JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, dated 4.3.82 whereby he has convicted accused Chhutan, Subba, Surjit and Nazboo of offence under section 379 IPC and has sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/r and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three days. Accused Surjit has been further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- for offence under section 323 IPC and in default to undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment. It may here be stated that the accused-appellants were also tried for offence under section 436 IPC but by the judgment under appeal, all of them have been acquitted of the said charge. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Smt. Imarati PW 1 is resident of Deokheda. Her husband Chunnilal had certain fields on the outskirts of village Deokheda. On one of the fields, they had a hut meant for residential purposes. Consequently, a cot, mattresses, utensils and various provisions used to be kept in the hut. On the night intervening 24.9.81 and 25.9.81, Smt. Imarati was sleeping in the said hut along with her husband Chunnilal. In the early hours of the day, Chunnilal went away and she kept on sleeping. While she was asleep, she was aroused by rustle of cutting standing crop of fodder in her field. Upon this, she went to the field where the fodder was being but. She saw all the four accused persons, namely. Surjit, Subba, Nazboo and Chhutan cutting her fodder crop. She protested, upon which they insisted that they would cut the crop. According to her fodder crop had been cut in an area of H-2 biswas. Thereafter Subba and Nazboo went away with some of the bundles of fodder crop. Surjit gave a blow with a wrong side of the sickle on her forehead. Chhutan set her hut to fire with the result that her cot, mattresses. quilts and provisions were burnt. She raised an alaim on which her son Surajbhan came there. Later on PW 4 Santu and PW 5 Ikbal Singh also came there. On 25-9-81, she went to Alwar along with her son Surajbhan and got herself medically examined. This examination was made by Dr. quilts and provisions were burnt. She raised an alaim on which her son Surajbhan came there. Later on PW 4 Santu and PW 5 Ikbal Singh also came there. On 25-9-81, she went to Alwar along with her son Surajbhan and got herself medically examined. This examination was made by Dr. Raj Kamar Mishra PW 3, who found superficial abrasion on her forehead 1" x 1". The injury was simple in nature and has been caused by a blunt object after 24 hours. Dr. Mishra prepared an injury report Ex P 3 in this regard. Thereafter the same day, a complaint was filed by Surajbhan in the court of learned Special Judl. Magistrate, First Class, Alwar (Ex P 1). Learned Magistrate sent this complaint for investigation to police station Sadar, Alwar, whereupon a case under sections 436, 379, 323, 427 & 504 I P C. was registered. Shri Badri Narain. S H.O., police station, Sadar proceeded to the scene of occurrence and inspected the site and prepared a site inspection memo Ex. P 2. He thereafter recorded the statements of the various witnesses and eventually challaned the accused persons to stand trial for offences under sections 436, 379 and 323 I.P.C. in the court of learned Special Judl. Magistrate, First Class, Alwar. Learned Judl. Magistrate committed the accused persons to stand trial to the court of Sessions with the result that the case was eventually made over to learned Addl Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, for tria1 Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges for offences under section 379 I. P. C. against all the accused-appellants. He also framed a charge under section 323 against accused Surjit. He framed charge under section 436 I.P.C. against accused Chhutan. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined PW 1 Smt. Imarati, PW 2 Surajbhan, PW 3 Dr. Raj Kumar Mishra, PW 4 Santu, PW 5 Ikbal Singh and PW 6 Badri Narain. 3. In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the prosecution story and claimed that they had been falsely implicated because of factionalism "partibaji". They examined three witnesses in defence. 4. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides arrived at the conclusion that no hut had been set at fire as claimed by the prosecution although some grass lying at the spot had been set at fire. They examined three witnesses in defence. 4. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides arrived at the conclusion that no hut had been set at fire as claimed by the prosecution although some grass lying at the spot had been set at fire. He, however, arrived at the conclusion that all the accused persons cut the fodder crop belonging to Smt. Imarati and removed the same and accused Surjit also gave a blow on the forehead of Smt. Imarati resulting in simple injury. Upon such conclusion, he acquitted the accused Chhutan of charge under section 436 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced the accused persons of the charges mentioned above. 5. In the present case, learned counsel for the complainant urges that the prosecution witnesses have concocted a false story that the accused persons had cut the fodder crop belonging to Smt. Imarati and Surjit had given any blow from the wrong side of sickle on her forehead. It is contended that the injury on the forehead of Smt. Imarati was very trivial in nature and could have been self-inflicted. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, learned trial Judge has found that Smt. Imarati was the solitary witness of the incident and Surajbhan, Santu and Ikbal Singh had reached later and, therefore, none of them had any occasion to see the occurrence. He submits that a conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness, but then solitary witness must be of sterling worth and his or her statement must inspire utmost confidence. It is urged that in the present case, when Smt. Imarati has been disbelieved on a very important aspect of the case, namely, setting the on fire, the other parts of her statement should not have been relied upon,particularly when the injury on her forehead could be self-inflicted as admitted by Dr. Mishra himself. It is urged that no fodder recently cut was recovered soon after the incident from any of the accused persons The possibility is that Smt. Imarati must have cut the fodder herself and might have placed bundles of fodder in her filed and then implicated the accused persons falsely. It is alleged that a day prior to the alleged incident, a quarrel had taken place between Smt. Imarati and Pyarelal with regard to which accused-appellants were witnesses against Smt. Imarati. It is alleged that a day prior to the alleged incident, a quarrel had taken place between Smt. Imarati and Pyarelal with regard to which accused-appellants were witnesses against Smt. Imarati. The complaint was filed so to put pressure on the accused persons from deposing against Smt. Imarati. 