R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 7. 87 of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rat lam, passed in Sessions Trial No. 67/86, whereby the accused appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 302 and 460 of the I. P. C and accused-appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the I. P. C for having committed house breaking by night and murder of Kodar S Mangla on the intervening night of 15th and 16th January 86 at village Chhoti Beed. All the accused-appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under Section 302 and 302/34 I. P. C, in default of payment of fine R. I. for one year each and R. I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine R. I. for 6 months each under Section 460 of the I. P. C ( 2 ) THE brief history of the case is that accused appellant Nos. 1 and 3 (Badda and Radhu) are related to deceased Kodar Sb Mangla as sisterts son. Accused-appellant Punja is relation of other two accused-appellants. Deceased Kodar had no male issue. His only daughter who is married has also died. It is alleged that on the date of incident deceased Kodar and his wife (P. W. 2) Kalibai were sleeping inside the tapra. These accused appellants made forcible entry by breaking open the doors and the lock and assaulted deceased Kodar. Kalibai tried to intervene. She was also beaten. Kadar fell down and died almost on the spot. Accused persons took away the bullock and Rs. 500/- also. Kalibai raised alarm. P. W. 1 Badri came there, she narrated the story to him. Kalibai lodged FIR on the next day at about 8. 15 a. m. in Police Station Raoti, the same was taken down by P. W. 9, Sub-Inspector K. C. Sharma, vide Ex. P11. K. C. Sharma registered the case under Sections 302 and 460 I. P. C, visited the spot, prepared spot map and inquest report of the body of Kodar the same was sent for post mortem examination. He also seized stained and unstained earth from the spot. ( 3 ) P. W. 5 Dr. P11. K. C. Sharma registered the case under Sections 302 and 460 I. P. C, visited the spot, prepared spot map and inquest report of the body of Kodar the same was sent for post mortem examination. He also seized stained and unstained earth from the spot. ( 3 ) P. W. 5 Dr. B. L. Mangliya conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Kadar and found following injuries: (i) Incised wound 7 cms x 1. 5 cms x 3 cms on the forehead. It had cut the frontal bone. Edges were regular. (ii) Incised wound 10 cms x 1 cm x 2 cms on the left side of the head above the ear. Margins were regular. (iii) Incised wound 5 cms x 2 cms x 3 cms on and above the elbow joint. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature for causing death and were caused within 24 Hrs. from the time of examination. ( 4 ) THE accused Badda was questioned and he gave information about the axe vide Ex. P/2 and the same was seized vide Ex. P/s. One lathi was also seized at the instance of accused-appellant Radhu vide Ex. P/8. ( 5 ) KALIBAI was also examined. Dr. Mangliya found three injuries on her body vide Ex. P/is. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused-appellants was filed, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions in due course. Accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Badda asserted that his maternal uncle deceased Kodar has transferred land to him, which was objected to by Kalibai, who wanted to give the agricultural land and other property to her brothers son. He has examine one defence witness D. W. 1, Sukhlal Gwaliari, the scriber of document Ex. D/2. The Learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as above, hence this appeal. ( 6 ) THE contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that since deceased Kodar wanted to give his agricultural property to Badda, which was objected to by Kalibai, who wanted to give it to her brotherts son and, therefore, her brothers son Jivna (P. W. 3) Hurji and Babu had better motive of murder and accused had no motive of murder. It has also been submitted that, in fact, FIR was lodged by Hurji and Jivna and not by Kalibai and, therefore, her statement could not be corroborated from the FIR. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the presence of Chimney and the light was a subsequent in the case, because the incident happened in the night and assailant could not be identified. Lastly, it was contended that no investigation as to the forcible taking of bullock and money was made. That shows the weakness of the prosecution story. ( 7 ) WE were taken to the evidence. We would like to deal with the motive of murder in the last. While dealing with the defence document Ex. D/2, P. W. 2 Kalibai wife of deceased Kodar has stated that she was sleeping inside the tapra alongwith her husband Kodar. The three accused appellants forcibly entered the house by breaking open the lock put on the outer side by the door and inside the door and, thereafter, Radhu and Badda assaulted her husband. They forcibly took away the bullock, clothes and Rs. 500/ -. She raised alarm. After hearing the same Badri came on the spot. She, therefore, disclosed the story to him. She has further stated that she lodged the FIR in the Police Station Raoti. ( 8 ) THOUGH it is true that the conviction can be based on the single testimony of the witness if he or she, is wholly reliable and is not interested in any way. P. W. 2 Kalibai is wife of the deceased and thus, she is necessarily interested in the success of the prosecution and, therefore, it will have to be seen as to whether she is wholly reliable witness and if she is partly reliable witness, whether she has been corroborated from the evidence coming from independent sources. Prosecution has sought corroboration of Kalibai from the F. I. R. , but in the examination-in-chief itself she has stated in para-5 that two other persons i. e. , Jivna and Baboo had gone alongwith her for reporting the matter to the police, she remained outside. The thumb impression of those two witnesses was taken. Prosecution has sought corroboration of Kalibai from the F. I. R. , but in the examination-in-chief itself she has stated in para-5 that two other persons i. e. , Jivna and Baboo had gone alongwith her for reporting the matter to the police, she remained outside. The thumb impression of those two witnesses was taken. She, further, admitted during cross-examination in para 10 that, in fact, the matter was reported by Jivna and Baboo, though, after asking from her and she remained in the house where the dead body of her husband was lying. She, further, confirms that she remained in the house till the arrival of the police and till the body of her husband was removed by Police. P. W. 9 K. C. Sharma has admitted in para 