Honble N.K. JAIN, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dt. 24.9.91 where he has convicted the accused-appellant Ajaib Singh u/s. 304-111.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months S.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.5.89 one Tilok Singh lodged an oral report at P.S. Pilibanga alleging that his mother Kartar Kaur who has expired firstly married with Bhagsingh and out of that wedlock one son Mohan Singh born. He also alleged that after the death of Bhagsingh, she got married with Mehga Singh and out of this wedlock he, Anokha Singh Santokh Singh, born. Anokha Singh and Santokh Singh are residing in Punjab whereas he and Mohan Singh are residing at Nandevali Dhani and their houses are adjacent. It was also alleged that for the last two-three days Anokha Singh had come to see him. On 13.5.89 at about 7.30 in the evening Anokha Singh came to his house in drunken state thereupon Mehgasingh selnked Anokha Singh for taking liquor. The deceased Mehga Singh called bad names to Mohan Singh for administering liquor to Anokha Singh due to which Mohan Singh and his sons Nayab Singh, Ajaib Singh and Gurnayab Singh got angry and came in the lane of their house and started abusing. It was further alleged that Ajaib Singh had a Gandasi with him and three others were having lathies with them. Thereupon father of the informant asked them why they are abusing whereupon Ajaib Singh with a view to kill his father inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of Mehga Singh due to which he fell down and the remaining three accused inflicted lathi blows on the person of the deceased and when he tried to rescue, Gurnayab Singh inflicted a lathi blow on his right Mothe. After hearing the noise Sher Singh and Darshan Singh reached on the spot and when they called accused persons they went to their home. Thereafter they took the injured to Goluwala Hospital and the injured was declared dead. On this report a case u/ss. 302, 324, 34 I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. The dead body of Mehga Singh was sent for post mortem examination and it was conducted vide Ex. P-16. Thereafter they took the injured to Goluwala Hospital and the injured was declared dead. On this report a case u/ss. 302, 324, 34 I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. The dead body of Mehga Singh was sent for post mortem examination and it was conducted vide Ex. P-16. Injury report of Tilok Singh was prepared vide Ex. P-15. One blood stained Chola was seized vide Ex. P-6. Site Plan (Ex. P-4) and Panchayatnama of the dead body vide Ex. P-3 were prepared. From the place of incident blood stained soil and normal soil was seized vide Ex. P-5 and the appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-22. The other accused persons were arrested and on the information Ex. P-25 of the accused appellant Gandasi was recovered vide Ex-P-10. The articles were sent for chemical examination and the FSL report was received vide Ek. P-27. The witnesses were examined. After completion of the usual investigation, achallan u/s. 302, 326, 323 and 349 I.P.C. was filed against the accused persons in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. The learned Magistrate committed them to the court of learned Sessions Judge, where agairs: the appellant Ajaib Singh, charge u/s. 302 I.P.C. was framed and against the other accused persons viz. Nayab Singh, Mohan Singh and Gurnayab Singh, charges u/s. 302 read with S. 341.P.C. were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not gujlty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W HDarshan Singh, P.W.2 Anokha Singh, P.W. 3 Tilok Singh, P.W.4 Sher Singh, P.W. 5 Dr. Vijay Kumar Shyamsukha, P.W. 6 Mohanlal H.C., P. W. 7 Kailash Chand, S.H.O., P.W. 8 Omprakash and also produced document Ex. 1 to Ex. P-27. The accused persons in their statements u/s. 313 denied committing of offence by them. Accused person Ajaib Singh stated that they have been falsely implicated as they were not present at the place of occurrence. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused Mohan Singh, Nayab Singh, and Gurnayab Singh of the offencre u/s. 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C. convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Ajaib Singh as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the accused Ajaib Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused Mohan Singh, Nayab Singh, and Gurnayab Singh of the offencre u/s. 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C. convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Ajaib Singh as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the accused Ajaib Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the sole testimony of Tilok Singh and on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He has placed reliance on Shard Birdhi-chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra(l) & Kabul @ Khudia v. State of Raj.(2). 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and submitted that the accused appellant has been rightly convicted. He has placed reliance on P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v/s S. Perumal(3). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully and the case law cited at Bar. 6. It is no doubt true that a person can be convicted even on the evidence of a sole testimony provided the evidence is of sterling worth, and the circumstances relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. But each case depends on the facts of its own. 7. In the instant case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the sole testimony of the eye witness and on the basis of circumstantial evidence convicted the accused appellant but acquitted the other three accused persons viz. Mohan Singh, Nayab Singh and Gurnayab Singh. 