Judgment JAIN, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Jai Singh against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated18-3-1985 whereby the accused appellant Jai Singh has been convicted under S. 302, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months R. I. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that one Durg Singh son of a sister-in-law of Jethu Singh was living with Jethu Singh since long as he had no male issue due to which brother of Jethu Singh and his nephews were unhappy. They were claiming their right over the property of Jethu Singh, which had given rise to several quarrels between Jai Singh s/o Bhop Singh and Jethu Singh. It is alleged that on the date of incident, in the evening Jai Singh demanded Rs. 500, - from Jethu Singh and his wife. On refusal Jai Singh called bad name to them and at that time he was having a knife with him. Thereafter, it is alleged that in the night when Durg Singh and Jethu Singh were sleeping at Bera to keep Watch on the crop, animals and well, the accused Jai Singh inflicted blows on the face of Durg Singh in the midnight. It is also alleged that on hearing the groaning of Durg Singh, Jethu Singh woke up and saw Jai Singh inflicting injuries on the deceased Durg Singh. The accused Jai Singh after inflicting blows fled away towards his Dhani. Jethu Singh went his home and narrated whole story to his wife Ugam Kanwar who went to inform Pratap Singh, the first informant and Jethu Singh went to Guman Singh They reached the place of occurrence along with these witnesses. The witnesses saw that Durg Singh was lying dead on the cot and his face was bleeding profusely. Nearby another cot on which Jethu Singh slept was also lying, Mangal Singh, Bhop Singh, Himmat Singh and the wife of Bhop Singh reached the place of occurrence and Jethu Singh narrated whole incident to them. In the morning Mangal Singh, Bhop Singh and Himmat Singh etc. followed the foot prints of accused of going and coming. It is further alleged that to swallow up the property of Jethu Singh, accused Jai Singh has murdered Durg Singh. In the morning Mangal Singh, Bhop Singh and Himmat Singh etc. followed the foot prints of accused of going and coming. It is further alleged that to swallow up the property of Jethu Singh, accused Jai Singh has murdered Durg Singh. A written report was submitted to this effect by the witness P. W. 3 Pratap Singh. The police registered a case under S. 302, IPC and started investigation. After inspecting the site, site plan and description memo of dead body were prepared. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The accused Jai Singh was arrested on 1-9-1983 vidc Ex. P-8. Blood stained shirt of the accused was sealed. On the information of the accused and at his instance blood stained lathi and knife were recovered vide Ex P-7 and sent for chemical examination. After investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under S. 302, IPC before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, who committed it to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge aginst the accused under S. 302, IPC, on 14-11-1983. The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution has produced nine witnesses and 13 documents. The accused in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. has denied the recovery of shirt and knife. He has also denied that they were stained with blood. He has also stated that a false case has been fabricated as there exists rivalry between him and Jethu Singh for land. In the defence the accused produced D. W. I (Guman Singh. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the material on record and after concluding the trial has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Jai Singh as stated above. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the accused Jai Singh has filed this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused has been wrongly convicted on the basis of false story. He has submitted that Jethu Singh has been falsely produced by the prosecution as an eye-witness. He has also submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. ( 3 ) MR. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused has been wrongly convicted on the basis of false story. He has submitted that Jethu Singh has been falsely produced by the prosecution as an eye-witness. He has also submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. He has further submitted that there are two types of injuries, so the story of one accused is highly improbable and does not connect the accused with the commission of offence. Mr. Doongar Singh has also submitted that the recovery of lathi and knife is also doubtful, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused may be quashed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. He has also submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly relied on the statement of Jethu Singh, eye-witness and connect the accused with the murder, therefore, no interference is called for. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat also supported the judgment of the trial Court under appeal. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. ( 6 ) BEFORE examining the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be just to read the evidence of material witnesses. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 Jethu Singh, the sole eyewitness has stated that he has no male issue and for the last 10-12 years, Durg Singh has been residing with him, who was looking after his agricultural work due to which Bhop Singh, elder brother and his sons were angry with him. He has also stated that in the night after taking meal he along with Durg Singh went to padarala Well and slept over separate cots. He has further stated that after the mid-night he woke up after hearing the cries of Durg Singh and saw that Jai Singh was inflicting lathi blows on the thigh of Durg Singh. He has also stated that when Durg Singh tried to stand, the accused Jai Singh inflicted blows with a dagger hastily due to which Durg Singh could not speak. He has further stated that when Jai Singh fled away, he went to village and narrated whole story to his wife Ugam Kanuar. He has also stated that when Durg Singh tried to stand, the accused Jai Singh inflicted blows with a dagger hastily due to which Durg Singh could not speak. He has further stated that when Jai Singh fled away, he went to village and narrated whole story to his wife Ugam Kanuar. P. W. I has also stated that his wife went to call Pratap Singh and he went to call Guman Singh. Jethu Singh has stated that he along with Guman Singh and his wife with Pratap Singh reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Hanumant Singh, Madan Singh, Kapta Bheel villagers came there and they went in search of Jai Singh, whereas Pratap Singh was sent to report the matter to Thana. In his cross-examination he has admitted that there is animosity between him and Bhop Singh. He has also stated in his cross-examination that there is no dispute between him, Guman Singh and Pratap Singh. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 Pratap Singh has stated that Jethu Singh is my cousin brother. He has stated that it is not in his knowledge whether Bhop Singh objected staying of Durg Singh with Jethu Singh. He has also stated that Ugam Kanwar wife of Jethu Singh alone came to him and told that Durg Singh has been killed at bera. He has further stated that when he asked her that who has killed Durg Singh she disclosed different names including the name of Jai Singh. P. W. 3 has stated that he immediately went to bera accompanied by Guman Singh. He has also stated that some villagers also reached after them. He has further stated that Jethu Singh was also disclosing different names including the name of Jai Singh. Pratap Singh has also stated that he saw only one cot at the Bera, on which Durg Singh was lying dead. He has also stated that he mentioned Jai Singhs name as accused in the F. I. R. as per the version of Ugam Kanwar. According to him at that time, Mangal Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Himmat Singh, Rattan Singh and Kasura Bheel etc. also reached at Bera. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 Ugam Kanwar w/o P. W. 1 Jethu Singh has stated that her husband and nephew Durg Singh after having meal went to `padarala Bera to sleep in the evening. According to him at that time, Mangal Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Himmat Singh, Rattan Singh and Kasura Bheel etc. also reached at Bera. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 Ugam Kanwar w/o P. W. 1 Jethu Singh has stated that her husband and nephew Durg Singh after having meal went to `padarala Bera to sleep in the evening. She has stated that in the early morning her husband Jethu Singh came and narrated that the accused present in Court has killed Durg Singh at Bera by a dagger. She has also stated that she narrated whole incident to Pratap Singh, which was told to her by her husband. ( 10 ) THERE is no impediment in law in a conviction being based upon the testimony of a single witness provided his evidence is honest and trustworthy. However, while considering the evidence of a relation witness it casts a duty upon the Court to scrutinise the evidence with more than ordinary care. Keeping in view the settled position of law, we proceed to examine the testimony of eyewitness. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, according to the prosecution case P. W. 1 Jethu Singh is the only eye-witness and at the time of commission of the offence he was sleeping near the deceased on a separate cot and woke up after hearing the cries of the deceased. After committing the offence the accused Jai Singh ran away and this witness went to village and narrated whole story to his wife, P. W. 4 Ugam Kanwar. The prosecution case further is that P. W. 4 Ugam Kanwar thereafter narrated the incident to P. W. 3 Pratap Singh. P. W. 3 Pratap Singh, the first informant is a relative of the complainant as well as of the accused. He has categorically stated that when Ugam Kanwar came to him she was disclosing different names of the assailant including the name of the accused Jai Singh. P. W. 3 Pratap Singh has also stated that when he reached at bera, the place of occurrence there was only one cot on which the deceased Durg Singh was lying and no other cot was there. P. W. 3 Pratap Singh has also stated that when he reached at bera, the place of occurrence there was only one cot on which the deceased Durg Singh was lying and no other cot was there. Pratap Singh has further stated that in his presence at Bera, P. W. 1 Jethu Singh did not disclose that he saw Jai Singh killing Durg Singh, The statement of this witness raises a finger of doubt on the presence of eye-witness P. W. 1 Jethu Singh the place of occurrence firstly for the reason that the name of the assailant was specifically disclosed soon after the commission of offence before the villagers which goes to show that till then the identity of the accused was not known and secondly according to P. W. 3 Pratap Singh there was only one cot, which finds corroboration from the statement of defence witness D. W. 1 Guman Singh whose presence has been admitted even by the prosecution witness. On the contrary D. W. 1 Guman Singh has stated that foot marks were not present at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that there is a dispute between Pratap Singh and Bhop Singh, father of the accused, which has also been admitted by P. W. 3 Pratap Singh. Under these circumstances, the evidence of sole-eye-witness P. W. 1 Jethu Singh has failed to inspire confidence particularly when he had not sustained any injury. Had he been an eye-witness, the real culprit would not have spared him. Moreso, no independent witness has been examined though presence of more than one villagers viz. Hanumant Singh, Ratan Singh, Kapta Bheel have been admitted by the prosectuion witnesses but none of them has been produced to falsify the statements of P. W. 3 Pratap Singh and D. W. 1 Guman Singh and to support the prosecution case. Thus, it creates doubt on the prosecution case. ( 12 ) IT was next contended that looking to the nature of injuries there must be at least two accused in this case. ( 13 ) P. W. 2 Dr. Raj Singh has held the post-mortem and found as many as 8 injuries on the dead body of the deceased Durg Singh. The Doctor has also found compound fracture of upper margine of sup. ortidal possa etc. ( 13 ) P. W. 2 Dr. Raj Singh has held the post-mortem and found as many as 8 injuries on the dead body of the deceased Durg Singh. The Doctor has also found compound fracture of upper margine of sup. ortidal possa etc. According to P. W. 2 Raj Singh the cause of death of deceased