This is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting, as Mr. Anthony suggested, that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the case made in Court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the F.I.R. Mahabir Singh, who lodged the first information report, stated in-Court that he had invited some people to his house to effect a settlement between him and Ishwar Singh, and that he had also sent Ghanshyam to call Ishwar Singh there. The F.I.R. does not mention anything like this. From the F.I.R. it appears as if the accused persons came uninvited to his house, demanded why he had demolished the drain, and started assaulting him and the other persons who were present there. It is also difficult to understand why Mahabir should invite anyone to his house for a settlement, if really Ishwar Singh had permitted him to demolish the drain as he claimed. Further, the F.I.R. does not mention that Mahabir and Satyapal wielded lathis in their defence when attacked and that this resulted in some of the accused getting injured; but that is what both Mahabir (P.W. 1) and Satyapai (P.W. 2) stated in their evidence in Court. These variations relate to vital parts of the prosecution case, and cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies. In such a case, the evidence of the eye-witnesses "cannot be accepted at its face value", as observed by this Court in Mitter Sain v. State of U.P.
