JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - The three Appellants were tried on a charge u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code for having in furtherance of their common intention committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Trilochan alias Ghasi Sahu on the 26th of October 1971 at Kermeli. Along with them, the first Appellant's father Bali (who has been acquitted) was tried on a charge u/s 114/302, Indian Penal Code for having abetted the commission of the offence of murder. 2. The prosecution case may now be briefly stated. One Sahadeb Sahu had three sons, namely, Dhubal, Sapna and Bali. Dhubal had three sons, namely, Bishnu, Barju '(father of p.w. 2) and Tirtha (p.w. 10). Tirtha's two sons are the deceased Trilochan and one Ladu alias Lokanath. Sapna had no sons but only two daughters. Bali's three sons are Satia Appellant No. 1, Nitia and Paramananda. Satia's two sons are Arakhita Appellant No. 2 and Jita Appellant No. 3. There was a partition amongst the three branches. After the partition, Bali sold his share to Dhubal and members of the latter's branch have since then in possession of the lands purchased from Bali. It is in connection with these lands that there are litigations both civil and criminal between Bali's branch and Dhubal's branch. The family has lands both in mouzas Karmeli and Madmada which are a mile apart from each other. Bishnu and his brother Barju reside in mouza Madmada. Consequently, Barju's son Joydeb p.w. 2 also lives there. Tirtha (p.w. 10) with his two sons was living in Kermeli mouza. Bali also resides in that village. Out of Bali's three sons, Nitia and Paramananda had left the village but Bali's another son Satia (Appellant No. 1) had shifted to his father-in-law's. house in mouza Gyan where he was residing with his two sons Appellants 2 and 3. 3. On the morning of 26-10-1971, which was a Tuesday, in the month of Kartika, p.w. 10 Tirtha's son Ladu and his Halia had gone to the lands in village Madmada. At about noon, Tirtha asked his other son the deceased Trilochan to carry food for Ladu and the Halia. On his way near Kermeli Att, Trilochan was fatally assaulted by the three Appellants. At about noon, Tirtha asked his other son the deceased Trilochan to carry food for Ladu and the Halia. On his way near Kermeli Att, Trilochan was fatally assaulted by the three Appellants. It was alleged that Appellant Satia cut the throat of the deceased while his two sons Jita and Arakhita caught hold of the head and legs of the deceased. It was further alleged that at that time Satia's father Bali was standing. 4. The occurrence was witnessed by Arjun Bagh p.w. 6 a resident of Madmada mouza who at that time was tending his goats in the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence. Shortly afterwards, he went back to the village. That evening Bishnu and p.w. 2 learnt about the occurrence from p.w. 6 and informed p.w. 10 the father of the deceased about it. The occurrence was reported at the Police Station early next morning. Police came to the spot, held an inquest over the dead body, sent it for postmortem examination and after completion investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the three Appellants and Bali. In due course, these four persons were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Session. 5. The defence plea was one of complete denial of the occurrence. According to the accused persons, the case had been falsely foisted on them on account of previous enmity. Eleven witnesses were examined at the trial for the prosecution and none for the defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence on the prosecution side and convicted the Appellants u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Although he believed that the other accused Bali was present at the place of occurrence, there was no evidence that either he was instigating or abetting the other accused persons to commit the offence. He, therefore, acquitted him. The three accused persons who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge have filed this appeal. 6. The substantial contention of Mr. P.K. Dhal, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants is that the evidence of the sole eye-witness p.w. 6 is so discrepant in material particulars that the learned Sessions Judge erred in basing the conviction of the Appellants on his testimony especially when there are no other circumstances to lend credence to the evidence given by p.w. 6. 7. P.K. Dhal, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants is that the evidence of the sole eye-witness p.w. 6 is so discrepant in material particulars that the learned Sessions Judge erred in basing the conviction of the Appellants on his testimony especially when there are no other circumstances to lend credence to the evidence given by p.w. 6. 7. P.w. 5, the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body found six external injuries. Of these, two were incised wounds -one on the left side of the neck and the other on the right side back; there were lacerated injuries - one on the left knee, the second on the left thigh and the third on the left side of the head; and one abrasion on the chest. On dissection he found the following internal injuries: (1) The platysma, sternomastoid muscles are served corresponding to external injury No. 1. (2) The external carotied artery is cut corresponding to external injury No. 1. (3) The trachea is severed at fifth ring corresponding to external injury No. 1. All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature and in his opinion the death was due to bleeding and shock as a result of the external injury No. 