B. N. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE four appellants have been convicted under section 302, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be briefly stated. Deceased Mangulu Mandal belonged to village Nilakuti and was working as a teacher in the D. P. School at Balipanka. On 17. 12. 80 the deceased went to village Mohana to collect his salary from P. W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of Schools. After nightfall, the deceased was returning to his village with his bicycle when on the forest road, the four appellants caught hold of him and on account of the axe blows given by appellant Sun a Majhi, the deceased was killed at the spot. The appellants thereafter carried away the wrist-watch, three gold rings, a torch-light and cash being carried by the deceased. On that day P. W. 5, the widow of the deceased, had sent two field servants, P. W. 9 and one Menga, to escort her husband back to the village. P. W. 9 and Menga had accompanied the deceased upto some distance but thereafter the deceased sent them back along the foot-path while he himself chose to come back on his bicycle on the main road. P. W. 9 returned to the house of P. W. 5 and informed her accordingly. However, as the deceased did not return home till late at night, P. W. 5 accompanied by P. W. 9 and others went in search of the deceased and found that at Abar Ghati, the deceased was lying dead with multiple injuries on his person. P. W. 5 next went to the Police Outpost at Chandragiri where she lodged the First Information Report with Shri J. B. Rao, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at about 1. 00 a. m. on 18. 12. 1980. P. W. 13, the then Officer-in-charge of Mohana Police Station, registered the present case at 10. 00 a. m. at the Police Station and took up investigation. Ext. 13 is the formal F. I. R. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and some articles were seized by P. W. 13. During investigation the services of a police dog were requisitioned. The four appellants were arrested on 4. 1. 1981. 00 a. m. at the Police Station and took up investigation. Ext. 13 is the formal F. I. R. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and some articles were seized by P. W. 13. During investigation the services of a police dog were requisitioned. The four appellants were arrested on 4. 1. 1981. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the four appellants who were next committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. ( 3 ) AT the trial, the four appellants were charged under sections 302/34, 379/34 and 506/34, I. P. C. , 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. The defence plea is one of complete denial. In their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have denied all the allegations made against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case found the appellants not guilty for the offences under sections 379/34 and 506/34, Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the said charges, but found them guilty under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced them as noted above. ( 4 ) P. W. 5 is the widow of the deceased. She has not seen the actual assault on the deceased. In her First Information Report, as well as in her evidence in Court, she has stated that she had sent her two field servants, P. W. 9 and one Menga to escort her husband back home. The servants returned and informed her that the deceased was coming on the main road and as advised by the deceased they had taken a shorter route back to the village. P. W. 5 has further stated that as the deceased did not return till late, she went in search of him accompanied by her co-widow, P. W. 9 and others. P. W. 9 is the only witness who had been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 5. P. W. 9 does corroborate the evidence of P. W. 5 to the ex tent that he had gone along with the other field servant to escort the deceased back home, but he has not stated that when the deceased failed to turn up till late, he had accompanied P. W. 5 in search of the, deceased. P. W. 9 does corroborate the evidence of P. W. 5 to the ex tent that he had gone along with the other field servant to escort the deceased back home, but he has not stated that when the deceased failed to turn up till late, he had accompanied P. W. 5 in search of the, deceased. However, P. W. 5 had gone at night and found the dead body of her husband with multiple injuries and thereafter she went to the Outpost and lodged the F. I. R. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 is the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mangulu Mandal on 19. 12. 1980 on police requisition. He had found the, following injuries: 1 Incised wound on the right side head behind the ear over mastoid region involving the pinna of right ear of size 8 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep unto cranial cavity. Underneath the wound brain matter and meninges cut and lacerated, and temporal bone cut and fractured (communicated ). 2. A sliced chop wound semi-lunar in size over the parietal occipital region cutting the scalp tissue, skull bone, occipital and both the parietal bone membrane and brain matter of length 16 cm. and deep upto 5 cm. due to glancing blow. Underneath the scalp wound the meninges and brain matter is lacerated, the skull bone involved were cut and fractured. The margin of the wound clean and contused. 3. A chop wound transverse in nature on the back of the neck cutting through the second cervical vertebras and the upper part of the rami of both mandible extending just below and in front of the lobules of the ears. All the neck structures at that level, cervical muscles both carotid and jugular vessels, pharynx, spinal cord and its coverings were cleanly divided. On its right side the margins of the wound were separated with tag of skin of 1 cm. width. Thus it suggests there were two blows at that level. The margins of the wound were sharp and contused. The neck is attached interiorly through skin only. 4. A cut injury of size 10 x x bone deep of 1/2 TI below the injury No. 3 on the back of the neck at its middle. The margins of the wound were sharp and contused. 5. The margins of the wound were sharp and contused. The neck is attached interiorly through skin only. 4. A cut injury of size 10 x x bone deep of 1/2 TI below the injury No. 3 on the back of the neck at its middle. The margins of the wound were sharp and contused. 