6. It is urged that charges under sections 323 and 379 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled to acquittal in respect of all the charges. 7. Learned P.P. has supported the judgment of the learned court below and has urged that Smt. Imaratis statement has been relied upon by the learned trial Judge so far as offence of theft of crop is concerned; she has also been relied upon so far as injury on her forehead is concerned. He submits that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to India and if Smt. Imarati has been found to be unreliable on the question of setting the hut on fire, even then her statement can be accepted so far as other parts of the prosecution story are concerned. 8. I have considered the rival contentions carefully and have also perused the judgment and record of the learned court below. It is trite law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, but then, the single witness must be a witness of sterling worth. It is also a settled principle of law that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to courts in India but in a case based upon the testimony of a solitary eye witness, it is absolutely necessary that the witness must be of sterling worth and must inspire utmost confidence. 9. Keeping the above principles in mind, I have to see if the statement of Smt. Imarati inspires ample confidence. The learned trial judge has categorically found her story regarding the setting of the hut at fire as untrue. This goes to show that Smt. Imarati is not a witness of sterling worth. Learned trial court was greatly impressed by the fact that Smt. Imarati had an injury on her forehead and thus her statement was corroborated by the medical evidence. Suffice it to say that this injury was very trivial in nature and Dr. R.K. Mishra categorically admitted that it could have been self inflicted as well. Learned trial court was greatly impressed by the fact that Smt. Imarati had an injury on her forehead and thus her statement was corroborated by the medical evidence. Suffice it to say that this injury was very trivial in nature and Dr. R.K. Mishra categorically admitted that it could have been self inflicted as well. In this view of the matter, the independent corroboration available from Dr. R. K. Mishra does not support the prosecution case. 10. Surajbhan is son of Smt. Imarati and he has tried to give a story that the hut was set at fire. He claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence and stated that it was accused Surjit who had given a sickle blow from the wrong side on the forehead of his mother, Nazboo & Chhutan had set the hut on fire and the accused persons had burnt the fodder crop. Learned trial Judge found that this witness had reached the scene of occurrence when the accused persons had left the scene of Occurrence. Learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for his conclusion and I need not repeat them Suffice it to say that the testimony of Surajbhan does not help the prosecution in any Planner particularly when he had reached the scene of occurrence only after the alleged occurrence was over. The learned trial Judge also sought corroboration of the story of Smt. Imarati from the testimony of Ikbal Singh and Santu. Suffice it to say that name of Ikbal Singh does not find mention in the complaint Ex. PI, which is a detailed document. It appears to have been drafted after obtaining some sort of legal advice as is evident from the tenor and the way in which it has been drafted. Hence, it is surprising that even though such a detailed complaint had been drafted yet the name of Ikbal Singh was not mentioned in the same. Hence, I do not propose to place any reliance on the statement of Ikbal Singh. 11. This takes me to the consideration of the evidence of Santu. According to him, he reached the scene of occurrence after hearing some hue and cry and saw that a hut was burning and two persons were running with bundles of fodder and two persons were running in another direction and out of them, one was Surjit. 11. This takes me to the consideration of the evidence of Santu. According to him, he reached the scene of occurrence after hearing some hue and cry and saw that a hut was burning and two persons were running with bundles of fodder and two persons were running in another direction and out of them, one was Surjit. He has stated that he could not recognise the persons, who were running away with the bundles of fodder. According to him, Smt. Imarati had in injury on the forehead. It is significant that in his police statement Ex. D 3 recorded by the Investigating Officer, he did not mention that he had recognised Surjit. Thus, the testimony of this witness is also not reliable when he claims Surjit as one of the persons running away. As regards others, he has deposed that he had not recognised them. 12. Smt. Imarati has admitted in her cross-examination that a day prior to the occurrence, an incident had taken place with one Pyarelal and Nazboo, Subba and Surjit were witnesses against her in that case. Her admission goes to show that she has an axe to grind against Surjit, Subba and Nazboo. This makes her evidence all the more unworthy Of credence. 13. It is significant that according to the prosecution, the incident took place at 4 or 5 a.m. in the morning on the outskirts of village Deokheda, which is hardly at a distance of 5 kms. from police station, Sadar Alwar. The complainant did not straightaway go to police station to lodge any FIR Instead, as already stated, he obtained some sort of legal advice and got Smt. Imarati medically examined and thereafter a well drafted detailed complaint was lodged. This fact also goes to create a doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. 14. On a conspectus of the entire evidence of the prosecution, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt; there is lurking doubt that the accused persons might have been implicated out of groused this possibility cannot be ruled out that the entire prosecution story might be a fabrication. In view of this, I am unable to up-hold the judgment of the learned court below. 15. I accept this appeal and acquit the accused-appellants Chhutan, Subba, Nazboo and Surjit of offence under section 379 IPC. In view of this, I am unable to up-hold the judgment of the learned court below. 15. I accept this appeal and acquit the accused-appellants Chhutan, Subba, Nazboo and Surjit of offence under section 379 IPC. Appellant Surjit is also acquitted of the offence under section 323 IPC. Accused-appellants are on bail and they need not surrender.Appeal accepted. *******