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt that the death of the deceased Trilochan was homicidal in nature 8. The sole eye-witness to the occurrence IS p.w. 6 an old man aged about 60 years and it is, therefore necessary to make a detailed examination of his evidence. According to him, he was tending his goats at about noon in the Kermeli Att and was sitting under a Mahul tree. He suddenly heard a groaning sound and stood up and saw that Appellant Jita and Arakhita had caught hold of the head and legs of the deceased Trilochan while Appellant Satia cut the latter's throat with a Katari. Bali was standing at the place of occurrence. After killing the deceased, the four accused persons ran away from the place. P.w. 6 then went to the place where the deceased was lying and found that his neck had been cut. Immediately thereafter, p.w. 6 returned to his village Madmada and on the way he saw the wife of Bishnu (Bishnu is the son of Dhubal) and informed her a bout the occurrence. P.w. 6 then went to the place where the deceased was lying and found that his neck had been cut. Immediately thereafter, p.w. 6 returned to his village Madmada and on the way he saw the wife of Bishnu (Bishnu is the son of Dhubal) and informed her a bout the occurrence. That evening Bishnu went to his house and he told Bishnu that Satia and his two sons had killed the deceased. P.w. 6 then came out of his house and finding p.w. 2 also informed him that Satia and his two sons had killed Trilochan. Accompanied by Bishnu, p.w. 2 and other gentlemen of the village he went to the place of occurrence and showed the dead body to them. 9. It is clear from his evidence that immediately after witnessing the occurrence while he was going back to his house, he met Bishnu's wife on the way and informed her about the occurrence. But strangely enough Bishnu's wife who is said to be the first person to hear about the occurrence from p.w. 6 has not been examined in this case. Even Bishnu has not been examined. P.w. 2 who is the cousin of the deceased and is a resident of mouza Madmada has deposed that on his return from the fields in the evening of the date of occurrence he came to know that Trilochan had been murdered. He then along with Bishnu went and enquired from p.w. 6 about it and p.w. 6 told him that the three Appellants and Bali had killed Trilochan. The information about the occurrence was lodged at the Police Station on the morning following the date of occurrence. Ext. 2 is the F.I.R. and p.w. 2 says that he signed in the F.I.R. after it was read over to him and he was satisfied that it contained a true account of what he stated. It is significant that p.w. 2 did not state in the F.I.R. that Appellants 2 and 3 the sons of Satia were either present at the place of occurrence or had taken any part in the commission of the murder. All that was stated in the F.I.R. was that Bali (since acquitted) and his son Satia Sahu (Appellant No. 1) had committed the offence. All that was stated in the F.I.R. was that Bali (since acquitted) and his son Satia Sahu (Appellant No. 1) had committed the offence. Doubtless the First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker thereof, it is also true that the person who in this case had lodged the First Information Report IS not one who had seen the occurrence It is the admitted case of the parties that the branch of Dhubal which includes p.w. 2, p.w. 10 and the deceased are in litigating terms for a very long time with Bali's branch to which the Appellants belong. It cannot, therefore, be believed for a moment, that If, in fact, p.w. 6 had told p.w. 2 that all the three Appellants and Bali had taken part in the commission of the murder of Trilochan, p.w. 2 while lodging information would have suppressed the names of Appellants 2 and 3. The non-mention by p.w. 2 of the names of Appellants 2 and 3 in the F.I.R. as those who had taken part in the commission of the murder of Trilochan shows that p.w. 6 had not told p.w. 2 before he left for the Police Station that Appellants 2 and 3 were involved in the,occurrence. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has therefore ample justification in making the submission that the implication of Appellants 2 and 3 in the commission of murder is the result of an afterthought. 10. There are also good grounds to suspect whether p.w. 6 had at all witnessed the occurrence. He had stated in the trial Court that he saw the faces of the three Appellants while they were assaulting the deceased, that Appellant Satia was armed with a Katari, but that he did not see any weapons in the hands of the other two Appellants. But in the Court of the committing Magistrate, in answer to a question put to him in cross-examination, the witness deposed that he did not see the faces of the accused persons but only saw them from the back side. In his statement recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure he said that when he saw the accused person, Satia was carrying a big knife soaked with blood and the Appellant Jita had an axe. In his statement recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure he said that when he saw the accused person, Satia was carrying a big knife soaked with blood and the Appellant Jita had an axe. He stated in the Court of the committing Magistrate that after seeing the occurrence he did not go to the place where the deceased was lying and he did not therefore see the injuries on the person of the deceased. But he stated in the trial Court that after the accused persons had left the place, he went to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was dead and his neck was cut. 11. We may now refer to the evidence of p.w. 10 the father of the deceased. On the evening of the date of occurrence when his son Ladu and his servant returned home from the fields, he learnt from them that the deceased through whom food had been sent for them had not gone to the field. He then became anxious and searched for the deceased. He reached village Madmada in the evening after it became dark and he went to the house of his house of his cousin Bishnu. He says, he found neither Bishnu nor his wife in the house and nobody in the house gave him any