K. J. VAIDYA, M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER the evidence of solitary eye witness standing alone by itself which has shown the definite and deliberate tendency of falsely implicating an innocent person as an accused and that too in the serious charge of murder is worthy of any credibility - commanding any respect or reliance to be placed upon him for convicting the accused 7. This is a short and yet an important question round which revolves the discussion deciding the ultimate fate of the accused in this appeal. ( 2 ) TO state few relevant facts of the prosecution case briefly the incident in question took place on 19-7-1988 at about 7-30 to 7-45 p. m. on the public road in Camp Sadar opposite the shop of one Lachhu Sheth in Ahmedabad where one Nizamuddin a boy aged about 19 years was stabbed to death by the appellant-accused No. 1 Ashok @ Joni Shankerbhai as aided and abetted by accused No. 2 Raju @ Guide Karshanbhai who at that time had kept on holding him. This incident was seen by a solitary eye-witness namely Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) the friend of the deceased Nizamuddin who was sitting near the manhole hutter from the scene of incident. According to this witness at that time he heard the exchange of words taking place between the accused No. 1 and Nizam. As a result of this Nizam leaving behind his cycle ran and was chased by these two accused on their respective cycles. When Nizam was about 10-15 ft. away from the mosque accused No. 1 gave 2-3 knife blows to him while accused No. 2 facilitated him in commission of the said offence by catching hold of him. Because of injuries Nizam fell down and accused made good their escape. Thereafter when Anvarhusen (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) went near injured Nizam he found froth coming out from his month and that he was unable to speak - most probably he was dead. Thereafter this witness rushed to the house of injured Nizam to call his mother - Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) and informed her that - Nizam is given knife blows. . . . Joni has stabbed him. After so informing Salimabanu he went to his house and slept. Thereafter this witness rushed to the house of injured Nizam to call his mother - Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) and informed her that - Nizam is given knife blows. . . . Joni has stabbed him. After so informing Salimabanu he went to his house and slept. On the basis of the information passed on to her by Anvarhusen Salimabanu immediately ran to the scene of incident where Nizam was lying in a bleeding condition. Immediately thereafter she rushed to the nearby Police Chowky and requested three police constables saying Saheb chalo mara chhokrane chappu mari didhun chhe: that is to say Sir come my son has been stabbed. According to Salimabanu though police constables assured her that they were coming they in fact did not turn up. Thereafter she returned to the place where her injured son Nizam was lying and from there alongwith Roni Dasbhai (P. W. 4 Ex. 19) took injured to the Civil Hospital in a rickshaw where doctor declared him dead. Thereafter P. S. I. B. J. Garchar (P. W. 10 Ex. 34) from Shahibag Police Station contacted her in the hospital where her complaint (Mark 6/2) came to be recorded. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the accused came to be arrested on 19-7-1988 and after the investigation was over they were charge-sheeted before the Sessions Court Ahmedabad (Rural) to stand the trial for murder of Nizamuddin for the alleged offences under Sections 302 and 114 of I. P. C. ( 3 ) AT the trial both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Trial Court after duly appreciating the prosecution evidence on the record while partly accepting and relying upon the evidence of solitary eye-witness Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) as corroborated by the evidence of the rest of the supporting prosecution witnesses namely - (i) Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) (ii) Roni Dasbhai (P. W. 4 Ex. 19) (iii) Head-constable Babubhai Bhathibhai (P. W. 7 Ex. 27 (iv) PSI B. J. Garchar (P. W. 10 Ex 34) and (v) Prof. Rathindra Deshmukh (P. W. 9 Ex. 32) by its judgment and order dated 1 convicted and sentenced accused No. 1 under Section 302 of I. P. C. and acquitted accused No. 2 by giving him benefit of doubt. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-accused No. 1. ( 4 ) MR. Rathindra Deshmukh (P. W. 9 Ex. 32) by its judgment and order dated 1 convicted and sentenced accused No. 1 under Section 302 of I. P. C. and acquitted accused No. 2 by giving him benefit of doubt. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-accused No. 1. ( 4 ) MR. A. D. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused while challenging the impugned order of conviction has submitted that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in placing reliance upon the prosecution evidence which on the face of it smacks of utter concoction and therefore was unworthy of any credit. Mr. Shah pointing out several patent infirmities appearing in the evidence of various prosecution witnesses as discussed at length in the course of this judgment submitted that they were fatal enough to base or sustain any order of conviction and sentence. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions it was finally urged by Mr. Shah that this appeal be allowed and the appellant- accused be ordered to be acquitted. ( 5 ) MR. K. P. Raval the learned A. P. P. for the State has supported the impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence by submitting that taking into consideration the reasons given by the Trial Court no good grounds have been made out by the appellant accused to interfere with the same. ( 6 ) NOW neither the fact that Nizam died due to stab injuries before any medical assistance could be given to him nor the fact that the said injuries were caused within 24 hours of the P. M. examination has been disputed before us. Thus there is no controversy whatever regarding the homicidal death of Nizam. ( 7 ) MR. A. D. Shah the learned Advocate for the appellant- accused while attacking the testimony of Anvarhusen Jahagirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) first of all submitted that since this witness has exhibited a definite tendency to falsely implicate accused No. 2 and that too in a serious charge of murder no reliance whatsoever should be placed upon his evidence. While making good this submission Mr. 10) first of all submitted that since this witness has exhibited a definite tendency to falsely implicate accused No. 2 and that too in a serious charge of murder no reliance whatsoever should be placed upon his evidence. While making good this submission Mr. Shah further submitted that in para 5 of his evidence this witness for the first time before the court has ascribed and attributed a specific role and overt act to accused No. 2 by saying that when the accused No. 1 gave knife blows to Nizam he had kept on holding him indicating thereby as if the accused No. 2 had facilitated accused No. 1 in commission of the offence. Mr. Shah further submitted that at the earliest when his statement came to be recorded by the I. O. he had not so alleged against the accused No. 2 when in para 14 of his cross-examination this witness was confronted with a question that he had not stated before the I. O. that Raju Guide had kept on holding Nizam he had simply denied the same. The matter does not rest at the stage of mere suggestion only as the said material omission has been duly proved and brought on record in the evidence of the I. O. B. J. Garchar (P. W. 10 Ex. 34) who in his cross-examination has stated that Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai in his statement before him has not stated that Raju Guide had kept on holding Nizam. Mr. Shah pressing hard this elequent circumstance in favour of the accused No. 2 vehemently submitted that it would be extremely hazardous for any court to pass or to sustain the order of conviction against the accused No. 2 on the basis of the evidence given by such an utterly liar witness who had shown a definite and most malicious tendency of falsely implicating accused No. 2 and that too in a serious charge of murder. We cannot agree more than what Mr. Shah has submitted above. If indeed a witness is so possessed of such a dare devil audacity to rope in falsely an innocent person in a charge of murder as proved in this case what is the guarantee that he is telling the truth regarding the involvement of the other accused. Thus when the evidence given by Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. If indeed a witness is so possessed of such a dare devil audacity to rope in falsely an innocent person in a charge of murder as proved in this case what is the guarantee that he is telling the truth regarding the involvement of the other accused. Thus when the evidence given by Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) which at one stage was found to be comprised of a common chain of events connecting and implicating both the accused which when on ultimate analysis is found to be false regarding one of them it would be simply beyond the ordinary Judicial Prudence to concict the other accused on such a tainted piece of evidence. We under the circumstances are firmly of the opinion that in case if the evidence of any solitary eye-witness like the one in the instant case standing alone by itself has displayed a deliberate and definite tendency of falsely involving and implicating innocent person and that too in the serious charge of murder then the evidence of such a witness in absence of any other dependable evidence forthcoming on the record is not only required to be totally eliminated from the cosideration but the same further deserves to be strongly depricated and strongly dealt with under Section 194 of the IPC being a serious offence against the public justice. ( 8 ) MR. Shah in order to show certain other material infirmities by way of improvements appearing in evidence of this witness has further invited our attention to paras 3 4 and 5 of his examination-in-chief wherein it has been stated to the effect that - exchange of words between the two accused and Nizamuddin took place near the shop of Lachhu Sheth. . . that Nizamuddin told him that he was coming back after bringing Bhajia and thereafter they will go to see picture. . . that both the accused had come on their respective cycles that a quarrel took place near the shop of Lachhu Sheth and