JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - Vide judgment dated 19th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1991 arising out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 333 of 1990, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Consequently, vide an order dated 20th September, 1995, the Trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. The appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 3. The prosecution case, as narrated by the informant Jawahar Ram in his fardbeyan recorded by Mr. J Bage, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna on 15th September, 1990 at about 09:00 AM at PMCH Emergency Ward is that on 14th September, 1990 at about 06:45 PM both the accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad Mehtar @ Ram Prasad Ram and Mukesh Mehtar @ Mukesh Ram together with one Babli Sao son of Bhagat Ram and another unknown accused came to his house and assaulted his son Pradeep Kumar by means of lathi and chhura. He alleged that the accused persons had given threatening prior to committing the assault upon his son regarding which he had gone to the police station for reporting the matter and when he returned back, he noticed that such an occurrence had already taken place. He carried his injured son to Phulwari hospital. The doctor, who treated his son at Phulwari hospital, referred him to PMCH, Patna pursuant to which the injured son was taken to PMCH, Patna where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the following morning. He stated that the incident took place because of previous litigation going on with the accused persons. 4. After recording the fardbeyan at the emergency ward of PMCH, Patna, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirbahore Police Station forwarded the fardbeyan to the S.H.O. of Phulwari Police Station on 15th September, 1990 pursuant to which Phulwari PS. He stated that the incident took place because of previous litigation going on with the accused persons. 4. After recording the fardbeyan at the emergency ward of PMCH, Patna, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirbahore Police Station forwarded the fardbeyan to the S.H.O. of Phulwari Police Station on 15th September, 1990 pursuant to which Phulwari PS. Case No. 333 of 1990 was registered on 16th September, 1990 at 12:05 PM against the accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad Ram, Mukesh Ram, Babli Sao, son of Bhagat Ram and others unknown under Section 304 of the IPC and investigation was taken up. 5. It would be evident from the record that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police J. Bage of Pirbahore Police Station, who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on 15th September, 1990 at 09:00 AM at emergency ward of PMCH, Patna had prepared the inquest report of the deceased Pradeep Kumar on 15th September, 1990 at 09:15 AM. 6. It would further appear that even the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was conducted by Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.1), a medical officer of Patna Medical College, Patna on 15th September, 1990 at 12:15 PM. 7. Thus, it prior to the institution of the FIR on 16th September, 1990 at 12:05 PM, the inquest report was prepared and the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased had already been conducted. 8. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons finding the case true under Section 302/34 of the IPC vide charge-sheet no. 1 dated 9th January, 1991. 9. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, who after complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C'), committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. 10. After appearance of the accused persons, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellants on 4th April, 1991 for intentionally or knowingly causing death of Pradeep Kumar. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced. 11. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined five witnesses. They are Dr. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced. 11. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined five witnesses. They are Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.1), Nago Devi (P.W.2), Jawahar Ram (P.W.3), Maxwell Devit (P.W.4) and Vijay Kumar Singh (P.W.5). 12. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Trial Court examined the accused persons in respect of the evidence available against them. They pleaded their innocence. 13. Thereafter, the Trial Court called upon the accused persons to enter into defence. However, they declined to adduce evidence on their behalf. Thus, the defence case was closed and after hearing the arguments, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were passed. 14. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is bad both in law and on facts. He contended that the manner of occurrence as alleged in the earliest version has been exaggerated during trial. The police have not conducted the investigation of the case in the proper manner. The witnesses are not consistent on the point of weapon in the hands of the appellants at the time of occurrence. He contended that the prosecution deliberately withheld the important witnesses like the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police J. Bage, who recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and forwarded it to the S.H.O. of Phulwari Police Station, Rama Kant Sharma, the Home guard who brought the body of the deceased and identified it before the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, Subodh Kumar Singh, the Havildar of Phulwari Police Station, who is said to have visited the place of occurrence first with the informant and the Investigating Officer of the case. He contended that non-examination of these important witnesses has seriously prejudiced the case of the defence and on this ground alone, the appellants ought to have been acquitted by the Trial Court. 15. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is no eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. The mother and father of the deceased, who have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 during trial have contradicted each other in material particular. Their testimonies do not inspire any confidence. He argued that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the vital omissions in the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3. 