N.DHINAKAR,J. - (1.) 1. The appellant, Gopal Chamar, was arrayed as A -1 alongwith Sheo Chamar and Sitaram Chamar, who were arrayed as A -2 and A -3. The Trial Judge acquitted Sheo Chamar and Sitaram Chamar but found the appellant alone guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that he, joining with the two other accused, who were acquitted by the trial court, waylaid the deceased Butan Ram while he was returning in a bullock cart to his village Mangardah and attacked with lathi and that after attacking him a sum of Rs. 700/ - was snatched away from him. 3. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarized as follows: PW -5, Samudri Devi, is the wife of the deceased Butan Ram. PW -4, Sarad Chand Pandey, was residing in the same village where the deceased and his wife PW -5 were living. PW -6, Royan Ram, is the uncle of the deceased and was also a resident of the same village. On 19.11.1986 at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased Butan Ram and PW -4, Sarad Chand Pandey, were returning to their village Mangardah on a bullock cart. When they were near a village Puraini within the limits of Nagar Untari police station in the district of Palamau, the appellant, Gopal Chamar alongwith three unknown persons accosted them. They stopped the bullock cart and questioned them as to whom it belongs. Butan Ram, the deceased, stepped down from the cart and at that time all the persons including the appellant started assaulting him with lathi and hands. PW -4 raised alarm and the appellant before running away from the place snatched a sum of Rs. 700/ - from the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by PW -4 and PW -6. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj, where he died on 20.11.1986, inspite of treatment. On 21.11.1986, Fardbayan, Ext. 1, was given by PW -4 at the police station, on the basis of which a crime was registered and investigation was taken up (Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation, was not examined before the trial court). After the inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital, requesting the Medical Officer to conduct autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, PW -10, Dr. Panna Lal Pandey, conducted autopsy on the dead body and found the two following injuries: - "1. Abrasion 3" x 1/2' placed segitally on right parietal area of the scalp with swelling in an area of 2" diameter. 2. Bruise 1/2 x 1/4" on the right scapular area." The doctor issued Ext. 4, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the vital organ, namely, brain. 5. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed and the appellant denied the circumstances, put against him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that PW -4 though claimed to have been present at the time of occurrence and also claimed to have suffered injuries, the prosecution did not produce any injury report to prove the said fact. It is his further submission that PW4 did not give any complaint regarding the occurrence which took place on 7.00 p.m. on 19.11.1986 and the complaint, Ext. 1, was actually given only at 8.10 a.m. on 21.11.1986, which was also received belatedly by the court on 24.11.1986 for which there is no explanation. It is his further submission that PW -6, though is an uncle of the deceased, did not even take any steps to go to the police station to lay a complaint and that his conduct after the occurrence proves that he could not have been present and witnessed the occurrence. He submits that the evidence of PW -5 that the deceased informed her at the house that he was beaten by the appellant cannot be believed, since there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased after the occurrence went to his house and thereafter was taken to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj. He, under the above circumstances, submits that the accused appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. We have heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned A.P.P, appearing for the State, on the above contentions. 8. Though, there is no dispute that Butan Ram died on account of homicidal violence as the same stands proved through the evidence of PW -10, Dr. Panna Lal Pandey, and the post mortem certificate, Ext. 4, issued by him, there is dispute as to who caused the said fatal injury on the deceased. 9. The prosecution came out with a version that the occurrence took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 19.11.1986 and that the appellant beat the deceased, leading to his death on 20.11.1986 at Sadar hospital where he was admitted for treatment. The prosecution examined PW -4, the co -villager, who claimed in his evidence that he was coming to his village alongwith the deceased and PW -6, the uncle of the deceased, as witnesses to the occurrence. 10. On perusal of their evidence, we, even at the outset; may say that their evidence is thoroughly unsatisfactory and artificial in nature. PW -4 stated in his evidence that while he and the deceased were returning in a bullock cart, they were accosted by the appellant and three others and that thereafter the deceased was inflicted injuries by the appellant. In cross -examination, he admits that though there was no light at the place, from the voice he suspected it to be the voice of the appellant and, therefore, came to the conclusion that the deceased was beaten by the appellant. According to him, when he intervened, he was beaten and that he fled away from the scene of occurrence. There is no evidence as to what happened to the deceased after PW -4 left the place. Though, PW -4 claimed that he was assaulted at 7.00 p.m. on 19.11.1986 and on 20.11.1986 he went to the hospital to take treatment, the prosecution did not examine the doctor, who treated PW -4, and also did not mark the injury report of PW -4 to show that PW -4 was present alongwith the deceased and suffered injury during the course of transaction, for him to get treatment at the hospital. 