Nizamuddin ran from the place leaving behind cycle whereupon both the accused also chased Nizam on their respective cycles; that Raju Guide had caught holding Nizam when Joni gave a knife blow to him etc. Mr. Shah submitted that the above story given out by this witness before the court is conspicuously absent and contrary to the earlier statement given before the I. O. Mr. Mr. Shah submitted that the above story given out by this witness before the court is conspicuously absent and contrary to the earlier statement given before the I. O. Mr. Shah further submitted that on this point when this witness came to be cornered and confronted at length with his earlier statements recorded by the I. O. he in paras 9 10 11 12 13 and 14 of his cross-examination denied the said suggestions by asserting that he has not stated so before the police. Only thing which was submitted by him in para 9 of his cross-examination was a fact that he has not stated before the police that between Joni Raju and Nizam the exchange of words and quarrel had taken place near the shop of Lachhu Sheth. The rest of the aforesaid material omissions have been duly proved and brought on record in para 8 of cross-examination of I. O. Mr. B. J. Garchar (P. W. 10 Ex. 34 ). The infirmities thus listed above in the evidence of Anverhusen Jahangirbhai are serious enough to be lightly countenanced and that in our opinion same renders his evidence totally unreliable. ( 9 ) THE third fatal infirmity to which Mr. Shah has invited our attention is the most unnatural conduct of this witness Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex 10) who after informing Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) about the alleged incident went home and slept. It is really surprising to find that this witness who claimed to be a friend of the deceased Nizam and had earlier evinced quite natural anxiety and concern in rushing to the house of Salimabanu Khurshid to inform her about the incident subsequently failed to accompany her back either to the scene of incident or to the nearby police chowky to inform the incident or to the Civil Hospital while removing the injured. It is equally strange when he said after the incident he went home and slept as if just nothing had happened. This queer conduct of this witness appears to be absolutely unnatural and incapable of any explanation. It is equally strange when he said after the incident he went home and slept as if just nothing had happened. This queer conduct of this witness appears to be absolutely unnatural and incapable of any explanation. We are conscious of the fact that different persons with their peculiar moods and modes of varying temprament may act and react quite differently in the same set of circumstance and indeed there cannot be any uniform straight- jacket formula or any common yard-stick to fathom measure and exactly predict the pattern of reactions in ordinary course of their human conduct. But then the witness has earlier exhibited his obvious and natural response concern anxiety and inclination to inform the mother of the victim about the incident by immediately rushing to her residence it would be quite reasonable to further infer and expect that such a type of person would not ordinarily leave her alone reconciled to her fate in such a darkest hour of helpness and grief in her life where her son came to be fatally stabbed. Thus this unnatural conduct of the witness is also so self-eloquent and self-effacing that the same also raises a reasonable doubt regarding the varacity of his testimony. ( 10 ) THE fourth infirmity to which Mr. Shah has taken us is towards the fact that though Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 2 Ex. 10) in his evidence before the court has stated that after informing Salimabanu Kurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) he went home and slept yet quite surprising he was very much found to be present at 23. 15 hours on 19 when the scene of offence Panchnama Ex. 30 came to be drawn. Mr. Shah on the basis of this timings in the Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 30 submitted that apart from his truthful or otherwise evidence before the court that this witness went home and slept fact remains that he did actually figure before the police on 19-8-1988 at 23. 45 hours and was available to it thereafter also and yet his statement could not be recorded till 3-30 a. m. We could see the point made out by Mr. Shah in the above submission. 45 hours and was available to it thereafter also and yet his statement could not be recorded till 3-30 a. m. We could see the point made out by Mr. Shah in the above submission. It is indeed quite strange to find out that despite his personal relationship with the family of the deceased this witness for the reasons unknown had remained in background till 3-30 a. m. on 20 when his statement came to be recorded. This circumstance also certainly creates further serious doubt regarding the truthfullness of his testimony. ( 11 ) THE fifth and the last infirmity appearing in the evidence of Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) accordingly to Mr. Shah pertains to the shifting of the scene of offence as that from the place opposite Gautam Bhajia House to Pan Galla of Asghar near the mosque. This