16. On the other hand, Mr. The mother and father of the deceased, who have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 during trial have contradicted each other in material particular. Their testimonies do not inspire any confidence. He argued that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the vital omissions in the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the credibility of the witnesses examined during trial remained unimpeached. He contended that P.Ws.2 and 3 are consistent on the point of assault made upon the deceased by the appellants. According to him, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witnesses due to error of observation and due to lapse of time. However, the omissions do not create doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses. He contended that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of everything which happened at the time of occurrence. Hence, the witnesses have stated something during trial which were not mentioned in the FIR. The same cannot be termed to be an improvement in the testimony of the witnesses. He argued that the medical evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellants. 17. We have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the materials on record. 18. Jawahar Ram (P.W.3), the informant of the present case, is the father of the deceased. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on 14th September, 1990 at about 7-7:15 PM he was at his house when the accused Ram Prasad Ram and Mukesh Ram holding chhura in their hands came and started chasing his son Pradeep Kumar. Having seen them, he along with his wife went to the Police Station, which was situated at a distance of half a mile. He reported the matter to the S.H.O. of Phulwari Police Station. He sent a Havildar Subodh Kumar Singh with them. On coming back, he found that his son Pradeep Kumar had sustained 6-7 injuries caused by chhura on his back and on the kanpatti. He took the injured to Phulwari Block Hospital. The doctor referred him to the PMCH, Patna for better treatment. Thus, he took his son to the PMCH, Patna on the same day. On coming back, he found that his son Pradeep Kumar had sustained 6-7 injuries caused by chhura on his back and on the kanpatti. He took the injured to Phulwari Block Hospital. The doctor referred him to the PMCH, Patna for better treatment. Thus, he took his son to the PMCH, Patna on the same day. However, his son succumbed to the injuries on 15th September, 1990 at 6:00 AM. He stated that the police officer prepared the inquest report of his son on which he put his signature. He proved his signature on the inquest report, which was marked as Exhibit-2/1. He identified the accused persons in the dock. 19. In cross-examination, he stated that he together with his wife came back from the Police Station along with the Havildar and after reaching home, in the torchlight, found his son lying beside a well behind the Nurses Quarters. At that time, the electric light was cut off. He stated that when he along with his wife and the Havildar reached near his injured son, no other person was present there. It was one Sharmaji (not examined), a technician, who was sitting in the front of his house and told him to go towards the well and to see there. He stated that the quarter of Sharmaji was 300-400 yards away from the well. He further stated that in the torchlight when he saw the body of his injured son, it was wet with water and there was no cloth below the waist and the cloth above the waist was wet with water. He admitted that there are 45-46 quarters near the Nurses Quarters where his injured son was lying. His attention was drawn towards his previous statement. He denied stating before the police that the appellants had assaulted his son with lathi and chhura. He admitted that he had not seen the act of inflicting injuries by the appellants on his son. He further admitted that when he saw his son in an injured condition, no body from the neighbourhood came there. He admitted that at least 3 to 4 cases were pending against his son. He further admitted that his son was a suspect in cases relating to dacoity and robbery. He also admitted that about 15-20 days prior to the incident the appellant Mukesh Ram had instituted a case against his son. 20. He admitted that at least 3 to 4 cases were pending against his son. He further admitted that his son was a suspect in cases relating to dacoity and robbery. He also admitted that about 15-20 days prior to the incident the appellant Mukesh Ram had instituted a case against his son. 20. Nago Devi (P.W.2) is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she supported the prosecution case. She stated that on 14th September, 1990 she was at her house along with her son. The appellant Mukesh Ram, Ram Prasad Ram, Babli Sao son of Bhagat Sao and three others came to her house. They hurled abuses and threatened her to send her son outside the house. Upon this, she proceeded towards the Phulwari Police Station to inform police. She further stated that by the time she came back from the Phulwari Police Station, Ram Prasad Ram, Mukesh Ram, Babli Sao and others assaulted her son and thrown him into a well situated near her house. When she came back from the Police Station, her son was lying unconscious. He was taken to hospital. She stated that her son was assaulted by gupti and when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor asked a leading question from her, she stated that the injuries were caused by chhura. She identified the appellants in the dock. 21. In cross-examination, she denied any enmity with the accused persons. She stated that a quarrel had taken place between her son on one side and the accused persons on the other side about six months ago regarding which they had instituted a case against her son. She admitted that when the assault took place, she along with her husband had gone to the Police Station. At that time her two daughters were present inside the house. She further stated that she