11 of his statement that the report made by the informant was first taken into Rojnamcha; her thumb impression was not taken on that and, thereafter, the FIR was taken. Thus, the FIR produced in the Court does not appear to be First Information Report and the First Information Report in the case would be the entry No. 406 in Rojnamcha Sanha. This goes to show that firstly it is doubtful whether Kalibai has really given the first information to the police and secondly, because the information first in time has not been produced in the Court and, therefore, no corroboration can be sought from the document Ex. P/i. ( 9 ) THE nature and angle of injury found on the body of Kodar appears to have been caused while Kodar was lying. The frontal bone has cut by injury No. 1 and the 7 cms. long injury on the forehead itself is more probable if the person is lying. The similar is the position of Injury No. 2. From the statement of Kalibai it appears that accused persons have broken two locks, but the alleged broken locks have not been seized. Thus, this part of statement also, does not receive corroboration. Kalibai has stated about the theft of Rs. 500/- and bullock. No investigation has been made from that angle and there is neither recovery of bullock nor the money from either of the accused persons. From the evidence of Kalibai it is evident that the incident happened inside the Tapra. She claims to have identified in the light of Chimney. The site map, Ex. 500/- and bullock. No investigation has been made from that angle and there is neither recovery of bullock nor the money from either of the accused persons. From the evidence of Kalibai it is evident that the incident happened inside the Tapra. She claims to have identified in the light of Chimney. The site map, Ex. P. 6 prepared by the Police Officer does not show the placement of Chimni, though place indicated as No. 2 earthen Kothi has been shown and it has been shown that the money (Rs. 500/-) was kept in that. It can also be observed here that if the accused persons broken two locks i. e. , one put outside the door and other having been put inside the door. This must have taken sometime and caused sound which normally would have been sufficient for awaking Kodar and Kalibai. They could have raised alarm even prior to the assault, then there is discrepancy as to whether Kalibai was assaulted first or Kodar was assaulted first. At one places he says that she awoke after hearing the sound of strokes of assault on her husband and tried to intervene, thereafter, she was assaulted and at the other place she says that she awoke first tried to resist and was assaulted and, thereafter, her husband was assaulted. This discrepancy or inconsistency in the sequence of event may have gained no importance in other case, but in this case as Kalibai is the only witness and the possibility of identification has been challenged, therefore, sequence of events became important. ( 10 ) THE injuries found on the body of Kalibai are not very serious. She has admitted during cross- examination in para 20 that they were sleeping after putting the quilt up to the head by keeping the mouth and head covered. The quilt was also cut, but no such object has been seized by the Police. P. W. 1 Badri who has tried to corroborate Kalibai by stating that he came on the night after hearing alarm and Kalibai told him about the house trespass and assault by three accused- appellants. He has admitted in para 5 of his statement that these prosecution witnesses Jivna, Hirji and Babu are on one side and they wanted that deceased Kodar should not give land to Badda. He has admitted in para 5 of his statement that these prosecution witnesses Jivna, Hirji and Babu are on one side and they wanted that deceased Kodar should not give land to Badda. He has, further, admitted in that very para that because of the objection by Kalibai he has sold the land to accused Badda on a price of Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 11 ) THE execution of document Ex. D/2 has been denied by Kalibai, but the same stands proved from the statement of D. W. 1 Sukhlal Gwaliori. It bears the thumb impression of Kodar (deceased) and Kalibai as well. Looking to the statement of P. W. 1 Badri, it appears more probable that Kalibai did not like that the land be given to accused Badda, who is sisters son of deceased Kadar and it was for this reason that Kadar has executed deed of agreement. That document does not bear required non-judicial stamp and, therefore, it may not be sufficient to pass the title but the fact of agreement and the alleged transfer can always be shown in a criminal case like this. Once this document was executed by Kadar, there was no reason why Badda should commit murder of Kodar. Thus, in our opinion, the motive of murder of accused appellant Badda, is also lacking. The other party who was dissatisfied with he transfer in favour of Badda had a better motive in the case. ( 12 ) FROM the discussions above it is apparent that Kalibai is not wholly reliable witness. The corroborative evidence is also not reliable as she has not lodged the FIR. The only corroboration which comes forward is from the statement of Badri, who is also her relation. ( 13 ) THE possibility of the presence of light from Chimney (earthen lamp) is weak, as it was a winter night, they were sleeping with quilt over their heads and, therefore, keeping the earthen lamp burning does not appear to be proper. No earthen lamp has been seized nor a place where the earthen lamp was kept has been shown. This also goes to show that the light from Chimney is a subsequent addition in the case. ( 14 ) NON-SEIZURE of bullock and the money also weakens the case of the prosecution. No earthen lamp has been seized nor a place where the earthen lamp was kept has been shown. This also goes to show that the light from Chimney is a subsequent addition in the case. ( 14 ) NON-SEIZURE of bullock and the money also weakens the case of the prosecution. Since the matter was reported immediately and if the bullock was taken why it should not be seized from the possession of the accused persons or any of the accused. Thus, this part also appears to be exaggeration. These infirmities and trend of exaggeration makes the statement of Kalibai doubtful. It would be unsafe to sustain conviction on the basis of partly reliable solitary witness. ( 15 ) IN our opinion, therefore, the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved to the hilt and they, therefore, deserve to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The conviction and the order of sentence passed against the accused-appellants are set aside. They are on bail, their bail bonds are, therefore, discharged. Appeal allowed. .