JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant herein against the impugned judgment dated 27/11/2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No. 38/2014 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 17/04/2014 at about 8 PM, appellant, being a Driver, while driving a bus bearing registration No. CG 04 E 0679, dashed Smt. Chandrika Joshi while she was riding her scooter Pleasure bearing registration No. CG 04 CX 5883 and her son Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) was sitting as a pillion rider and due to that, Smt. Chandrika Joshi suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that appellant had developed one-sided liking for deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi and he used to harass her as per the statements of Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), husband of the deceased and Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5), daughters of the deceased and since deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi did not like it as she was already married and had three children, therefore, appellant was holding a grudge and on the date of offence, he deliberately dashed her scooter with the intention of causing her death. Immediately thereafter, appellant drove his bus and stationed it at Police Chowki, Bhatgaon. One Rajkumar Sonwani (P.W.-6) informed Akshay Kumar Jatwar (P.W.-1) that her relative Smt. Chandrika Joshi has met with an accident who then lodged first information report against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC vide Ex. P/1 and thereafter, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/2. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/12 and after conducting inquest vide Ex. P/6, the dead body of Smt. Chandrika Joshi was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Pushpendra Vaishnav (P.W.-16) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/21), cause of death is said to be excessive blood loss and cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory arrest and no definite opinion with regard to nature of death has been given. P/6, the dead body of Smt. Chandrika Joshi was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Pushpendra Vaishnav (P.W.-16) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/21), cause of death is said to be excessive blood loss and cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory arrest and no definite opinion with regard to nature of death has been given. Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), who was sitting as a pillion rider with his mother deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi, was also medically examined by Dr. Narayan Sahu (P.W.-12) and as per MLC report (Ex. P/17), he had suffered simple injuries. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P/13 and his driving license and his mobile phone were seized vide Ex. P/14. The seized bus and scooter were mechanically examined vide Ex. P/24. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and only brought 1 document on record. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid holding that death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was not accidental in nature as the appellant had dashed her with his bus with the intention of causing his death by which she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot, as such, it was homicidal death and also finding the motive of offence proved by Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5). 6. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and would further submit as under :- (i) the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was accidental and not homicidal in nature. 6. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and would further submit as under :- (i) the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was accidental and not homicidal in nature. (ii) motive of offence has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as though Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5) have tried to allege that appellant used to harass deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi by calling on her phone and he also sent a pamphlet to her house which contained vulgar comments about the deceased, however, it is the case of the prosecution that Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), both are eye-witnesses to the incident and as such, in a case of direct evidence, motive of offence is not of much use as even the first information report was not recorded by that point of time and moreover, the call details of either the appellant or the deceased, have neither been produced before the Court nor have they been proved by the prosecution. (iii) So far as the statement of eye-witness Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) is concerned, as per his own showing in paragraph 24 of his statement, on the date of offence, there was a marriage in his house and the groom's family had come to his house on the same bus which is said to have caused the accident of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi, as such, the presence of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) on the spot is questionable. Furthermore, in paragraphs 27 and 28, he has clearly stated that immediately after 10-15 minutes from the incident, Police had reached on the spot and he informed the Police orally about the incident and further in paragraph 33, he has clearly stated that his statement was recorded by the Police on the spot itself, and he had also informed about the name of the appellant but surprisingly, his statement under Section 161 of CrPC is available on record and it has been recorded on 01/05/2014 whereas the date of offence is 17/04/2014 and no reason has been brought on record to explain the delay caused in recording the statement of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2), who has been cited as an eye-witness, and particularly considering the contradictory statement made by Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2), his testimony does not inspire confidence and could not have been trusted by the trial Court. (iv) So far as the statement of another eye-witness Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), who is the son of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi, is concerned, he would submit that he was sitting behind his mother on the scooter as pillion rider and immediately after the incident, he was taken to Community Health Center, Bilaigarh by Police Constable Sant Kumar wherein he was medically examined by Dr. Narayan Sahu (P.W.