had seen chhura in the hand of appellant Mukesh Ram and a Patti (wooden part) of a cot in the hand of Ram Prasad Ram. She admitted that she had narrated before the police officer that Mukesh Ram was holding a gupti in his hand and Ram Prasad Ram was holding a Patti of a cot. She admitted that she had narrated before the police officer that Mukesh Ram was holding a gupti in his hand and Ram Prasad Ram was holding a Patti of a cot. Her attention was drawn towards her previous statement that she had stated before the police that the deceased Pradeep Kumar had told her that Mukesh Ram had chased him and he had fallen into the well, she stated that it is not true that Mukesh Ram had ever chased the deceased Pradeep Kumar. She stated that when she reached near the well, she saw that her son was having no cloth over his body. She stated that some one had taken out her son from inside the well. She did not see who had taken out her son out of the well. She denied the fact that her son was a drunkard. She further denied the defence suggestion that her son had fallen into the well while he was drunk. She also denied the defence suggestion that she has falsely implicated the accused persons due to previous enmity. 22. Maxwell Devit (P.W.4) denied having any knowledge about the case. He stated that the police did not make any inquiry from him regarding the incident. At this stage, he was declared hostile by the court at the instance of the prosecution. After he was declared hostile, the prosecution cross-examined him. Even in cross-examination, nothing relevant to the aid of the prosecution came in his evidence. 23. Vijay Kumar Singh (P.W.5) is an advocate clerk. He identified the writing of the Jamadar of Pirbahore Police Station, who had recorded the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-3.He proved the case diary in the writing of PD. Mishra, the Investigating Officer of the case, which was marked as Exhibit-4. He also proved the writing of the Jamadar of Pirbahore Police Station on the inquest report, which was marked as Exhibit-5 during trial. 24. In cross-examination, he admitted that neither the Jamadar of Pirbahore Police Station nor the Investigating Officer had written anything in his presence. He further admitted that he does not know the where about of the two police officers. He stated that he does not know whether they are alive or dead. 25. Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.1) was posted at the Patna Medical College, Patna in the Forensic Medicine Department. He further admitted that he does not know the where about of the two police officers. He stated that he does not know whether they are alive or dead. 25. Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.1) was posted at the Patna Medical College, Patna in the Forensic Medicine Department. On 15th September, 1990 at 12:15 PM, he held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Pradeep Kumar, aged about 18 years, son of Jawahar Ram (P.W.3), which was brought and identified by the Home Guard Rama Kant Sharma. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. One stitched wound 1" long on the back of right head close to mid-line. 2. One stitched wound on back of right chest on medial border over middle of scapula.3. One stitched wound 1" on the side of lateral border of scapula on the right side on VII intercostal space. 4. One stitched wound 1" on back of right chest close to IV thoracic vertebrae. 5. One stitched wound 1" on back of right chest 3" away from mid-line of thoracic VI level. 6. One stitched wound 1" on right helix of ear. 7. One stitched wound "on middle of right index finger. He opined that the time elapsed since death was 6 to 24 hours. According to him, the cause of death was the chest injury. Regarding the nature of injury, he opined that injury nos. 2 and 4 were continuous to thoracic cavity, caused by sharp weapon. However, about other injuries, he said that the opinion cannot be given due to surgical interference. He stated that the opinion may be obtained from the surgeon concerned. He further stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He identified the post-mortem report written and signed by him, which was marked as Exhibit-1. 26. In cross-examination, he stated that the injuries found on the person of the deceased cannot be caused by fall in the well, if the victim comes in contact with the iron ladder made in the well. He admitted that since the injury nos. 2 and 4 were stitched so only length of these injuries was given on external examination. On dissection, he found those two injuries continuous to the chest cavity causing incised wound on the right and the left lungs. He admitted that since the injury nos. 2 and 4 were stitched so only length of these injuries was given on external examination. On dissection, he found those two injuries continuous to the chest cavity causing incised wound on the right and the left lungs. He stated that due to the surgical interference, the depth of injury nos. 2 and 4 could not be given. Even the breadth of those injuries was not given. He stated that bhala and garasa are sharp cutting weapons. 27. In a criminal case, FIR is an important document even though it is not a substantive piece of evidence. A prompt FIR lends credence to the prosecution version and often prevents the possibility of a coloured version being put by the informant. Section 154 contained in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C deals with the information to the police and their powers to investigate. The Cr.P.C classifies the offences in two categories, namely, (a) cognizable offence and (b) non-cognizable offence. Registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 28. In the instant case, the informant and his wife claim that for an incident, which took place at about 06:45 PM on 14th September, 1990, they went to the Police Station for reporting the matter. They also claim that the S.H.O. of the Phulwarisharif Police Station sent a Havildar with him to the place of occurrence. It is not known what kind of report was lodged by the informant at the Police Station. As the Havildar has not been examined by the prosecution during trial, it is not known what was observed by him when he reached the place of occurrence along with the informant and his wife. The evidence of the informant and his wife would demonstrate that when they came back with the Havildar, they found their son in an injured condition and they carried their son to Phulwari Hospital from where he was referred to the PMCH, Patna. The injured succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the following morning. 