information about the deceased. He then went to his fields at Madmada but finding no trace of the deceased he returned home to Kermeli and it was only at dinner time that night that p.w. 2, Bishnu and others went to his house and informed him that the Appellants and Bali had killed his son. If, as a matter of fact, the eye-witness p.w. 4 had sometime in the afternoon informed Bishnu's wife about the murder of Trilochan, it is inconceivable that she would have kept it as a secret especially when she is so closely related to the deceased. The natural conduct on her part would have been not only to raise a commotion in her own house, but also to give immediate information to the father of the deceased who lives in the nereby village Kermeli. The natural conduct on her part would have been not only to raise a commotion in her own house, but also to give immediate information to the father of the deceased who lives in the nereby village Kermeli. The fact that p.w. 10 having gone to the house of Bishnu in the evening could not get any information about the whereabouts of his son from the other inmates of Bishnu's house shows that none in Bishnu's house bad known about the occurrence by that time. According to p.w. 6 be informed Binshu and p.w. 2 in the evening of the date of occurrence what he had seen about the murder of Trilochan. According to p.w. 10 he went to village Madmada after it,had become dark. He had stated in the trial Court that when he went to Madmada, he did not see Bishnu. But his attention was drawn to a statement made by him before the Police during investigation that he met p.w. 2 and Bishnu but that he (Bishnu) told him that he knew nothing about the deceased and that he p.w. 10 should search for him elsewhere. This is inconsistent with the prosecution case as presented in the trial Court that Bishnu and p.w. 2 learnt from the eye-witnesses p.w. 6 in the evening of the date of occurrence that the deceased had been killed by the Appellants and Bali. 12. Relying on the discrepancies in the statements made by various witnesses from time to time, it is submitted by Mr. Dhal, and in our opinion rightly, that if p.w. 6 had in fact witnesses the occurrence and had seen the Appellants and Bali at the place of occurrence and after returning to the village had first informed. Bishnu's wife and subsequently in the evening told p.w. 2 and Bishnu about it, there would have been no occassion for such discrepancies to occur in the testimonies given by p.w. 2, p.w. 6 and p.w. 10 and that consequently p.w. 6 cannot be said to be a reliable witness on the strength of whose testimony the conviction of the Appellants can be based. 13. In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras their Lordships of the Supreme Court classified witnesses into three categories, namely, wholly reliable. wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 13. In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras their Lordships of the Supreme Court classified witnesses into three categories, namely, wholly reliable. wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should not have any difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way. It may, on the basis of the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, convict or may acquit the accused. There is also no difficulty in the second category of proof and the statement of a witness wholly unreliable must be rejected for all purposes. It is only in the third category where the witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the difficulty arises. In such cases, the Court seeks corroboration from some independent evidence or from some circumstances. After carefully considering the evidence of the sole eye-witness p.w. 6 in this case and the discrepancies brought out in his evidence and the circumstances to which we made a detailed reference above, we are unable to say that he is a wholly reliable witness. Even if it is said that he is not wholly unreliable he is at best a witness whom we consider neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, and consequently unless his evidence is corroborated by independent evidence, we consider it unsafe to act upon his evidence. We have found no such corroboration. 14. Reliance is placed by the prosecution on the evidence of p.w. 4 who had stated that on the morning of the date of occurrence at about 10 a.m. he saw the three Appellants at a place which is 2 to 3 furlongs off from the place of occurrence. It seems, that Appellant No. 1 Satia had covered himself and his two sons Appellants 2 and 3 were holding an axe each. He admitted that before he was examined by the Police he did not state about this fact to anybody in the village and he asserted in Court that when examined by the Investigating Officer he had told him that he saw Appellants 2 and 3 carrying an axe each and that Satia had covered himself up. The Investigating Officer p.w. 11 deposed that no such statement was made before him by p.w. 4. The Investigating Officer p.w. 11 deposed that no such statement was made before him by p.w. 4. The Police had seized the axe M. O. I and two cloths from the house of the Appellant and had sent them for chemical examination vide Ext. 8. The Chemical Examiner reported - vide Ext. 9, that these three articles were not even blood-stained. Ext. 9, therefore, does not in any way support the prosecution case. 15. After a careful consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, we find that the charge against the Appellants had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently their conviction by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be maintained. We would accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the Appellants and the sentience imposed upon them and direct that they (Satia Sahu, Arakhita Sahu and Jita Sahu) be set at liberty forthwith. S. Acharya, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Allowed