Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, Phani Bhushan Prasad, JJ. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Mahanth Bishram Das of Shri Ram Janki temple in village Kiratpur within police station Lalganj in the district of Vaishali, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that there is a temple in village kiratpur, Police Station Lalganj in the district of Vaishali. The deceased bishram Das was its Mahanth. This temple has got five to six bighas of land. It is said that the appellant was the Chela of the said Mahanth. The informant (P. W.10) was the Pujari in the said temple. This appellant used to say that he would become the Mahanth after the death of Bishram Das. 3. On 6th May, 1982 at about 9 p. m. this appellant had a quarrel with the said Mahanth and he had said that he would kill him and would become the mahanth of the temple. In the same night the informant and the Mahanth were sleeping on the varandah of the temple. At about midnight the informant woke up on some sound and he saw this appellant assaulting the Mahanth by means of a kulhari. The informant raised alarm. The appellant then fled away. A number of persons came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter a truck was arranged and the Mahanth was taken to Hajipur hospital but on the way he succumbed. Soon thereafter, P. W.9, who was then attached to Bhagwan police station, came to the hospital and recorded the statement of P. W.10, which is exhibit 3, on the basis of which subsequently a case was registered. P. W.9 then took up the investigation. 4. P. W.8 held the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries :- (i) One incised wound 6" x " X 3" deep on fore head over left eye brow extending obliquely to face lateral and left eye. On dissection the frontal bone underneath was found cut and upper part of mandible fractured. The brain substance was alto cut 3" X " X 1 3/4". (ii) One incised injury 4" X 1/4" X skin deep on the face on the mastoid region. On dissection the frontal bone underneath was found cut and upper part of mandible fractured. The brain substance was alto cut 3" X " X 1 3/4". (ii) One incised injury 4" X 1/4" X skin deep on the face on the mastoid region. " time elapsed since death was within 36 hours and death, in the opinion of the doctor (P. W.8), was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. (i)which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 5. Alter completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and, ultimately, he was put on trial. 6. During trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant pleaded his innocence and claimed that he has been implicated in the case due to enmity. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned trying court convicted the appellant as stated above. 7. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws.1, 2, 3,4,5, 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and they were cross examined by the prosecution. P. W.10, the informant, has supported the prosecution case. Thus, the entire case rests on the evidence of P. W.10 alone. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the solitary statement of P. W.10 is not such which can be acted upon to maintain the conviction because it suffers from some intirmities. The informant has nowhere said either in his evidence in court or in his fardbeyan about the light in which he could identify the appellant while assaulting the deceased. The informant (PW 10)has said in his evidence in chief itself that the Sub-Inspector of Police and the deputy Superintendent of Police came to the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence but he did not disclose anything before the investigating officer including the name of the assailant. The informant gave different answers on questions being put to him on this point. Lastly, he said tha he stated about the occurrence to the Deputy Superintendent of Police but unfortunately, the Deputy superintendent of Police has not been examined. 9. P. W.9 has said that on heating some rumour he came to the place of occurrence but by that time the deceased had been taken to the hospital and, therefore, he went there and recorded the statement of the informant. 9. P. W.9 has said that on heating some rumour he came to the place of occurrence but by that time the deceased had been taken to the hospital and, therefore, he went there and recorded the statement of the informant. Thus, the evidence of P. Ws.9 and 10 is not consistent as to whether P. W.9 came first and as to when and where P. W.10 gave his statement. From a perusal of the statement it would appear that he did not disclose about the occurrence and the name of the assailant to the investigating officer. 10. Of course, we are conscious of the fact that even on the solitary statement of a witness, an order of conviction can be manitained but that statement must be above board, free from any doubt, in the present ease, no circumstance corroborates the evidence of PW 10. It is inconsistent throughout. There is no consistency between the evidence of P. Ws.9 and 10. The means of identification has not been established. In such circumstances, it does not appear to be safe to rely on the solitary statement of P. W.10. The appellant is, therefore entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and he is directed to be released from jail custody forthwith if not wanted in some other case. Appeal allowed.