back of chest and on the back of skull of Ghasita. No such injury inflicted on the chest of Ghasita. She clearly deposes that no stick injury was found on the body of Ghasita. Entire perusal of evidence of PW-2 is full of contradictions and imbalances and statement of PW-2 did not inspire confidence. 19. So far, the statement of PW-1 Ghasita, injured witness, is concerned he clearly stated in his chief that both the accused/appellants were armed with country-made pistol and both of them fired upon Ghasita and further stated that only one fire arm injury occurred in his head but during cross-examination PW-1 Ghasita stated that only single fire was launched by Gopi Chand and other appellant Muluwa did not fire upon Ghasita. So on perusal of cross-examination of PW-1 this is vital contradiction on the deposition of injured witness so in this case section 145 of Evidence Act is applied. PW-1 makes contradictory statement in his earlier statement deposed in his chief-examination. Thus we may say that PW-1, injured, changed his entire version of F.I.R. On perusal of F.I.R. it transpires that gun shot injury inflicted by Shiv Bahadur Singh but he never stated in his statement regarding involvement of Shiv Bahadur Singh. 20. PW-1 makes contradictory statement in his earlier statement deposed in his chief-examination. Thus we may say that PW-1, injured, changed his entire version of F.I.R. On perusal of F.I.R. it transpires that gun shot injury inflicted by Shiv Bahadur Singh but he never stated in his statement regarding involvement of Shiv Bahadur Singh. 20. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. (2012) 5 SCC 777 , held that “If there are no material discrepancies or contradiction in the testimony of the witness, his evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, embellishment etc. The distinction between material discrepancies and normal discrepancies are that, minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case but material discrepancies so.” 21. On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence, the oral evidence of injured witness is not corroborated with medical report. There are several discrepancies and contradictions which corrodes the credibility of prosecution case. So the evidence adduced by these witnesses are not cogent and reliable and also does not inspire confidence. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no scope to sustain conviction of the accused/appellants for the offences under section 307/34 I.P.C. The accused/appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. As the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubts. Resultantly, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeal stands allowed. 22. The impugned judgment, conviction order and sentence passed by learned trial court is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused/appellants are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. 23. Appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. 24. The office is directed to transmit back the record of the Lower Court with a copy of judgment and order of this Court for necessary compliance.