witness while giving evidence before the court has come out with an explanation that though the incident initially took place at Gautam Bhajia House but thereafter Nizam ran towards the mosque leaving his cycle near Gautam Bhajia House. This witness also further stated that both the accused chased Nizam on their cycles and near the Pan Galla they assulted him. Now as per the record it transpires that Pan Galla and the mosque are about 150 to 200 ft. away from Gautam Bhajia House. This part of the story of any quarrel taking place between the accused and the deceased near Gautam Bhajia House and thereafter the deceased coming to be chased by both accused on their cycle is as admitted by the I. O. Mr. B. J. Garchar (P. W. 10 Ex. 34) not to be found in earlier police statement of this witness. Further the blood-stains were actually found from near Gautam Bhajia House and no other Panchnama round about the place of Pan Galla or mosque has been prepared. Futher still the evidence of Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai also stands belied by the evidence of Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) who in unmistakable terms had deposed that Nizam was lying injured near the shop of Lallu Sheth. Taking into consideration all these facts great deal of doubt arises about the presence of Anvarhusen at the alleged time and place of incident and seen the incident. 9) who in unmistakable terms had deposed that Nizam was lying injured near the shop of Lallu Sheth. Taking into consideration all these facts great deal of doubt arises about the presence of Anvarhusen at the alleged time and place of incident and seen the incident. ( 12 ) THUS taking into consideration the aforesaid material infirmities appearing in the evidence of the solitary eye witness Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) it is not possible for us to accept and rely upon his evidence. ( 13 ) THE prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused has also relied upon the evidence of Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9 the mother of the deceased Nizam. While commenting upon her evidence Mr. Shah submitted that her evidence was also not dependable in view of serious infirmities gripping her evidence such as (i) though she immediately rushed to the police station neither she disclosed any names of the assailants nor the name of Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai as a person having witnessed the incident; (ii) further though Roni Dasbhai (P. W. 4 Ex. 19) had come at place where injured Nizam was lying and thereafter also while being accompanied by him in rickshaw while going to the Civil Hospital or while at the Hospital even she did not inform him either regarding the names of the assailants or the manner in which the incident took place or the fact that the incident was eye-witnessed by Anvarhusen; (iii) that even otherwise she not being an eye-witness her evidence did not possess that inherent strength of her own to make any combining impact in favour of the prosecution. Whatever she stated before the police or the court was ultimately her merely derived knowledge from an uncertain source of Anvarhusen who himself as discussed above is found to be a liar. In this view of the matter evidence of Salimabanu also does not carry prosecution case any further. ( 14 ) MR. Shah thereafter taking us to the evidence of Roni Dasbhai (P. W. 4 Ex. 19) submitted that he too was a got up witness as it was quite unnatural on his part not to inquire from Salimabanu about the manner in which the incident took place and the person who gave stab wounds to the deceased particularly in view of his acquaintance with the family of deceased. Mr. 19) submitted that he too was a got up witness as it was quite unnatural on his part not to inquire from Salimabanu about the manner in which the incident took place and the person who gave stab wounds to the deceased particularly in view of his acquaintance with the family of deceased. Mr. Shah has also criticised the evidence of Head Constable Babubhai Bhathibahi (P. W. 7 Ex. 27) who though at the relevant time was on duty at the Shahibag Police Station and further despite the fact that Salimabanu Khurshid (P. W. 2 Ex. 9) had informed him about his son being stabbed by Joni which is a cognizable offence the same quite surprisingly was not only not taken down but he did not care to proceed to scene of offence which was nearby. We entirely agree with the above submissions of Mr. Shah and hold that there is not a single witness in this case on whom any reliance can be placed. ( 15 ) THUS in view of the aforesaid discussion it must be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the appellant-accused No. 1. Once the evidence of the solitary eye-witness Anvarhusen Jahangirbhai (P. W. 3 Ex. 10) gets eliminated there is nothing in the rest of the prosecution evidence on the basis of which the order of conviction and sentence can ever be sustained for a moment even and consequently therefore this appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 16 ) IN the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused Ashok Shankerbhai is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence in the jail is required in connection with any other case. (ISS) Appeal allowed. .