5. A cut wound on the left side of the forehead of size 1/2 TI x TI x skin deep. 6. A cut wound at the right angle of the mouth 1/2 x x skin deep. 7. A contused abrasion at the middle of the forehead of size TI x. 8. A lacerated wound on the medial side of the right eyebrow 1/2 x x skin deep. 9. A lacerated wound on the right side upper lip by the side of nose of size 1/2 11 x x skin deep. 10. An abrasion 1/2 x on the left side of upper lip. 11. A contusion over left molar prominence. According to P. W. 2, the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and injuries 1 to 3 were fatal. Death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid injuries. Ext. 1 is the post-mortem report. P. W. 2 has further stated that injuries 1, 2 and 3 could have been caused by a moderately heavy cutting weapon and injuries 7 to 11 could have been caused when the deceaseds face came in contact with some projected hard and rough surface. P. W. 2 has not been cross-examined. The medical evidence discussed above clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that injuries 1, 2 and 3 found on the deceased were fatal in nature. ( 6 ) IN order to bring home the charge against the appellants, prosecution relies mainly on the evidence of P. W. 1, the solitary eyewitness. It is now the settled position of law that a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided such evidence is entirely reliable and above-board. In the case of Jose v. The State of Kerala1, it was held that there was no impediment in law in a conviction being based upon the testimony of a single witness provided the Court came to the conclusion that his evidence was honest and trustworthy. In the case of Jose v. The State of Kerala1, it was held that there was no impediment in law in a conviction being based upon the testimony of a single witness provided the Court came to the conclusion that his evidence was honest and trustworthy. Bearing in mind this position of law, the evidence of P. W. 1 may now be scrutinized. ( 7 ) THE first thing to be noticed is that, though the occurrence took place on the night of 17th December, P. W. 1 was examined by the police after fifteen days, on 1st of January. The police officers (P. Ws, 13 and 14) have not given any reasons why P. W. 1 was examined fifteen days after the occurrence. P. W. 1 himself has stated that as the appellants had threatened to kill him in case of disclosure, he had refrained from narrating the occurrence to any one till his examination by the police. This explanation is not at all satisfactory. P. W. 14 has stated that he had arrested the appellants on 4. 1. 1981 and he had examined P. W. 1 on 1. 1. 1981. Therefore, on 1. 1. 1981, the appellants were still at large and it is not clear as to what happened on the 1st, which emboldened P. W. 1 to come forward and narrate the occurrence before P. W. 14. On the other hand, in his cross-examination P. W. 1 has stated that he had been kept in custody by the police for fifteen days and he had made his statement out of fear for the police, as he had been threatened by the police that otherwise he would be implicated as an accused in this case. In these circumstances, the long delayed examination of P. W. 1 by the police seriously affects the credibility of P. W. 1. In the case of Bhagwan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, the evidence of a material witness who was examined by the police long after the, occurrence was rejected in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay. In the case of Bhagwan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, the evidence of a material witness who was examined by the police long after the, occurrence was rejected in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay. In the case of Chudiamal Jam and another v. State of Orissa3, it has been held that non-disclosure of vital facts by witnesses immediately after the occurrence, even after arrival of the police and villagers at the scene, would affect the evidence of those witnesses and it would not be safe and proper to accept their evidence. ( 8 ) MR. Ranjit Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 1. It has also been argued that the evidence of P. W. 1 is so unnatural that on that ground alone it should be rejected. We proceed to examine the evidence of the solitary eyewitness P. W. 1. According to him, appellants Dandapani and Raghunath came to his Bagada and asked him to escort them to village Salab. He accompanied them to Salab where they went to the house of appellant Dasarathi. Immediately after saying this, P. W. 1 changed his version and stated that they had gone to the house of appellant Raghunath and not Dasarathi. He bas further stated that from the house of Raghunath, all the appellants decided to go to Abar Ghati. It was already dark at that time and as they set out, Raghunath handed over a Tangia to Suna Majhi who covered it under a Chaddar. When they reached the forest, the appellants informed P. W. 1 that they were going to kill the deceased. Even after hearing this P. W. 1 chose to stand under a lamu tree and witness the occurrence. According to him all the four appellants lay in wait for the deceased. When the deceased appeared on the scene with his bicycle, Dandapani and Raghunath held his hands whereupon the deceased cried out for help. Dandapani next put a piece of cloth in the mouth of the deceased. Thereafter Suna Majhi dealt a Tangia blow on the back side of the deceaseds head. The deceased fell down where after Suna Majhi dealt two more Tangia blows on top of the deceaseds head. The deceased died at the spot. Dandapani next put a piece of cloth in the mouth of the deceased. Thereafter Suna Majhi dealt a Tangia blow on the back side of the deceaseds head. The deceased fell down where after Suna Majhi dealt two more Tangia blows on top of the deceaseds head. The deceased died at the spot. The appellants removed the belongings of the deceased and then went near a Sankha where they took their bath while P. W. 1 stood waiting holding the cloth of Dandapani. The appellants also washed the Tangia and took it home. Thereafter all the appellants and P. W. 1 returned to the house of Raghunath wherefrom P. W. 1 came back to his village escorted by Dandapani and Raghunath. In cross-examination it has been elicited from P. W. 1 that he had not stated in his previous statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the appellants had washed the Tangia after the occurrence. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of P. W. 1 and we find that it does not inspire confidence being wholly unnatural. It is hard to believe that pany to the appellants right from the beginning till the end merely to witness the occurrence. Besides the sketchy and contradictory evidence of P. W. 1, there is also no satisfactory explanation as to why he was examined fifteen days after the occurrence. On consideration we find that the evidence of the solitary eyewitness P. W. 1 is entirely untrustworthy. ( 9 ) APART from the evidence of P. W. 1, there is nothing else in the prosecution case which implicates the appellants. Nothing incriminating has been found by the Chemical Examiner on M. O. II, the cloth seized from Suna Majhi by P. W. 13 under seizure list, Ext. 10. For the reasons stated above, we find that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, against the appellants. ( 10 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. They be set at liberty forthwith. ( 11 ) THE direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding disposal of the material objects is confirmed except in respect of M. O. VI, recorded in the list of M. Os. They be set at liberty forthwith. ( 11 ) THE direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding disposal of the material objects is confirmed except in respect of M. O. VI, recorded in the list of M. Os. appended to the judgment as a tape recorder, which should be returned to P. W. 14, who had produced it during his examination in the trial court on 13. 10. 1982. Appeal allowed. .