K. R. VYAS, V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20th February 1985 rendered in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1985 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ahmedabad Rural at Narol wherein the appellant-accused viz. Malaji Mohanji who came to be tried for the alleged offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was at the end of the trial ordered to be convicted for the same and sentenced to suffer R. I. for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case as can be seen from the impugned judgment is to the effect that the incident in question happened on 12-10-1984. On the previous day i. e. on 11-10-1984 at about 7. 00 to 8. 00 p. m. the accused was standing near the Pan Galla of Babarji Pujaji situated near S. T. Bus Stand at village Raipur. At that time Ataji Keshaji (deceased) came in accused and inquired as to where Kalia Rabari has gone. In reply the accused informed Ataji that Kalia Rabari must be at his residence and advised him to go there and inquire. Thereafter Ataji Keshaji abused the accused and a quarrel started between them. Both of them started hand to hand fight and ultimately Ataji Keshaji threw the accused on the ground. It is alleged that Ataji had in fact given a bite on the cheek of the accused. On 12-10-1984 the accused in order to take revenge of the said incident of previous day went to the field of Ataji Keshaji at midnight with an iron club (Latha) and gave blows with it on the head of Ataji Keshaji. Ataji Keshaji shouted Mari gayo mari gayo. On hearing the said shouts Jehaji Gokhaji P. W. 7 exh. 18 whose field was situated at a distance of about three fields away came there running and saw the accused giving blows on the person of deceased with the said instrument. Jehaji asked accused as to what he was doing. On seeing Jehaji the accused immediately ran away. Jehaji saw Ataji Keshaji lying dead on his cot with blood oozing out from his person. The said incident was narrated by Udaji Keshaji P. W. 2 exh. 2 the brother of the deceased in the complaint exh. Jehaji asked accused as to what he was doing. On seeing Jehaji the accused immediately ran away. Jehaji saw Ataji Keshaji lying dead on his cot with blood oozing out from his person. The said incident was narrated by Udaji Keshaji P. W. 2 exh. 2 the brother of the deceased in the complaint exh. 22 filed by him wherein it was stated that in the morning of 12-10-1984 at about 8 Oclock when he was to start for his work to Ahmedabad he was informed by his nephew Kanubhai Ataji P. W. 6 exh. 16 the son of deceased Ataji that his father had died due to the injures sustained on his head and is lying on the cot. T he complainant and his nephew immediately went to the field of deceased Ataji and saw the dead body of Ataji lying on the cot. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant thereafter started to go to his house to inform his relatives and when he reached near Pan Beedi shop he was informed by his brother Badsangji Keshaji P. W. 5 exh. 15 about the incident dated 11 that took place between the deceased and the accused. The complainant thereafter inquired about the accused at this residence and his field but he came to know that the accused had run away after committing the murder of Ataji Keshaji. The said complaint was recorded by P. S. I. of Dabhoda Police Chowky on 12-10-1984 and registered the offence against the accused. The police thereafter started investigation and visited the scene of offence and prepared Inquest Panchnama exh. 7. The police also collected blood stained shirt bandi matresses of the deceased and also recorded the statement of eye-witness P. W. 7 Jehaji Gokhaji P. W. 6 Kannuji Ataji-the son of deceased P. W. 5 Badsangji Keshaji the brother of the deceased P. W. 4 Mathurji Ranaji - the beedi shop owner Ataji Ramaji Manguji Chhaganji and the residents of village Raipur Chhhaganji Dahyaji Somaji Jenaji Mangaji Masaji P. W. 3 Babarbhai Pujaji etc. It appears that on 13 the accused voluntarily produced himself before the police. The police also recorded his statement and on making further investigation the accused produced the muddamal iron club which was recovered by police after making necessary Panchnama exh. 20. It was found that the said iron club was also stained with blood. It appears that on 13 the accused voluntarily produced himself before the police. The police also recorded his statement and on making further investigation the accused produced the muddamal iron club which was recovered by police after making necessary Panchnama exh. 20. It was found that the said iron club was also stained with blood. The Investigating Officer also attached clothes put on by the accused under Panchnama exh. 26 The Investigating Officer sent all the articles to the Morensio Science Laboratory with forwarding letter exh. 27. Since the Investigating Agency found a prima facie case against the accused about the commission of the offence chargesheet was filed on 10-12-1984 before the J. M. F. C. Gandhinagar who ultimately committed the case to the Sessions Court Ahmedabad Rural at Narol. ( 3 ) THE charge exh. 2 was read over to the accused who denied the same and insisted for trial. The defence of the accused was to the effect that he was falsely involved of the charge and that he is innocent. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge before whom the prosecution has examined Mr. Balabhai Bababhai Raval exh. 10 complainant Udaji Keshaji Thakore exh. 12 Babarji Pujaji Thakore exh. 3 Mathurji Ramaji Thakore exh. 14 Badsangji Keshaji Thakore exh. 15 Kannubhai Ataji Thakore exh. 16 Jehaji Gokhaji Thakore exh. 18 Bhikhaji Punjaji Thakore exh. 19 and P. S. I. Vasantbhai Laljibhai Solanki exh. 21 and after taking into consideraion the said oral evidence as well as documentary evidence ultimately found that the charge levelled against the accused is duly proved and convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for life. Hence the present appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Y. S. Mankad learned Advocate (appointed) appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused has taken us through the evidence of all material prosecution witnesses and also invited our attention to the reasons for conviction given by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court has erred in law in convicting the appellant relying solely on the evidence of Jehaji P. W. 7 exh. 18. According to Mr. Mankad the evidence of Jehaji is highly unreliable and it would be unsafe and risky to convict the appellant on the basis of the sole testimony of Jehaji P. W. 7. Mr. 18. According to Mr. Mankad the evidence of Jehaji is highly unreliable and it would be unsafe and risky to convict the appellant on the basis of the sole testimony of Jehaji P. W. 7. Mr. Mankad further submitted that all other prosecution witnesses are highly interested as they belong to Thakore community and therefore their attempt is to falsely involve the appellant. Finally Mr. Mankad submitted that the motive alleged by the prosecution is too weak which would prompt accused to commit the grave offence of murder. Under the circumstances Mr. Mankad submitted that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. As against this Mr. S. P. Dave learned Addl. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State supported the judgment given by the trial Court in toto. ( 6 ) IN the present case the prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused has mainly placed reliance on the evidence of complainant Udaji Keshaji Thakore P. W. 2 exh. 12 Dr. Balabhai Bababhai Raval P. W. 1 exh. 10 Badsangji Keshaji Thakore P. W. 5 exh. 15 Kannubhai Ataji Thakore P. W. 6 exh. 16 Jehaji Gokhaji Thakore P. W. 7 exh. 18 and P. S. I. Vasantbhai Laljibhai Solanki P. W. 9 exh. 21. Complainant Udaji exh. 12 and Badsangji exh. 15 are the brothers of the deceased Ataji while Kannubhai exh. 16 is the son of deceased and therefore they feel that they are interested witnesses. On the other hand merely because they are related to deceased their evidence cannot be discarded but the same is required to be considered and appreciated with close scrutiny. After scrutiny if it is found to be reliable natural and trustworthy the Court is bound to accept the same. The attempt of relatives is many a time to see that the real culprit may not escape scot free. Keeping this principle in mind we will now consider the evidence of three prosecution witnesses who are brothers and son of the deceased. The complainant Udaji Keshaji Thakore is admittedly not an eye-witness. As can be seen from his evidence he was informed about the incident when in the morning at about 8. 00 Oclock he was to start for his job at Ahmedabad by his nephew. As per the evidence of Udaji Kannubhai P. W. 6 exh. The complainant Udaji Keshaji Thakore is admittedly not an eye-witness. As can be seen from his evidence he was informed about the incident when in the morning at about 8. 00 Oclock he was to start for his job at Ahmedabad by his nephew. As per the evidence of Udaji Kannubhai P. W. 6 exh. 16 told him that his father (deceased) has been assaulted on the head by someone and that he is lying on the cot bleeding. This would go to show that even Kannubhai has also not given the name of appellant-accused to the complainant. It may be noted that when Udaji and Kannubhai started to go to the scene of offence Badsangji Keshaji P. W. 5 exh. 15 the brother of complainant met them on the road and even at that time also Badsangji did not disclose the name of the accused and he only told them that their brother has been killed by someone. Badsangji only told complainant regarding the quarrel between deceased and accused which had taken place on the previous day. It is pertinent to note that even thereafter when complainant filed complaint exh. 22 the name of the accused has not been disclosed by him. The complainant in the complaint has only stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the previous day and at that time the accused had threatened deceased that he would kill him. The aforesaid evidence would go to show that the complainant does not involve the accused with the commission of the crime in his evidence or in the complaint filed by him. The source of information regarding the murder of Ataji Thakore as per the evidence of the complainant is Kannubhai P. W. 6 exh. 16 and Badsangji Keshaji P. W. 5 exh. 15. According to the evidence of Kannubhai on 12-10-1984 when he went to the field where his father (deceased) was staying to serve tea he found that his father was lying dead on the cot whereupon he came to village from his field and met Udaji - the complainant and informed him about the same. Thereafter he alongwith his uncle the complainant started for the field and later on on the road met Badsangji. Thereafter he alongwith his uncle the complainant started for the field and later on on the road met Badsangji. Thus this witness Kannubhai also does not have any knowledge regarding the real assailant and there- fore rightly he does not disclose the name of the accused to his uncle - the complainant herein. Similarly Badsangji P. W. 5 exh. 15 does not throw any light regarding the incident in question. He only gives the details about the incident of the quarrel alleged to have taken place on the previous day between the accused and the declased. of course this witness says that in the incident of 11-10-84 the accused had threatened the decased that he would kill him (deceased) but this alleged theart cannot involve accused with the commission of murder of the deceased. Thus after considering the evidence of aforesaid three prosecution witnesses who are admittedly the close relatives of the deceased we are convinced beyond any manner of doubt that their evidence does not inspire any confidence and not trustworthy. A material link is missing in their evidence which connect accused with the commission of crime and in absence of this it would be disastrous to convict accused on the grave charge of committing murder of deceased Ataji. Under the circumstances we do not place any reliance on the evidence of the aforesaid three prosecution witnesses. ( 7 ) NEXT comes the evidence of Jehaji Mokhaji P. W. 7 exh. 18 who according to the prosecution is the solitary eye witness. Now a conviction may be recorded against the accused relying on the testimony of sole eye witnesses provided his evidence is trustworthy and reliable. There