JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated July 28, 1976, by which the appellants Najarsingh and Jagroopsingh were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 148, Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and accused Jeetsingh, Madasingh s/o Kartarsingh, Nichatarsingh and Madasingh s/o Surjansingh under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307, Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to various terms, the highest being that of imprisonment for life under Section 302 or 302/149, Indian Penal Code. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenge their conviction. 2. PW 14 Gilasingh is the brother and PW 18 Hakamsingh is the father of the deceased-victim Neelasingh. They and the appellants are residents of 5-KK P.S. Gamurwali district Sri Ganganagar. Hakamsingh (PW 18), Kartarsingh, Mukhtiyarsingh and the appellant Najarsingh are urine brothers. Hakamsingh (PW 18) and the appellant Najarsingh had a common father Keharsingh by name. Keharsingh, in his life-time, made a partition of his agricultural lands in three lots. He gave one lot to PW 18 Kakamsingh, one lot to the appellant Najarsingh and kept one lot with himself. Later on, Kehar Singh gave the lot he had kept with himself to the deceased Neelasingh. This irked and annoyed Kartarsingh, Mukhtiyarsingh and the appellant Najarsingh. They started picking up quarrels with PW 18 Hakam Singh. Hakamsingh decided to sell his lands and shift to some other village. He made an agreement to sale his land to Jaswantsingh (PW 7) of 7-KK. This further fanned the fire. The appellant Najarsingh filed civil suits and obtained injunction orders restraining Hakamsingh from selling his lands. In the evening of November 22, 1973, there was exchange of gun-shots between the members of the appellants families and Hakamsingh (PW 18). The appellants reported the matter to police. Hakamsingh went to 7-KK to meet Jaswantsingh (PW 7) in the early morning of November 23. 1973. 3. At about 8.30 a.m. on November 23, 1973, PW 14 Gilasingh and his brother Neelasingh (sons of PW 11 Hakamsingh) went together to their thrashing floor shown by mark 'i' in site plan Ex.P 13. The thrashing floor of appellant Najarsingh is situate contiguous in the North of the thrashing floor of Hakamsingh. 1973. 3. At about 8.30 a.m. on November 23, 1973, PW 14 Gilasingh and his brother Neelasingh (sons of PW 11 Hakamsingh) went together to their thrashing floor shown by mark 'i' in site plan Ex.P 13. The thrashing floor of appellant Najarsingh is situate contiguous in the North of the thrashing floor of Hakamsingh. While the two brothers were working in the thrashing floor, the appellants accompanied by Babasingh, Kartarsingh and Madasingh s/o Surjansingh came there, in the thrashing floor. Accused Madasingh s/o Surjan Singh had a Kassi, Babasingh had a 12-bore gun and the rest had pistols. They started firing shots at Neelasingh, which hit him on his. back. Gilasing got frightened and ran away towards the village Abadi. Neelasingh ran towards the flour mill of PW 9 Baintsingh, situated in the South of the thrashing floor. The appellants ran after Gilasingh and fired shots at him which, however, could not hit him. Gilasingh (PW 14) reached his house and narrated the incident to his mother Nihar Kaur (PW 8). From there, he went to 7-KK, where his father had gone to see Jaswantsingh. From 7-KK, Hakamsingh Jaswantsingh and Gilasingh went to Police Station, Gamurwali, where Gila Singh verbally lodged report Ex.P 19 of the occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. on the same day. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation The Station House Officer Umed Khan (PW 19) arrived on the spot and inspected the site. He found the dead body of Neelasingh lying on a cot outside the flour mill of PW 9 Baintsingh. He noticed the gun-shot injuries on the victim's dead body and prepared the inquest report. He also inspected the thrashing floor and found a turban lying there. Some pellets were found infested in the shutters of a room of the flour mill and a pellet on the flour Some wads were also found there. Four iron-bars of a window of the flour mill were found bent and moved to facilitate the passage for the intruders. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 3.00 p.m. by PW 6 Dr. Pooniya the then Medical Officer Incharge. Primary Centre, Gamurwali. Four iron-bars of a window of the flour mill were found bent and moved to facilitate the passage for the intruders. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 3.00 p.m. by PW 6 Dr. Pooniya the then Medical Officer Incharge. Primary Centre, Gamurwali. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem wounds on the dead body: (1) Nine wounds of entry 0.7 c.m. in diameter each scattered in area of about 51/2 c.m. x 6 c.m. right lumber region posterio laterally; (2) Wound of exit with intestines and omentum coming out of wound to c.m. x 21/2 c.m. on right hypochondrim just below coastal margin near mid line; (3) Wound of entry 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on upper margin of right iliac crest 7 c.m. away from vertebrally column (4) Entry wound 1 c.m. x 6 c.m. left lumber region posteriorly 4 cm. below costal margin; (5) Exit wound with intestines coming out of wound and congested with fracture of 10th and 11th ribs at there free ends 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. on left hypochondrium in nipple line just below the costal margin; (6) Wound of entrance laceration of upper parts of pinna of right ear with brain matter coming out of the wound with multiple fracture of scalp bones, right parietal, temporal, occipital, frontal and left parietal (at parietal eminence) and left to occipital bone 33/4 cm. x 23/4 c.m. on scalp just above the pinna of right ear superiorly; (7) Lacerated wound with fracture of two central incisors and one left lateral incisor, teeth left half upper lip and gums. He also found four pellets (pea size) and one bullet deformed in shape in the abdomen and skull of the dead body. These pellets and bullet were seized and sealed. The doctor was of the opinion that the victim had died on account of severe haemorrhage and shock due to fire-arm injuries. The post-mortem report prepared by him is Ex.P 17. The blood-stained clothes of the victim were also seized and sealed. The miscreants were rounded-up and in consequence of their informations, pistols, gun, life and fired cartridges etc. were recovered. It transpired during investigation that the accused Mukhtiyar Singh and Modasingh were in judicial custody in the days preceding November 23, 1973. Neelasingh was done to death in the conspiracy hatched by them and the appellants. During investigation, Babasingh passed away. The miscreants were rounded-up and in consequence of their informations, pistols, gun, life and fired cartridges etc. were recovered. It transpired during investigation that the accused Mukhtiyar Singh and Modasingh were in judicial custody in the days preceding November 23, 1973. Neelasingh was done to death in the conspiracy hatched by them and the appellants. During investigation, Babasingh passed away. On the completion of investigation, the police filed a crime-sheet against nine accused persons, viz. Najarsingh, Jagroopsingh, Jeetsingh, Madasingh s/o Kartarsingh, Madasingh s/o Surjansingh, Nichatarsingh Mukhtiyarsingh, Kattarsingh and Modasingh, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He framed charges Under Sections 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 148 and 120B, Indian Penal Code against all of them. Additional charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against accused Najarsingh and Jagroopsingh. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. They denounced the whole prosecution story as a fabricated piece of concoction and claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating material against accused Mukhtiyarsingh, Kartarsingh and Modasingh. They were consequently acquitted of the offence they were charged with. The prosecution story was taken substantially true and the charges duly proved against the remaining six appellants. They were consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out-set. They were, however, acquitted of the charge of conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the Penal Code. Aggrieved against their conviction, the appellants have taken this appeal. 4. During the pendency of appeal, the appellants Najarsingh and Madasingh s/o Surjansingh passed away. As such, the appeal filed by them stands abated to that extent. 5. We have heard Mr. B.R. Purohit learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 6. In assailing the conviction, it was contended by Mr. Purohit that there is not an iota of evidence to show as to how the victim Neelasingh was killed. His dead body was found lying on a cot out-side the flour mill of PW 9 Baintsingh. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 6. In assailing the conviction, it was contended by Mr. Purohit that there is not an iota of evidence to show as to how the victim Neelasingh was killed. His dead body was found lying on a cot out-side the flour mill of PW 9 Baintsingh. There is no evidence as to how he reached there and who gunned him down to death. The presence of PW 14 Gilasingh at his thrashing floor along with the deceased Neelasingh was highly doubtful. When the presence of PW 14 Gilasing is taken to be doubtful, there is no other evidence connecting the appellants with the killing of Neelasingh. It was argued that PW 14 Gilasingh is a total false witness, on whom no faith can be placed for any purpose. PW 4 Tejasingh, PW 5 Leelasingh and PW 9 Baint Singh, who according to the police, had seen the appellants running behind Neelasingh and firing shots at him, have lent no support to the prosecution. They have denied the presence of PW 14 Gilasingh in his thrashing floor. The pellets and bullet found in the victim's dead body and the pellets and wads found on the spot have not been connected with the firearms and the empty cartridges recovered at the instance of the appellants. The report of the Ballestic Expert, thus, renders no help to the prosecution except to the extent that the fire-arms recovered were in working order. Unless the bullet, pellets and wads found in the dead body or at the spot are connected with these fire-arms, the mere recovery of fire-arms is of no consequence. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the relations between the parties had hitterted and there was deep-rooted enmity between them. The presence of PW 14 Gilasingh in his thrashing floor is not doubtful. He was the real brother of the deceased and it was quite natural that both the brothers went to their thrashing floor, to work there. He, of course, conceded that three witnesses PW 4 Jaisingh PW 5 Leelasingh & PW 9 Baintsingh have turned hostile and therefore it could not be proved as to how the dead body was found placed on the cot lying outside the flour mill and who had fired shots at the victim there. He, of course, conceded that three witnesses PW 4 Jaisingh PW 5 Leelasingh & PW 9 Baintsingh have turned hostile and therefore it could not be proved as to how the dead body was found placed on the cot lying outside the flour mill and who had fired shots at the victim there. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is, however, that despite this infirmity, it can be safely discerned from the circumstances and the testimony of PW 14 Gilasingh that none else other than the appellants had killed the victim. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 7. A reading of the prosecution evidence shows that the incident had taken place in two parts, namely, the first in the thrashing floor of the deceased-victim shown by mark 1 in site plan Ex. P 13 and the second at the flour mill of PW 9 Baintsingh, where the dead body of the victim was found lying on the cot. The prosecution examined PW 14 Gilasingh to prove the first part of the incident and PW 4 Tejasingh, PW 5 Leelasingh and PW 9 Baintsingh to prove the second part. Unfortunately, PW 4 Tejasingh, PW 5 Leelasingh and PW 9 Baintsingh turned hostile and rendered no help to the prosecution to prove the second part of the incident. The fate of the case, therefore, turns on the sole testimony of PW 14 Gilasingh. It would be proper to briefly read the statement of PW 14 Gilasing. 8. He deposed that on the day of the incident, his father Hakamsingh had gone to 7-K.K. to see Jaswantsingh (PW 7). At about 9. 00 a.m., he and his brother Neelasingh went to their thrashing floor to work there. While they were working there, the appellants and Babasingh and Madasingh s/o Surjansingh, who were working there in their thrashing floor, came to his thrashing floor. Madasingh s/o Surjansingh had a Kassi. Babasingh had a 12 bore gun and the rest had pistols. Najarsingh, Jagroopsingh and Nichatar Singh fired at Neelasingh, which hit him on his back. Neelasingh cried loudly that he had been killed. Neelasingh ran towards the flour mill. The witness stated that he got highly frightened and ran towards the village Aabadi. He reached his house and narrated the incident to his mother Smt. Nihar Kaur (PW 8). Najarsingh, Jagroopsingh and Nichatar Singh fired at Neelasingh, which hit him on his back. Neelasingh cried loudly that he had been killed. Neelasingh ran towards the flour mill. The witness stated that he got highly frightened and ran towards the village Aabadi. He reached his house and narrated the incident to his mother Smt. Nihar Kaur (PW 8). From there, he went to 7 K.K. where he found his father Hakamsingh at the house of Jaswantsingh. All the three went from there to Police Station, Gamurwali, where he lodged report Ex. P 19 of the occurrence. 9. We have carefully scanned and scrutinised the testimony of this witness Gilasingh and are of the considered opinion that no faith can be pinned on what he stated. There are several reasons which pursuade us to hold that Gilasingh is not a witness of truth and no reliance can be placed on what he deposed for any purpose. In FIR Ex. P 19 lodged by him, he, deposed that accused Najarsingh and Jagroopsingh fired pistols at his brother Neelasingh, which hit him on his abdomen and Neelasingh fell down. Thereafter all the miscreants started firing at him. The medical evidence does not support him on this count. The entry wounds, according to Dr. Pooniya (PW 6), were found on the lumber region right iliac crest and upper parts of right ear. The doctor did not notice any entry wound on the stomach of the deceased. Dr. Pooniya further stated that the exit wounds of the fire-arm were found on right hypochendrim below the costal margins. Faced with the dialema, PW 14 Gilasingh gave a twist and mould to what he stated in the FIR Ex. P 19. During trial, he stated that the shots hit Neelasingh on his back and he saw blood dripping out from the stomach. He, thus, made significant improvements and moulded his testimony to fit-in with the medical evidence, This improvement is not slight or trivial which can be lightly brushed aside or ignored. This improvement strongly suggests that the witness can mould his testimony as and when the occasion arises to do so. The witness stated that when he was running towards the village Aabadi to save himself, he was chased by some of the miscreants, who fired at him indiscriminately. This improvement strongly suggests that the witness can mould his testimony as and when the occasion arises to do so. The witness stated that when he was running towards the village Aabadi to save himself, he was chased by some of the miscreants, who fired at him indiscriminately. It is highly astounding that despite his being chased and indiscriminate firing at him, he received no injuries and escaped totally unhurt. When indiscriminate firing is there at the target, it is strongly expected that the target would receive some injuries. PW 4 Tejasingh, PW 5 Leelasingh and PW 9 Baintsingh deposed that they had seen the deceased Neelasingh working in his thrashing floor, but they denied that PW 14 Gilasingh was there in the thrashing floor with his brother Neelasingh. If these three witnesses had seen Neelasingh in his thrashing floor, they must have seen this witness PW 14 Gilasingh, also, there. The witness stated that when the firing commenced, he ran for his personal safety towards the village Aabadi. The prosecution has not examined any person who had seen Gilasingh (PW 14) running towards the village Aabadi. PW 12 Radhey Shyam, who is an independent person and who had seen the appellants working in their thrashing floor, did not state that he had seen Gilasingh (PW 14) running towards his house. PW 12 Radhey Shyam was going from his house to 7 K.K. and had passed near the thrashing floors. All these facts and circumstances, taken together, make the presence of PW 14 Gilasingh highly doubtful on the spot and his claim to have seen the first part of the incident as unfounded. 10. We are not unmindful that law does not require a particular number of witnesses to prove the complicity of an accused in a crime nor does it prohibit the conviction on the testimony of a single witness. At times, testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to base the conviction and testimony of many may not be sufficient for conviction. It is not the number of witnesses but the intrinsic worth of their evidence which counts. Where a conviction in a murder case is sought on the testimony of a lone witness, prudence enjoins that it should be thoroughly, closely and minutely scrutinised and especially when the witness happens to be a close relative of the deceased-victim. It is not the number of witnesses but the intrinsic worth of their evidence which counts. Where a conviction in a murder case is sought on the testimony of a lone witness, prudence enjoins that it should be thoroughly, closely and minutely scrutinised and especially when the witness happens to be a close relative of the deceased-victim. If the testimony, after being, thus, churned emerges out as pure and serena, it becomes of sterling worth to be accepted and acted upon. PW 14 Gilasingh, who is the sole witness, certainly does not belong to this category of sterling worth. 11. As regards the second part of the incident, the prosecution tried to establish that Neelasingh, after receiving gun-shot injuries in his thrashing floor, ran for safety towards the flour mill of PW 9 Baintsingh. The accused ran after him and again fired shots at him, which ultimately caused his death. PW 4 Tejasingh, PW 5 Leelasingh & PW 9 Baintsingh were examined to prove this part of the incident. Unfortunately they turned hostile and rendered no help to the prosecution. PW 9 Baintsingh is the owner of the flour mill. The site plan Ex. 13 shows that his flour mill is situate at some distance from the thrashing floor of the deceased. PW 4 Tejasingh and PW 5 Leelasingh were employed by the flour mill owner Baintsingh PW 9 to work there. Both of them denied their presence on the flour mill and despite their being cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing could be elicited from them PW 9 Baint Singh admitted his presence on the flour mill. He stated that Neelasingh was there in his thrashing floor & 17/18 persons were running and firing at Neelasingh. He stated that he had not seen Gilasingh PW 14 in his thrashing floor. He therefore went to the house of Gilasingh and told him that his brother Neelasingh had been gunned down to death by some persons. He also went to the Sarpanch & Up-Sarpanch and brought them to his flour mill They advised him to go to the Police Station and lodge a report The witness further stated that when he went go the Police Station to lodge the report, he found Hakamsingh PW 18 and Jaswantsingh PW 7 there. He stated that his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, where in he stated these very facts. He stated that his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, where in he stated these very facts. Though he was declared hostile by the prosecution, he was not confronted with his statement recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code although it was there on the record. PW 9 Baintsingh is an independent person and we find no reasons to distrust him, especially when his statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. was recorded but he was not cross-examined with reference to and confronted with his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. for the clear reason that he stated nothing therein against the accused persons. 12. There is thus, no evidence to prove the second part of the incident. We may state here that Neelasingh was not gunned down to death in his thrashing floor. He met his death near the flour mill of Baintsingh PW 9. No evidence is there as to who gunned him down to death near the flour-mill. 13. It may be stated even at the fault of repetition that the fate of the case looms largely on the testimony of PW 14 Gilasingh, who was treated as a witness of truth by the Court below. We have held above that he cannot be treated to be a witness of truth and no reliance can be placed on what he deposed. The learned Judge of the trial Court was in clear error in not properly sifting and evaluating his testimony. 14. For the reasons discussed above, we are unable to sustain the convictions of the appellants. 15. In the result, (1) the appeal filed by accused Najarsingh and Madasingh s/o Surjan Singh stands abated due to their death; and (2) the appeal of accused Jagroopsingh, Jeetsingh, Madasingh s/o Kartarsingh and Nichatarsingh is allowed. Their convictions and sentences are set-aside and they are acquitted of the offences they were charged with. They are already on bail and need not surrender. 16. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of.Appeal Allowed. *******