JUDGMENT 1. - The six accused-appellants, namely - accused No. 1 Banwari, Accused No. 2 Sher Singh, Accused No. 3 Shisupal Singh son of Laxman Singh, Accused No. 4 Hawa Singh, accused No. 5 Vikram Singh, and accused No. 6 Mohar Singh along-with two more accused persons namely Shishupal Singh s/o Ladu Singh, and Kamal Singh, who will hereinafter be referred to as accused No. 7 and 8 respectively, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for various offences including offence under Section 302 or 302/149 IPC and the learned Sessions Judge under his judgment dated February 22 1990 acquitted accused No. 7 and 8, whereas accused Nos. 1 to 6 were convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of accused Persons. Convicted under Section Sentenced to 1. Banwari (Accused) No. 1 (i) u/s 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default, 6 month rigorous imprisonment. (ii) 148 IPC One year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default, one month's S.I. (iii) 326 IPC 3 year's R. I and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default, 3 month's S.I. (iv) 364 IPC 3 year's R. I and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default, one month's S.I. 2. Sher Singh (Accused No. 2) (i) 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default, 6 month's R.I. (ii) 147 IPC 6 month's S. I. (iii) 326/149 IPC 3 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default, 3 month's S.I. (iv) 364 IPC 3 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- or default, one month's S.I. 3. Shishupal Singh s/o Laxman Singh (Accused No. 3) (i) 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default, 6 month's R.I. (ii) 147 IPC 6 month's S.I. (iii) 364 IPC 3 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default one month's S.I. 4. Hawa Singh, Vikram Singh, and Mohar Singh (Accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively) (i) 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default, 6 month's R.I. (ii) 147 IPC 6 month's S.I, (iii) 326/149 IPC 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- or in default, 3 months S.I. (iv) 364 IPC 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 4, 5 and 6 respectively) (i) 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default, 6 month's R.I. (ii) 147 IPC 6 month's S.I, (iii) 326/149 IPC 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- or in default, 3 months S.I. (iv) 364 IPC 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- or in default, one month's S.I. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. One Rajendra Singh son of Mool Singh by caste Thakur, was murdered and a report was lodged by Mool Singh on June 30, 1976 in Police Station, Chirawa. After investigation a charge-sheet No. 27 was filed on July 30, 1976 in which as many as 13 persons were arrayed as accused persons and it will appear from a perusal of the aforesaid charge-sheet which has been produced and marked as Ex. D/13 that among the accused persons Hanuman son of Sanwal Ram PW. 13 was one of the accused person in that case. Besides him, Mool Singh, son of Dayala Ram, PW. 1 and sons of Hanuman Jat were also accused persons. Deceased Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna, brothers of PW. 2 Kamal Singh along with Mahendra Singh and Banwari were also accused in that case. Ultimately, in that case, the accused persons were acquitted by this Court. It can therefore be said that there was enmity in between PW. 1 Mool Singh and deceased Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna on one hand and some of the accused persons on the other. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. On October 30, 1986, at about 4 p.m. Kamal Singh PW. 2, son of Hanuman Singh, is alleged to be going from bus stand to Kabutarkhana and when he was near the Panchayat Samiti, it is alleged that accused No. 2 Sher Singh, accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh alongwith accused Kamal Singh and Juhar Singh son of Hanuman Singh, Mahendra Singh son of Juwar Singh were present and they abused him and when he asked them not to do so, accused Sher Singh is alleged to have caught hold of him by his neck and gave him fists blows and kicked him. Accused No, 3 Shishupal Singh also gave a fist blow to him as a result of which one of his teeth was broken. Accused No, 3 Shishupal Singh also gave a fist blow to him as a result of which one of his teeth was broken. Accused No. 8 is said to have snatched a wrist watch and the accused persons are said to have given him beating and accused Juwar Singh is said to have taken out Rs. 150/- from his pocket. He was rescued by Om Prakash and others. He wanted to lodge a report at the Police Station immediately thereafter and when he was going to lodge the report, it is alleged that accused Sher Singh, Shishupal Singh and Kamal Singh and others gave out that if he goes to lodge the report, he will be killed. He did not therefore lodge the report immediately and came back to his house in village Ojtu. At his house in village Ojtu were present Mahavir PW. 12. Hanuman PW. 13 and others. At about 9 p.m. Kamal Singh PW. 2 went to lodge a report at the Police Station Chirawa and he is said to have left behind Mool Singh PW. 1 & Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna deceased and others. After about an hour of his (Kamal Singh PW. 2) having so left his house at village Ojtu for lodging the report, it is alleged that accused No 3 Shishupal Singh son of Laxman Singh, accused No. 2 Sher Singh, accused No. 1 Banwari, accused No. 8 Kamal Singh along with Arjun Singh son of Iswar, Jawahar Singh son of Arjun Singh and Shivdayal, in all 7 persons came there. It is given out that few people of the village have assembled at the house of the accused No. 3 and they will arrive at a compromise in respect of the incident which took place in the day at about 3 or 4 p.m. It is said that Mool Singh PW. 1 and others who were there told the above 7 persons that Kamal Singh had gone to Chirawa and that they will accompany them on the return of Kamal Singh. Sajjan Singh deceased and Mool Singh PW. 1 then accompanied those seven persons to the house of the accused No. 3 Shishupal son of Laxman Singh. Kamal Singh PW. 1 and others who were there told the above 7 persons that Kamal Singh had gone to Chirawa and that they will accompany them on the return of Kamal Singh. Sajjan Singh deceased and Mool Singh PW. 1 then accompanied those seven persons to the house of the accused No. 3 Shishupal son of Laxman Singh. Kamal Singh PW. 2 returned from Chirawa at about 12 night and Mahavir and others told him that Sajjan Singh and Moola had gone with seven persons to arrive at a compromise in respect of the incident which had taken place in the evening that day. Kamal Singh PW. 2 and others waited for the return of Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh but they did not return till 4 a. m. Mool Singh alongwith Sajjan Singh deceased alongwith above named 7 persons reached the house of accused No. 3 which is also in the same village Ojtu but no sooner they reached the house of accused No. 3 they saw that Mool Singh Thakur, whose son Rajendra Singh had been murdered earlier in 1976 and some of the witnesses in that case were also sitting at the house of accused No. 3. As there was enmity in between Mool Singh and Sajjan Singh deceased on one hand and Mool Singh Thakur on the other, it struck to Mool Singh PW. 1 and deceased Sajjan Singh that as a result of Mool Singh Thakur, compromise cannot be arrived at and therefore Mool Singh PW. 1 and Sajjan Singh deceased returned back saying that they will return with Kamal Singh PW. 2. Both of them left for Chirawa to meet Kamal Singh and Kamal Singh had gone to Chirawa to lodge report of the Police Station. As per the case of the prosecution no sooner deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 reached near the college play-ground of Chirawa, from the opposite direction a jeep came in which were sitting accused Nos. 1 to 6 alongwith Mangilal r/o of Ardavada Accused No. 2 Sher Singh was armed with iron kussa and accused No. 1 Banwari was armed with a sword and other accused were armed with lathis, Accused No. 4 and 5 are said to have caught hold of PW. 1 to 6 alongwith Mangilal r/o of Ardavada Accused No. 2 Sher Singh was armed with iron kussa and accused No. 1 Banwari was armed with a sword and other accused were armed with lathis, Accused No. 4 and 5 are said to have caught hold of PW. 1 Mool Singh and Sher Singh accused No. 2 is said to have given a blow with iron kussa on the head of Sajjan Singh and accused No. 1 Banwari gave a blow on the hand of deceased Sajjan Singh. So far as accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that he was giving out that both of them i.e. deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh should be killed. Mool Singh PW. 1 was given severe beating by accused persons and when he was being given beaten by the accused persons, from the side of Jhunjhunu a jeep was coming and accused No. 3 said that a jeep is coming and therefore Mool Singh PW. 1 should be up in the jeep. PW. 1 Mool Singh was put in the jeep and was taken in an injured condition to the house of accused No. 3 where also it is alleged that at the platform o the house he was beaten by the accused persons and accused No. 8 Kamal Singh, Mool Singh Thakur, Shishupal Singh son of Laduram and others were also present at the house of accused No. 3 and accused No. 3 told them that as was directed by them they have killed Sajjan Singh and Moola is half-dead and has been brought. Shishupal Singh son of Ladu Ram and Mool Singh Thakur enquired as to whether they had not left Sajjan Singh alive and the answer was in the negative. From the house of platform, out side the house of the accused No. 3, PW 1 Mool Singh was taken in a jeep to the Railway lines for being placed there so that he may be run-over by a running train and the real cause of his death may not be ascertained. He was deserted near the railway track. He was still alive and raised alarm, hearing which some people were attracted. He was taken by them to the hospital and his statement was recorded by the Police. 4. He was deserted near the railway track. He was still alive and raised alarm, hearing which some people were attracted. He was taken by them to the hospital and his statement was recorded by the Police. 4. One Kumhar of Chirawa came there and told that Sajjan Singh was lying in a field of Kumhars near the field of Nehru Bal Mandir. At this, Kamal Singh PW. 2 alongwith Laxman and Radha Kishan reached the place which was pointed out by Kumhar (un-named) and saw that Sajjan Singh was lying dead in the fields. They made search of Mool Singh PW. 1, but he was not available. 5. Kamal Singh PW. 2 went to the Police Station Chirawa and lodged written report Ex. P/4 and on it FIR No. 160/1986 against accused Nos, 1, 2, 3 and 8 as well as against Arjun Singh son of Shiv Ram, Shivdayal son of Ladu Ram and Jawahar s/o Hanuman was registered as Ex. P/5. 6. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead-body of Sajjan Singh by Dr. N. S. Rathor, PW. 1/5, vide Post-mortem report Ex. P/29 and Dr. Rathore found that there were as many as 6 external injuries (though he mentioned 17 injuries, but there is no injury at No. 10) on the person of deceased Sajjan Singh. They are as under: "1. Lacerated wound scalp 3/4" in left parietal region 1" lateral to mid-line. 2. Lacerated cut wound of left upper pinna nearly 1/2" in size. 3. Abraison with haematoma over left martoid region. 4. Lacerated would with Bruise and its defined haematoma from which-blood was coming (1/2" in length). 5. Abraison left fore arm, posteriolateral aspect 1" X 1/2" roughly triangular 1" below left lateral epicendyle. 6. Multiple abraisons with bruises all over the back more on left side. Bruises, size varying from 10" X 1" to 4" X 1". Exact number could not be made out, appears to be more than 15 to 20. 7. Three bruises present over left ghiteal region 7" X 1" in size, margins of bruises appear bluish. 8. Multiple bruises on left thigh, lateral aspect 5" X 1" in size. 9. Abraison + bruises left inguime region, lateral part, ill defined. 10. Abraison x bruises Rt. inguinal region, lateral part, ill defined. 11. 7. Three bruises present over left ghiteal region 7" X 1" in size, margins of bruises appear bluish. 8. Multiple bruises on left thigh, lateral aspect 5" X 1" in size. 9. Abraison + bruises left inguime region, lateral part, ill defined. 10. Abraison x bruises Rt. inguinal region, lateral part, ill defined. 11. Two incised wounds over-postereo lateral aspect of Right arm parallel to each other, nearly 1" above lateral epicendyle 1" X 1/4" X 1/4" in size. 12. Incised wound 21/2" X 1" X 1/2 over lateral cendyle of right femer cutting the muscles. 13. Lacerated wound 11/2" X 1/2" X 1/4" about 4" below tibial tubercle on rt. leg. 14. Incised wound 2" X 1/4 pm left side of shin of tibia in middle. 15. Bruises 4" X 1" on lateral aspect of left leg in middle. 16. Abraison with bruise 1/2" X 1" in size, 2" above left lateral maleolus." 7. The post-mortem was conducted on October 31, 1986 and as per the statement of Dr. Rathore, the deceased had died on October 31, 1986 at about 2 or 3 a.m. On opening the scalp the doctor found that there was would on left parietal region and there was also a fracture through & through vertibra. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to shock because of multiple injuries and injuries to brain. 8. The injuries of Mool Singh PW. 1 were also examined by Dr. Rathore on October 31, 1986 vide injury report Ex. P/26 and the doctor found that there were 13 injuries on his person out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12 & 13 were incised wounds. Injury No. 4 is lacerated would 1/2"x"1/4" on Left leg anterior side 2" below knee joint. Injury No. 5 is lacerated wound 1/4" x 1" x 1/4" on anterior side of left leg 7" below knee joint. Injuries Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are abraisons. These injuries are on the left leg or right foot, simple in nature. On X-ray being taken to the injury No. 2, it was found to be grievous and the rest injuries on X-ray were found to be simple. X-ray report is Ex. P/28. 9. After investigation the police filed a charge-sheet only against the accused Nos. These injuries are on the left leg or right foot, simple in nature. On X-ray being taken to the injury No. 2, it was found to be grievous and the rest injuries on X-ray were found to be simple. X-ray report is Ex. P/28. 9. After investigation the police filed a charge-sheet only against the accused Nos. 1 to 6 as well as accused No. 7 & 8 where as the charge-sheet was not filed against the others. The learned Sessions Judge tried the accused for various offences. Where as, he convicted the accused No. 1 to 6 for the aforesaid offences, the accused No. 7 and 8 were acquitted. 10. It is worth mentioning here that as per the case of the defence, it was as a result of previous enmity that a false case has been fastened on the accused-appellants and it is also the case that on October 30, 1986, Arjun Singh son of Iswar, father of Kamal Singh accused No. 8 was beaten by Durga Ram son of Hanuman, Mohanlal son of Radhey Shyam, Kheta Ram son of Mahavir, Bhola Ram son of Dhanna Ram and Banwari son of Hanuman at about 4 p.m. when he (Arjun Singh) was on foot and had just reached out-skirts of village Ojtu and he had lodged the report Ex. D/9 at the Police Station Chirawa. 11. Thus, the case of the accused persons in their statements under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is of bare denial and it is also their case that as a result of previous enmity have been falsely implicated. