S.S. BYAS, J.—By his judgment dated December 13, 1982 the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicted the appellant Bindersingh alias Bavendra Singh under sec. 302, I P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on the first and one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months like imprisonment under the second count. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently while those in default of the payment of fine consecutively. 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Tejasingh was the real elder brother of PW 1 Angrejsingh. They have some more brothers. Though they were residents of village Sagarwala, he used to live in Dhani which they had installed in their fields. The appellant is also a resident of the same village but he and the members of his family lived in Dhani which they had erected in their fields. The fields of the deceased-victim and the accused are situate contiguous. The appellant and the members of his family made unlawful possession over six Kilas of agricultural land belonging to the deceased victim and his brothers. This resulted in strained relations between them. PW 1 Angrejsingh used to operate a flour mill at village 9-G. He used to daily go there from his residence on bicycle or in bus and return in the evening. 3. On June 2, 1982, Tejasingh went to Ganganagar to take a loan from the Union Bank of India. In the afternoon he boarded bus No. R.J.K. 7457 to go to his village. This bus plies between Ganganagar and Sagarwala and leaves Ganganagar at 4.30 P.M. and reaches Sagarwala at about 7.00 P.M. It is alleged that the appellant and his two associates Bantasingh (father of the appellant) and Chaudhary Singh also boarded the same bus. In the way the bus stopped at village 9-G. PW 1 Angrejsingh boarded the bus there and put his bicycle on its roof. He noticed that the appellant was having a 12-bore D.B.M.L. gun with him. Angrejsingh apprehended danger and advised his brother Tejasingh to get down from the bus. Tejasingh accepted the advice. When the bus reached the road-crossing as shown in site plan Ex. He noticed that the appellant was having a 12-bore D.B.M.L. gun with him. Angrejsingh apprehended danger and advised his brother Tejasingh to get down from the bus. Tejasingh accepted the advice. When the bus reached the road-crossing as shown in site plan Ex. P. 2, Tejasingh asked the driver to stop the bus. The bus stopped while taking a turn towards village Jodhewala. Tejasingh and Angrejsingh got down from the bus through the back gate. Bantasingh, Chaudhary Singh and the appellant also got down from the bus through another gate. Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh directed the appellant to fire the shot at Teja-Singh. The appellant thereupon fired a shot at Tejasingh which hit him on his head. Tejasingh fell down. Angrejsingh immediately ran towards drivers gate and managed to get in the bus. The bus proceeded further and stopped at village Jodhewala. Angrejsingh heard one more gun shot. There PW. 1 Angrejsingh got down, took his bicycle and straight way went to Police Station, Chunawat and verbally lodged report EX. P. 1 of the occurrence at about 8.30 P.M. The police registered a case and took up the investigation. The Station House Officer Krishnawatar (PW 14) immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and posted some police constables to keep a watch there. Next day in the morning he inspected the site. He found two wads, blood-smeared soil, one bank-pass-book and a packet near the victims deadbody. All these articles were seized and sealed. The Investigating Officer also prepared the inquest report of the victims deadbody and the site plan. The post mortem examination of the victims deadbody was conducted at about 2.30 P.M. on 3 6-82 by Medical Jurist Dr. D.K. Gupta. He noticed the following ante mortem injuries on his deadbody:- 1. Lacerated wound 1" x 3/4" x brain mellis deep on the left temporal region on the lateral side. Blacking accuchings talloing present. Margins are inverted. Wound is oblique aging to right side and slight backwards. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x 3/4 x thoraxic cavity deep in the contre slight oblique below clavical. Blacking and talloing present. Margins backwards. 3. Lacerated wound 1/8" x 1/8" x thorasic cavity deed on the right side and cavicular region, Corresponding hole is the slight on the back side. The injuries were ante mortem. In the opinion of Dr. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x 3/4 x thoraxic cavity deep in the contre slight oblique below clavical. Blacking and talloing present. Margins backwards. 3. Lacerated wound 1/8" x 1/8" x thorasic cavity deed on the right side and cavicular region, Corresponding hole is the slight on the back side. The injuries were ante mortem. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to brain and right lung due to fire-arm weapon. The post mortem examination report is EX. P. 23. The clothes of the deceased-victim were seized and sealed. The appellant was arrested on June 4,1983., In consequence of the information furnished by him on June 6, 1982 whilst under police custody, the gun alleged to have been used by him in the commission of the offence was recovered. Co-accused. Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh were also arrested. One Gandasi was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by accused Chaudhary Singh. The gun was examined in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It was found in working order. On the completion of investigation the police submitted a challan against the appellant and two others viz. Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under section 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and under sections 302/34, IPC against the remaining two. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence no evidence was adduced. The defence taken by the accused persons was that of complete denial. On the conclusion of trial the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating evidence against the accused Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh. The prosecution story of exhortation and instigation against the accused Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh was disbelieved. Both of them were consequently acquitted. The charges against the appellant were held duly proved. As a result, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. We have heard Shri M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Both of them were consequently acquitted. The charges against the appellant were held duly proved. As a result, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. 4. We have heard Shri M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the prosecution examined six witnesses alleging that they had seen the incident. They are PW 1 Angrej Singh, PW 2 Pooranchand, PW 3 Labhsingh, PW Sukhdeo Singh, PW 7 Jotram and PW 12 Jaspalsingh. All of them except PW 1 Angrejsingh turned hostile and lent no support to the prosecution. PW 2 Pooranchand was the Conductor, PW 3 Labhsingh was the driver and the remaining three were the persons travelling in the bus. PW 7 Jotram and PW 12 Jispalsingh even denied that on that fateful day they were travelling in the bus, or had seen anybody been killed. The remaining three PW 2 Pooranchand, PW 3 Labhsingh and PW 4 Sukhdeosingh admitted that Tejasingh was travelling in the bus and got down at the road-crossing but denied that PW 1 Angrejsingh was then in the bus. According to them when victim Tejasingh got down from the bus at the cross, one man whom they could not identify also got down there. The man who got down with Tejasingh was none of the three accused persons. That man who got down with Tejasingh fired a shot at him (Tejasingh). It would be proper to briefly notice what has been stated by these three witnesses who were admittedly in the bus. 6. PW 2 Pooranchand was Conductor in the bus. He deposed that the bus left Ganganagar at about 4.30 P.M. on the day of incident. The deceased-victim Tejasingh was travelling in that bus. When the bus reached near the road-crossing where there is a turn for village Jodhewala, Tejasingh asked to stop the bus. Labhsingh (PW 3) who was driving the bus, stopped it. Tejasingh and one another man got down from the bus there at the turn. The bus proceeded further. But then he heard a gun shot. The bus reached Jodhewala where he was informed at the bus stand that Tejasingh had been killed. Labhsingh (PW 3) who was driving the bus, stopped it. Tejasingh and one another man got down from the bus there at the turn. The bus proceeded further. But then he heard a gun shot. The bus reached Jodhewala where he was informed at the bus stand that Tejasingh had been killed. From Jodhewala, he and Labhsingh went to Police Station Chunawat in that very bus and lodged a report of the incident. The report was taken down in writing by the Station House Officer and their signatures were taken on it. The witness stated that neither the appellant Bindersingh nor the other two acquitted accused Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh were there in the bus on that day. He also stated that PW 1 Angrejsingh did not board the bus at 9 G or at any other place. According to him, PW1 Angrej Singh did not travel in that bus on that day for any distance. He also stated that he and Labhsingh had reached Police Station, Chunawat at about 7.00 P M. and remained there upto 10.00 P.M. During that period PW 1 Angrejsingh did not come there at the Police Station. PW 2 Labhsingh was driving the bus. He denied that the deceased-victim Tejasingh, his brother Angrejsingh (PW 1) and the accused persons Chaudhary Singh, Bantasingh and the appellant were known to him. He stated that he simply heard the gun fire and the passengers travelling in the bus told him that somebody has been killed. He, therefore, took the bus to Police Station, Chunawat and lodged the First Information Report. PW 4 Sukhdeosingh was travelling in the bus from Ganganagar to go to his village Jodhewala. He stated that the deceased-victim