Short Note : There is the testimony of PW 4 Champabai, the soleeye-witness. In the opinion of this Court, there are strong reasons to desist from relying on her sole testimony to base the conviction. The First Information Report was lodged by the village Kotwar Amolsingh (P.W.1) the next morning after meeting the widow Chaitibai and (P.W.4) Champabai. No mention of the accused was made therein because (P.W. 4) Champabai did not disclose any details relating to the culprits to Amolsingh (P.W.1) till then. (P.W.1) Amolsingh has further stated clearly that on his enquiring from Chaitibai and Champabai (P.W. 4) about the incident, they expressed their ignorance. Upasl (P.W.3) is another person who met Champabai (P.W. 4) after the incident, but as stated by him. Champabai did not disclose any thing relating to the incident even to him. The investigating officer Onkarsingh (P.W. 23) has stated that prior to Champabai's statement being recorded on 24-5-1976 i.e. about two weeks after the incident, Champabai did not disclose Mangloo's murder to the police even though enquiries were made from her on several occasions commencing soon after the murder. It is thus clear that Champabai (P.W.4) the sole eye-witness relied on by the prosecution, mentioned the name of the appellants as the culprits for the first time only after two weeks of the murder even though she had ample opportunity to make a full disclosure to the police soon after the incident. There is no cogent explanation given for this peculiar conduct of an eye-witness who happens to be the wife of a grandson of the deceased and who was admittedly present in the house on the night of the murder. For these reasons it would be extremely unsafe to rely on the testimony of this witness alone to uphold the conviction. Appeal allowed.