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ganpat Ram as well as Public Prosecutor for the State and also Mr. S.R. Bijwa, learned counsel for the complainant. Mr. Ganpat Ram, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the entire case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon because the case rests on the testimony of solitary eye-witness namely PW. 1. Mool Singh who is not and cannot be a witness of sterling worth. He contends that looking to the background that there was previous deep roofed enmity in between the deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1. Mool Singh on one hand accused persons on the other even if an incident had taken place on October 30, 1986, as alleged by Kamal Singh PW. He contends that looking to the background that there was previous deep roofed enmity in between the deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1. Mool Singh on one hand accused persons on the other even if an incident had taken place on October 30, 1986, as alleged by Kamal Singh PW. 2, there could not be any question for some of the accused persons and others in all 7, having gone to the house of Kamal Singh to talk about a compromise in respect of a petty matter of quarrel and when Kamal Singh was not there, with whom the incident even as per the case of the prosecution had taken place, there was all the more no question of Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh being asked to accompany the accused, in all numbering 7, to arrive at a compromise at the house of the accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh. Learned counsel further contends that as stated by him, no question of any talks in respect of compromise could have arisen and further even if the deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 would have reached the house of Shishupal Singh son of Laxman Singh accused No. 3 and also the other accused were there, and the intention of the accused was to put an end to the life of Sajjan Singh or made an attempt on the life of Mool Singh, none could have prevented them from achieving their object. Learned counsel for the appellants therefore contends that the entire prosecution story that the accused persons and others in all, seven in number, came to the house of Kamal Singh for compromise is false and is a made up story and it cannot be believed that deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 had accompanied the accused persons and others in all 7, and reached the house of accused No. 3 and that too at 12 night to arrive at a compromise in respect of an incident which had taken place at about 3 or 4 p.m. that day. 1 had accompanied the accused persons and others in all 7, and reached the house of accused No. 3 and that too at 12 night to arrive at a compromise in respect of an incident which had taken place at about 3 or 4 p.m. that day. Learned counsel further contends that not only Sajjan Singh deceased who is said to have remained alive and is said to have raised an alarm which attracted Durga and others and Sajjan Singh asked for water, does not disclose the name of assailants,about even Mool Singh does not disclose the names of assailants to those who are said to have been attracted on hearing his alarm near the railway track where he is said to have been left by the accused persons so that he may be run over by the running train. According to the learned counsel the mere fact that out of those who were named by PW. 1. Mool Singh in his statement after investigation, charge-sheet was not filed against few and the learned trial court had acquitted two of the accused persons goes to show that Mool Singh is not a witness of sterling worth and therefore on his solitary statement in a case of present nature no conviction of any of the accused persons can be and should be upheld. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the complainant have contended that Mool Singh himself is an injured person and this fact goes to show that he was present at the time of incident and merely because he might have made some improvements or there might be some contradictions in his statement, recorded in the court as well as in the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation by the Investigating Officer, his statement should not be disbelieved. Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that at any rate so far as the incident with Mool Singh PW 1 is concerned, it cannot be disbelieved and such of the accused persons against whom he deposed, at best, their conviction should be up-held which relate to the beating to, Mool Singh PW. 1. 14. We have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record of the case. 1. 14. We have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record of the case. In our opinion, the first question which needs consideration in this case is as to whether, as alleged by Mool Singh and some other witnesses, 7 persons including accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, accused No. 8 and three others, whose names have been given above, had come to the house of PW. 2 Kamal Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh and deceased Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna had accompanied them to the house of accused No. 3 to talk about the compromise in respect of an incident which had taken place at 4 p.m. on October 30, 1986 with Kamal Singh PW 2 ? In other words, the question is as to whether sequence of events as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh so far as the incident relating to the murder of Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna alias Chunna and injuries to PW. 1 Mool Singh took place as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh ? 15. It may be stated at the very outset that there can be no dispute that Sajjan has been murdered as a look to the post-mortem report Ex. P/29 as well as statement of Dr. Rathore PW. 15 will show that he received as many as 16 injuries by sharp and blunt weapon and the cause of his death was the injuries received by him. There cannot be any dispute that PW. 1 Mool Singh also received a number of injuries but as said earlier the question is as to whether the death of Sajjan Singh took place as alleged by PW. 1 and he (PW. 1) received injuries as alleged by him at the hands of accused persons? A connected question will also arise as to whether the death of Sajjan Singh was the result of same incident in which PW. 1 Mool Singh received injuries and it is doubtful to hold so as the possibility that deceased received injuries in a separate incident and Mool Singh PW. 1 received injuries in a separate incident cannot be ruled out ? 16. The case primarily rests on the statement of PW. 1 Mool Singh received injuries and it is doubtful to hold so as the possibility that deceased received injuries in a separate incident and Mool Singh PW. 1 received injuries in a separate incident cannot be ruled out ? 16. The case primarily rests on the statement of PW. 1 Mool Singh, the solitary eye-witness in the case though the prosecution seeks to corroborate his statement from other circumstances including the circumstance of his and deceased Sajjan Singh being taken away by the four accused persons and three others in all 7, to the house of the accused No. 3 for compromise as stated earlier. 