Judgment :- 1. Appellant Marangattil Abraham stands convicted by the Sessions Judge, Tellichery for the offence of murder of one Joseph and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Since a year prior to the occurrence the deceased and accused were on terms of bitter enmity. The accused's brother one Lukka was concerned in a prohibition case and had been arrested. The accused approached the deceased who was the member of the panchayat for standing surety for his brother. The deceased refused to accede to the request and asked him to get away. Accused felt humiliated and left the place. On 2-2-64 the deceased and accused met in front of the Government L.P. School, Thettamala and there was an exchange of blows between them. A police constable interfered and separated them and since then it is stated the accused was going about saying that he would kill the deceased. He is said to have gone to Pw. 8 the sister of the deceased and told her that he had ordered for a dagger which was intended for the deceased. Getting scent of this, deceased was going about in the company of his nephew Pw. 1. On 27-3-64 Rev. Fr. Mathew of the local church delivered a sermen in the church in the course of which he compared deceased Joseph to Pilathose and exhorted the parishioners not to have anything to do with him. Knowing about this, on the 29th deceased Joseph violently denounced the Rev. Father for the speech he had made. The entire parishioners resented this conduct of the deceased. On 1-4-64 when deceased way on his was back from the church one Ali met him and asked him for money to redeem a saw that he had pledged. Deceased told him that he has kept his own saw in Pw. 16's house and would get it for him. After that the deceased accompanied by his nephew Pw.1 went to his house and from there they went to the house of Pw. 4 and from there started for Pw. 16's house. They had to pass Nedunthodi vayal Pw.1 was going in front and the deceased was following him. Hardly had they gone a short distance, when Pw.1 heard the cry of his uncle from behind that he was being stabbed by the accused. Pw.1 turned back and saw the accused stabbing the deceased. 16's house. They had to pass Nedunthodi vayal Pw.1 was going in front and the deceased was following him. Hardly had they gone a short distance, when Pw.1 heard the cry of his uncle from behind that he was being stabbed by the accused. Pw.1 turned back and saw the accused stabbing the deceased. Getting frightened Pw.1 ran from the place. Hearing the cry Pws. 2,3 and 4 came running to the scene from the house of Pw. 4. When they were coming to the scene they saw the accused running away. They found Joseph lying with extensive injuries. He was removed to the house of Pw. 4 and within a few minutes he succumbed to his injuries. Pw.1 went to inform the relations and then proceeded to the Vellamunda police station. Pw. 19 the Head Constable recorded Ext. P-1 statement from him and registered a case. On getting information the Circle Inspector reached the scene at 8 a.m. next day. Inquest was held and after the inquest Pw. 17 the medical officer attached to the Govt. Hospital, Manantody conducted the autopsy. The accused surrendered at the police station on 3-4-64 along with his father and was arrested. After completing the investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused. The case of the accused was one of complete denial. He admitted that there was bitter enmity between him and the deceased and he would have it that a false case had been foisted on him. The deceased had as many as 10 incised injuries on different parts of his body. As a result of the injuries the internal organs, namely, thorax, right lung, diaphragm, left kidney and splean were all injured. Injuries 1, 3 and 4 were each fatal injuries and death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the multiple injuries. There is thus no dispute that the deceased sustained injuries and died of these injuries. 3. The question that arises for decision is whether the prosecution Las succeeded in establishing that it was the accused who had inflicted those injuries. The only eye witness to the occurrence is Pw. 1. He is the nephew of the deceased. He has given evidence about the enmity between the accused and the deceased and his accompanying the deceased wherever he went out. The only eye witness to the occurrence is Pw. 1. He is the nephew of the deceased. He has given evidence about the enmity between the accused and the deceased and his accompanying the deceased wherever he went out. On the date of occurrence at about 7.30 p.m. he was present with his uncle in the shop near Thattamala church. Then one Ali who was sawing timber for the deceased came and asked him for some money to redeem a saw that he had pledged, The deceased told him that his own saw was with Pw. 16 and that he would get it for him. From the shop they went to the deceased's house, from there they went to Pw. 4's house and they were proceeding towards the house of Pw. 16. He has given evidence how when walking in front he heard his uncle crying from behind that he was being stabbed by the accused, his turning back, seeing the accused stabbing and his identifying the assailant with the aid of a torch light which the deceased was having in his hand. He stated that he ran towards the house of his uncle Pw. 4 crying out that the deceased was being stabbed by the accused. In the meanwhile Pws. 2 to 4 hearing the cry had started from their house and all of them went towards the scene and while going they saw the accused running away from the scene. On reaching the place the deceased was seen lying with injuries and the deceased was saying though in a feable voice that the accused had stabbed him, Pw. 2 followed the accused a little distance calling out that he too may be killed. The injured was then removed to Pw. 4's house and first aid was rendered. He proceeded at once to the house of the deceased and informed his people and by the time he came back the injured had succumbed to his injures. He then went to his sister's house a mile away to give information to her and