JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by Dholia against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated September 11, 1975. by which the appellant was convicted under section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case against Dholia appellant was as follows: One Bhonra son of Sukha Meena resident of Bahali lodged a written report with the police station, Malalcheda, that bis young brother Nand Lal who was a habitual drink card had died after taking in liquor. The Station House Officer, Malkheda, upon receipt of the report, deputed Head Constable Narendra Singh to make an inquiry into the matter under section 174, Cr. P.C. and report. Naiendra Singh, Head Constable, rushed of village Bahali, on March 31, 1975, and inspected the dead body of Nand Lal on the next day and prepared a Panchnama Ex. P.5. In the course of injury, the Head Constable came to know that the deceased Nand Lal was beaten to death by his son Oholia. Thereupon, Narendra Singh, Head Constable, sent a report Ex. P. 10 to the Station House Officer, police station, Malakheda, for registration o f a criminal case under section 302, IPC against Dhola. The Station House Officer registered a criminal case under section 302, IPC and informed the Head Constable to start investigation. Narendra Singh Head Constable, thereupon, went to the spot, inspected the site, prepared a site plan and a site inspection memo and took blood-stained earth into his possession along with one Gudari and blood-stained shirt which were produced before him by one Chiranji. Then Narendra Singh, Hand Constable, called for the Medical Officer for performing postmortem examination over the dead body of Nand Lal. The Head Constable then recorded the statements of Gar pat, Chiranj, Sita Ram and others in the course of investigation. The investigation was then banded over to Yadurvir Singh, Station House Officer, Malakheda, who arrested the appellant and recovered one blood-stained lathi and some blood-stained clothes on April 15, 1975, from the residential house of the appellant at the latters instance and in consequence of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act on April 13, 1975. These articles were duly sealed in the presence of Motbirs. These articles were duly sealed in the presence of Motbirs. The Station House Officer then collected other necessary evidence in the case and, eventually, tiled a charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302, IPC in the court of he Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Alwar, who, upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed the appellant for trial under section 302, IPC to the court of the Sessions Judge, Alwar. The learned Sessions Judge tried the appellant and found him guilty of an offence under section 304, Part 11, IPC He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal 3. I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. S.N. Bhargrv and Mr. N.K Maloo, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Richpal Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no positive evidence on the record to prove the connection of the appellant with the murder of his father Nand Lal, and, so the learned Sessions Judge committed a grave error of law in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC. It was further urged that Ganpat PW 11 and Chiranji PW 6 have turned hostile to the prosecution case, while Sita Ram PW 9, is not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, was not justified in holding (he appellant responsible for the death of his father merely on the basis of a solitary eye witness, namely. Sita Ram, PW 9, especially when his evidence was full of material contradictions and omissions and the learned Sessions Judge himself held him as a partly reliable witness and die was admittedly examined by the police in the course of investigation after 32 hours of the occurrence without any sufficient cause. 4. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that there is ample evidence on the record from the side of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt According to his submission, the trial court committed no error in placing reliance on the testimony of Sita Ram and other eye-witnesses in holding the appellant responsible for the death of his father Nand Lal. 5. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the trial contentions mentioned above. At the outset I may observe that the prosecution examined Ganpat PW 1, Chiranji PW.6 and Sita Ram PW 9 as eye witnesses to the actual occurrence to prove its case against the appellant. One of these witnesses Ganpat and Chiranji have resiled from their previous statements which they gave before the police and wherein they implicated the appellant in the commission of the crime. Both these witnesses were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in the trial court. Ganpat PW 1 no doubt stated in his examination-in-chief that in bis presence Dhola did not beat his father Nand Lal but he saw the appellant taking away his father to his house by dragging him. Chiranji denied to have seen Dhola appellant beating or taking away his father by dragging him. Hence, no weight can be attached to the evidence of these two witnesses, namely, Ganpat and Chiranji, because from their evidence it is not established that the deceased was beaten by Dhola. The solitary eye-witness is Sita Ram PW 9 on whose evidence reliance has been placed by the trial Judge in holding the appellant responsible for causing death of his father. Sita Ram PW 9 staled in the trial commit that on March 31,1975, at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. he was present in his house At that time he saw Nand Lal father of the appellant sitting in the way that exists in front of his house. Nand Lal was calling the father of Sita Ram. On hearing his call, Sita Ram told Nand Lal deceased that his father had gone to the fields. After a short while, Sita Ram saw Dholia appellant coming there having no weapon in his hand. Sita Ram further stated that the appellant asked his father Nandd Lal to accompany him to his house but Nand Lal did not get up and turned deaf ears to the request of his son, i e. the appellant. The appellant, thereupon, snatched a lathi from the possession of Nand Lal and with it inflicted 3 or A blows in quick succession on Nand Lals head and foot, as a result of which blood came out of the injuries. Therefore, Sita Ram saw the appellant dragging away his father Nand Lal. The appellant, thereupon, snatched a lathi from the possession of Nand Lal and with it inflicted 3 or A blows in quick succession on Nand Lals head and foot, as a result of which blood came out of the injuries. Therefore, Sita Ram saw the appellant dragging away his father Nand Lal. Sita Ram was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellant in the trial court. In his cross-examination Sita Ram admitted that he did