Durg Singh was due to shock as a result of haemorrhage from multiple injuries on forehead, face and compound fracture of frontal bone of skull and mendelite. From the medical evidence, it is clear that whosoever had inflicted these injuries definitely had the intention to cause the death of the victim. Though it is also not uncommon that villagers keep lathi and knife with them but looking to the nature of injuries and under the facts that (sic) (and) circumstances of this case the possibility that there were more than one assailant cannot be ruled out particularly when the evidence of solitary eye-witness has failed to inspire confidence. It is pertinent to note that Doctor in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased died after one hour after receiving injuries. He has also opined that after having received injuries the deceased could have spoke but the eye-witness has not uttered a word that he tried to take the deceased to hospital or asked anything more particularly when he was sleeping there on another cot and witnessing the incident. Therefore, we find that the learned trial Court has not considered the intrinsic quality of the evidence of P. W. 1 Jethu Singh, the eyewitness. It failed to notice certain broad facts which should definitely weigh with the Court while appreciating ocular testimony. In view of the medical evidence, it creates doubt on prosecution case as stated above. ( 14 ) SO far as the alleged recovery of weapons from the accused vide Ex. P7 is concerned, the prosecution case is that Art. 1, the dagger and Art. 2 Lathi, both were used in the commission of offence by the accused. These articles were shown to the Doctor P. W. 2 Raj Singh and he has opined that the injuries Nos. 1 to 4 could be inflicted by Art. 1 dagger and 5 to 8 could be inflicted by lathi. On chemical examination dagger was found to be stained with o Blood Group which has also found on baniyan and gudari of the deceased. 1 to 4 could be inflicted by Art. 1 dagger and 5 to 8 could be inflicted by lathi. On chemical examination dagger was found to be stained with o Blood Group which has also found on baniyan and gudari of the deceased. However, the blood group of the blood stains on the lathi could not be ascertained. These circumstances could be significant to connect the accused with the commission of the offence but in the instant case the witnesses in whose presence these blood stained articles have been recovered has not, supported the prosecution case. ( 15 ) P. W. 5 Hadmat Singh has stated that in his presence neither any arm has been got recovered from the accused nor he witnessed the recovery proceedings. In his cross-examination he has denied the preparation of Ex. P-7 in his presence and according to him, it was not read to him, rather he has stated that his thumb impression was taken on a blank paper on the pretext that an accused has been arrested. He has categorically stated that the accused is not his relative. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. ( 16 ) P. W. 6 Jai Singh s/o Chough Singh has stated that he does not know the accused Jai Singh. He has stated that on the Sebri-Bheenmal road from the bushes near an electric pole the accused did not get recovered anything, in his presence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that 15 months before when he along with Hadmat Singh were coming from Dumbariya village, then the police personnel took their thumb impression in `chowki. He has also stated in the Ex. P-7 that it is wrongly mentioned that blood stained lakri and dagger were brought out by the accused by digging a hole. He has also stated that he is not a relative of the accused. ( 17 ) THE prosecution has not been able to establish the circumstances of recovery of blood stained weapon against the accused as blood group of accused was also required to be taken but that was not taken and got examined. Even blood group of the stains on lathi could not-be examined. ( 17 ) THE prosecution has not been able to establish the circumstances of recovery of blood stained weapon against the accused as blood group of accused was also required to be taken but that was not taken and got examined. Even blood group of the stains on lathi could not-be examined. Under these circumstances, when the articles have been recovered from an open place and the witnesses in whose presence they have been recovered turned hostile, furthermore the blood group has also not been got examined, we are of the opinion, that the alleged recovery of these article have become suspicious. ( 18 ) AS regards the recovery of blood stained shirt from the accused, the prosecution case is that on chemical examination it was found to be stained with human blood. It is not disputed that human blood was found upon accuseds clothes when he was arrested. This circumstance may be taken into consideration in determining guilt of thc accused in a murder case but it cannot be regarded as a conclusive piece of evidence. Of course, it is a piece of evidence, but it is impossible to say that mere discovery of a blood stained shirt is enough to justify a conviction for murder particularly when there is no other evidence. Even the prosecution has not produced any motbir proving the recovery of blood stained shirt, and arrest of the accused, that too when there was specific denial by the accused that any shirt having blood stains was recovered from him. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution cannot take any advantage out of the above circumstances as there are serious infirmities which creates recovery of blood stained shirt doubtful and does not complete the chain. ( 19 ) AS discussed above, the prosecution has not been able to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant under S. 302, 1-P-C- Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside and the conviction passed against the accused Jai Singh deserves to be quashed. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the accused under S. 302, I. P. C. is quashed. Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside and the conviction passed against the accused Jai Singh deserves to be quashed. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the accused under S. 302, I. P. C. is quashed. The accused-appellant Jai Singh s/o Bhop Singh is in jail, he shall be released forthwith it not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.