-12), who has clearly stated in paragraph 5 of his statement before the Court, that when he asked Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) about the incident, he informed him about meeting with a bus accident and similarly, the statement of Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) under Section 161 of CrPC was taken with a delay on 01/05/2014 which again creates a doubt in the mind of the Courts as to why his statement was not recorded immediately after the incident when he was available at the time of the incident. Moreover, the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14) has clearly stated in paragraph 11 of his statement that Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) had informed him about suffering injuries on account of a bus accident. Thus, from the statement of Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), it is evident that the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was accidental and not homicidal in nature. Moreover, the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14) has clearly stated in paragraph 11 of his statement that Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) had informed him about suffering injuries on account of a bus accident. Thus, from the statement of Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), it is evident that the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was accidental and not homicidal in nature. Lastly, he would submit that in view of the aforesaid, the findings recorded by the trial Court while convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are liable to be set aside as they are not based on evidence available on record and the appellant is liable to be acquitted. 7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and he would submit that nature of death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi has clearly been proved to be homicidal in nature by the prosecution which the trial Court has also found proved. Furthermore, from the statements of Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5), motive of offence has clearly been established which has rightly been relied upon by the trial Court to hold that appellant had developed a one-sided liking to the deceased and he used to harass her by calling her and by sending improper/vulgar pamphlets to her house and since she had refused also made a complaint against him, the appellant was holding a grudge and finding a decent opportunity, he hit her scooter by his bus due to which she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot, which has duly been proved by eye-witnesses Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7). Even otherwise, delay in recording their statements under Section 161 of CrPC has not been specifically questioned from the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14). As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant finding the direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence proved against him and therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the prosecution has been able to prove the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi to be homicidal in nature ? 10. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the prosecution has been able to prove the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi to be homicidal in nature ? 10. The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC holding that the death of deceased was culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC which amounted to murder under Section 300 of IPC and is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. For holding an accused guilty of murder, prosecution has first to prove that it is a culpable homicide. An accused will come under the mischief of Section 299 only when the act done by him has caused death. 11. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice the definition of 'culpable homicide' which is provided under Section 299 of IPC as under :- “299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.” 12. Homicide is the killing of a human being by a human being. It is either lawful or unlawful. Unlawful homicide includes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 of IPC and murder under Section 300. Halsbury classifies homicide as follows :- “The term “homicide” is used to describe the killing of a human being by a human being. Such a killing may be lawful or it may be unlawful and criminal. Unlawful homicide includes murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, killing in pursuance of a suicide pact, and infanticide.” 13. “Homicide”, as derived from latin, literally means the act of killing a human being. Under Section 299 of the IPC, homicide becomes culpable when a human being terminates the life of another in a blameworthy manner. Culpability depends on the knowledge, motive and the manner of the act of the accused. The offence is punishable under either Section 302, or Section 304 of the IPC which consists of two parts. (See: Chenda @ Chanda Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 CrLJ 172 ) 14. Culpability depends on the knowledge, motive and the manner of the act of the accused. The offence is punishable under either Section 302, or Section 304 of the IPC which consists of two parts. (See: Chenda @ Chanda Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 CrLJ 172 ) 14. In the matter of Reaz-ud-din Shaikh v. Emperor, (1910) 11 CrLJ 295 : HS Gaur Penal Law of India, 10th Edn. Vol. 3, pp 2214-2235, it