Short Note : 1. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellant was on inimical terms with Hurji P.W. 1 and his father Gotama, since deceased. On the night intervening 7th and 8th June 1974 the appellant inflicted blows with a sword on Gotama who was sleeping outside his house. The incident was witnessed by Hurji P.W.1 who lodged the first information report on 8th June 1974 at 8.00 A.M., at Police Station Bajna. Gotama succumbed to the injuries soon after the assault and his body was sent for autopsy. Dr. Chandravat P.W. 2, who conducted the autopsy found incised wound over his face which in the opinion of Dr. Chandravat caused the death of Gotama. The appellant, who was absconding, was arrested on 28th June, 1974 and was put up for trial. He denied the commission of any offence. The learned trial Judge, however, found that the appellant was guilty of the offence charged with. He was therefore convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal through jail. Held: The fact that Gotama died a homicidal death is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, by the testimony of Dr. Chandravat P.W. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant is however, based on the solitary testimony of Hurji P.W.1 who claimed to be an eye-witness. Learned counsel for the State admitted that from the record it was abundantly clear that Hurji P.W.1 was on inimical terms with the appellant. Hurji P.W 1 also admitted in cross-examination that at about midnight on the date of occurrence when he woke up to ease himself he found that the appellant was entering the house with a drawn sword. The witness, however, admitted that he did not raise any hue and cry. The conduct of this witness in remaining quiet even after having witnessed the entry of the appellant in suspicious circumstances in his house throws considerable doubt on the veracity of his testimony. In any event, as the relations between this witness and the appellant were strained it would not, in our opinion, be safe to act on the solitary testimony of this witness. 2. The only other incriminating circumstance brought by the prosecution against the appellant is his absconsion. In any event, as the relations between this witness and the appellant were strained it would not, in our opinion, be safe to act on the solitary testimony of this witness. 2. The only other incriminating circumstance brought by the prosecution against the appellant is his absconsion. But in view of the existing enmity between the appellant and the family of the deceased, the fact that the appellant absconded would not necessarily give rise to an inference of his guilt. The sword seized from the house of the appellant in pursuance of the information conveyed by him is not proved to be stained with human blood as the prosecution did not produce the report of the serologist. Appeal allowed. Benefit of doubt given.