The Court held that where there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and where there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

1. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ram Jas Singh against his conviction and sentence under section 302 I.P.C. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar on 13-8-1974. The appellant was charged for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of one Madho Singh in village Hasampur, police station Patan, District Sikar on January 17, 1974. The co-accused Jagmal Singh was also tried under section 302/34 I.P.C. for the same murder. Jagmal Singh, however, was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar giving him the benefit of doubt.

2. The prosecution story as revealed during investigation and trial in brief is as follows:

As stated by Ishwar Singh P.W. 2 the incident was occasioned owing to previous enmtiy between the deceased and the accused. The agricultural fields of Jagmal Singh and Madho Singh are adjacent. Madho Singh's daughters bad gone to the field to collect leaves. There Jagmal Singb also came and he took exception to the children causing damage in the field and complained to Madho Singh. Madho Singh and his son Mahavir Singh and Jagmal Singh had heated exchanges and abuses. This incident had happened on the same day at about 4 p. m. Madho Singh informed Iswar Singh about this incident. Besides this about 13-14 years before this incident Jagmal Singh had fractured the hand of Madho Singh. Thus there was enmity between the accused and Madho Singh.
On the day of occurrence i.e. on 17-1-1974, Madho Singh since deceased, was taking dinner at his house in village Hasampur. Accused Jagmal Singh (since acquitted) and appellant Ramjas Singh aimed with lathis called Madho Singh to come out of his house. Madho Singh came out of his house at their call. Jagmal Singh caught hold of him by his hand and the appellant dealt one lathi blow on his head, as a result of which Madho SiDgh fell down. He was taken to the Government hospital at Hasampur but as his condition was serious and the medical facilities at Hasampur could not cope with the situation, he was ultimately taken to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he was admitted as an indoor patient and later on expired on 25-1-1974. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Patan on 24-1-1974 by Jai Singh s/o Ishwar Singh, nephew of Madho Singh. As Madho Singh died on 25-1-1974. Police Station Patan was informed of his death on 26-1-1974, and the case was registered against the appellant and Jagmal Singh under section 302 and 302/34 I.P.C.The autopsy on the dead body of Madho Singh was conducted by Dr. Narendra Mehta P. W. 7. He found one injury i. e. Haematoma all over the forehead with swelling of both the lids of eyes with echymosis. There were multifractures of the frontal bone right and left parietal bone and left temporal bone and right side of occipital bone. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex. P. 8. In the opinion of Dr. Narendra Mehta the cause of death of Madho Singh was shock and coma ss a result of injury to the brain as mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex. P. 8. Dr. Mehta had earlier examined the patient on 18-1-1974 at 10 a. m. and the injury was also x-rayed by Dr. Ratanlal P. W. 11 on 18-1-1974 which revealed fractures of right frontoparietal region. Dr. Ratanlal was examined by the prosecution as P. W. 11 and Dr. Narendra Mehta was examined as P. W. 7. Inquest memo of the dead body of Madho Singh was prepared by Ramhet, Head Constable, Police outpost Lal Kothi, Jaipur under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Ramhet has examined as P. W. 12. During the course of investigation the accused were arrested on 26-1-1974 by Brij Vallabh Pareek, S. H. O. Patan. He also inspected the spot and prepared a site plan. While in police custody, Ramjas Singh appellant furnished information to get recovered the weapon of offence, lathi from his house. This information was reduced in writing which is Ex. P. 18. In pursuance of this