JUDGMENT : (Bhuwan Goyal, J.) The appellant-State of Rajasthan has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.02.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 61/1996 (State of Rajasthan v. Harishanker alias Mulya & Anr.), whereby accused-respondent Harishanker was acquitted of offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. and accused-respondent Ramniwas was acquitted of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of present appeal are that on 13.07.1996, complainant - Kripa Ram (P.W. 2) submitted a written report (Ex.P/6) before the police at General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur, wherein it was inter-alia alleged that today, he and his wife Jasoda were irrigating peanut crop from the well. At around 4.00 p.m., Bhutya alias Mulya alias Harishanker, who is his younger brother, came and started to dismantle the boundary (Dol) of his field and he was accompanied by his uncle Ramniwas. Both of them were dismantling his boundary. On stopping them from dismantling the boundary, his brother - Harishanker, who was having 'Kudali' in his hands, inflicted blow from handle side of 'Kudali' on his head but since towel was tied on his head, he fell down. Thereafter, his uncle Ramniwas and brother Harishanker @ Mulya (Bhutya) with intention to kill his wife, inflicted 'Kudali' blow on her head. They inflicted 3 blows from sharp edge and handle side of 'Kudali' on the head of his wife and also inflicted 2-3 blows from handle side of 'Kudali' on her back. He ran towards the village in fear. Later on, both Harishanker and Ramniwas treating his wife as dead, went away. He went in the village and when he returned to his well along with his mother and father then, his wife was found lying there. He along with Sitaram Mahajan, Gopal Gurjar and Felu Meena took his wife to the hospital at Sawai Madhopur in the tractor of one Ramdhan. When his brother Harishanker (Mulya) and his uncle Ramniwas had beaten him and his wife in their field, there was no one present in the nearby fields etc. 3. On the basis of said report, an F.I.R. No.266/1996 (Ex.P/10) came to be registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. 3. On the basis of said report, an F.I.R. No.266/1996 (Ex.P/10) came to be registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During course of investigation, since injured Jasoda expired, therefore, police added Section 302 of I.P.C. in the matter and after conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 & 323 of I.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, who took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-respondents and committed the case to the Court of Sessions i.e. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as "learned trial court"). 4. Learned trial court framed charges against accused-respondent No.1 for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. and accused-respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/28 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, which they denied and claimed that prosecution evidence was false, they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondents did not produce any oral evidence but got documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3 exhibited in their defence. 5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated evidence available on record and delivered impugned judgment dated 03.02.1997, whereby accused-respondents were acquitted of charges levelled against them. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State of Rajasthan before this Court. 6. During pendency of present appeal, accused-respondent No.1 - Harishanker alias Mulya expired, therefore, appeal qua him has been ordered to be abated on 24.05.2023. Hence, present appeal has been decided only qua accused-respondent No.2 - Ramniwas. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant - State has submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence and proved its case against accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He has also submitted that a bloodstained weapon of offence was also recovered at the instance of accused-respondent, which connected him with alleged offence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant - State has submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence and proved its case against accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He has also submitted that a bloodstained weapon of offence was also recovered at the instance of accused-respondent, which connected him with alleged offence. But despite that the trial court without appreciating the evidence on record more particularly, the testimony deposed by P.W. 5 - Gyarsa and P.W.6 - Tara, recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused-respondent and medical evidence on record, wrongly acquitted accused-respondent for the offence alleged against him. Therefore, he has prayed that appeal preferred by the appellant - State may be allowed and accused respondent - Ramniwas may be convicted and sentenced for the offence alleged against him. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent while supporting the judgment passed by the learned trial court, has submitted that material prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 2 - Kriparam (injured and husband of the deceased), P.W. 3 - Felu, P.W. 4 - Bheru did not support prosecution story and were declared hostile. So far as P.W. 5 - Gyarsa and P.W. 6 - Tara are concerned, they were not eye-witnesses and were planted as eye-witnesses by the prosecution. Names of both above witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. They were residents of different villages and thus, their presence at the place of occurrence was suspicious. Learned counsel has contended that there have been material contradictions in the testimony deposed by P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, which do not inspire confidence for acceptance. He has also submitted that P.W. 7 - Battilal was a hearsay witness and remaining all prosecution witnesses were official witnesses. 