Honble CHOPRA, J. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 4.8.1994 passed in Sessions case No.l of 1994 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants Ajit Bhanu Singh, Poona Ram, Mohan Lal and Mohabat Singh of the offence under s. 302/34 and has sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. However, the accused Mahaveersingh has been acquitted of the offence under s. 302/34 and against his acquittal, the State has filed Appeal No. 459 of 1994 and accused appellants Ajit Bhanu Singh, Poona Ram, Mohan Lal and Mohabat Singh have filed Appeal No. 74 of 1994 against their conviction. (2). The facts necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are : that on 18.9.1986, one Pataram son of Jethaji resident of Chamunderi lodged a written report in Police Station, Nana that he is serving at the house and well of Shri Amarsingh Meena, Sarpanch of village Chamunderi. On that day, at about 7 A.M., he started from his house on his motor cycle towards Sumerpur and Lundara well but when he did not return to his house till 9 PM, his mother asked him and one Gamanaram son of Hakaram by caste Saragara to go in search of him towards Lundara well. On this, they started on foot by the way which goes from railway station5 towards Lundara well and in the way, they found that he was lying dead and he has been killed. His Motor cycle was lying towards the southern side and his watch was lying with a broken stripe and his dead body was lying with his face towards earth. His head was towards south and his face was towards east. They noticed that injuries were inflicted on his head and other parts of the body and those injuries were bleeding. Blood was also oozing out of his mouth. According to the first informant, he has been killed at 7 PM but they do not know whether anybody has seen this incident or not but if somebody has seen the incident then they will disclose their names to the Police. Blood was also oozing out of his mouth. According to the first informant, he has been killed at 7 PM but they do not know whether anybody has seen this incident or not but if somebody has seen the incident then they will disclose their names to the Police. It was also disclosed in this written report that Sarpanch Amarsingh had some enmity with accused Ajit Bhanu Singh and Vikramsingh sons of Ramchandrasingh Rajput resident of Veerampur and Mahaveersingh Ranawat, a private Doctor of village Chamunderi, Jai Singh Rajput resident of Chimanpura, Sohansingh son of Dharamsingh Rajput resident of village Chamunderi and Laxmansingh Rajput etc. (3). On the basis of this report, a formal FIR was drawn and the site was inspected and site inspection memo was prepared. The inquest memo of dead body was prepared and that has been marked as Ex.P.5. The blood stained soil was recovered vide Memo Ex.P.6. The Motor-cycle was also recovered vide Memo Ex.P. 7. The Photographs of the dead body were taken and they have been marked as Ex.P.34 to Ex.P.37. The accused persons except Ajit Bhanu Singh were arrested. On the information of accused Mohanlal, one iron cap along with the burnt portion of a lathi was recovered vide Memo Ex.P.10 on 27.9.1986. Accused Mohabatsingh got recovered one lathi from his house vide Memo Ex.P.ll. Accused Poona Ram also got recovered one lathi vide Memo Ex.P. 16. The Panchnama Lash was also prepared and that has been marked as Ex.P.24. The clothes of the deceased were also recovered vide Memo Ex.P.25 on 19.9.1986. (4). Accused Ajit Bhanu Singh was arrested on 17.12.1986 vide Memo Ex.P.40. It is alleged that he gave information about the recovery of an axe on 20.12.1986 vide Memo Ex.P. 48 and on the basis of that information, one axe was recovered vide Memo Ex.P. 38. The site plan has been marked as Ex.P.39. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted from P.W. 30 Dr. Gopal Chand Gandhi. The postmortem report has been marked as Ex.P.41. The blood stained clothes were sent for chemical and serological examination and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.P.4. (5). After usual investigation, the case against the accused- person was challaned in the court of the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bali, from where, it was committed for trial to the court of the learned Addl. The blood stained clothes were sent for chemical and serological examination and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.P.4. (5). After usual investigation, the case against the accused- person was challaned in the court of the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bali, from where, it was committed for trial to the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, who framed a charge under s. 302 read with s. 120 B IPC against accused Mahaveersingh and all other accused-persons were charged with the offence under s. 302/34 IPC. The accused-persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial, whereupon, in support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 38 witnesses. The statements of the accused-persons were also recorded and they did not examine anybody in their defence. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Pali has convicted the accused-appellants Ajit Bhanu Singh, Poona Ram, Mohan Lal and Mohabatsingh of the offence under s. 302/34 IPC and has sentenced them as aforesaid. Against their conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, these ac-cused-appellants have filed Appeal No. 74 of 1994. However, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Mahaveersingh of the offence under s. 302 read with s. 120. B IPC and against his acquittal, the State has filed Appeal No. 459 of 1994. (6). We have heard M/s. M.M. Singhvi and S.R. Singhi, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Suresh Kumbhat and Mr. S.K. Mathur, Advocates for the accused-persons : Mr. K.L. Thakur, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s. P.N. Mohanani and Surendra Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant- party and have given our most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. (7). It is an admitted case of the parties that Amar Singh Meena, Sarpanch of village Chamunderi had been murdered and that fact stands amply proved by the testimony of P.W. 30 Dr. Gopal Chand Gandhi. His evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned Sessions Judge. P.W.30 Dr. Gopal Chand Gandhi has proved the postmortem report Ex.P.41 and has categorically stated that he found as many as 10 injuries on the person of the deceased out of which, one was a penetrating wound; three were sharp-weapon injuries; three were lacerated wound and the remaining three were blunt weapon injuries. P.W.30 Dr. Gopal Chand Gandhi has proved the postmortem report Ex.P.41 and has categorically stated that he found as many as 10 injuries on the person of the deceased out of which, one was a penetrating wound; three were sharp-weapon injuries; three were lacerated wound and the remaining three were blunt weapon injuries. Thus, it is cleat that more than 2-3 persons participated in the occurrence. (8). According to the Doctor, injury No..l, which was inflicted on the occipital parietal region, was by blunt weapon and it was of the size of 6" x 2 1/2" x 1 1/2" and it has caused fracture of the bones and depressed brain matter. It was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death individually and all other injuries cumulatively were also sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Thus, it is clear that death was homicidal and not accidental. (9). Now, we would examine as to whether these accused-persons have killed Sarpanch Amarsingh or not? As regards the factum of enmity existing between the deceased Sarpanch Amarsingh & party and the accused-persons & party is concerned, the prosecution has examined P.W.7 Gamanaram, P.W.10 Modaram, P.W.15 Mannaram, P.W. 34 Smt. Kamla, P.W. 35 Maganlal and P.W. 37 Devi Singh. All these witnesses have categorically stated that enmity was existing between these parties. Even in their statements under s. 313 Cr.P.C, the accused-persons have also admitted that on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this ease. Thus, so far as the existence of enmity between the parties is concerned, it is an admitted case of the parties and, therefore, we need not discuss evidence in detail regarding existence of enmity between the parties, which has been set up as a motive for the murder of deceased Amarsingh. (10). So far as hatching of conspiracy to the house of accused Mahaveersingh is concerned, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 Naviya, P.W.22 Sabir, and P.W. 35 Maganlal. P.W.22 Sabir and P.W. 35 Maghan Lal have been examined to prove that they were present at the Dispensary of Dr. Mahaveersingh to get the treatment of their children and at the moment, P.W. 2 Naviya came there probably with a bottle of wine in his bag. He straightaway went inside and come out after sometime. P.W.22 Sabir and P.W. 35 Maghan Lal have been examined to prove that they were present at the Dispensary of Dr. Mahaveersingh to get the treatment of their children and at the moment, P.W. 2 Naviya came there probably with a bottle of wine in his bag. He straightaway went inside and come out after sometime. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused Mahaveersingh along with all other accused persons Ajit Bhanu Singh, Poonaram, Mohanlal and Mohabatsingh came out of Mahaveer Singhs house and it is alleged that accused Mahaveersingh told them to go to the well of accused Mohanlal and he will join them there. (11). P.W. 2 Naviya was examined to prove that he went to the shop of P.W. 18 Otarmal to bring one half bottle of Kesar Kasturi wine and brought it and served to the accused-persons at the well of accused Mohanlal. P.W.2 Naviya has turned hostile. He has stated before the Court that he never went to bring half bottle of Kesar Kasturi wine from the shop of P.W. 18 Otarmal and did to serve it to the accused-persons at the well of accused Mohanlal. His evidence is fully supported by the testimony of P.W. 18 Otarmal who has stated that P.W. 2 Naviya never came to his shop to purchase half bottle of Kesar Kasturi wine and has not paid Rs. 30/- to him. Of course, P.W. 2 Naviya and P.W. 18 Otarmal, both have been declared hostile and they have been cross-examined and confronted with their earlier police statements but they have categorically stated that they never made such statements before the police. (12). Of course, the statement given to the police by a witness can be utilised only to contradict the witness and not to corroborate him but if his courts evidence is contrary to his earlier police statement then even on that score, as per the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat (1), his evidence becomes unreliable. Thus, on both these scores, the evidence of P.W. 2 Naviya and P. 18 Otarmal is of no consequence, so far as hatching of conspiracy at the house of accused Mahaveersingh is Concerned. P.W. 22 Sabir has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story about the hatching of conspiracy. (13). Thus, on both these scores, the evidence of P.W. 2 Naviya and P. 18 Otarmal is of no consequence, so far as hatching of conspiracy at the house of accused Mahaveersingh is Concerned. P.W. 22 Sabir has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story about the hatching of conspiracy. (13). To prove this fact, the prosecution has also examined P.W. 35 Maganlal, who is the real brother of P.W. 10 Modaram, an eye witness of the occurrence and one Narsa, whose shop is alleged to have been burnt by accused Mahaveersingh before about two years of the occurrence. P.W. 10 Modaram has been examined by the police on 27.9.1986 where as the occurrence has taken place on 18.9.1986. P.W.35 Maganlal has also been examined by the Police on 21.9.1986, i.e. after three days of the occurrence. In his statement before the Police, P.W. 35 Maganlal has stated that on 18.9.1986, he went to the Dispensary of accused Dr. Mahaveersingh for the treatment of his daughter because she had pain in her stomach. At that time, P.W. 22 Sabir was also there with his son. 2-3 ladies were also there. He has further stated that at that time, P.W. 2 Naviya came there with a cloth bag went inside the house of accused Mahaveersingh and came out after some-time. Thereafter, accused Mahaveersingh along with these accused-persons came out and told his companions to go to the well of accused Mohanlal and he will join them there. Thereafter, he showed his daughter to accused Mahaveersingh and he gave her two tablets. Thereafter, on the next day, he heard that Sarpanch Amarsingh has been killed. According to him, Sarpanch Amarsingh had enmity with accused Mahaveersingh because accused Mahaveersingh used to issue false and forged certificates. In his statement before the Court, P.W. 35 Maganlal has stated that although he went to the Dispensary of accused Mahaveersingh on 18.9. 1986 and 19.9.1986 but he did not disclose this fact that such a thing took place in his presence before 21.9.1986 and even on 21.9.1986, this fact was disclosed by him before the Police along. The conduct of this witness appears to be improbable and untrustworthy. P.W. 1 Pata Ram, who is the first informant, has categorically stated that P.W. 10 Modaram, Narsa and P.W. 35 Maganlal were the friends of Sarpanch Amarsingh and they were present at the time of his cremation. The conduct of this witness appears to be improbable and untrustworthy. P.W. 1 Pata Ram, who is the first informant, has categorically stated that P.W. 10 Modaram, Narsa and P.W. 35 Maganlal were the friends of Sarpanch Amarsingh and they were present at the time of his cremation. Sarpanch Amarsingh used to sit at the shop of P.W. 10 Modaram. He has further stated that these three persons were throughout present in village Chamunderi. It is true that P.W. 1 Pataram has been declared hostile but he was the servant of deceased Amarsingh, who has served him for about 10 long years. (14). P.W. 14| Bhoorsingh is another witness, who has been examined to prove that accused Mohanlal and Mohabatsingh came to his well and took away a lathi from him on the pretext that they have to kill a serpent, which has appeared at the well of accused Mohanlal. This witness too has stated that he was also suspected of being involved in the murder case of Sarpanch Amarsingh and Was kept in the Police station for about 5-7 days. According to him, P.W.10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal used to go to the police station daily along with P.W. 37 Devisingh, the young brother of deceased Amarsingh. P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh too has been declared hostile but he has supported the testimony of P.W,1 Pataram that P.W. 10 Modaram, P.W.35 Maganlal and Narsa were on friendly relations with deceased Amarsingh. (15). P.W. 16 Ummedsingh has not been declared hostile. He is a Motbir of Ex.P.3 to 7 and Ex.P. 24 to 26, which pertain to the site inspection memo and some recovery memos. He has stated that he and deceased Amarsingh both belong to the same caste and were on friendly relations. According