17. It has already been said earlier that there is no dispute and there is sufficient material on record that there is deep rooted enmity in between the parties i.e. the accused persons on one hand and the witnesses as well as deceased Sajjan Singh on the other hand. The witnesses as well as deceased Sajjan Singh and the accused persons belong to the same village Ojtu and it has come in the statement of Mool Singh that the house of accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh is at a distance of about 500 steps from the house of Kamal Singh PW. 2 and if while one goes from the house of Kamal Singh to the house of accused No. 3 there are many other houses in the way (See statement of PW. 1 Mool Singh). Chirawa is at the distance of about 4 kms. from village Ojtu and one can reach Chirawa on foot within half-hour as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh. A look at Ex. D/11 will show that it is the report lodged by Kamal Singh PW 2 in respect of the incident which is said to have taken place with him at about 3 p.m. that day in Chirawa. It will further appear that in that incident accused No. 2 Sher Singh, accused Shishupal Singh, accused Kamal Singh alongwith two others namely Jhuwar Singh son of Hanuman Singh and Mahendra Singh son of Jhuwar Singh are said to have hurled abuses on Kamal Singh and accused Sher Singh had caught hold of him by neck and gave beating. It will further appear that in that incident accused No. 2 Sher Singh, accused Shishupal Singh, accused Kamal Singh alongwith two others namely Jhuwar Singh son of Hanuman Singh and Mahendra Singh son of Jhuwar Singh are said to have hurled abuses on Kamal Singh and accused Sher Singh had caught hold of him by neck and gave beating. Accused No. 3 gave a first blow to Kamal Singh as a result of which one of his teeth is said to have broken and one wrist watch is said to have been snatched from him which is said to have fallen on the ground. Jhuwar Singh is alleged to have snatched Rs. 150/- from his pocket. Om Prakash son of Dayala Ram and Dayanand son of Hanuman Singh, Ramswaroop son of Teja Ram Jat also are said to have rescued and no report was immediately lodged at the police station and it was lodged only at about 1.30 p.m. Mukand Singh PW. 21 is the Investigating Officer in the case and it has come in his statement (at page 159 of the paper book) that Ex. D/11 was lodged by Kamal Singh of village Ojtu at 11.30 p.m. in the Police Station and FIR No. 59/86 was registered and after investigation charge - sheet Ex. D/12 was submitted. Mukand Singh PW. 21 further states that on the same day i.e. October 30, 1986 Arjun Singh had lodged a report (Ex. D/9) at 8 p.m. on which FIR No. 158/86 was registered and after investigation a charge sheet Ex. D/19 was presented by him. A look at the aforesaid document at this stage is necessary. It will appear from Karyavahi Police on Ex. D/11 that on examination of injuries of Kamal Singh, Mukand Singh PW. 21 found that his one tooth of right side was loose. There was small swelling near the right ear and there was no other injury on his body. It is also mentioned therein that on further interrogation the informant, namely Kamal Singh PW. 2 did not disclose any cause for delay in lodging the report. A case under Sec. 147, 148, 341, 323 IPC was registered. It has come in the statement of PW. 2 Kamal Singh that his injuries were not medically examined because the doctors were on strike and he did not think it proper to be examined by any private doctor. A case under Sec. 147, 148, 341, 323 IPC was registered. It has come in the statement of PW. 2 Kamal Singh that his injuries were not medically examined because the doctors were on strike and he did not think it proper to be examined by any private doctor. Even his injuries were not got treated by him. It has also come in the statement that the police station Chirawa is hardly 1/2 or 3/4 km. from hospital Chirawa but according to him he did not immediately lodge the report out of fear accused persons. As said earlier, Ex. D/9 was lodged by Arjun Singh against whom also FIR was filed but after investigation the charge-sheet was not filed by the police and said Arjun Singh is father of accused No. 8 Kamal Singh and it is not disputed that he is aged more than 70 years and he is limp. A perusal of Ex. D/9 will show that it is alleged that no sooner Arjun was out of village Ojtu, Durga Ram son of Hanuman. Mohanlal son of Radhey Shyam, Bhola s/o Chhannaram Kheta son of Mahavir, and Banwari son of Hanuman all of village Ojtu armed with lathies stopped him and gave beating to him and Rs. 300/- are said to have been taken away from his pocket by Durga Ram and given to Banwari accused No. 1. It will appear from Karyavahi Police that the age of Arjun Singh is mentioned as 76 years and on examination of his injuries, it was found that there was injury on his right thigh which had a bandage of hospital. There was a bruise on the left thigh and though he complained pain in whole of his body, there was no sign of visible injury. A case under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 IPC was registered. The corresponding charge-sheet of written report Ex. D/9 is D/10 and that of Ex. D/10 is D/12. One of the accused in the charge-sheet Ex. D/10 was Bhola Ram son of Sajjan Singh alias Dharma Ram and the other accused was Kheta Ram son of Mahavir who has appeared as a witness in this case as PW. 12. The corresponding charge-sheet of written report Ex. D/9 is D/10 and that of Ex. D/10 is D/12. One of the accused in the charge-sheet Ex. D/10 was Bhola Ram son of Sajjan Singh alias Dharma Ram and the other accused was Kheta Ram son of Mahavir who has appeared as a witness in this case as PW. 12. A reference to the aforesaid charge-sheet and FIR has already been made in order to show that the incident mentioned in the aforesaid information does not appear to be of severe nature and that it is Arjun Singh who had lodged the report Ex. D/9 at 8 p.m. and the report Ex. D/11 was lodged by Kamal Singh at about 11 p.m. 18. In the back ground of deep routed enmity in between the parties which, as stated earlier, is not disputed, and looking to the nature of incident the question is as to whether as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh and others, it will be safe to rely on the prosecution story that three accused persons alongwith accused No. 8 and three others, in all 7, could have had the occasion to come to the house of Kamal Singh to arrive at a compromise or not? It has already been said that the house of accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh is hardly at a distance of 500 steps from the house of Kamal Singh. Report Ex. D/9 had been lodged by Arjun Singh in respect of the incident at 8 p.m. in police station Chirawa and by the time the three accused persons and accused No. 8 alongwith three others in all 7, are said to have come to the house of Kamal Singh PW. 2 to talk about the compromise, the report Ex. D/11 had not been lodged or at any rate, those persons could not have known that the report had been lodged at police station Chirawa. Therefore, in our opinion no occasion could have arisen for the above mentioned 7 persons to have gone to the house of Kamal Singh to persuade him to arrive at a compromise and to take to the house of accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh. PW. 1 Mool Singh and deceased Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh, PW. 12 Mahavir and PW. 13 Hanuman. All the witnesses namely PW. 1 Mool Singh PW. PW. 1 Mool Singh and deceased Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh, PW. 12 Mahavir and PW. 13 Hanuman. All the witnesses namely PW. 1 Mool Singh PW. 12, Mahavir and PW 13 Hanuman beside having enmity as stated earlier with accused persons are related to each other and are interested persons. Kamal Singh is said to have left for Chirawa to lodge a report at about 9 p.m. on Oct. 30 1986 and after his departure above seven persons are said to have come to the house. The incident as alleged at 4 p.m. that day had taken place with Kamal Singh PW. 2 and also with Arjun Singh as stated earlier vide Ex. D/9. If Kamal Singh was not there, no question of other persons namely deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh being taken to compromise to the house of accused No. 3 in our opinion could have arisen. As said earlier, the incident does not appear to be a serious one & even if Kamal Singh would have gone from his house to lodged report in the police station Chirawa at 9 p.m. normally no question could have arisen for him for asking PW. 12 Mahavir PW. 13 Hanuman and others to wait till he returns his house after lodging the report in the police station Chirawa. If deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh, assuming that they could have had accompanied seven persons to the house of accused No. 3, reached the house of accused No. 3 which as said earlier, was hardly at a distance of 500 steps, then seeing Mool Singh Thakur with whom they had enmity and getting an impression that compromise could not be arrived in his presence, they would have normally returned to their house and the question of their going towards Chirawa in search of Kamal Singh could not have arisen. Thakur Mool Singh's name appears to have been introduced because as said earlier some of the witnesses were accused in the murder case of Rajendra Singh and faced trial, but were acquitted by this Court. 