has been explained by Shuarf-ud-din J, as under :- “.... all murder is culpable homicide, but all culpable homicide is not murder... subject to the five exceptions to section 300, Indian Penal Code, every act that falls within one or more of the four clauses of section 300, Indian Penal Code, is murder and also falls within the definition of culpable homicide in Section 299, Indian Penal Code. Every act that falls within any one or more of the sets of circumstances described in the five exceptions of that section, is by that fact taken out of section 300, Indian Penal Code but the act notwithstanding continues to be within section 299 and since it is not murder, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Every act that falls within section 299 and does not fall within section 300, since it is not murder, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” 15. It is well settled law that in order to convict an accused under Section 302 of the IPC, the first and foremost aspect to be proved by the prosecution is the homicidal death and if the evidence on record produced by the prosecution falls short of the proof of homicidal death, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. (See : Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588 and Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC Online SC 705) 16. Similarly, in the matter of Shobhau alias Shubhau v. State of M.P., 1998 CrLJ 3934 , it has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that to prove an offence of murder the death should be homicidal of which onus in a criminal trial is upon the prosecution. Similarly, in the matter of Shobhau alias Shubhau v. State of M.P., 1998 CrLJ 3934 , it has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that to prove an offence of murder the death should be homicidal of which onus in a criminal trial is upon the prosecution. In the absence of legal proof of the death being homicidal, because of the serious lacuna of not obtaining the report of Anatomy Expert to prove homicidal death, the benefit will go to the accused and not to the prosecution, as this seals the fate of the prosecution and on this ground the accused cannot be held to legal criminality of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (See: The State Government of M.P. v. Ramkrishna Ganpat Rao, AIR 1954 SC 20 , The State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258 ) 17. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and others, (2018) 16 SCC 475 , has held that to find a man guilty of culpable homicide, the basic fact required to be established is that the accused caused the death. In the matter of M.B. Suresh v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 4 SCC 31 , it has been held that for holding an accused guilty of murder, the prosecution has first to prove that it is a culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 of the Penal Code and an accused will come under the mischief of this section only when the act done by him has caused death. 18. In the instant case, Dr. Culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 of the Penal Code and an accused will come under the mischief of this section only when the act done by him has caused death. 18. In the instant case, Dr. Pushpendra Vaishnav (P.W.-16), who has conducted postmortem of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi, has described the injuries suffered by her as under :- ^^03- eqWg [kqyh gqbZ rFkk cgkj dh vksj fudyh gqbZ FkhA vkW[k [kqyh gqbZ rFkk vkW[kksa dh iqryh QSyh gqbZ FkhA rFkk ck;s iSj dh dhfo;k] fQcwyk] gfMM;k ,oa iSyfod dh gMMh VwVh gqbZ Fkh ,oa ysIV fg;wejl gMMh VwVh ikbZ xbZ FkhA 04- diky ,oa es:naM&diky dh Vseiksjy cksu VwVh gqbZ Fkh] rFkk diky dh f>Yyh esa jDr ds FkDds tes gq, Fks ,oa efLRk"d ds vanj jDrJko ik;k x;kA 05- o{k LFky & ysV lkbM dh ikapoh] NVoh ,oa lkroha ilyh VwVh gqbZ Fkh nk;s ,oa ck;s QsQMs jDr ls Hkjs gq;s FksA 06- g`n; ds ysV csMfjxy [kkyh Fkh fdUrq o`gn okfgdkvksa esa jDr Hkjk gqvk FkkA 09- ysV vij da/kk] dej ,oa nksuks iSj dh ?kqVus rd dh ekWl isf'k;k dqpyh gqbZ ikbZ xbZ FkhA 10- gMMh dk fooj.k & ck;sa da/ks dh gMMh i;wejl cksu jsfM;y VsEiksjsy cksu] I;wejy cksu VwVh gqbZ ikbZ xbZ FkhA^^ 19. It is correct to say that in the instant case, Dr. Pushpendra Vaishnav (P.W.-16), who has conducted postmortem of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi has neither recorded any specific finding in the postmortem report (Ex. P/21) nor stated before the Court that death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was homicidal in nature. He has only stated that her death occurred due to excessive bleeding and failure of cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory systems. He has also admitted the fact that the injuries suffered by deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi which have been described by him in the postmortem report (Ex. P/21) are usually caused in a motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, he has also admitted that if a person is dashed by a vehicle once and then again the said vehicle is reversed and dashed into that person, his/her entire body would get completely crushed and he had not found that kind of injury on the body of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi. The trial Court has also only recorded the nature of injuries suffered by deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi which has been stated by Dr. The trial Court has also only recorded the nature of injuries suffered by deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi which has been stated by Dr. Pushpendra Vaishnav (P.W.-16) in his statement before the Court and did not any specific finding with regard to the fact that death of deceased was homicidal in nature, which the trial Court was obliged to do in order to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC while holding that death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was homicidal in nature. As such, there is no evidence available on record to hold that death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was homicidal in nature. 