10. Learned counsel has also submitted that F.I.R. in the present case was registered at 11.30 p.m. on 13.07.1996 but the same was presented before the concerned Magistrate on 15.07.1996 at 11.00 a.m. i.e. after more than 24 hours of lodging the F.I.R. and no explanation regarding such delay has been furnished by the prosecution, which brings the F.I.R. under clouds of suspicion. 11. 11. Learned counsel has further submitted that recovery of 'Kudali' at the instance of the accused-respondent - Ramniwas did not inspire confidence for acceptance because accused-respondent was arrested on 25.07.1996 and after 7 days of his arrest, information regarding 'Kudali' at his instance was recorded on 02.08.1996, on the basis of which, 'Kudali' was stated to be recovered from him on 03.08.1996 i.e. on the next day. He has also submitted that out of two motbir witnesses of recovery, one Ramlal was not produced in the witness box and another witness Battilal did not say anything in his statement regarding recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused-respondent in his presence. He has, thus, contended that recovery of 'Kudali' at the instance of accused-respondent was not proved. 12. Learned counsel has also submitted that though, bloodstains were stated to be found on the 'Kudali' but no F.S.L. report has been produced on record by the prosecution in this regard and thus, in absence of F.S.L. report, it cannot be said that blood found on the weapon of offence recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent was of the deceased. 13. He has further submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated material as well as evidence available on record and has not committed any error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal impugned herein. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that present appeal filed by the appellant-State may be dismissed. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record of the case and have minutely sifted through evidence available on record. 15. In the case in hand, a perusal of the record reveals that material prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 - Kriparam (injured and husband of the deceased), P.W. 3 - Felu, P.W. 4 - Bheru did not support prosecution story and were declared hostile. P.W. 2 - Kriparam in his statement has stated that his brother Harishanker was alone and no one was present with him. He has also stated that no one had beaten him, he did not know as to who had beaten Jasoda or how she died and he did not register the F.I.R. 16. Except aforesaid witnesses, prosecution produced P.W. 5 - Gyarsa and P.W. 6 - Tara, who were stated to be eye-witnesses of alleged incident. He has also stated that no one had beaten him, he did not know as to who had beaten Jasoda or how she died and he did not register the F.I.R. 16. Except aforesaid witnesses, prosecution produced P.W. 5 - Gyarsa and P.W. 6 - Tara, who were stated to be eye-witnesses of alleged incident. On perusal of the statement of P.W. 5 - Gyarsa, it reveals that he in his examination-in-chief has stated that while he was going on his way, Kriparam started his engine and he went to his well for drinking water. Thereafter, Harishanker came there and dismantled the boundary and both of them started quarrelling. Ramniwas also came running there. Kriparam had tied cloth on his head and Ramniwas inflicted axe blow on the head of Kriparam. Thereafter, Ramniwas inflicted 'Kudali' blow from sharp side on the head of Jasoda and then he inflicted two injuries from handle side of 'Kudali' on her back and thereafter, Ramniwas caught hold of both hands of Jasoda and Harishanker inflicted one 'Kudali' blow on her feet and another blow on her head and 2 blows on her back and that he and Felu rescued her. However, on perusal of the police statement of P.W. 5 - Gyarsa (Ex.D/1), it reveals that he has narrated a totally different story. In his police statement (Ex.D/1), Gyarsa (P.W. 5) stated that after visiting Ganesh temple, while he was going to his village Bagawada, he suddenly heard noise and weeping, upon which, he jumped the boundary and went inside a field, where Felu Meena also came. He saw that Harishanker alias Mulya inflicted 'Kudali' blow from its handle side on the head of Kriparam, who had tied towel on his head and then, he inflicted 'Kudali' blow from sharp edged side on the head of Jasoda. Harishanker inflicted 2-3 injuries from handle of 'Kudali' on the head of Jasoda and Ramniwas inflicted blows from handle of 'Kudali' on the head and back of Jasoda. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there are great contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 5 in his court statement as well as police statement (Ex.D/1). Harishanker inflicted 2-3 injuries from handle of 'Kudali' on the head of Jasoda and Ramniwas inflicted blows from handle of 'Kudali' on the head and back of Jasoda. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there are great contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 5 in his court statement as well as police statement (Ex.D/1). Besides, as per statement of P.W. 5 - Gyarsa, Felu (P.W. 3) also came at the place of occurrence, however, on perusal of statement of P.W. 3 - Felu, it reveals that he did not support the version of P.W. 5 - Gyarsa. 17. On perusal of statement of P.W. 6 - Tara, who was niece of the deceased, it reveals that she was only 8 years old at the time of alleged incident. While examination of her mental maturity by the Court, she was not even able to answer as to when sun rise in day or night and whether telling lie is sin or not. It cannot be expected from a minor child of 8 years that she would remember verbatim version of the incident, which took place more than 3 months prior to recording her statement in the court. A perusal of her statement shows that she in her examination-in-chief has stated that while both accused were beating Jasoda, Gyarsa came at the place of incident, however, presence of Gyarsa at the place of incident was not disclosed by her in the police statement (Ex.D/2). She further stated that Ramniwas caused 3-4 injuries and Harishanker @ Mulya caused 3-4 injuries to her aunt and that injuries were caused from sharp edged side of 'Kudali' but this fact was not mentioned in her police statement (Ex.D/2). In fact, she has admitted in her cross-examination that she disclosed about causing 3-4 injuries to the police but did not know as to why same was not written in her police statement (Ex.D/2). She also stated that she did not disclose about inflicting injuries from sharp edged side to the police. It shows that there are contradictions in the testimony deposed by P.W. 6 in her police statement (Ex.D/2) and the statement recorded in the court. She also stated that she did not disclose about inflicting injuries from sharp edged side to the police. It shows that there are contradictions in the testimony deposed by P.W. 6 in her police statement (Ex.D/2) and the statement recorded in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that though, both aforesaid witnesses i.e. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were shown as eye-witnesses in the present case but their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R, rather, it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that no one else was present on the spot at the time of incident. A perusal of the record reveals that police statements of both above witnesses (Ex.D/1 & Ex.D/2) were recorded after three days of the incident i.e. on 16.07.1996 and no explanation regarding delay in recording their statements has been put forth by the prosecution. 18. In the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1979 AIR 135, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "In the instant case, some of the main reasons given by the trial court could not be effectively and rationally dispelled. One of such reasons, which cast a cloud on the credibility of the prosecution evidence, was that there was inordinate delay of several hours on the part of the police in recording the statement which was treated as F.I.R. and further undue delay in recording the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses by the investigating officer, and no credible explanation of these delays was forthcoming. Although these witnesses were or could be available for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, their statements were recorded on the following day. Such delay may not, by themselves, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But they may assume such a character if there are circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. A catena of circumstances which lend such sinister significance to these delays, exists in the instant case, which inevitably lead to the conclusion that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation, in a shady setting highly redolent of doubt and suspicion." 19. A catena of circumstances which lend such sinister significance to these delays, exists in the instant case, which inevitably lead to the conclusion that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation, in a shady setting highly redolent of doubt and suspicion." 19. Applying the ratio of law laid down in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel (supra), in the case in hand, it is an admitted position that police statements of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were recorded after 3 days of alleged incident and there is no evidence on record to show that after alleged incident, both of them had immediately left the village and were not available for recording their statements, therefore, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, statements of both above witnesses do not appear to be worth credence. 20. Further, a perusal of the record shows that aforesaid both witnesses were not shown as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. because their names were not mentioned therein. Both of them are stated to be residents of different villages and were not residents of the same village i.e. village of the deceased and thus, presence of both witnesses at the place of incident appears to be under the clouds of suspicion. 21. It is pertinent to note here that the F.I.R. in the present case was registered on 13.07.1996 at 11.30 p.m. but the same was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur on 15.07.1996 at 11.00 a.m. There is delay of more than 24 hours in presentation of F.I.R. before the concerned Magistrate and no explanation for the said delay has been furnished by the prosecution, which enables to draw an adverse inference against entire prosecution story. 22. Now adverting to the question of recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused-respondent, it is pertinent to note that accused-respondent was arrested vide Arrest Memo dated 25.07.1996 (Ex.P/17) and after 7 days of his arrest, information regarding 'Kudali' at his instance was recorded on 02.08.1996 vide Ex.-P/20, on the basis of which, 'Kudali' was stated to be recovered from him on 03.08.1996 i.e. on the next day vide Ex.P/22. Further, the weapon of offence i.e. 'Kudali' was stated to be recovered in the presence of witnesses Battilal and Ramlal. Ramlal has not been produced by the prosecution in the witness box. Further, the weapon of offence i.e. 'Kudali' was stated to be recovered in the presence of witnesses Battilal and Ramlal. Ramlal has not been produced by the prosecution in the witness box. P.W. 7 - Battilal in his statement has not mentioned anything with regard to recovery of 'Kudali' at the instance of accused-respondent in his presence. As per prosecution story, bloodstains were found on the 'Kudali' but no F.S.L. Report the regarding said weapon of offence has been produced on record and in absence of the F.S.L. Report, it cannot be concluded that blood found on the said 'Kudali' was of the deceased. Therefore, merely on the basis of recovery of 'Kudali', the accused respondent cannot be connected with the commission of alleged crime. 23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has not erred in passing the judgment and order dated 03.02.1997 acquitting accused-respondent No. 2 - Ramniwas for the offences alleged in the present case. 24. Accordingly, present criminal appeal filed by the appellant- State of Rajasthan is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 03.02.1997 passed by the trial court is upheld. 25. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.