19. If the deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. Thakur Mool Singh's name appears to have been introduced because as said earlier some of the witnesses were accused in the murder case of Rajendra Singh and faced trial, but were acquitted by this Court. 19. If the deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 were taken with the intention of giving beating to them and to cause death of any of them or to cause an attempt on their life, accused No. 3 and others were already present at the house of accused No. 3 and they could have achieved their object and could not have allowed them to go away from the house of the accused No. 3 and then to go in a jeep and chase them to give beating them. Not only this, if Sajjan Singh deceased and Mool Singh PW. 1 would have accompanied seven persons to the house of accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh as alleged by the prosecution, after about an hour of Kamal Singh's leaving the house for lodging the report about the incident which had taken place in the day at about 4 p.m, then if Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh did not return even by 4 a.m. it is against the normal human conduct that that Kamal Singh PW. 2, Mahavir PW. 12, and Hanuman PW. 13 and others who were said to have been at the house of Kamal Singh would not have gone to the house of accused No. 3 which was hardly at a distance of about 500 steps to enquire about the deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh as to why they had been retained so long and as to why they had not returned. It is the case of the prosecution that when the deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh were taken away, Kamal Singh was not there at his house and as said earlier, compromise talks were to take place in respect of an incident which had taken place with him and it has come in the statement of Mool Singh PW. 1 Mool Singh were taken away, Kamal Singh was not there at his house and as said earlier, compromise talks were to take place in respect of an incident which had taken place with him and it has come in the statement of Mool Singh PW. 1 that when 7 persons came to the house of Kamal Singh and said that they wanted to arrive at a compromise, it was given out by some of the accused persons that if necessary Kamal Singh will be sent for at the house of accused No. 3, Kamal Singh should have arrived to his house within 30 to 45 minutes after having lodged the report at the Police Station Chirawa at about 11.30 p.m. Therefore, it would have been normal human conduct that after having been informed that deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh had accompanied seven persons to the house of accused No. 3 to talk about the compromise in respect of incident which took place with him, Kamal Singh too would have gone to the house of accused No. 3 to participate in the talks of compromise, but instead, he awaits the returns of Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh from the house of accused No. 3 which is hardly at a distance of about 500 steps even upto 4 a.m. when PW. 8 Durga,-PW 9 Parmeshwar Sharma and PW 10 Jalu Ram informed that Sajjan Singh alias Dhanna is lying in the play-ground of the school & that they should go in search of him. The report Ex. P/4 in which it was stated that two persons, deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh were taken away by the seven persons, or they accompanied them from the house of Kamal Singh PW. 2 was lodged at 6.30 a. m. at Police Station Chirawa after the dead-body of Sajjan Singh having been found in the play-ground of the school and it is said that till then Mool Singh had not been traced. A look at the FIR Ex. P/5 will show that there is over-writing in the time 6.30 and it appears that earlier it was 6.30 p.m. and later on instead of `p.m.' it was made `a.m.'.This fact could not be explained by Mukand Singh PW21. It may also be stated that as per the statement of Kamal Singh PW. A look at the FIR Ex. P/5 will show that there is over-writing in the time 6.30 and it appears that earlier it was 6.30 p.m. and later on instead of `p.m.' it was made `a.m.'.This fact could not be explained by Mukand Singh PW21. It may also be stated that as per the statement of Kamal Singh PW. 2 after had returned from the Police Station Chirawa, and he should have returned by 12.30 a.m. or thereafter, the report having been lodged at 12.30 p.m. in the Police Station, he was told that deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh accompanied the seven persons, including three accused persons, Kamal Singh accused No. 8 and three others, to the house of accused No. 3. He has also stated that when he had left for the Police Station to lodge the report after 9 p.m. he had left at his house many persons including PW. 12 Mahavir, PW. 13 Hanuman, Sajjan Singh deceased and PW 1 Mool Singh but when he returned there after lodging the report, out of the above persons deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW 1 were not there. In other words, it can be said that as per his statement, Mahavir PW. 12 and Hanuman PW. 13 were present when he returned after lodging the report. The fact that he had left PW. 12 Mahavir and PW. 13 Hanuman and others at his house when he had gone to lodge the report is not mentioned in the written report Ex. P/4. A perusal of the said report will show that their names are not mentioned, though it is mentioned that on the return to his house after lodging the report those persons were there at the house, and when PW. 2 Kamal Singh was confronted with this omission, he could not explained it. At any rate in the written report Ex. P/4 it is mentioned that when he returned from the Police Station after lodging the report, PW. 12 Mahavir and PW. 13 Hanuman alongwith others were present. It is also mentioned in Ex. P/4 that all those persons including PW. 13 had kept waiting for the return of Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. P/4 it is mentioned that when he returned from the Police Station after lodging the report, PW. 12 Mahavir and PW. 13 Hanuman alongwith others were present. It is also mentioned in Ex. P/4 that all those persons including PW. 13 had kept waiting for the return of Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 till 4 a.m but they did not return and at that hour a Kumhar of Chirawa came there and it was informed by him that dead-body of Sajjan Singh is lying. If we now look at the statement of Mahavir and Hanuman PW. 12 and PW. 13 respectively, each of them states that after the return of Kamal Singh from the Police Station they went to their houses and slept and they did not state that they had kept waiting till 4 a.m. for the return of deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 and they so stated in the police statement with which they were confronted and had stated that they have not stated so in the police statement.