20. However, the trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC relying upon the testimonies of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) as eyewitnesses. The question for consideration is, whether prosecution has proved that appellant had either any intention of causing the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased, which was likely to cause her death or it was caused with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of the deceased. We shall consider the incriminating evidence brought in this regard by the prosecution, which have been found proved by the trial Court. I. Motive of Offence :- 21. The trial Court has found the motive of offence established against the appellant by relying upon the statements of Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), husband of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi and Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5), daughters of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi. 22. Though motive may be helpful in proving the case of prosecution in case of circumstantial evidence but motive loses its significance in case the direct evidence of witnesses is trustworthy. 23. Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3) has stated in his testimony before the Court that his wife deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi had informed him that appellant, who was the Driver of Sahu Bus, used to harass her by calling on her phone. He has also stated that appellant had left a pamphlet at their house which contained vile comments about his wife and thereafter, his wife deceased Chandrika Joshi had gone to the Police Station to lodge a report against the appellant but no action was taken by the Police against the appellant. He has also stated that appellant had left a pamphlet at their house which contained vile comments about his wife and thereafter, his wife deceased Chandrika Joshi had gone to the Police Station to lodge a report against the appellant but no action was taken by the Police against the appellant. He has further stated that on several pretexts, appellant used to call the deceased as well as her daughters and relatives saying that he was in love with the deceased and also threatened them that if she would not talk to him, he would kill her by his bus, however, it is pertinent to notice here that no material has been brought on record by the prosecution with regard to the report allegedly lodged by the deceased against the appellant and moreover, even her call details have also not been brought on record to prove the fact that appellant indeed used to harass the deceased by calling on her phone. 24. Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5), daughters of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi, have also made a similar statement before the Court. They have stated that their mother called them and had informed them that appellant used to call her and harass her but then again, nothing has been brought on record except for their self-serving statements to prove that any such harassment was caused by the appellant to the deceased prior to the date of the offence. Neither the call details of the deceased have been brought on record by the prosecution nor the pamphlet which the appellant had allegedly thrown into the house of the deceased. As such, merely the statements of Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5) would not suffice it to hold that motive of offence has been proved against the appellant particularly when these three are relative witnesses of the deceased. Even otherwise, motive is an important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence, however, in a case where direct evidence is available, like in the instant case, motive loses its relevance and importance as well. 25. Even otherwise, motive is an important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence, however, in a case where direct evidence is available, like in the instant case, motive loses its relevance and importance as well. 25. As such, in that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that since prosecution has neither brought a copy of FIR allegedly lodged by the deceased or her relatives against the appellant nor the call details of the deceased and the pamphlet containing vile comments about deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi allegedly thrown by the appellant into her house, merely the statements of Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5) cannot be relied upon to hold that motive of offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that motive of offence has duly been proved by the prosecution. We hereby reject the said finding recorded by the trial Court. II. Testimonies of eye-witnesses :- 26. Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) have been cited as eye-witnesses by the prosecution and their testimonies have been relied upon by the trial Court to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 27. Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) has himself stated in paragraph 24 that the groom's family (baraatis) had come to his house in the bus driven by the appellant as there was a wedding in his house. At the time of the incident, he had gone to a nearby shop to buy some articles and he had seen the incident and within 10-15 minutes, Police had reached the spot and he had orally informed the Police about the incident and his statement was taken on the spot, but surprisingly, as per record, the incident took place on 17/04/2014 whereas the statement of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) under Section 161 of CrPC has been recorded on 01/05/2014 and no explanation has been provided by the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14) for the delay in recording the statement of eye-witness Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) particularly when he was available on the spot at the time of the incident and as per his statement before the Court, Police had taken his statement at that time itself, but that statement has not been brought on record, which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Moreover, the fact that there was a wedding at the house of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) on the date of offence as per his own statement and the groom's family (baraatis) had already come to his house yet he was outside the house at the place of the incident which also appears to be unbelievable as hosting the groom's family (baraatis) in a marriage ceremony is an act of responsibility. As such, we are unable to accept the testimony of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) to hold that he has seen the incident and is an eye-witness to the incident. 