8. To deal with the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly relied on the sole testimony of injured Tilok Singh, it would be proper to read the relevant evidence of the complainant P.W. 3 Tilok Singh in brief, the solitary witness. P.W. 3 Tilok Singh has stated that when his brother Anokha Singh came to his house in a drunken state his father, the deceased Mehga Singh called bad names to to Mohan Singh stating that why he made Anokha Singh drink, thereupon Mohan Singh, Ajaib Singh, Gurnaib Singh and Nayab Singh also abused his father thereafter when his father stepped out side the house Ajaib Singh who had a Gandasi inflicted a blow on the head of his father Mehga Singh who fell down. He has stated that all the other accused persons inflicted injuries on his father with lathies and he had also received injury on his right shoulder. He has also stated that on hearing the uproar (Shor) Sher Singh and Darshan Singh reached the spot. According to him he along with these two aforesaid persons were the eye witnesses of the whole incident, whereas in his statement at one place he has stated that he came out side the house after hearing noise (Shor), and in his cross-examination he also stated that Sher Singh and Darshan Singh came after hearing uproar. He has admitted that quarrel took place in the street outside his house. Further he has stated that some more persons including Munshi Singh and Gurdita also reached the place of occurrence but they have not been produced as witness by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Tilok Singh has also stated that while he was taking his father to hospital, on the way his father narrated that who were the assailants but he has admitted that this fact was never disclosed by him either in his police statement or in the F.I.R. This witness has admitted that Mohan Singh and Gurnayab Singh had also received injury but could not explain thesame. 9. Now, it brings me to the second contention i.e. circumstantial evidence. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that nothing was put to the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding Gandshi and chemical seport and not produced article in court. On the other hand learned public prosecutor submits that the exhibit was put on them and chemical report was admitted. 10. It is no doubt trve that if any circumstance not put to the accused in his statement the prosecution cannot be permitted to rely and use that circumstance against him in order to convict. But at the same time if during trial once a document is properly admittek the contents of the document are also admitted though contents cannot be conclusive evidence. 11. In the instant case, I. O. in his statement has stated that he prepared Fard of recovery of Gandasi Ex.P-10 and chemical report was also exhibited and marked as Ex. But at the same time if during trial once a document is properly admittek the contents of the document are also admitted though contents cannot be conclusive evidence. 11. In the instant case, I. O. in his statement has stated that he prepared Fard of recovery of Gandasi Ex.P-10 and chemical report was also exhibited and marked as Ex. P-27, therefore, now it is not open to the appellant to object the admissibility of the document as the exhibits were marked without there being any objection from the appellant at relevant time. So far as the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the non-production of Gandasi in the Court, has prejudiced the appellant, has some substance. A perusal of the record shows that Gandasiwas recovered vide Ex. P-10 from an open place which had an access to all and from the place where it was recovered was without any gate, in the presence of motbirs Darshan Singh and Anokh Singh who denied the fact of recovery of Gandasi. It is also on record that the Gandasi so recovered was deposited in Malkhana on 25-5-89 but the same was sent for chemical examination on 19-7-89 after two months of its recovery as stated by P.W. 6 Mohanlal. No. explanation has been putforward by the prosecution in this regard as to why the same was sent for chemical examination after a period of two months. Furthermore, Gandasi was not brought in the court which is clear from the statement of P.W. 7 Kailash Chandra S H.O. who had admitted that the articles recovered by the police had not been placed before the court. Thus, this also creates doubt whether it was the same Gandasi used in the commission of offence or not. In view of this, the argument of learned Public Prosecutor that has not prejudiced the accused appellant in any manner is not sustainable and these infirmities which are serious in nature have crept in the investigation and creates doubt on the prosecution, and it does not complete the chain so as to exclude any hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. As discussed above, recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Gandasi and non-production of the same creates doubt on the prosecution and thus there remains testimony of sole eye-witness P.W.-3 Tilok Singh. As discussed above, recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Gandasi and non-production of the same creates doubt on the prosecution and thus there remains testimony of sole eye-witness P.W.-3 Tilok Singh. Though some part of the statement eye-witness has been disbelieved but merely on the basis of some minor discrepancies, the statement of solitary witness cannot be brushed aside and certainly the evidence of such witness is to be scrutinized with care and caution. In the instant case as discussed above the story put forward by the eye witness P.W.3 that he alongwith other two persons Sher Singh and Darshan Singh had seen the occurrence becomes suspicious from his own statement wherein he has himself stated that he reached the place of occurrence after hearing the uproar. Reliance cannot be placed on his testimony where he has stated that his father narrated as to who were the assailants but this witness has himself admitted that he did not disclose this fact in the F.I.R. and also in his police statement. That apart he could not explain the injuries received by the accused party which were admitted by him. Moreso, he is a highly interested witness and relative of the deceased. A perusal of his evidence as discussed above shows that he tried to modulate his evidence to suit him and the deliberate purpose to secure conviction, the learned trial court himself has not believed his testimony to some extent. He cannot be considered to be a reliable witness and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony and conviction cannot be upheld. Under these circumstances, it would not be safe to convict the accused appellant on the basis of evidence of P.W. 3 Tilok Singh as his testimony is not trustworthy and it cannot be made basis to convict the accused appellant u/s. 304-11 I.P.C. as staled above, more particularly when the prosecution has not been able to prove circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as stated above, to connect the accused appellant with the commission of offence. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by Ajaib Singh is allowed. The conviction of the appellant u/s. 304-11 I.P.C. is set aside. He is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.