Short Note : 1. The prosecution case at the trial was that after enjoying the Diwali feast, at his father-in-law’s place, deceased Jalsa S/o Ansingh, along with his sister P.W.1 Jendi, his wife Devli and his wife's brother Dhodhala had returned to their village at about 5 P.M., when, on the way to their hutment, they found people dancing near the house of one Ravtiya. All these persons also went to that place to witness the dance where both appellants Nanchhiya and Najru were also present armed with bow and arrows. According to the prosecution, appellant Nanchhiya claimed Devli to be his wife which was the cause of dispute and enmity between the deceased and the appellants and taking advantage of Jasla's presence, the appellants started shooting arrows at Jasla, who was injured and fell down at a short distance, though he tried to run away, whereupon the appellants went near him and pierced arrow shots at heart and abdomen due to which Jasla died. Held : Admittedly, according to the prosecution case itself there were a number of eye-witnesses present at the time of the incident and those independent eye-witnesses were also cited as eye-witnesses; but, curiously enough, the prosecution just gave them up on an alleged apprehension that they have been won over, about which there is absolutely no material except bare application. If in fact there were eye-witnesses, the prosecution ought to have examined them and if they had then turned hostile their veracity could be tested by cross-examining them; cut withholding of such important eyewitnesses raises a suspicion or doubt regarding the prosecution case. The statement of Jendi P.W.1 has, thus, not been corroborated by any other independent evidence though available, and, in our opinion, in these circumstances, it is not safe to base the conviction of the appellants on the uncorroborated testimony of Jendi P.W.1 who is naturally an interested witness. As it appears from the record, it is difficult to believe that all the other alleged eye-witnesses had turned hostile which, at best, is nothing but a conjecture of the prosecution. Thus, in our opinion the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of Jendi P.W.1 may at best create some suspicion against the appellants but that by itself is not, enough in the absence of any other substantial and corroborative evidence. Thus, in our opinion the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of Jendi P.W.1 may at best create some suspicion against the appellants but that by itself is not, enough in the absence of any other substantial and corroborative evidence. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed.