Judgment N. C. SHARMA. J. ( 1 ) AMARA son of Dhoolaji, meena of village Fatehpura lodged a First Information Report at police Station, Aaspur (District Dungarpur) at 11. 00 p. m. of September 25, 1980 to the effect that as usual his mother named Ratan had gone to the jungle known as Kamla Aaba to graze her herd of goats. At about 5 or 6 p. m. the goats, but not Ratan, returned home. While Amara, after crossing the embankment of Naya Talab, was passing on the way leading to village Fatehpura in search of her mother, he heard her cry coming from a place near the Vid of Prabat Singh Rajput, P. W. 1 Amara, therefore, paced forward towards that direction and witnessed that his mother Ratan was lying on the ground and the appellant Nagji was assaulting her with an iron kost. On alarm being raised by Amara, the cultivators of nearby field named Parbat Singh, Shambhu Singh and Nathu rushed towards the scene of occurrence whereupon the appellant took to his heels and despite chase could not be intercepted. Amara found that Ratan had sustained injuries on her throat, abdomen and eyes. Ratan succumbed to these injuries. ( 2 ) STATION-HOUSE Officer Bansidhar Mishra of Police Station, Aaspur, P. W. 14 has deposed that as it was about midnight when the First Information Report was lodged, he deputed a constable to guard the corpse of Ratan during the night. He himself went to the spot next morning and prepared the inquest report Ex. P/i, site plan Ex. P/2 and memo of site inspection Ex. P/3. Certain articles as blood smeared and sample sand, clothes, a pair of shoe and thuat wood were seized from the spot and police statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. In pursuance of an alleged information given by the appellant to Bansidhar Misra after his arrest and while in police custody, the weapon of offence Iron kos (Article 5) was seized under seizure memo Ex. P/s from inside the beert of Parbat Singh P. W. 1 where it was hidden under the grass near the thuar bar. Autopsy of the dead body of Ratan was carried out by Dr. Laxman Singh Chauhan of Government Dispensary, Bankera. P/s from inside the beert of Parbat Singh P. W. 1 where it was hidden under the grass near the thuar bar. Autopsy of the dead body of Ratan was carried out by Dr. Laxman Singh Chauhan of Government Dispensary, Bankera. Inter alia the doctor found a lacerated wound 4 x 2 x 1 on anterior surface of the right lobe of the liver with oblique direction Poral vein was also ruptured. This wound and other injuries, according to Dr. Chauhan, were ante-mortem and could be caused by iron rod (Tkos ). Individually the liver injury, by itself, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Ratan. On the completion of the investigation, the Station House Officer, P. S. Aaspur charge-sheeted the appellant under section 302 I. P. C. and after trial the Sessions Judge Dungarpur by his convicting judgment dated May 8, 1981, sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 302 I. P. C. which has, by this Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1981, been appealed against in this Court by Nagji. ( 3 ) THERE are substantial and compelling reasons to hold that the investigation conducted by Station House Officer Bansidhar Misra of Police Station, Aaspur was shady and shabby. The original tahreer (requisition) sent to the Medical Officer, Bankora for conducting postmortem examination of the dead body of Ratan was not produced by the prosecution. However, during the cross-examination of Investigating Officer Misra, copy of requisition (Ex. D/1) sent to Dr. Chouhan by the Head Moharrir of the Police Station, Aaspur was got produced by the appellant from the police case diary. In Ex. D/1 it was mentioned to the doctor that some person had thrown the dead body of Ratan after murdering her. Firstly, It was not at law required by law nor at all necessary to - mention in it that Ratan was murdered or that her dead body had been thrown by somebody after murdering her; and secondly, If at all it was necessary intention such a lack in the requisition to the doctor, there was no bitch before Bansidhar Mishra or the Head Moharrir to mention that Nagji (appellant) had thrown the dead body of Ratan after murdering her especially more- so when the requisition Ex. D/1 had been sent to Dr. D/1 had been sent to Dr. Chouhan after the lodging of the First Information Report Ex. P/33. Use of the words some person In Ex. D/1 is undoubtedly likely to create more doubts in the mind of the court than the non use of such words. A question mark can be put whether the First Information Report was an ante-dated document andparticularly so when it was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 157 Cr. P. C. not at the earliest on September 26, 1980 but after unreasonable delay on September 27, 1980; This is not the only Infirmity in the prosecution case. There are many more. ( 4 ) THE Inquest report purporting to have been prepared at 7. 00 a. m. of September 26, 1980 mentions that since the Medical Officer, Bankora had arrived at village Fatehpura in pursuance of tahreer (requisition), the corpse of Ratan was forwarded to him for autopsy under the guard of constable No. 199 Bharat Singh. Contrary to this Dr. Laxman Singh Chauhan P. W. 4 has testified that be might have reached at the site at 12 noon or 80 of September 26, 1980. With respect to the aforesaid mention in the inquest report Ex. P/i, the Investigating Officer has tried to make a further attempt to explain in his cross-examination that it was an accidental mistake and that in fact the doctor had not arrived when Ex. P/i was prepared. It can, therefore, undoubtedly and legitimately be concluded that Bansidhar Misra. P. W. 14 had not prepared the inquest report Ex. P/i, the site plan Ex P/2 and the inspection note Ex. P/3 between 7. 00 a m. and 8. 00 a. m. of September 26, 1980 as mentioned therein but at about noon after Dr. Chauhan had reached Fatehpura and conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Ratan. What confidence can be reposed hi the investigation by a police officer and, more so, in the investigation of a serious offence like murder when the Investigating Officer conducts the investigation in such a shady manner. ( 5 ) IT is also necessary to comment that the statement of eye-witness at the inquest held by the police should not be got signed. The practice of getting eye-witness like Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 sign the inquest report is not only unwholesome but unwarranted. ( 5 ) IT is also necessary to comment that the statement of eye-witness at the inquest held by the police should not be got signed. The practice of getting eye-witness like Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 sign the inquest report is not only unwholesome but unwarranted. ( 6 ) THEN we are faced with the testimony of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1, Nathu P. W. 7 and Shambhu Singh P. W. 8 who, according to the F. I. R. Ex. P/33 had rushed to the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Amara P. W. 6 and who had chased the appellant to intercept him, not supporting the prosecution version and being declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 stated in unequivocal terms that he did not see the appellant Inflicting injuries to Ratan. He disowned these parts of his police statement Ex. P/is wherein It is recorded that he alongwith Nathu and Shambhu Singh saw the appellant assaulting Ratan by iron kos and/or their intervention the appellant took to his heels with the kos towards Aaspur. He also disowned his similar statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ex. P/21) before the Judicial Magistrate, Salumbar and stated that be gave the statement under threat from the police that in case he did not give the statement implicating the appellant, be himself would be entangled by the police in the crime as the dead body of Ratan was lying near the bar of his field. Although deceased Ratan was real aunt of Nathu, P. W. 6 but he has also not supported the prosecution case and disowned those portions of his police statement Ex. P/24 and the statement before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ex. P/25) wherein the appellant was said to be the author of crime. Same is the state of affairs with Shambhu Singh, P. W. 8. ( 7 ) WE may note here the version of the appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. The appellant stated that the dead body of Ratan was found near the beer of Parbat Singh. Parbat Singh in order to safeguard himself against entanglement, pressurised the witnesses through the police. That appears to us to be truth. P. C. The appellant stated that the dead body of Ratan was found near the beer of Parbat Singh. Parbat Singh in order to safeguard himself against entanglement, pressurised the witnesses through the police. That appears to us to be truth. Here was Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 who had gone alongwith Amara, P. W. 6 to Police Station, Aaspur when the report Ex. P/33 was lodged. Amara himself is an illiterate person and the F. I. R. (Ex. P/33) in writing was got written from somebody else. Parbat Singh throughout the investigation of the case by the police omnipresent. He was witness to the inquest report Ex. P/i, site plan Ex. P/2, memo of site inspection note Ex. P/3secure memo Ex. P/4 and recovery memo of iron Tkost from inside his own beer (Ex. P/5) and it is evident that he was an active witness to the various steps taken by the prosecution in the investigation of the case. He even was prepared to implicate the appellant in his statement before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr. P. C. In a manner, he admitted that he himself was in danger of being implicated in the crime by the police and that was why he actively cooperated with the police throughout the investigation. He, as a matter of fact, became truthful only before the Sessions Judge when he disowned everything implicating the appellant in the crime. Purpose of Parbat Singh was served with the filing of charge-sheet by the police not against him but against the appellant and be came to the rescue of the appellant before the Sessions Judge so that an innocent person like the appellant may not be convicted in a serious