Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The material-facts of the prosecution case disclose that on 11.9.1998 in the evening hours when one Asrafuddin and PW-3 and PW-4 were proceeding towards their village after attending court proceedings at a Nagaon Court and were near Dhing ~ a Nagaon district town ~ around nine persons forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, fired bullet at them from a pistol and Asrafuddin died as a result. The PW-3 and PW-4 were said to have informed the PW-2, the son of the deceased, who in turn informed the Dingh police about the incident. GD entry about the incident was made at around 7.05 PM on the same day, the contents of which are as follows: âDated 11.9.98 7.05 P.M. Witness as per message âNow, Md. Muzibur Raham, Son of Asrafuddin resident of Simaluguri, Kachamari P.S. Dingh is present in the P.S. and informs orally that today at 6 P.M., his father Asrafuddin Tarani was shot at and killed by unknown person and the dead body has been thrown on the P.W.D. road at Talibor Sonari, accordingly getting the message I am proceeding to the place of occurrence to take appropriate steps.â
2. The prosecution case further discloses that PW-5, who was following the deceased, PW-3 and PW-4, rushed to the nearby military camp and reported the matter to the personnel present and later he was taken to the nearby police station by the jawans, to whom he informed about the incident.
3. Police came to the residence of PW-2 at around 2 AM of the following night. The PW-2 gave a written report, which is registered as FIR. In the FIR, the occurrence of the incident has been narrated and also the presence of the PW-3 and 4 as witness to the occurrence has been stated. Six accused persons have been named in the FIR. Police, in course of the investigation, found as many as 9 persons involved in causing the murder of the deceased and accordingly filed charge-sheet against the said nine accused for committing offences under section 147/148/302 read with section 149 of the IPC and section 27(A) of the Arms Act.
4. Before the trial court, the PW-2 stated that PW-3 and PW-4 came to his residence and informed him about the incident and he immediately informed the local police about the incident over the telephone. Later, police took the report from him and registered the same as FIR.
5. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 disclose that they were coming along with the deceased after the court proceedings at a Nagaon Court and on way back home when they were near Dhing, the accused persons dragged the deceased to a certain distance and later shot at him from a pistol. They immediately went to the house of PW-2 and informed him about the incident.
6. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that when he was coming behind the deceased, PW-3 and PW-4, he found the deceased shot at. He rushed to a nearby Army camp and reported the matter to the personnel present and later he was taken to the local police station by the jawans. The evidence further discloses that when he was at the police station the PW-2 came there and reported the matter to the police.
7. The post-mortem report discloses that the death is said to be one of homicidal. The medical evidence discloses that the death is probably on account of bullet injury. No bullet, however, has been found in the body of the deceased. No weapon has been recovered from the possessions of the accused. There is also no reference to ballistic expert opinion.
8. The trial court found interse discrepancies in the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. The PW-2 says that he only informed the police over the telephone, whereas the GD discloses that he personally came to the police station and informed about the incident and on basis of the said âinformationâ, a GD entry was made by the police.
9. The evidence of PW-5 discloses that when he was at the police station the PW-2 came there and reported the matter to the police. Indeed, the PW-5 went to the nearby Army camp and informed the matter to the personnel present and later he was taken to the police station by the jawans. The GD entry does not make a reference to the said information of the PW-5: it says that some unknown persons had caused the death of the father of the PW-2.
10. In the evidence, the PW-3 and PW-4 have categorically stated that after the incident they went to the house of the PW-2 and they informed him about the incident and later PW-2 went to the police station and reported the matter to the cops. If that be so, the version in the GD ~ the earliest record ~ should have necessarily mentioned the name of the accused persons and PW-3 and PW-4 as witness to the incident. In fact, the GD entry âconstitutesâ FIR in this case.
11. Police belatedly went to the house of the PW-2 and recorded the complaint and later registered the same as FIR. in the FIR, a reference of the presence of the PW-3 and PW-4 is mentioned. The version in the FIR regarding the presence of the PW-3 and PW-4 and the names of the PW-3 and PW-4 as witness to the occurrence does not appear to be credible version. If that is true, the GD entry should have reflected the same. The FIR is filed belatedly. In view of the said discrepancies the trial court found the evidence of the PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 not reliable to base conviction of the accused persons and accordingly acquitted the accused persons, against which the State is now in appeal.
12. The appreciation of evidence and reasons given by the trial court with regard to the discrepancies in the evidence appear to be sound and proper. The GD entry, which appears to be the earliest information, should have necessarily reflected the names of the accused persons, because the PW-3 and PW-4 have categorically stated that they immediately went to the house of the PW-2 and informed him about the incident and also about the names of the accused persons. If it is so, the PW-2 should have mentioned the same to the police. The PW-2 in the evidence prevaricates and says that he only gave the information to the police over the telephone, whereas in the GD entry he says that he went to the police station and gave the information about the incident to the police. One more conflicting circumstance available in the evidence of PW-5 is to the effect that he being a witness to the incident he went to the nearby Army camp and informed the jawans present and later he was taken by the personnel to the police station. At the time when the PW-5 went to the police station along with the jawans, the PW-2 was also present there. At least at that stage the PW-2 should have known from the PW-5 the names of the accused persons and the presence of the PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. If it is so, it should have been reflected in the GD entry. PW-5 says that he goes to the police station along with the military jawans to corroborate the said version. No military personnel is examined. The allegation in the FIR becomes to be believed because of the belated recording of the same.
13. In view of the above discrepancies we find that the order of the trial court does not call for interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.