29. It is surprising that when the informant and his wife came back on 14th September, 1990 along with a Havildar of Phulwarisharif Police Station and they saw the injured Pradeep Kumar in an injured condition, no FIR was registered on 14th September, 1990. The injured succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the following morning. 29. It is surprising that when the informant and his wife came back on 14th September, 1990 along with a Havildar of Phulwarisharif Police Station and they saw the injured Pradeep Kumar in an injured condition, no FIR was registered on 14th September, 1990. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the S.H.O. of Phulwarisharif Police Station on 15th September, 1990 at 09:00 AM and the FIR was registered on 16th September, 1990 at 12:05 PM. Prior to the institution of the FIR, the inquest report of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was prepared at 09:15 AM on 15th September, 1990 and the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted at 12:15 PM on 15th September, 1990. Since the information given to the police was not cryptic and it related to a cognizable offence, it was incumbent upon the police officer to have instituted the FIR promptly. The institution of the FIR after the inquest report was prepared, postmortem examination was conducted and the major part of investigation was conducted gives rise to the presumption that the same was instituted after due deliberations and consultation. 30. In Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi, since reported in (2007) 12 SCC 641 , while holding that unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR is fatal, the Supreme Court held as under: - "9. 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. 10. In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. [ (1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 543 : AIR 1973 SC 501 ] it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. 10. In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. [ (1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 543 : AIR 1973 SC 501 ] it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. 11. In Ram Jag v. State of U.P. [ (1974) 4 SCC 201 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 370 : AIR 1974 SC 606 ] the position was explained that whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused and/or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the prosecution. " 31. In P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, since reported in (2019) 5 SCC 403 (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "12. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty-bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala [Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 195] and Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673]" 32. In the instant case, the inordinate delay caused in instituting the FIR has not been explained at all by the prosecution. In the instant case, the inordinate delay caused in instituting the FIR has not been explained at all by the prosecution. Rather, the important police witnesses, who could have thrown some light on the reason for the delay, have been withheld by the prosecution. 33. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh (Supra) and P. Rajagopal (Supra), since no satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution for the delay caused in lodging the FIR, the same gives rise to the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. 34. Moreover, in the impugned judgment, the Trial Court recorded in para 14 that in spite of all the efforts made by the prosecution and processes issued for appearance of the Investigating Officer, his attendance could not be secured for evidence. 35. We find from the testimony of the witnesses that the prosecution has been able to prove that the death of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was homicidal as the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, has completely ruled out the possibility of the ante mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased due to fall into the well. 36. Now, the question is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. 37. In this regard, we find that there is no eye-witness to the incident of killing of the son of the informant. The injured son of the informant was found lying beside the well. We further find that the testimonies of P.Ws.4 and 5 are of no use to the prosecution, as P.W.4 has turned hostile and P.W.5 is a formal witness, who has proved the writing of the police officers. P.W.5 has admitted in cross-examination that nothing was written in his presence. He also admitted that he does not know the whereabouts of the police officers, who recorded the fardbeyan or the police officer, who conducted the investigation. He also admitted that he does not know as to whether the aforesaid two police officers are dead or alive. Thus, his evidence also does not help the prosecution in any manner. 38. Now, we would deal with the evidence of the two most important witnesses of this case, namely, Jawahar Ram (P.W.3) and Nago Devi (P.W.2). He also admitted that he does not know as to whether the aforesaid two police officers are dead or alive. Thus, his evidence also does not help the prosecution in any manner. 