offence of murder. ( 8 ) WE are strengthened in our opinion from the recovery of iron kos (rod) by the police from inside the beer of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 from a place near the thorny bar of his beert. ( 8 ) WE are strengthened in our opinion from the recovery of iron kos (rod) by the police from inside the beer of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 from a place near the thorny bar of his beert. It is beyond comprehension that when according to the prosecution version and also the statement of Amara, P. W. 6, the appellant took to his heels when Amara raised an alarm, where was the occasion and opportunity for the appellant to conceal the iron kos inside the beer of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 under the grass near the thorny bar, Even Amara does not state that the appellant had thrown the iron kos inside the beer of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 before running away after injuring Ratan and on his raising the alarm. We are of the opinion that the information Ex. P/35 alleged so have been given by the appellant with respect to iron kos is a swindle and fake information and the iron kos was not discovered or recovered in consequence of any information received by the Investigating Officer from the appellant. Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 has stated that the appellant was not present alongwith the Investigating Officer, at the time of recovery of iron Rios Parbat Singh admits that the iron Tkost was recovered by the police from the bar of his land. When Parbat Singh was further examined on the next date (23-3-81), he changed his above earlier statement made in the Court on 16-1-81 by stating that iron kos was lying in the way near the dead body of Ratan and was recovered by the police from that place. In any event, the iron kos was recovered and seized by the police from inside the beer of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 and this recovery in no way connects the appellant with the crime. Human blood was not found on the Iron Rios by the Serologist and it was reported by him in Ex. P/39 that on the kos blood stains were disintegrated and their origin cannot be determined. ( 9 ) WE are therefore, left with the solitary testimony of Amara son of deceased Ratan. Amara, P. W. 6 is an illiterate poor person belonging to schedule tribe who used to do mazdoori at the house of Rajput Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 and Shambhu Singh, P. W. 8. ( 9 ) WE are therefore, left with the solitary testimony of Amara son of deceased Ratan. Amara, P. W. 6 is an illiterate poor person belonging to schedule tribe who used to do mazdoori at the house of Rajput Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 and Shambhu Singh, P. W. 8. Amara and Ratan were at the mercy of these Rajputs. Amara, P. W. 6 has stated in his cross-examination that his mother Ratan used to daily bring thuart wood. Ratan used to graze the goats near the bar of Parbat Singhs beer. Parbat Singhs beer is enclosed with thuar bar. At the time of site inspection, the Investigating Officer found a stack of thuart dry wood lying at place marked K in the site plan (Ex. P/2) while the dead body of Ratan was at place marked B. Just nearly on the south of the way is thuar bar of the beer and field of Parbat Singh, P. W. 1. It is true that the court cab act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated, but the matter depends upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. Question, therefore, is whether Amara, P. W. 1 is a honest, truthful and reliable person. On having care fully gone through his evidence, we are of the opinion that he is not. He admits that there was no dispute and enmity between Ratan deceased and the appellant. He does not know of any reason which would have led the appellant to murderan old and frail lady aged more than 65 year like Ratan, Amara, P. W. 6 professes to have seen the incident from a distance of 250 steps despite the fact that the place where the incident took place is a way six steps wide and on both the sides of this way are thuar bars enclosing the fields and beer of Koor Singh and Parbat Singh Rajputs. The way is located on a slope in the ahati and embankment of Naya Talab. The way is located on a slope in the ahati and embankment of Naya Talab. It is pertinent to note that in his examination in chief Amara denied of any quarrel between the appellant and his mother and could not assign any reason why the appellant murdered Ratan. The Public Prosecutor there upon declared Amara hostile as he was deposing on this aspect of the matter against his statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ex. P/22) recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, Salumbar wherein Amara had deposed that the appellant considered Ratan as Mkduh Dakni (witch) and for this reason he used to quarrel daily with his mother and, therefore, he murdered her. While confronted with this statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. Amara admitted to have disclosed so before the Judicial Magistrate. However, he also stated that he