to him, about 100 people participated in the cremation of Sarpanch Amarsingh. He has further stated that P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal and P.W. 22 Sabir, all participated in the cremation. He also went to the house of Amarsingh to pay his condolence 2-3 times during twelve days and on every occasion, he saw P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal there. He has further stated that P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal and P.W. 22 Sabir, all participated in the cremation. He also went to the house of Amarsingh to pay his condolence 2-3 times during twelve days and on every occasion, he saw P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal there. As stated above, this witness has not been declared hostile and is supporting the version that P.W. 10 Modaram, P.W. 35 Maganlal and Narsa were on friendly relations with Sarpanch Amarsingh and they were throughout at his house during his twelve days, and participated in his cremation. (16). P.W. 25 Kanaram is another Motbir of the aforesaid Memos. He also had very good relations with deceased Amarsingh and his brother Devisingh. According to him, P.W.10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal were present at the time when the police inspected the site and they also joined the cremation of Sarpanch Amarsingh. He has further stated that he went to pay his condolence at the house of Sarpanch Amarsingh 5-7 times during his twelve days and on all the occasions, he found them at his house. According to this witness, P.W. 10 Modaram, P.W. 35 Maganlal and deceased Sarpanch Amarsingh belong to the same group. He has stated that during twelve days of death of Sarpanch Amarsingh, P.W.10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal were serving the people who came there to pay their condolences. (17). P.W. 26 Daulatsingh is a photographer. He too has not been declared hostile. He has stated that P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal came to call him for taking photographs of the dead body of Sarpanch Amarsingh. According to him, they were throughout present when he took photographs. He stayed there for about one and half hours and all the time, they were there along with the police. (18). P.W. 15 Mannaram has also stated that P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal were on friendly relations with deceased Sarpanch Amarsingh. Thus, if P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal were so much interested in deceased Sarpanch Amarsingh, there was no reason for P.W. 35 Maganlal and for that matter, P.W. 10 Modaram to keep quiet for 3 to 9 days. As stated above, the incident took place on 18.9.1986 whereas P.W. 35 has been examined by the Police on 21.9.1986 whereas P.W. 10 Modaram has been examined by the Police on 27.9.1986. As stated above, the incident took place on 18.9.1986 whereas P.W. 35 has been examined by the Police on 21.9.1986 whereas P.W. 10 Modaram has been examined by the Police on 27.9.1986. P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal both have admitted that they had enmity with accused Mahaveersingh because before two years of this occurrence, accused Mahaveersingh had burnt the wooden cabin of Narsa and about that, they had lodged a report in the police and in that case, they have been examined as eye witnesses from the side of Narsa. Even accused Mahaveersingh himself lodged a case against Magna under ss. 107 and 151 IPC, of course, in the year 1987, i.e. not prior to this occurrence. Accused Mahaveersinghs brother Nathusingh has also filed a case of beating against Maganlal and in that case, Maganlal has been convicted under s. 325 IPC by the trial court. It is alleged by P.W. 35 Maganlal, that later on that matter was compromised. Thus, it is clear that a man who was so inimical with accused Mahaveersingh, could not have taken his daughter for treatment at the Dispensary of accused Dr. Mahaveersingh, against whom, he has been a witness in two criminal cases. Thus, it appears to be case wherein the behaviour of witness i.e. P.W. 35 Maganlal appears to be against normal human conduct. Under these circumstances, the testimony of P.W. 35 Maganlal that on the date of the occurrence, he went to the Dispensary of accused Mahaveersingh to show his daughter cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has also held that merely seeing accused-persons at the Dispensary of accused Mahaveersingh does not prove this fact that they hatched any conspiracy to kill Sarpanch Amarsingh because P.W. 35 Maganlal and P.W. 22 Sabir have not heard the talks which took place inside the house of accused Mahaveersingh and, therefore, on the basis of suspicion, it cannot be held that any conspiracy was hatched at the house of accused Mahaveersingh to kill Sarpanch Amarsingh. In this respect, reliance is placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. In this respect, reliance is placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (2), wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that it