Tejasingh also boarded the bus at Ganganagar. The accused Chaudhary Singh too had boarded the bus at Ganganagar. When the bus reached near the road-crossing where there is a turn for Jodhewala, Tejasingh asked to stop the bus. When the bus stopped, Tejasingh got down. Alongwith him one another person also got down whom he did not know. That man whom he could not identify fired a shot at Tejasingh. The witness stated that that man who had fired the shot at Tejasingh was neither the accused Bindersingh nor the other two co accused Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh. 7. Alongwith him one another person also got down whom he did not know. That man whom he could not identify fired a shot at Tejasingh. The witness stated that that man who had fired the shot at Tejasingh was neither the accused Bindersingh nor the other two co accused Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh. 7. Thus, none of these three witnesses whose presence at the place of incident is admitted by the prosecution, has deposed anything incriminating against the accused appellant. It has not been suggested that these three witnesses had any grudge against the deceased-victim. Of course, they stated in their police statement that accused Bindersingh had fired a shot at Tejasingh but denied to have given these statements before police. They were declared hostile and were confronted with their police statement but they stuck to their denial, through out. According to them the accused-apppellant Bindersingh was not travelling in the bus on that day. 8. A gun was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by the accused-appellant. According to the learned Sessions Judge this recovery does not connect him with the commission of the murder of Tejasingh. Since the recovery of the gun has been discarded by the trial court, we need not discuss this aspect of the matter. 9. The only evidence on which the accused was convicted is that of PW 1 Angrejsingh. Mr. Purohit, appearing for the appellant, contended with his usual vehemence that this witness was not travelling in the bus and as such he had not seen the incident. His claim to have seen the incident is unfounded and stands falsified for multiple reasons. This witness was the brother of the deceased-victim. His antecedents was not good. Admittedly he was challaned by police for vagabondism a few days before the occurrence. He was in litigation with the accused-appellant and the members of his family. It was argued that though the conviction can be based on the testimony of a soletary witness, but then in that case the testimony should be of sterling worth which can be safely accepted and acted upon. The conduct of the witness shows that he did not see the occurrence. It was argued that though the conviction can be based on the testimony of a soletary witness, but then in that case the testimony should be of sterling worth which can be safely accepted and acted upon. The conduct of the witness shows that he did not see the occurrence. After lodging the first information report he did not accompany the police and went away silently to 9-G. There are then major discrepancies inter se between what he stated before police and during trial The testimony of this witness was neither convincing nor so strong so as to seek the conviction without any corroboration The corroboration is lacking. It was argued that in these circumstances the conviction of the accused-appellant should not be maintained. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the court below and submitted that the testimony of PW 1 Angrejsingh has been found trustworthy by the trail court There are no good and cogent reasons to up-set the conclusions of the trial court. 10. In order to correctly appreciate the rival submissions it would be proper to briefly go through the statement of PW 1 Angrej Singh. He deposed that he used to operate a flour mill at Chak 9-G. He used to go there from his village in bus or on bicycle. As he was indisposed on the day of incident, he closed the flour mill and boarded the bus at about 5.30 P.M. He put the bicycle on the roof of the bus His brother Tejasingh was also travelling in the bus. He went and sat near him on the last seat in the bus. The appellant Bindersingh and the other two co-accused Chaudhary Singh and Bantasingh were also there in the bus. Chaudharysingh had a Gandasa while the appellant Bindersingh had a 12-bore D.B.H.L. gun. Accused Bindersingh was restless and was staring at Tejasingh. He (witness) apprehended danger and expressed his apprehension to Tejasingh. Tejasingh told him that he would get the bus stopped at the road-When the bus reached the road-crossing and took a turn towards Jodhewala, Tejasingh got the bus stopped. He (witness) and Tejasingh got down from the bus through the back gate. The accused-appellant Bindersingh and his companion Bantasingh and Chaudharysingh also got down there from the other gate of the bus. He (witness) and Tejasingh got down from the bus through the back gate. The accused-appellant Bindersingh and