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution story that seven persons including three accused appellants, and accused No. 8, came to the house of Kamal Singh and deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 accompanied them to the more persons whose names he does not know and no sooner they alighted from the jeep, they gave out that they have killed Sajjan Singh and that Moola had been injurned and they had brought him in the jeep. Moola was taken out of the jeep in an injured condition and he has seen him lying in the injured condition in the jeep. He also states that those who were sitting in the jeep had asked as to what should be done of Moola and they said that they take him in the jeep and leave him near the railway lines. Arjun then said to him (PW. 14 Bula Ram) as to what concern he has and he had left him near the school. As said earlier, the learned Sessions Judge has not placed any reliance on his statement and rightly so. Therefore, once his statement has been excluded and we find no reason to differ with the learned Sessions Judge, the witness being a chance witness, the case rests on the solitary statement of PW. As said earlier, the learned Sessions Judge has not placed any reliance on his statement and rightly so. Therefore, once his statement has been excluded and we find no reason to differ with the learned Sessions Judge, the witness being a chance witness, the case rests on the solitary statement of PW. 1 Mool Singh, so far as the incident relating to causing injuries to deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh. The law is well settled on the question as to what should be the approach of the court when there is evidence of solitary eye-witness. That law is settled that corroboration is not a rule of law, but one of caution as an assurance. The conviction could be made on the basis of the testimony of a solitary witness.The occasion for the presence at the time of occurrence, opportunity to witness the crime, the normal conduct of the witness the crime, the normal conduct of the witness after the incident, the nearness of the witness to the victim, his pre-disposition towards the accused, are some of the circumstances to be kept in view to weight and accept the ocular evidence of a witness. It is not the quantum of the evidence but its quality and credibility of the witness that lends assurance to the court for acceptance. The more fact that there is sole eyewitness of the occurrence ordinarily will not make & should not make any difference. In a given case if the evidence of sole eye-witness in the opinion of the court is credible, then despite fact that there is no corroboration to his evidence, conviction can be based on the testimony of the sole-eye-witness. But if in the opinion of the court the witness has not come out with the truth & to be court he does not appear to be a credible witness, then it will not be safe to rely upon the evidence of a sole-eye-witness without its corroboration & the Court should look for its corroboration by some other independent evidence. In the light of the aforesaid approach in the case of evidence of sole eye-witness, as the present case rests on the evidence of sole eye-witness we will proceed to examine the case firstly on the question as to whether there is possibility of two incident or there is one incident as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh. In the light of the aforesaid approach in the case of evidence of sole eye-witness, as the present case rests on the evidence of sole eye-witness we will proceed to examine the case firstly on the question as to whether there is possibility of two incident or there is one incident as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh. We have already disbelieved the prosecution story so far as coming of three accused-appellants, accused No. 8 and there others to the house of Kamal Singh PW. 2 and taking away deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh to the house of the accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh to arrive at a compromise in respect of the incident said to have taken place at about 3 or 4 p.m. on October 30, 1986 in which Kamal Singh received injuries at the hands of certain persons belong to the accused side.With this deficiency in the prosecution case, now we proceed further. As said earlier, occurrence took place in the night intervening October 30 and 31, 1986, a day before Diwali. There is no dispute that it was a dark night. Even learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Bajwa does not dispute this fact. Learned Sessions Judge before whom this argument was advanced has said that even in the light of stars, one who was known prior to the occurrence could have identified. Even assuming what the learned Sessions Judge has said is correct, in our opinion in a dark night even if one could be identified in the light of stars it could not have been possible maticulously see which of the accused persons is causing injury on which part of the body and rather even if the occurrence took place in the day-light and there are number of accused persons and there were two persons being beaten, by a number of accused persons, it is not possible rather impossible to retain in memory and then to say which of the accused persons inflicted which injury on which part of the body. We have already said earlier that Kamal Singh PW. We have already said earlier that Kamal Singh PW. 2 is said to have left his house to lodge the report at about 9 or 10 p.m. and thereafter, the three accused-appellants, Kamal Singh accused No. 8 & three others, are said to have come to the house of Kamal Singh & they are said to have taken away deceased Sajjan Singh and Mool Singh PW. 1 with them. Mahavir & Hanuman PW.12 & PW.13 respectively after an hour of Kamal Singh's leaving for the Police Station, seven persons had come.At any rate, it can be said that it should have been before 11 p.m. that the seven person's as per the case of the prosecution should have come to the house of Kamal Singh PW. 2 and went away to the house of accused No. 3 with Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh, did not stay there seeing Mool Singh Thakur, started for Chirawa in search of Kamal Singh PW. 2 and incident took place. As per the statement of Mool Singh who is Graduate, no sooner they saw Mool Singh Thakur at the house of accused No. 3, they started back saying that they will return with Kamal Singh and went towards Chirawa to call Kamal Singh on foot. Then a jeep came in which accused persons were there. He also states that it was at about 11 p.m. that he was left at the railway lines in an injured condition and there is material on record that it was 20 to 25 kms from village Ojtu. Therefore, according to his statement, the occurrence with him as well as deceased Sajjan Singh should have taken place before 11 p.m. He also states that accused No. 2 Sher Singh was armed with iron kussa and accused Banwari was armed with sword. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were armed with lathis. Accused No. 3 was sitting in the jeep and was exorting others to kill both deceased Sajjan Singh and him (Mool Singh PW. 1). He further states that Hawa Singh and Vikram Singh caught hold of him (PW. 1 Mool Singh) and Sher Singh gave him a blow with iron kussa on the head of deceased and Banwari gave him blow on his hand. Mohar Singh and Mangilal gave blow to Sajjan Singh with their lathis. 