11. In this background, we have to consider the evidence of PW -6, the uncle of the deceased. Though, he claims that he was present and witnessed the occurrence, he admittedly did not go to the police station to lay a complaint. He did not even inform any of the authorities about the occurrence. He has emphatically stated in his evidence that he went to the house and then took his bed. He has also admitted that he did not even inform PW5, the wife of the deceased. The above conduct of PW -6, therefore, creates a suspicion whether he would have been present at the scene of occurrence. Had PW -6 been present then he would have certainly taken the injured to the hospital or at least would have brought to his house and informed the wife of deceased, PW -5, and other villagers. He did not do so. It is to be remembered that his name is also not found mentioned in the complaint, Ext. 1 , given by PW -4. If PW -6 was really present then PW -4 could not have forgotten to mention his name, as PW -6 is admittedly the uncle of the deceased. 12. The evidence of PW -5 is to the effect that the deceased reached home and informed her that he was beaten by the appellant. We have already noticed that according to PW -4 he ran away from the scene and according to PW -6 he returned to the village and took his bed in the house. If the deceased had come to the village after the occurrence then he must have certainly come alongwith PW -6. PW -6 did not say that the deceased returned to the village on the night of 19.11.1986 to meet his wife and then informed the name of the appellant to her. The evidence of PW -5 that the deceased returned to the house on the night and gave a statement, implicating the appellant with the crime is, therefore, rejected. 13. There is also no evidence as to who had taken the injured to the hospital. Though PW -5 claimed that she took the injured to Sadar Hospital, tile prosecution did not mark any document kept maintained at the hospital to show that the deceased was, in fact, admitted by PW -5. If the doctor had been examined or if any document kept maintained at the hospital had been produced and marked then the oral evidence or the documentary evidence would have shown that PW -5 actually admitted the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence we, not only, cannot accept that the deceased went to the village and gave statement to his wife implicating, the appellant with the crime, we cannot also accept the evidence of PW -5 that the deceased was admitted by her at the hospital. In the Fardbayan, Ext. 1, PW4 also did not mention that the deceased gave a statement to his wife, PW -5. PW -4 in his evidence stated that he went to the hospital on 20.11.1986 for taking treatment and if that be so he would have certainly seen PW -5 at the hospital and would have come to know that the deceased went to the village and informed his wife about the name of his assailant. There is no such evidence from PW -4. No such allegation is also found in the complaint, Ext. 1. We, therefore, do not attach much importance to the evidence of PWs -4, 5 and 6. 14. There is yet another circumstance, which creates a suspicion that PWs -4 and 6 would not have witnessed the occurrence. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at 7.00 p.m. We have already noticed that the complaint, Ext. 1, was given on 21.10.1986 at 8.10 a.m. by PW -4. A perusal of the original record shows that the said complaint, Ext.1, was received by the Magistrate on 24.11.1986. We are fully aware that delay in laying a complaint though by itself may not be fatal, it will be fatal on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. If the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 20.11.1986 and that he died on the same day, then it is but natural for anyone to expect that the complaint will be lodged at the police station by any of the witnesses. Admittedly, the distance between Sadar hospital, Daltonganj and the police station is very short and one could cover the distance in about 10 -15 minutes, but no complaint was given to the police authorities and no police authorities went to the Hospital on 20.11 .1986 to record the statement of any of the witnesses. The statement of PW -4 was recorded only at 8.10 a.m. on 21.11.1986 and we are at a loss to understand as to what PW -4 was doing till then. Neither PW -4 nor PW -4 nor PW -6 had taken any steps to go to the police station to lay a complaint, though the distance between the hospital where Butan Ram died and the police station where the complaint was registered was very short. 15. In the above circumstances, the delay assumes importance and, in our view, the said delay is fatal. 16. On the discussions made above, we allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. It is reported that the appellant is on bail; he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.;