JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a tine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (camp at Gangapur City) by his judgment dated 1-5-80. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Padam-pura. lodged a report in the police station, Todabheem that on 23-9-79, when he returned back from Jaipur to Padampura at 10 p.m , Nanga and Pancha informed him that Ghisa has been murdered in his field in which the crop of Bajra was standing. He has been killed by sharp edged weapon by inflicting injuries on his body and his body is still lying on the spot. The police thereafter, investigated the case. Postmortem examination of the dead body of Ghisa was conducted. The clothes found on the body of the deceased and the blood stained sand was sent for chemical examination. A challan was thereafter submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun, who after making the preliminary enquiry sent the case for trial to the Sessions Court. A charge was framed under section 302 against the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined the witnesses in support of its case and the accused appellant did not produce any evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the statement of PW. 4 Habuda and PW. 7 Smt. Mangi, the wife of the deceased, and recovery of sickle articles 1 under section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the accused-appellant. On the basis of the afore-said evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of committing the murder of deceased Ghisa and sentenced him as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that according to the evidence produced by the prosecution, PW. 4 Habuda alone is said to be the eye witness of the commission of the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that according to the evidence produced by the prosecution, PW. 4 Habuda alone is said to be the eye witness of the commission of the crime. His statement according to the learned counsel is full of material contradictions, and the fact that he did not disclose the name of the accused to the widow and other residents of the village whom he met at 10 p m. on the alleged date of that murder and even did not disclose the name to the police on the next day, clearly shows an abnormal conduct and no reliance can be placed on the statement of such a witness. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following observation in Chanan Singe v. State of Haryana (AIR 1951 SC 1554) :- "The third reason why Shangara Singh's evidence is not believe able is that if he saw Chanan Singh fire twice at Mohinder Singh, Shangara Singh would normally go to Pishora Singh brother of Mohinder Singh and tell him that Mohinder Singh had been shot by Chanan Singh. The fourth reason for not accepting Shangara Singh as a truthful witness is that his alleged statement to his father Suba Singh at about 11 at night that Chanan Sinah had shot Mohinder Singh does not get any support from his conduct. Neither Shangara Singh nor his father went to the police. Tire first thing that would occur to Shangara Singh would be to go to the police station. He did not do that. His father also followed suit. The reason given by Shangara Singh was that his father did not move out of fear is without any foundation and is not supported by any evidence of act or conduct. These features indicate the infirmities as to truthful evidence of Shangara Singh." 4. It is also submitted that in the First Information Report lodged by PW. 5 Adhiraj Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Padampura, the name of the accused was not mentioned at all and it was merely stated that some unknown person had committed the murder of Ghisa. Though PW. 2 Dhaniya has admitted that he and other persons and the police remained present on the field of Ghisa deceased upto 11 a.m. on 24-9-79 but they did not come to know as to who had committed this murder. According to the Investigation Officer PW. Though PW. 2 Dhaniya has admitted that he and other persons and the police remained present on the field of Ghisa deceased upto 11 a.m. on 24-9-79 but they did not come to know as to who had committed this murder. According to the Investigation Officer PW. 8 Bane Singh, PW. 4 Habuda was examined as a eye-witness of the incident on 26-9-79. There is no satisfactory explanation given by PW- 4 Habuda for not disclosing the name of the accused-appellant till 26-9-79. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that according to PW. 4 Habuda, he came to the spot at 9 or 10 p. m. on the date of the alleged incident. The wife of Ghisa deceased was also there near the dead body of the deceased, but he did not disclose the name of the appellant to anyone of them. In his statement during the trial at one stage he stated that the police had come and he had disclosed the whole story to the police and also disclosed the name of the appellant. Subsequently, he changed his earlier statement and stated that the police had come the next day but he did not make the statement to the police next day and the second day also. According to this witness he had disclosed the name of the accused appellant to Jagnya son of Ganga Prasad, Badri and Koriya but the prosecution has failed to summon any one of these witnesses. The injuries sustained by the deceased and disclosed in the injury report are namely, stab wounds, incised wounds and lacerated wounds. Though according to the prosecution case the accused appellant inflicted injury by sickle, but this weapon cannot cause all the injuries. As regards the statement of PW 5 Sint. Mangi. learned counsel submits that her statement to the effect that she had seen the appellant running with a sickle in his hand cannot be believed. PW 5 has not disclosed this fact to the Sarpanch, who had lodged the report with the police and she has categorically admitted that this fact was not disclosed by her to the Sarpanch. She did not mentions this fact in her statement Ex. D2 recorded under section 161 Cr. PW 5 has not disclosed this fact to the Sarpanch, who had lodged the report with the police and she has categorically admitted that this fact was not disclosed by her to the Sarpanch. She did not mentions this fact in her statement Ex. D2 recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. So far as the recovery of sickle at the instance of the accused-appellant ts concerned, only one witness PW 9 Chote Lal has been examined by the prosecution, who did not support the prosecution case in this regard and was declared hostile. The report of the serologist does not prove that the sickle was stained with human blood. It was also argued that the motive alleged by the prosecution that the accused appellant warned the land of the deceased to be mortagaged with him is not at all convincing as PW 5 Mst. Mangi in this connection has admitted that this talk took place about two years back and there was no quarrel on this point previously. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the guilt has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant and there was no abnormal conduct of PW 4 Habuda in not disclosing the name of the accused-appellant. He, thus, supported the judgment given by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. In the present case, the offence is alleged to have been committed in the evening of 23-9-1979. The First Information Report Ex P. 11 was lodged on 24-9-79 at 4 am. by the Sarpanch Adhiraj PW 5. In this report the name of the accused-appellant was not mentioned and it was stated that Ghisa Koli has been killed by some person committing the theft of the crop. The whole prosecution case is based on the solitary statement of eye witness PW 4 Habuda. According to this witness, when he was inside his field, he heard a cry of Ghisa Koli that he was being beaten. There is only one field in between the field of this witness and the deceased. When he ran from his field towards the field of Ghisa, he saw Chander brother of Kalu coming towards that side. Then he and Chander saw that the accused Kalu was inflicting injury on Ghisa with a stickle. He saw injuries of Ghisa on his head, shoulders and thighs and near the eyes. Ghisa had died in his presence. When he ran from his field towards the field of Ghisa, he saw Chander brother of Kalu coming towards that side. Then he and Chander saw that the accused Kalu was inflicting injury on Ghisa with a stickle. He saw injuries of Ghisa on his head, shoulders and thighs and near the eyes. Ghisa had died in his presence. Kalu accused told him that he should not tell about this incident to any body else. The accused stated that he had committed a mistake and he should be forgiven, then he went from there and whole of the village assembled thereafter. In the cross examination the witness stated that he had told about the incident at the very time after reaching in the village which was at about a distance of 1 or 1/2 miles from the place of occurrence. He had told it to Jagnya son of Ganga Prasad and two others, namely, Badri and Koriya. He has further stated that he returned back at about 9 or 10 p. m. and he saw' the dead body of Ghisa still lying in the field. The wife and children of Ghisa were present there. As nobody asked him anything as such he did not disclose the name of the accused to the wife of Ghisa. He remained in his field in the night from 10.10 p.m. till 4 a.m. in the next morning. The Police had arrived on the next day. The Sub-Inspector had called him and he had related the entire incident to him. The name of Kaliya accused was also disclosed to the police on the next day of the incident. While he was confronted with his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. to the effect that he did not talk about the incident on account of fear, he stated that he did not give this statement to the Sub-Inspector. Admittedly, the police had recorded the statement of this witness on 26-9-79 under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is beyond human course of conduct that this witness did not tell the name of the accused to the wife and children of the deceased whom he admittedly met at about 10 p.m. in the night of the incident. Admittedly, the police had recorded the statement of this witness on 26-9-79 under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is beyond human course of conduct that this witness did not tell the name of the accused to the wife and children of the deceased whom he admittedly met at about 10 p.m. in the night of the incident. The explanation given by the witness in his statement recorded under section 161 that he did not tell about the incident on account of fear is not supported by him in his statement during the trial. The story now put forward by him is that the accused told him to tell about the incident to anybody else and told him to forgive him. This sort of explanation is clearly an after thought. The witness then even does not remain consistent on this stand also. 7. He has admitted that he told about the incident to a number of persons including. Jagnya, Badri and Koriya. None of these persons have been produced by the prosecution in support of the statement of this witness. It is also not understandable as to why he did not disclose the name of the accused when according to this witness the police had reached on the spot on the next morning. The conduct of this witness in such circumstances seems to be abnormal and does not inspire confidence. 8. If the statement of this witness is excluded, there is no other convincing evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The statement of PW 7 Mangi that she saw the accused-appellant running with a sickle in his hand is not supported by her own statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. When she was put a question as to why this fact was not narrated by her in her statement under section 161 Cr. P. C., she pleaded ignorance As regards the recovery of the sickle at the instance of the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act, it would suffice to observe that there is no report of the Serologist that it contained human blood. That apart, even one witness of the recovery produced by the prosecution, namely, Chota Lal has been declared hostile, The injuries found on the body of the deceased are stab wounds, incised wounds and also lacerated wounds. That apart, even one witness of the recovery produced by the prosecution, namely, Chota Lal has been declared hostile, The injuries found on the body of the deceased are stab wounds, incised wounds and also lacerated wounds. It is no doubt true that such injuries could have been inflicted by the sickle but this can only be done when the injuries are inflicted from the sharp side of this weapon as well as from the blunt side. In the normal course of conduct if the accused was inflicting the injuries from the sickle by using the sharp side, there was no reason for him to inflict injuries from the blunt side of the sickle. Thus, we cannot over rule the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard that some more weapons were used and there might be more than one person to commit the murder of Ghisa. Be that as it may, in the absence of the evidence of PW 4 Habuda whose statement we have discarded, there is no other evidence worth reliance which could hold the accused-appellant guilty for the commission of the crime. Thus, taking the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, in our view, it has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused, appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, (Camp at Gangapur City) dated 1-5-80 and acquit the accused under section 302 I.P.C. The accused-appellant should be released forth with. Sd/- G. M. Lodha, J. Sd/- N.M. Kasliwal, J.Appeal allowed conviction set aside. *******