1). He further states that Hawa Singh and Vikram Singh caught hold of him (PW. 1 Mool Singh) and Sher Singh gave him a blow with iron kussa on the head of deceased and Banwari gave him blow on his hand. Mohar Singh and Mangilal gave blow to Sajjan Singh with their lathis. As said earlier, against Mangilal even the charge-sheet has not been filed and Mohar Singhs participation has not been held even by the learned Sessions Judge and he has been acquitted. He also states that only two accused-persons namely Banwari accused No. 1 and Sher Singh accused No 2 along with others namely Mohar Singh and Mangi Lal had caused injuries to Sajjan Singh. He does not state that anybody-else had caused injuries to him. As per his statement once Sajjan Singh released himself from these persons and ran away for his life, it was four above named persons who chased him and caused injuries to him. After they had killed Sajjan Singh, they came to him (PW. 1 Mool Singh).Now a look at post-mortem report of Sajjan Singh at this stage is necessary. External injuries received by deceased Sajjan Singh have already been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment and it has been said that though their number is 17, but they are 16 only as there is no injury at No. 10. A look at the injuries of Sajjan Singh deceased will show that there were three lacerated wounds. There are other injuries also by blunt weapon. It will also appear from a perusal of the injuries of Sajjan Singh deceased that there are multiple abrasions with brushes all over the back, more on the left side, varying from 10" x 1" to 4" x 1", numbering about 15 to 20. There are also bruises and multiple abraison on left thigh. Therefore, the nature of injuries suggests that two accused, one armed with iron kussa and the other by sword could not have cause these injuries and presence of multiple abraisons and bruises over the left side of back shows that deceased might have been dragged for some distance and the occurrence did not possibly took place as alleged by PW. 1 so far as beating to deceased Sajjan Singh is concerned. A look at the site plan Ex. P/26 which has been proved by Mukand Singh PW. 1 so far as beating to deceased Sajjan Singh is concerned. A look at the site plan Ex. P/26 which has been proved by Mukand Singh PW. 21 will show that at No. 2 the building of Nehru Bal Mandir under construction has been show and there was blood on the wall which was at a distance of 98 steps from the place where the dead body of Sujjan Singh was lying. It is not the statement of PW. 1 Mool Singh that the occurrence took place near the school building, more so, near the wall which was under construction. Therefore, we are of the opinion that PW. 1 Mool Singh had not witnessed the occurrence which had taken place with Sajjan Singh deceased. 20. We have already said that PW. 14 Bula Ram has been disbelieved by the Sessions Judge. We can say that part of the occurrence even with PW. 1 Mool Singh did not take place at the platform of the house of accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh as alleged by PW. 1 Mool Singh. It has come in the statement of Mool Singh PW. 1 that from the house of accused No. 3 in the jeep he was taken and was left on the railway lines in an injured condition so that he may be run over by the running train and the cause of his death may not be known. It has come in his statement that at about 11 p.m. it had so happened. He also states that when he raised alarm people came to him and that police arrived and he was taken to the hospital, where he was admitted at about 1.30 a m. in the night. He further states that four persons namely two accused, Banwari accused No. 1 and Sher Singh accused No. 2 and Mohar Singh and Mangilal, as said earlier even against one Mangilal charge-sheet was not filed and Mohar Singh was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, after having killed Sajjan Singh came near him and all those four persons, had beaten him and as stated by him Banwari accused was armed with sword and Sher Singh was armed with iron kussa and Mohar Singh and Mangilal were armed with lathis. He states that accused No. 3 was sitting in the jeep and he enquired as to whether they have killed Sajjan Singh and the answer was in the affirmative. He then said that Mool Singh should be killed. Shishupal Singh accused No. 3, remained in the jeep and accused No. 2 Sher Singh is said to have cut an artry of his right leg with iron kussa and Banwari gave a sword blow on his hand and others gave lathi blows. A jeep came from the side of Jhunjhunu and accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh said that Mool Singh (PW 1) may be put in the jeep and it was at about 11pm. He states that when he was put in the jeep, his blanket and `topi' had fallen. The accused persons kept the same in the jeep. We fail to understand if accused persons were in hurry seeing the jeep, they could have left him at the spot alongwith his blanket etc. and would have run away. At any rate, they could have kept him in the jeep and his blanket etc. would have fallen on the ground. There was no reason for them to have picked them and kept it in the jeep and got these articles recovered which may be evidence against the accused which is against the normal human conduct. As said earlier, he was found lying on the railway line which as said earlier was about 20 to 25 kms. and a look at the injury report of Mool Singh will show that he had as many as 13 injuries which too have been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. He had as many as 8 incised wounds of the dimension of 2 x 1/4" x 1/4" to 1/2" x ⅙ x ⅙". Therefore, the possibility of using more than one sharp edged weapon cannot be excluded. We are of the opinion that the possibility that deceased Sajjan Singh received injuries in one incident and PW. He had as many as 8 incised wounds of the dimension of 2 x 1/4" x 1/4" to 1/2" x ⅙ x ⅙". Therefore, the possibility of using more than one sharp edged weapon cannot be excluded. We are of the opinion that the possibility that deceased Sajjan Singh received injuries in one incident and PW. 1 Mool Singh received injuries in another incident cannot be ruled out & because we have already disbelieved the prosecution case so far as initiation of the prosecution story is concerned, i.e the accused appellants and accused No. 8 and there others had come to the house of Kamal Singh and they took PW 1 Mool Singh and deceased Sajjan Singh with them to the house of accused No. 3 Shishupal Singh it is not possible for us to hold that the incident in which the deceased Sajjan Singh died and PW1 Mool Singh received injuries was one and as said earlier the possibility that there were two separate incidents cannot be excluded. 21. Once we hold that the possibility that two incidents might have taken place cannot be excluded, the obvious conclusion will be that PW 1 Mool Singh atleast could not and did not witness the occurrence which had taken place with Sajjan Singh deceased. Assuming that incident in which the deceased Sajjan Singh died and PW 1 Mool Singh received injuries was one, the question will still be as to whether in this case on the testimony of sole eye-witness PW 1 conviction of any of the accused persons can be upheld? We will deal with the statement of PW 1 in detail to reach the conclusion as to whether he can be relied upon or not or as to whether he can be held to be credible witness or not and the conviction of any of the accused persons on his statement either in respect of having caused death of Sajjan Singh or having caused to him PW 1 can be upheld or not? Before we proceed to examine his statement it may be stated that there is sufficient material on record and the learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute that there was enmity in between the parties, PW 1 Mool Singh is the son of Dayala Ram who an accused in the case of murder of Rajendra Singh son of Mool Singh Thakur against whom he had also stated and the case was investigated and police did not place any reliance and even no charge-sheet was filed against him. Enmity is no doubt double edged weapon and the possibility that as a result of enmity some of the accused persons may be falsely implicated cannot be excluded and the other possibility that because of enmity the eccusence might have taken place cannot be excluded. 