his companion Bantasingh and Chaudharysingh also got down there from the other gate of the bus. Accused Bantasingh and Chaudhary Singh asked the accused-appellant Binder Singh that the enemies were at hand and they should be finished. On their saying so, Bindersingh fired a shot at Tejasingh which hit him on his head. Tejasingh fell down. The witness stated that he took Tejasingh as dead, ran towards the drivers gate and managed to get in the bus. When the bus stopped at Jodhewala, he took the bicycle and went to Police Station, Chunawat where he reached at about 8.30 P.M. He there lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence. His testimony was accepted at the face value by the learned Sessions Judge and the appellant was convicted thereon. 11. Further the conviction even for a grave offence can be based on the testimony of a soletary witness provided he is above approach and entitled to full credit and provided further that it is safe to do so. In order to base the conviction on the testimony of a sole witness it is required that the testimony of that witness is free from suspicion and above the board. It is free from fair and reasonable criticism and can be accepted without reservations. It has been consistently held that where the prosecution case hinges on the testimony of a soletary witness, it is incumbent upon the Court to carefully scrutinize the evidence of that witness to find out whether he is a witness of sterling worth or not This is because for the conviction of a person the law demands convincing proof of guilt-against him. 12. PW 1 Angrejsingh was cross-examined at length. He has admitted therein a number of facts which cast serious doubts about his presence on the spot and has claim to have seen the incident. He admitted that he reached the Police Station at about 8.30 P M. and remained there till 10.C0 P.M. He further admitted that he did not accompany the police party when it left the police station to go to the place of occurrence. He took the pretext that the Investigating Officer had asked him to go away and to come to the spot next day. He took the pretext that the Investigating Officer had asked him to go away and to come to the spot next day. From the Police Station he went to 9-G and remained there through-out the night with his relatives. It is difficult to conceive that he would not have accompanied the police party to show them the place of occurrence where the victims deadbody was lying. After all, as admitted by him, it was a dark night and we are unable to conceive that had he been at the Police Station when the police party left, he would not have accompanied them. It is again astcunding that the Investigating Officer Krishnawatar (PW 14) did not ask this witness to accompany him to the place of occurrence and directed him to come next morning there. Any way, this conduct of the witness is open to grave criticism and when taken into consideration with the other facts of the case, the impression we got is that since he had not seen the occurrence, he did not accompany the police party. PW 1 Angrejsingh admitted that he requested the Police to go to the spot. The Investigating Officer sent 4 or 5 Constables of Police to the spot and told him that as it was a dark night he would proceed to the spot next day in the morning. The Investigating Officer Krishnawatar (PW 14), on the other hand, deposed that he and the police party left the Police Station to go to the spot in the presence of this witness. Thus, the two statements are so contradictory, that it is difficult to reconcile them. The witness further admitted in cross-examination that he paid the bus fare but did not care to take the ticket from the Conductor. He even did not pay the charges of taking the bicycle in the bus and took the easy pretence that no such charges are generally taken by private bus operators. 13. The accused - appellant and the members of his family were on inimical terms with this witness and the members of his family including the deceased-victim. Had this witness Angrejsingh (PW 1) been present in the bus, the accused would have never spared him also. 13. The accused - appellant and the members of his family were on inimical terms with this witness and the members of his family including the deceased-victim. Had this witness Angrejsingh (PW 1) been present in the bus, the accused would have never spared him also. If the accused could become dare devil to commit the murder in a broad day-light and that too in the presence of 25 to 30 passengers, they would not have spared this witness to board the bus. After all, accused-appellant was having a D.B.B.L. gun with him and the witness was standing near the deceased-victim. In these circumstances we can well conceive that had this witness been with the deceased-victim, the accused appellant would not have spared him too to allow him to depose against him. The witness stated that as soon as his brother was gunned down he ran towards the drivers gate and managed to get in the bus. He also stated that the driver of the bus helped him in getting in the bus. Unfortunately, PW 3 Labhsingh did not support him on this count. 