is no law that the evidence of sole eye witness should always be corroborated but judicial prudence requires that the said evidence should be supported with other prosecution evidence. Bearing this principle in mind let us examine the evidence of sole eye witness Jehaji exh. 18. According to this witness Jehaji on the day in question at midnight while he was smoking beedi he heared screams from the field of Ataji Keshaji and therefore he rushed to the field of Ataji and found that the accused was mounting blows on the head of the deceased with an iron club. Jehaji asked accused as to what he is doing and thereafter accused ran away towards his field. Jehaji asked accused as to what he is doing and thereafter accused ran away towards his field. On seeing the incident Jehaji was frightened. He saw Ataji lying dead on the cot and was bleeding profusely after which he left for his field. On the next day Jehaji informed Kannubhai Ataji P. W. 6 - the son of the deceased when he came to his field that the accused had killed his father with an iron club. According to this witness as per his cross examination after his field there comes the common field belonging to him and his brother then comes the field of Udaji Keshaji and finally the field of deceased Ataji comes. Witness Jehaji has also stated in cross-examination that after hearing the screams he had gone to the field of Ataji and saw accused at a distance of about ten paces away. After watching the incident when he returned his field he did not inform anyone as he was frightened. He had also not gone to the village till Kannubhai the son of deceased met him in the morning at the field. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence of this witness we are of the view that there are number of infirmities in the evidence of this witness Jehaji. Admittedly the field of this witness is situated about three fields away from the field of the deceased. Even if he heard the screams and thereafter reached the scene of offence he is likely to take some time considering the distance between his field and the field of deceased. Even after consuming time in reaching the spot this witness sees accused inflicting blows to the deceased. As per the opinion of Dr. B. B. Raval exh. 10 the deceased received about seven injuries on the head which can be caused with Muddammal article. According to Jehaji he in fact saw the incident of accused inflicting blows. Is it possible ? The answer is certainly `no. We are of the view that even if he started immediately after hearing the screams of the deceased by the time he reaches the scene by covering three fields in between whereby he is bound to take some time and by that time the assailant must have done his work and thus this witness could not have any opportunity to witness the incident. It is also a chance that at midnight this witness has been smoking beedi and also hearing the screams of the deceased. Even if we believe that Jehaji heard the screams of the deceased and reached the place of offence immediately and saw the accused inflicting blows on the person of the deceased the subsequent conduct of this witness-Jehaji creates great amount of doubt about the credibiltiy of his testimony. The witness is aged about 45 and a man of this age does not inform anyone about his act committed by the accused who is 20 years younger to him and goes to sleep as if nothing had happened shows his indifferent attitude and that creates doubts about his version. The explanation given by him of not informing anyone about the incident as he was frightened is difficult to gulp. Even assuming that it was midnight and it was not possible for him to inform anyone regarding the incident when he had narratted the incident by naming accused to Kannubhai -the son of the deceased when he came to the field in the morning Kannubhai could have corroborated him when he gives evidence before the Court. On the contrary we find that the evidence of Kannubhai P. W. 6 exh. 16 does not corroborate the say of the witness Jehaji. Kannubhai has neither given the names of the accused to the complainant when he met him in the morning nor did he inform Badsangji P. W. 5 exh. 15. In fact Kannubhai has not uttered a word regarding the alleged incident as having been told by this witness Jehaji to him. Thus after considering the evidence of this witness we are firmly of he view that this witness Jehaji is unnatural and unreliable and his evidence suffers from infirmities to a great extent and same is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that this witness is not an eye witness reliance whatsoever can be placed on the evidence of this witness. Once the evidence of Jehaji stands discarded there remains no other witness who involves accused with the commission of crime of murderng deceased Ataji. ( 8 ) SINCE the learned trial Judge convicted the accused solely relying. Once the evidence of Jehaji stands discarded there remains no other witness who involves accused with the commission of crime of murderng deceased Ataji. ( 8 ) SINCE the learned trial Judge convicted the accused solely relying. On the evidence of witness Jehaji with respect to him we disagree with the findings recorded by the trial Court and are of the view that the trial Court has committed a serious error in relying on the evidence of this witness Jehaji alone which has ultimately resulted in the conviction of the accused. If we are of the view that evidence of all the prosecution witnesses does not involve the accused with the commission of the crime of committing the murder of Ataji Keshaji and that the accused has been falsely implicated we need not give any importance with regard to the recovery of muddammal articles blood stained clothes etc. and the same can safely be discarded. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 20/02/1985 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Ahmedabad Rural at Narol passed in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1985 convicting the accused under Section 302 of I. P. C. and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for life and acquit the appellant-accused for the said charge. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other offence. (RPV) Appeal allowed. .