22. Learned Sessions Judge has framed points for determination and point No. 2 framed by him was as to whether the accused persons and others had formed unlawful assemly, the common object of which was to cause death of Sajjan Singh near the school play-ground and in prosecution of the common object death of Sajjan Singh was caused. Point No. 3 was framed by the learned Sessions Judge to the effect as to whether at the house of Shishupal Singh son of Laxman Singh accused No. 3, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly, the common object of which as to cause death of Mool Singh PW. 1 and in furtherance of that common object, they had caused injuries to him. A look at the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge will show that so far as point No. 2 is concerned, he has decided it in favour of the prosecution and against the accused but so far as point No. 3 is concerned after discussing the evidence in detail the learned Sessions Judge has said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any such unlawful assembly with the common object to cause death of Mool Singh was formed at the house of accused No. 3 and he has further said that there appears to be a reasonable possibility that PW. 1 Mool Singh has given an exaggerated version of the incident to involve Shishupal son of Ladu, accused No. 8 Kamal Singh who is son of Arjun Singh with whom PW. 2 had previous enmity. 1 Mool Singh has given an exaggerated version of the incident to involve Shishupal son of Ladu, accused No. 8 Kamal Singh who is son of Arjun Singh with whom PW. 2 had previous enmity. It can therefore be said that even the learned Sessions Judge has not placed reliance on that part of his statement, wherein he has stated that after the accused persons and others had caused death of Sajjan Singh deceased near the playground of the school, he was beaten and then taken to the house of accused No. 3 and there he was also beaten and from there he was taken to the railway lines, and was left there so that he may be run-over by a running train and the cause of his death may not be known. There are various reasons on which it can be said that PW. 1 Mool Singh is not a reliable witness and at any rate, it will not be reasonable that the participation of the accused persons on his statement either in the beating to Sajjan Singh deceased or to him, should be believed. The reasons are as under:- (i) The story that three accused-appellants, i.e., accused No. 1, 2 and 3, accused No. 8 alongwith Arjun Singh, Shishupal Singh son of Ladu Ram and Juhar Singh son of Hanuman came to the house of Kamal Singh and took away deceased Sajjan Singh and PW. 1 Mool Singh to arrive at a compromise to the house of accused No. 3, has already been disbelieved. (ii) Learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the statement of PW. 1 in so far as accused No. 8 Kamal Singh, Shishupal son of Ladu Ram, and Mohar Singh are concerned on the ground that their names were included in the story about the incident at the platform of the house of accused No. 3 by the witness put of previous enmity to involve them and the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the above accused persons and thereby found the case against them as false. (iii) The police did not file any charge-sheet against Mangilal who was named by PW. 1 as one of the persons who are alleged to have given lathi blows to Sajjan Singh deceased and also said to have given beating to him. (PW. 1 Mool Singh). (iii) The police did not file any charge-sheet against Mangilal who was named by PW. 1 as one of the persons who are alleged to have given lathi blows to Sajjan Singh deceased and also said to have given beating to him. (PW. 1 Mool Singh). (iv) He has stated that Banwari accused gave him one blow by sword but PW. 15 Dr. Rathore has clearly stated that injuries Nos. 9 to 13 were also incised wounds and reference to which has already been made in the earlier part of this judgment and they could not be the result of one blow and they are the result of different blows. (v) There was severe enmity between him and others on the side of the complainant party on one hand and the accused persons on the other. (vi) He does not disclose either the names of the accused persons or the fact that Sajjan Singh deceased was lying dead or injured near the school playground to Bagal Singh PW. 17 and Ranvir Singh (PW. 18), who are said to have arrived on hearing his alarm when he was lying near the railway track. (vii) He was taken to the hospital, Jhunjhunu and reached there at about 1.30 a.m. but there is no material that he disclosed either the names of his assailants or the fact that Sajjan Singh was lying near the playground in an injured condition or dead, rather he admits that he did not disclose the names if his assailants to the doctor or the fact that Sajjan Singh deceased has received injuries and he should be traced. (viii) If the incident would have been one in respect of death of deceased Sajjan Singh as well as injuries to Mool Singh PW. 1 and would have taken place near the playground as stated by PW. 1, PW. 1 Mool Singh would have been left there and there should not have been any question of his being taken away and left at the distance of about 20 to 25 Kms. near the railway track. (ix) He introduced Bula Ram (PW. 14) as a witness in respect of the incident outside the house at the platform of the accused No. 3 which part of the story has been disbelieved even by the learned Sessions Judge and has no sanctity for truth. near the railway track. (ix) He introduced Bula Ram (PW. 14) as a witness in respect of the incident outside the house at the platform of the accused No. 3 which part of the story has been disbelieved even by the learned Sessions Judge and has no sanctity for truth. (x) He admits that when the police arrived near the railway track he did not narrate the incident to the police nor the police enquired of him. (xi) According to him the jeep in which he was taken was having curtains, if so how could he see accused No. 3 sitting in the jeep and exorting others either to kill Sajjan Singh or giving beating to PW. 1 Mool Singh, moreso, it was a dark night being a night only one day before Diwali i.e. the night intervening October 30/31,1986. (xii) There are contradictions on material part in his statements recorded by the police and the court and when he was confronted with them, he could not explain the contradictions. 23. We have gone through the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for placing reliance on the statement of PW. 1, but the learned Sessions Judge has not approached the case in real perspective when the case depends on the evidence of sole eye-witness and we are of the opinion that after going through the statement of PW. 1 for the reasons stated earlier, it is not possible to hold that he is a witness who has any sanctity for truth and reliance cannot be placed on his statement. In our opinion, PW. 1 Mool Singh is such a witness on whom reliance should not be placed and it is a fit case where we would have liked to seek assurance from other evidence if available on record to seek corroboration of the statement of PW. 1, but no such evidence is available on record. We are therefore unable to place reliance on his statement. If the evidence of PW. 1 Mool Singh goes, which should go for the reasons stated above, there is no other evidence on record to connect any of the accused persons with the crime. *******