28. Similarly, Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), who is the son of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi and who was sitting behind her in the scooter and was riding as a pillion rider, has stated before the Court that appellant dashed their scooter once with the intention of killing her mother and thereafter, when she fell down on the ground, he reversed his bus and then again hit her due to which she died on the spot and then the appellant absconded. However, Dr. Narayan Sahu (P.W.-12), who has medically examined Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) after the incident on 17/04/2014 at 9 PM, has stated that when he had asked him about the incident, Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) had told him that he had suffered injuries in a bus accident and a similar statement has been made by him before the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14). 29. It is pertinent to notice here that the incident occurred on 17/04/2014 and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), who is an injured witness, was present on the spot at the time of the incident, but again his statement under Section 161 of CrPC has been recorded by the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14) with a delay of 13 days on 01/05/2014 and no reasons have been assigned by the prosecution for not recording his statement right on the date of the incident. As such, the said delay in recording the statement of Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) creates a serious doubt in the mind of the Court and his statement does not inspire confidence as it appears to be a case of false implication particularly when he himself has told Dr. Narayan Sahu (P.W.-12) and Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14) that he had suffered injuries in a bus accident. Narayan Sahu (P.W.-12) and Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-14) that he had suffered injuries in a bus accident. Moreover, the Investigating Officer Jagdev Kumar Sahu (P.W.-12) has clearly stated before the Court that immediately after the incident, he had asked Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) about the incident and he had replied that he had met with an accident caused by a bus which has also been recorded in the first information report (Ex. P/1). He has also recorded the fact of vehicular accident in his report (Ex. P/17) while sending the body of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi for medical examination. 30. The Supreme Court in the matter of Peddireddy Subbareddi and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1356 has held that the conduct of eyewitness in not reporting the matter promptly and FIR was lodged with a delay of 13 days, the evidence of said eyewitness is clouded with strong suspicion and false implication of accused cannot be completely ruled out. 31. Similarly, in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 539, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the act of ace witness of the prosecution, having not disclosed the information at the earliest opportunity to anyone for 3 days has caused serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. 32. As such, we are of the considered opinion that trial Court has erred in relying upon the testimonies of Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), who have been cited as eye-witnesses by the prosecution, and convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as their statements does not inspire confidence and the delay of 13 days in recording their statements under Section 161 of CrPC also creates a doubt in our minds particularly, when both of these witnesses have been said to be present on the spot right at the time of the incident. Thus, we hereby reject the evidence of testimonies of alleged eye-witnesses Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7). Conclusion :- 33. Thus, we hereby reject the evidence of testimonies of alleged eye-witnesses Nirmal Kumar (P.W.-2) and Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7). Conclusion :- 33. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that appellant had any intention of causing the death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi or the intention of causing bodily injury to her which would have likely caused her death and by no stretch of imagination, it is the case of culpable homicide defined under Section 299 of IPC, as such, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as prosecution has failed to establish that appellant intentionally dashed the scooter driven by deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi and thereafter, crushed her and caused her death. We hereby set aside the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial Court and rather convict him for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and since the appellant is in jail from 19/04/2014 and he has already undergone the maximum sentence prescribed for the said offence, he be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 34. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands allowed. 35. Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court along with the original records as well as to the jail authorities for information and compliance.