did not tell the police that the appellant considered her mother to be a witch. He was confronted with portion A to B of his police statement in Ex. P/23 which records this statement but Amara deposed that he does not know if he had given such a statement before the police. Although F. I. R. Ex. P/33 is a detailed document but this fact was not mentioned in it. He admits that Nathu, P. W. 7 is his uncles son and was thus closely related to the deceased and Amara; still Nathu, P. W. 7 does not support the prosecution version. Further pressed in cross-examination, Amara stated that Nagji had addressed Ratan deceased as dakant only on the occasion and that one occasion was the day of the Incident. It would thus appear that Amara, P. W. 6 has not been consistent in his statement on the point of appellant considering Ratan as dakan. Moreover, this could hardly be a motive for the appellant to murder Ratan. ( 10 ) DR. Laxman Singh Chauhan, P. W. 4 has deposed that the assailant may have been on the right side of the victim and facing her when injury on the liver was inflicted. So far as other two Injuries were concerned, the doctor has stated that they could be caused when the assailant may have remained on front right side of the victim and facing the victim. Amara has, however, stated that the appellant was inflicting injuries on Ratan from her back side. So far as other two Injuries were concerned, the doctor has stated that they could be caused when the assailant may have remained on front right side of the victim and facing the victim. Amara has, however, stated that the appellant was inflicting injuries on Ratan from her back side. Ratan did not sustain any injury on her back side. In one part of his statement in cross-examination, Amara stated that as there was some Intervening barrier or obstruction, he could only see a part of the face of the appellant Amara also stated that the appellant had already reached Police Station, Aaspur and when he himself reached the Police Station, the appellant was already sitting at the police station. The Investigating Officer Bansidhar Mishra has denied that the appellant was at the police station when Amara came to lodge the report. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, as a result of marshalling and weighing the evidence of Amara P. W. 6, it cannot be said that he was an eye-witness to the incident or that his evidence is consistent and reliable so as to base conviction of the appellant and more so in the back-ground of so many infirmities in the investigation of the cue conducted by the Investigating Officer as already discussed above and in view of lack of any corroboration to the testimony of Amara on the point of the appellant being the author of the crime. The fact that Amara, P. W. 6, Parbat Singh, P. W. 1 Nathu, P. W. 7 and Shambhu Singh, P. W. 8 could not intercept and unarmed alleged assailant despite the fact that he was not running further leads to irresistible conclusion that none of these persons were eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Rule of prudence would in the circumstances of this case require corroboration to the sole testimony of Amara which cannot be held by us to be of sterling worth. ( 12 ) WE are of the view that the prosecution has faced to bring home the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the face of the above material contradictions, Inconsistencies andimprobabilities appearing in the testimony of Amara, the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur was utterly wrong in holding that Amaras testimony was of sterling worth. ( 12 ) WE are of the view that the prosecution has faced to bring home the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the face of the above material contradictions, Inconsistencies andimprobabilities appearing in the testimony of Amara, the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur was utterly wrong in holding that Amaras testimony was of sterling worth. His conclusion that in a perplexed state, the appellant might have left or thrown the iron kos at the place of incident or near to it is based on conjectures and is contrary to the prosecution case that it was recovered in pursuance of the information of the appellant from a hidden place inside the beer of Parbat Singh. The question of giving of information by the appellant about the weapon of offence to the police has already been discussed by us above and discarded. We fail to understand how the question of any extra Judicial confession on the part of the appellant had lingered in the mind of the Sessions Judge when it was at no time and at no stage the version or case of the prosecution that the appellant had made any extra-judicial confession. We conclude that conviction of sentence awarded to the appellant under section 302 IPC deserves to be set aside and the appellant deserves an acquittal. ( 13 ) WE allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of and sentence awarded to the appellant and acquit the appellant of the charge under section 302 IPC. The appellant is in jail. The Superintendent of the concerned jail shall forthwith release the appellant.