N.K. JAIN, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated 22.12.1988 whereby he has convicted Bhadar Ram u/sec. 302/149 IPC and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one months R.I and has also convicted him u/sec. 148 IPC and has sentenced him to one years R.I. He has also convicted Ranveer @ Ranjeet Singh, Omprakash, Mohar Singh s/o Jagram, Hetram and Chetram u/sec. 302/149 and 147 IPC. U/sec. 302/149, the accused appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, - and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months R.I. U/sec. 147 IPC they were sentenced to six months R.I. and all the sentences awarded to the accused appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.9.1987 Mohar Singh at 5.30 a m. accompanied with Ramsingh lodged a report at Police Station Tara-nagar with the allegation that on 23.9.87 he and his brother Duniram had gone to field and while both were returning back on camel to the village at 8.30 in the night Ranveer, Bhadar Ram, Motram and Chetram came near them near Dheerwal Out of these persons Bhadar Ram had Jei in his hand and rest had Lathies. Bhadar Ram hit the camel by Jei and sat it down by holding reins. Thereafter all the four persons started beating his brother; his brother Duniram got down from camel and ran for about 50 paces thereupon they caught hold him and gave him beating by lathies and Jei. Duniram fell down, when Mohar Singh reached near his brother, Ranveer slapped him and threatened him to go away otherwise he would also be treated in the same way. It was also alleged that Omprakash and Moharsingh s/o Jagram armed with lathies were also there Thereafter he came to the village on camel and narrated the story to his mother, Bhabhi and Guganram whereupon Guganram, Kanaram and Ramlal reached the place of occurrence arid brought his brother in a cot and after sometime Duniram died. On this police registered a case u/secs. 147, 1,48, )49, 302 and 323 IPC and started investigation. Site plan Ex. P-2 and site description memo Ex.P-2A were prepared. Panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared as Ex.P-3. On this police registered a case u/secs. 147, 1,48, )49, 302 and 323 IPC and started investigation. Site plan Ex. P-2 and site description memo Ex.P-2A were prepared. Panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared as Ex.P-3. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. S.S Shekhawat, conducted the post mortem examination vide post mortem report Ex.P.5. The accused appellants Ranveer @ Ranjeet Singh, Bhadar Ram, Hetram, Chetram, Omprakash and Moharsingh were arrested on 29.9.1987. Jei was recovered on 7.10.87 at the instance of Bhadar Ram and lathies were recovered at the instance of rest of the accused appellants. On completion of usual investigation police submitted a challan against the accused persons u/secs. ,02, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar who committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against Omprakash and Mohar Singh u/sec. 148, 302/148, 304/114 IPC and against accused persons Ranveer % Ranjeet Singh Bhadar Ram, Hetram and Chetram u/sec. 148, 302/149 IPC and 302/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and filed 29 documents. The accused appellants in their statement u/sec. 313 have denied the charges and in defence one witness was examined. On conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge found the case well established against the accused appellants and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence the accused appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the accused appellants has not disputed that Dunirams death was not natural but homicidal which is proved from the statements of P.W. 2 Dr. S.S. Shekawat but submitted that accused appellants have been falsely implicated and convicted on the basis of the evidence of complainant, which is self contradictory and cannot be relied. He has further submitted that there are vital discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case. 5. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced and the conviction and sentences do not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The entire case is based on the evidence of eye-witness P.W. 1 Mohar Singh. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The entire case is based on the evidence of eye-witness P.W. 1 Mohar Singh. P.W. 1 has stated that he and his brother Duniram were sitting on the camel and coming from the field and when they reached near Khandera, he saw Ranveer, Bhadar Ram, Hetram and Chetram. Bhadar Ram had Jei and the other three persons had lathies. Bhadar Ram hit the camel by Jei and sat it down, then all the four accused persons started beating his brother by Jei and lathies. On this his brother got down and ran 50 paces towards the field, but the accused persons ran after him and gave him beating by Jei and lathies and when he went near his brother, he was slapped by Ranveer and told go away otherwise you will be treated in the same way. Mohar Singh has stated that Omsingh and Moharsingh s/o Jagram were alsostanding there and uttered the words ^^bldks tku ls ekj nks] ftUnk er NksM+ks P. W. 1 has stated that he left his brother unconscious and came to the village on camel and told his mother and Bhabhi that Duniram was beaten by Bhanbhu. He has also stated that he did not name accused appellants. In his statement he has also stated that his brother had touched the wife of one Kurdaram so the accused persons, assaulted his brother. In cross-examination he has stated that his mother asked him to call the neighboured as they had no relations and he called Ramlal, Guganram and Kana Ram. He has further stated that he told all these threepersons that his brother sustained injuries which were inflicted by Bhanbhu, without mentioning the names of the assailants. He has also stated that he narrated the entire story to Thanedar and after visiting site, they again visited Thana and where Ex. P-l was written and signed by him. It is settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of an eye-witness provided it is of sterling worth and does not suffer from any infirmity. We have discussed the relevant evidence in this regard and we have to see whether the testimony of this witness is relia-ble or not. Admittedly PW. It is settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of an eye-witness provided it is of sterling worth and does not suffer from any infirmity. We have discussed the relevant evidence in this regard and we have to see whether the testimony of this witness is relia-ble or not. Admittedly PW. 1 had not named the persons before his mother and Bhabhi as to who gave beating to his brother inspite of the fact that there was sufficient time with him between the incident and filing of the report but only stated to all the three persons that Bhanbhu had beaten his brother, even when his brother was murdered in his presence. Bhanbhu is the sub-caste of Jats as per his own statement and he has clarified in the cross examination that he had not stated the names of the assailants to anyone and he had left the place of occurrence when his brother became unconscious. 8. Now, had this witness really identified the assailants of his brother, it is but natural that he would have given out their names at the first instance to his mother, Bhabhi and the other persons named by him. His not mentioning the names of assailants, as admitted by him, throws a good deal of suspicion on the truthfulness of his story that appellants were the assailants of his brother. 9. According to F.I.R., the incident took place at 8.30 p.m. It is difficult to see if at that late hour, when darkness must have set in, P.W. 1 Mohar Singh could have clearly identified the actual assailants. This explains his statement that Bhanbhu had assaulted his brother. It appears that he himself was not sure of the identity of the assailants. Therefore, in view of the evidence on record, it could not be safe to rely upon his statement and convict so many persons on the basis of such flimsy evidence. 10. This is true that P.W. 3 Ramlal and P.W. 7 Gomati had stated that Mohar Singh had narrated to his mother that Bhadar Ram, Ranveer, Hetram and Chetram were beating his brother but this will not be helpful to the prosecution as it does not inspire confidence more particularly when P.W. 1 Mohar Singh has categorically stated that he had not named the assailants. 11. There is one more aspect. 11. There is one more aspect. We would have relied upon the FIR to support the version given by Mohar Singh but we find that FIR looks sponta-niery as oraccording to him, it was not recorded, soon after he reached the police station but was recorded by the I.O. after he (the I.O.) had inspected the site. 12. Upon careful review of the evidence of P.W. I Mohar Singh, we are of the view that his presence at the time and place of the occurrence was highly doubtful. Thus there remains no credible evidence to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the accused appellants on the basis of his evidence. No other circumstances have been relied upon by the prosecution for convicting the accused persons. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. The conviction cannot be maintained. 13. In the result, this appeal filed by Ranveer @ Ranjeet Singh, Omprakash, Mohar Singh, Bhadar Ram, Het Ram and Chet Ram is allowed. Their conviction and sentences u/sec. 302/149, 323, 147 and 148 IPC are set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Mohar Singh and Omprakash are already on bail so they need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.