38. Now, we would deal with the evidence of the two most important witnesses of this case, namely, Jawahar Ram (P.W.3) and Nago Devi (P.W.2). In the fardbeyan, Jawahar Ram (P.W.3) did not mention that any of the accused persons came to his house. He has simply stated that since the accused persons had issued warning, he had gone to the Police Station to lodge report and when he returned, he found his son in an injured condition. It is not mentioned in the fardbeyan that before the informant had left for the Police Station, any of the appellants had come to his house. It is also not mentioned that they were armed with chhura. However, during trial, the informant materially improved his version. He stated that on 14th September, 1990 at about 7:00-7:15 PM, the appellants being armed with chhura came to his residence and started chasing his son Pradeep Kumar whereafter he went to the Police Station along with his wife. The story of chasing the son of the informant by the appellants being armed with chhura is also a new introduction at the stage of trial. It has rightly been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in case the son of the informant would have been chased by the appellants, who were armed with chhura, the informant would have tried to save him first. He would not have left him at the mercy of the appellants and went to the police station. It is also surprising that if such an incident had taken place, as to why no hulla was raised and no one from the neighbourhood could witness the occurrence specially when there were about 40-45 nurse's quarters situated near the place of occurrence. 39. It would further appear from the testimony of P.W.3 that he visited the Phulwari Police Station together with his wife and reported that the appellants being armed with chhura were chasing his son, but no police officer has come forward to corroborate this part of his story. P.W.3 stated that when he reported to the S.H.O. of Phulwarisharif Police Station, he sent one Subodh Kumar Singh, a Havildar together with him. P.W.3 stated that when he reported to the S.H.O. of Phulwarisharif Police Station, he sent one Subodh Kumar Singh, a Havildar together with him. The said Havildar has been withheld by the prosecution. It is not understandable that when the son of the informant having sustained several grievous injuries was found lying beside the well in the presence of the Havildar Subodh Kumar Singh as to why no FIR was registered immediately thereafter. 40. Apparently, the earliest version given to the police has been withheld. The Havildar, who accompanied the informant after he came back from the Police Station has also been withheld. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the fardbeyan on 15th September, 1990 at about 09:00 AM has been withheld and the Investigating Officer of the case has also been withheld by the prosecution. There is no plausible explanation for their non-examination before the court. 41. We have seen that the attention of the two of the most important witnesses has been drawn by the defence towards their previous statements made before the police under Section 161(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the contradiction could not be taken. Under such circumstance, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has certainly prejudiced the case of the defence. 42. Coming back to the deposition of Nago Devi (P.W.2), we find from her evidence that she never stated that these appellants ever met the deceased or chased him. She simply stated that these appellants and 4-5 other accused persons came to her house and threatened her to send her son out of the house whereupon she went to the Police Station. The testimony of P.W.2 is apparently not in alignment with the testimony of P.W.3. 43. We further find that as per the fardbeyan when the informant came back from the Police Station, he found his son lying injured, but during trial P.W.2 stated that the body of her son was into the well. She stated that she cannot say as to who took out the body of her son from the well. On the other hand, P.W.3 stated that his son was found lying and someone had thrown 2-3 buckets of water upon him. She stated that she cannot say as to who took out the body of her son from the well. On the other hand, P.W.3 stated that his son was found lying and someone had thrown 2-3 buckets of water upon him. P.W.2 stated that there was no cloth over the body of the deceased whereas P.W.3 stated in his evidence that lower part of the body was naked and the upper part over the waist was covered with wet cloth. We further find that P.W.3 stated in his deposition that both the appellants were armed with chhura whereas P.W.2 stated that the appellant Mukesh Ram was armed with gupti and Ram Prasad Ram was armed with patti of a cot. 44. It is true that normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witnesses due to lapse of time, but where the discrepancies are material and create serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses and the material improvements are made while deposing before the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. 45. We find that the discrepancies in the evidence of the two most important witnesses. These discrepancies are not marginal. They materially affect the core of the prosecution case and render their testimonies liable to be discredited. 46. P.W.3 has admitted in his evidence that the deceased was an accused in 3-4 cases and was a suspect in cases relating to dacoity and robbery. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 have admitted that Mukesh Ram had instituted a case against the deceased Pradeep Kumar. It is not known by whom and in what manner the son of the informant was killed. However, it cannot be ruled out that due to previous enmity the appellants might have been named in the FIR. 47. The observations made above lead us to conclude that the entire bucket of evidence is unbelievable and untrustworthy. 48. Thus, on consideration of the entire evidence, we reiterate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 49. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 19th September, 1995 and the order of sentence dated 20th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1991 arising out of Phulwari PS. Case No. 333 of 1990 are, accordingly, set aside. 49. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 19th September, 1995 and the order of sentence dated 20th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1991 arising out of Phulwari PS. Case No. 333 of 1990 are, accordingly, set aside. The appellants, namely, Ram Prasad Mehtar @ Ram Prasad Ram and Mukesh Mehtar @ Mukesh Ram are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Since both the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.