14. The witness stated that he apprehended danger seeing the accused-appellant and the two other accused (acquitted) in the bus because one of them viz., the appellant was having a gun and the other had a Gandass. If the witness was present in the bus and apprehended danger he would have never thought of getting down at the crossing of the road because the bus was to reach at village Jodhewala which is a town of the population of 4 to 5 thousand. The witness and the victim were more safe in the bus wherein 25 to 30 passengers were travelling that at the lonely spot of the crossing of the roads. 15. The accused witness has a load of bad antecedents. He was challaned by the police for vagaboundism only a few days before the incident. We may point out that PW 1 Angrejsingh has not been found a witness of absolute truth even by the learned Sessions Judge. He has been disbelieved as regards the two acquitted accused persons. The theory propounded by him relating to the instigation and exhortation alleged to have been given by the acquitted accused has been disbelieved by the trial court. He has been disbelieved as regards the two acquitted accused persons. The theory propounded by him relating to the instigation and exhortation alleged to have been given by the acquitted accused has been disbelieved by the trial court. In the First Information Report lodged by this witness, what has been mentioned is that appellant fired a shot at Teja Singh which hit him. Strangely enough, in this F. I R. Ex. P 1 he did not state-were i.e. on what part of the body the victim was hit. Not only this in his statement Ex. D 1 also, the witness did not state as to which part of the victims body was hit by the gun fire of the appellant. It was only during trial that the witness developed the theory that the head of the victim was hit by the gun shot. 16. In view of these various circumstances while appreciating the testimony of this witness Angrejsingh we cannot forget that he is the real brother of the deceased-victim. There was deeprooted enmity between the two families. There was litigation between them. The conduct of this witness is thus highly unnatural and inexplicable and cats heavy clouds on his claim to be present on the spot and to have seen the occurrence. The impression we gather is that he is not a truthful witness and has made every effort to make him a witness of the occurrence. 17. We may state even at the fault of repetition that the evidence of a single witness if believed is sufficient to prove a fact. The rule of UNDG NULEG (one is equal to none) which prevailed for a considerable long time in the English Common Law was never recognized as good and sound in our country. The framers of the Evidence Act did not accept this rule when they inserted Section 134 in the Evidence Act, according to which no particular number of witness is required for the proof of any fact. The logic behind behind that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the instant case, on a careful analysis, scanning and scrutinising of the testimony of PW 1 Angrejsingh, we are of the opinion that it is neither convincing nor irreproachable. He did not travel in that bus and had not seen the incident. The logic behind behind that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the instant case, on a careful analysis, scanning and scrutinising of the testimony of PW 1 Angrejsingh, we are of the opinion that it is neither convincing nor irreproachable. He did not travel in that bus and had not seen the incident. He lodged the F.I.R. alleging himself to be an eye witness only when he gathered the information of his brother being gunned down. Since there was bitter enmity between the two families, the witness named the appellant and the members of his family as the perpetrator of the murder in the First Information Report lodged by him, In these circumstances it would be clearly unsafe to accept his testimony as of intrinsic worth. We are, therefore, unable to maintain the conviction of the appellant on the sole strength of his testimony. At any rate, it would not be free from risk in maintaining the conviction on the basis of what be testified. Very often we come across cases of suppression of true facts and suggestions of falsehood. This is a case of that type. 18. Lest we may not be misunderstood, we may add that the hostile attitude of the five prosecution witnesses has not at all impressed us in appreciating the evidence of PW 1 Angrej Singh. The testimony of Angrej Singh is such that it crumbles down on its own merits without taking the hostile attitude of the other alleged eye witnesses into consideration. 19. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused Bindersingh alias Davendra Singh. His conviction under sections 302, I.P.C. and 27, Arms Act together with the sentence awarded thereunder are set - aside and he is hereby acquitted. He is in jail and shall be forthwith set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.