not mention the fact of having seen the appellant beating his father with a lathi to any other person in the village although he was present in the village till evening of March 31, 1975, on which date the occurrence took place.He further admitted that in the night he stayed at his house in the village and the police bad come to the village in the evening on that day but he did net consider it necessary to ' inform the police that he had seen the appellant inflicting lathi blows on the head and foot of his father. Sita Ram further admitted that in the next day the police was preparing memos at the house of Nand Lal, deceased, about the condition of the dead body, but, ai that time also he did not disclose to the police that he was an eye-witness to the actual occurrence. According to his version, he was called for by the police at about 6 or 6.30 pm. and was interrogated about the incident. In view of his above admissions, it is highly doubtful whether Sita Ram was in fact an eye-witness to the whole of the occurrence, because if he had seen the appellant striking blows on the head and foot of his father with a lathi, and had, later on, seen him dragging away the deceased, he would have surely disclosed this fact to the villagers or to the police the very day in the evening or on the next day in the morning when the police was inspecting the dead body, and preparing a Panchnama. The only explanation given by this witness in his cross-examination for non disclosure of the material facts to the police or to the villagers is that every body knew that the appellant had beaten his father and, therefore, he did not consider it necessary to acquaint the villagers and the police with the material facts 'hat he had seen the appellant striking blows on the head and foot of his father with a lathi and, later on, had seen him dragging away the deceased from the place of occurrence The above explanation is not at all convincing, especially when the house of this witness admittedly lay at a distance of one furlong only from the house of Nand Lal, deceased, and this witness admitted to have seen the police preparing memos about the dead body at the house of Nand Lal on the next day in the morning. He further admitted that at about 12 or 1pm on the next day of the incident the police had visited the spot in front of his house but he did not disclose to the police that he was an eye-witness to the whole of the incident Apart from this, the evidence of Sita Ram is full of material contradictions. He was confronted with and contradicted by portion A to B of his statement Ex. D. 1 which he gave before the police and wherein he stated that his grand-father Ganpat Ram had come outside his shop on seeing the appellant beating his father. In his statement at the trial he denied to have given the above statement before the police. Likewise, when confronted with portion C to D of his statement Ex D. 1, wherein he stated that Chiranji son of the deceased Nand Lal had arrived at the place of occurrence, he gave a reply that he did not make the above statement before the police. Again this witness was confronted with his statement Ex. D. 1 wherein he omitted to State that Dhola appellant had snatched a lathi from the possession of his father Nand Lal. When confronted with his previous statement about the said omission, he admitted that be did not state before the police that the appellant had snatched lathi from the possession of the deceased. D. 1 wherein he omitted to State that Dhola appellant had snatched a lathi from the possession of his father Nand Lal. When confronted with his previous statement about the said omission, he admitted that be did not state before the police that the appellant had snatched lathi from the possession of the deceased. In this manner, the evidence of this solitary eye witness Sita Ram is not of sterling worth, as it is not free from serious infirmities. It is no doubt true that, if the evidence of a single witness is found upon close and careful scrutiny by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal bar to the conviction of the accused person on such evidence, but if the court does not implicitly believe the version given out by a solitary witness and there is no other reliable evidence about the guilt of the accused, no conviction is possible in such a case.In the instant case also the various inconsistencies in the testimony of Sita Ram sole eyewitness coupled with his subsequent conduct particularly when he failed to give any information to the police about the incident till the evening of the next day of the occurrence clearly that Sita Ram is not a reliable eye witness The learned Sessions Judge himself held this witness Sita Ram to be partly reliable on account of the contradictions appealing in his evidence but he observed that as his statement is corroborated by medical evidence, it can be held to be worthy of credence. The medical evidence merely established that upon postmortem examination of the dead body of Nand Lal as many as 10 injuries were found on his body which brought about his death. The corroborative evidence must be about some material part not only bearing upon the facts of the crime, but upon the implication of the accused in it. There is no other evidence which may lend assurance to the testimony of Sita Ram that no other person but the appellant had inflicted lathi blows on the head and other parts of the body of his father at the time arid place alleged by the prosecution. Hence, I do not feel persuaded to uphold the conviction of the appellant merely on the basis of the solitary evidence of Sita Ram which has not been found satisfactory upon careful and close scrutiny. 6. Hence, I do not feel persuaded to uphold the conviction of the appellant merely on the basis of the solitary evidence of Sita Ram which has not been found satisfactory upon careful and close scrutiny. 6. The prosecution has led evidence to prove the recovery of a lathi and blood-stained clothes from the residential house of the appellant at the latters instance and in consequence of his information which he furnished to the Station House Officer while in the police custody but, even if the evidence relating to the recovery of the lathi and the clothes is taken to be proved, it does not in any way connect the appellant with the crime, because the lathi and the clothes we,re not sent to the Chemical Examiner or the Serologist for analysis with a view to ascertaining whether they were positive for human blood. Hence, upon careful review of the entire evidence of the record, I am of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. 7. The appeal of Dholia appellant is, therefore, accepted the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 304, Part II, I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence.The appellant is on bail. He need cot surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled.Appeal Accepted. *******