after returning back as directed by the others he went and gave Ext. P1 before Pw. 19. It is the admitted case that the deceased and accused were on inimical terms and therefore the evidence of Pw.1 has to be scrutinised with more than ordinary care and caution. P1 before Pw. 19. It is the admitted case that the deceased and accused were on inimical terms and therefore the evidence of Pw.1 has to be scrutinised with more than ordinary care and caution. Learned Judge has observed that merely because Pw.1 happens to be a relation of the deceased will be no reason to reject his evidence because a relation would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. That is so, but that is assuming that PW.1 had really witnessed the occurrence and identified the real assailant in which case he would not have allowed the really guilty man to escape scot-free and implicate the accused. What is argued by the defence is that the death must have been caused by somebody unknown and when the assailant was not known and identified, the relations thought that the only person who could and would have caused the death is the accused who is a bitter enemy of the accused and they would have decided among themselves to fasten the guilt on him. It was pointed out that the police station is only 3 miles away from the place and no proper explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay. Admittedly the complaint Ext. P-1 was laid only at 3 a.m. Even if Pw.1 was sent to give information to the relations either Pw. 2 or Pw. 4 could well have given information to the police or they could have gone to inform the relations and sent Pw. 1, the only eye-witness, to inform the police. 4. Being the only eye-witness to the commission of the crime Pw. 1's evidence has naturally been subjected to a very severe criticism and it was argued that the conviction should not be upheld as it rests on the sole testimony of Pw. 1, a highly interested witness, a relation and whose testimony is not free from blemish. His testimony was assailed as highly interested, artificial and unnatural and it was pointed out that he has contradicted himself with reference to his earlier statement and thereby demonstrated himself to be an entirely unreliable and undependable witness. As a rule of law it cannot be said that a court cannot act on the testimony of a single witness without corroboration. A court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. As a rule of law it cannot be said that a court cannot act on the testimony of a single witness without corroboration. A court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. As it is often said, one credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of witnesses of indifferent character. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon. So we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. S.134 of the Evidence Act has categorically laid down that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case be required for the proof of any fact. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognised in S.134. The section enshrines the well recognised maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.' If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. 5. We will now see how far the evidence of Pw.1 compels belief and how far his evidence could safely be acted upon. We will first compare his evidence with his complaint Ext. P-1. What he stated in Ext. P-1 is that while he was proceeding along the Nedunthodi field he heard his uncle crying from behind and when he turned back he saw the accused stabbing him, that thereafter he ran to the house of his brother-in-law, that when he went there his uncle Chacko was also there, that immediately himself and Pws. 2 to 4 and other neighbours ran up to the place and by that time the accused had already left the place, that they removed the injured to Pw. 2 to 4 and other neighbours ran up to the place and by that time the accused had already left the place, that they removed the injured to Pw. 4's house and within 15 minutes the injured succumbed to the injuries. He had no case then that while they came running they saw the accused running away from the place. When confronted with the statement Ext. P-1 he stated that what he stated there is not correct. He had no case that when they went there the deceased mentioned that it was the accused who stabbed him. Pw. 24, the Circle Inspector has also stated that when questioned at the inquest Pw.1 did not mention to him that when they went to the place the deceased was saying in a feeble voice that he was stabbed by the deceased. Pws. 2 and 3 also did not tell the Inspector that when they went there the deceased mentioned that it was the accused who stabbed him. The doctor Pw. 17 only stated that the injured could have survived for some time and he could have talked even though indistinctly. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful whether as spoken to by the witnesses in court the deceased would have cried out that he was being stabbed by the accused and again a second time sufficiently loud to be heard by Pws. 2 to 4 who were living not near from the place of occurrence. It was admittedly a dark night. Pw.1 would say that he identified the assailant by the aid of a torch light in the hands of the deceased which he was flashing down to the ground. If that be so, it would not have been possible to identify the assailant. Then again if really Pw.1 was accompanying the deceased as a sort of body guard why he should have walked in advance is not explained and more so, when Pw.1 himself had no light with him. Pw. 24 the Circle Inspector has stated that when he first questioned Pw.1 he did not mention that since two months he was always accompanying the deceased wherever he was going. The evidence of Pw.1 does not impress us as reliable. We find it extremely unsafe to place any reliance on his evidence to condemn a man in such a serious case as this, 6. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of Pws. The evidence of Pw.1 does not impress us as reliable. We find it extremely unsafe to place any reliance on his evidence to condemn a man in such a serious case as this, 6. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of Pws. 2, 3 and 4 to corroborate the evidence of Pw. 1. But as already stated in the face of the recitals in Ext. P-1 their evidence in court that when they ran up they identified the accused running away from the scene cannot easily be accepted. Even if what Pw.1 and other witnesses say is true they could have only seen a man running away. He was not coming in the opposite direction and the witnesses could have only seen the back of a man who was running away. It is, therefore, not possible to see the face of the assailant to identify him as the accused. Pw. 5 is another witness who is examined in support of the prosecution case. He has sworn that his wife's house is in Thettamala that on that day at about 8 p. m. he was returning from his wife's house to his own house, that he heard the cry of Pw.1 that the accused was stabbing his uncle, he stood listening for some time and when he was proceeding towards the scene he saw the accused coming from the opposite direction, that he identified the person as the accused, he questioned him as to what the matter was, but the accused went away without saying anything. He stated that when he reached the place Pws.1 to 3 were there and Pw. 4 was coming running with a torch and the witnesses told him that the accused had stabbed the deceased and had run away. If that be so, then at once Pw. 5 would have told them that while coming to the scene he also saw the accused running away from the scene. But in cross-examination the witness has admitted that when he went there he did not tell any one of the persons present there that on his way he met the accused. When questioned he stated that there was no particular reason for not telling them that he had seen the accused running away. But in cross-examination the witness has admitted that when he went there he did not tell any one of the persons present there that on his way he met the accused. When questioned he stated that there was no particular reason for not telling them that he had seen the accused running away. The witness further stated that the next morning when the Circle Inspector came to the scene he was present and then also he did not tell the Inspector that he had seen the accused running away from the scene. He was later questioned after three days. It is, therefore, not safe to place any reliance on the testimony of such a witness. Further the Inspector has admitted that when questioned at the inquest Pw.1 did not tell him that Pw. 5 had been coming running to the scene. Learned Sessions Judge has characterised Pw. 5 as a typical chance witness and that his evidence is unworthy of belief. Learned Judge has also stated that in view of the fact that in Ext. P-1. Pw.1 has stated that when he went back to the scene with Pws. 2, 3 and 4 the accused had already left the place, it creates a doubt whether Pw. 2 would have actually seen the assailant as he now claims. Learned Judge, however, believed the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased was crying that he was stabbed by the accused. As stated already it is extremely doubtful whether the deceased would have been in a position to cry. If as stated in Ext. P-1 along with Pws.1 to 4 there were other neighbours also who had gone to the scene why were they given up and not examined find why did the prosecution choose only these highly interested witnesses. 7. Learned Judge has then referred to the existence of a strong motive for the accused to have committed the crime. That there was enmity between the accused and the deceased is not seriously disputed. But we have evidence in the case that about four days prior to the date of occurrence on the 27th March, which was a Good Friday Rev. Father Mathew of the Tattamala church delivered a sermen in the church before a large congregation in which he compared deceased Joseph to the Biblical character Pilathose. Two days after that on Easter Sunday deceased Joseph violently denounced the Rev. Father Mathew of the Tattamala church delivered a sermen in the church before a large congregation in which he compared deceased Joseph to the Biblical character Pilathose. Two days after that on Easter Sunday deceased Joseph violently denounced the Rev. Father for the speech he made and the evidence shows that it created deep resentment in the mind of several of the parishioners. The deceased was concerned in about 30 criminal cases and was generally a terror in the locality. Pw.1 has stated that in his speech Rev. Father had declared that the deceased Joseph should be exterminated. It is, therefore, not unlikely that this inflamatory speech of the Rev. Father would have influenced several of the other parishioners and not the accused alone. What the learned judge says is that it has not been shown that any other person had the same amount of animosity towards the deceased as the accused. Whether any other person had as much animosity towards the accused was not the subject of investigation or inquiry. The existence of a motive for the offence cannot form the basis of a conviction unless there is other convincing evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. To prop up a weak case by proof of motive apparently tending towards possible crime is very dangerous and unsatisfactory process. On a careful and anxious consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances and the probabilities of the case we feel that the evidence brought against the accused is absolutely unconvincing and inherently improbable. In the words of His Lordship Gajendragadkar it is a typical case of "might be true", but not one of "must be true". Suspicion there might be against the accused, but that cannot be a substitute for proof. In the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence, we are constrained to give the benefit of doubt to the accused and to acquit him. In the result the conviction and sentence passed on the accused are set aside and he is ordered to be acquitted. He will be set at liberty forthwith. Allowed.