JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-2-1982 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, convicting the accused appellants under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and sentencing them to 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 18-11-1981 at about 8 P. M. a first information report was filed by one Mala Ram son of Chandra Ram Meena resident of Gobla at Police Station, Chidawa that when he was going to the field of his brother Govindram, who was living in a small hut in the field, in the morning at about 8 A.M., when he reached near the field of Guru Dayal he saw that accused Guru Dayal, Har Lal and Mukanda belabouring Govind Ram with lathis and Jelly. It is alleged that out of fear he did not go near them and rushed to the well of one Ram Kumar and Girdhari. Where he found Samunder and Ramkumar. Both of them told him that Guru Dayal, Harlal and Mukandaram had tied the hands of Govindram and carried him and they were saying that they were do away with him. It is alleged that he from another way went to the village Gobla and there he found Govindram, his brother, laying near the Chauraha of bus-stand under the Pipal tree. It is alleged that Govindram was semi-conscious and he was saying that Guru Dayal. Harlal and Mukanda have belaboured him. It is alleged that he served him a cup of tea. He further stated that the accused persons along with Sarpanch came at the plate where Govindram was lying and desired that a compromise may be worked out. But he declined to compromise the matter. But some-how forcibly they got the thumb impression of Govindram on the document. It is alleged that after leaving the injured Govindram at the scene he has come to file the present first information report. It is alleged that Govindram has died at about 4 P.M. On the basis of this information, a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. The police took up the investigation and prepared the necessary documents. It is alleged that Govindram has died at about 4 P.M. On the basis of this information, a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. The police took up the investigation and prepared the necessary documents. After the close of the investigation the police filed a challan in the concerned court. Ultimately the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and came to be disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and produced a large number of documents in order to substantiate the allegations. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the statements of P.W. 7 Mala Ram. brother of the deceased sole eye-witness of the incident and P.W. 3 Jagdish son of deceased Govindram and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the present case the sole eye-witness is P.W.7 Malaram. Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of Malaram. who is brother of deceased, is not wholly truthful. Therefore. no conviction on that basis can be sustained. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of P.W. 3 Jagdish son of deceased Govindram before whom it is alleged that the deceased Govindram has made a dying declaration implicating the three accused persons is also not reliable as P.W. 3 Jagdish reached at the scene of occurrence after Govindram expired. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the testimony of Jagdish is also not reliable. 4. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the testimony of P.W.7 Malaram read with the testimony of P.W.3 Jagdish brings the guilt of the accused home. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and have also permed the record. 6. It is true that the whole case hinges on the sole testimony P.W.7 Malaram, who is the eye-witness of the incident. If the testimony of P.W.7 Malaram is accepted then there is no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. It is true that the whole case hinges on the sole testimony P.W.7 Malaram, who is the eye-witness of the incident. If the testimony of P.W.7 Malaram is accepted then there is no reason to take a different view from that taken by the learned Sessions Judge. P.W.7 Malaram has deposed that on the fateful day, he was going to the field of his deceased brother Govindram from his field and when he reached near the field of Guru Dayal, he saw that accused Guru Dayal, Harlal and Mukanda were belabouring the deceased Govindram in their field. It is alleged that Guru Dayal was armed with Jelly whereas Harilal and Mukanda were armed with lathis. It is further alleged that on seeing this beating lie did not go near his brother and he went at the well of Ramkumar and Girdhari. It is further alleged that his deceased brother Govindram had also had share of 12 bighas in the land owned by Ramkumar and Girdhari. It is alleged that at the well of Ramkumar he met Ramkumar and his mother. On his enquiring from them he was informed that Govindram has been taken away by accused persons. He further deposed that he came to know that all the three tied the hands of his brother. Then he further deposed that when he came back to the Village he found that deceased Govindram was lying under the Pipal tree at the motor stand. He was having number of injuries on his person. He deposed that he ried to lift but he could not do so. He was murmuring something. It is further stated that Govindram told him that Harlal, Mukanda and Guru Dayal gave beating to him. Then he went to the shop one Mahavari Kumhar for tea and he brought tea for his deceased brother. He took only one sip of it and he could not sit. Thereafter he deposed that son of deceased Govindram namely, Jagdish reached there. Thereafter, all the three accused appellants along with Sarpanch, Ramkumar and Bhagwana etc. came on the scene for some compromise. It is said that Guru Dayal said that let us enter into a compromise. But he declined to enter into any compromise. They were haying some papers and wanted the deceased Govindram to put his thumb impression. Some-how, they forcibly got the thumb impression of deceased Govindram on the paper. came on the scene for some compromise. It is said that Guru Dayal said that let us enter into a compromise. But he declined to enter into any compromise. They were haying some papers and wanted the deceased Govindram to put his thumb impression. Some-how, they forcibly got the thumb impression of deceased Govindram on the paper. He said that Govindram expired at 2 P.M. on the same day at that place. He deposed that he left Govind Ram with Jagdish and came to the police station to file the first information report. This is the total testimony of this witness. Now, from a close scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, it appears that what he has said is not the whole truth. The first part of his version is that he saw his brother being belaboured by all the three accused persons. The conduct of this witness is little strange that when he saw his brother being belaboured, he should have either rushed to his rescue by raising some alarm or could have asked the persons around that area to come to his rescue. But he instead left that place through another way. On the contrary he returned back to the village. Secondly, he deposed that his brother's hands were tied by accused persons when they carried him, but there are no corresponding injuries on the hands of the deceased showing the signs of tying Thirdly, P.W. 1 Ram Kumar has not supported the version of this witness. Therefore, the initial part of the version given by Malaram P.W. 7 cannot be believed. The another part of P.W. 7's version that he brought tea from the shop of P.W. 4 Mahavari Kumhar tea vendor, he has also not supported him. He has been declared hostile. Then again also he has deposed that Jagdish son of deceased Govind Ram reached along with him. When he was confronted with his police station Ex. D. 1, wherein this statement does not find mention that Jagdish reached along with him, he was asked to explain this discrepancy but he has stated that he mentioned it to the police but the police might not have written it. In the back ground of these infirmities in the statement of P.W. 7 Malaram, it is not safe convict the accused appellants. In the back ground of these infirmities in the statement of P.W. 7 Malaram, it is not safe convict the accused appellants. It is settlement proposition that in case of a single witness, the testimony of that single witness should be truthful and it should be of sterling worth. In view of the above infirmities I find that the testimony of P.W. 7 Malaram does not inspire confidence and on that basis the conviction cannot be sustained. 7. So far as P.W 3 Jagdish is concerned, he has come on the scene of occurrence after the incident and he is not an eye-witness of the incident. Though in his statement he has deposed that this father told him that these three accused persons were the assailants. When we see the statement of P.W. 7 Malaram that Jagdish came on the scene of occurrence after the death of Govindram, as such the question of giving a dying declaration by deceased does not arise at all. 8. In this back-ground, I think the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to be correct. 9. In the result, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 26-2-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and acquit the accused appellants of all the charges. The accused appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender, their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******