has not been disclosed as to why, these persons met, what they said and whether they held any deliberations at all to kill that person and, therefore, from this evidence the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected that testimony. (19). In this view of the matter, we are firmly of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is no conclusive proof on record that any conspiracy was hatched at the house of accused Mahaveersingh and, therefore, accused Mahaveersingh deserves the benefit of doubt and consequent, his acquittal. (20). Now, we take up the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as regards the participation of accused-appellants Ajit Bhanu Singh, Poonaram, Mohanlal and Mohabatsingh in the commission of murder of Sarpanch Amarsingh. (21). So far as the first link of this chain is concerned, it relates to the conspiracy hatched at the house of accused Mahaveersingh and that stands belied. It is no doubt true that P.W. 1 Pataram and P.W. 34 Smt. Kamla have stated that Sarpanch Amarsingh left his house at 7 AM on his motor cycle towards Sumerpur and Lundara well and he did not return till 9 PM. It is also true that P.W. 15 Mannaram has stated that Sarpanch Amarsingh met him at the forest chowki somewhere before 4 PM and P.W. 32 Sanklaram has stated that he met him at 4 PM and, therefore, the testimony of P.W.20 Mrs. Rukma that he did not come to take tea at his house looses all significance because upto 4 PM, he was seen alive by P.W.32 Sanklaram and he told him that he -will go to his house. (22). Be that as it may, it is alleged that after hatching of the conspiracy, that accused-persons went to the field of accused Mohanlal and, there, they enjoyed wine, which was brought by P.W. 2 Naviya. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined P.W. 6 Kalu, who, it is alleged, is the servant of accused Mohanlal. P.W. 6 Kalu has stated that he never served accused Mohanlal. He has further stated that although, he knows Dr. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined P.W. 6 Kalu, who, it is alleged, is the servant of accused Mohanlal. P.W. 6 Kalu has stated that he never served accused Mohanlal. He has further stated that although, he knows Dr. Mahaveersingh but he has not see them at the well of accused Mohanlal. This witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined with his earlier statements made before the Police but he has categorically stated that he did not give any such statement to the Police. (23). P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh has been examined to prove that accused Mohanlal and Mohabatsingh came to his well to take a Lathi from him because a serpent appeared at the well of accused Mohanlal. In his statement before the Court, P.W, 14 Bhoorsingh has not supported this contention and he too has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined with his earlier statements made before the police but he has categorically stated that he has not given any such statement before the Police. (24). The prosecution has further examined P.W. 12 Phoolaram to prove this fact that after enjoying the wine at the well, of accused Mohanlal, these accused persons were seen at a Pio, where P.W. 12 Phoolaram went to purchase an engine from accused Mohanlal. P.W. 12 Phoolaram has also turned hostile. He too is Meena by caste. According to him, this Pia€r is situated between Lundara and Lalpura. He has farther stated that he was not in need of any engine and he did not talk about it with accused Mohanlal. He knows all the accused-persons but he did not seen them sitting on the piano. He too has been declared hostile and he has stated that he has not given any such statement to the Police. Thus, this witness also does not support the case of the prosecution that these accused-persons were seen sitting at the piano. (25). P.W. 11 Mst. Ugam Kanwar has been examined to prove that these accused-persons were seen by her going on a bullock cart, near the well of accused Mohanlal. This witness has also been declared hostile. She has stated that she never saw these accused-persons. Thus, this witness too also does not support the case of the prosecution. (26). P.W. 11 Mst. Ugam Kanwar has been examined to prove that these accused-persons were seen by her going on a bullock cart, near the well of accused Mohanlal. This witness has also been declared hostile. She has stated that she never saw these accused-persons. Thus, this witness too also does not support the case of the prosecution. (26). P.W. 11 Mst. Ugma Kanwar has further stated that she did not see the dead body of Sarpanch Amarsingh lying on the way. She also did not see the motor cycle lying on the way. (27). P.W. 17 Heersingh has also been examined to prove that he saw Sarpanch Amarsingh going on a motor cycle from the side of Lundara towards Pioo. This witness has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has also been cross-examined with his earlier statement made before the police but he has stated that he has not given any such statement to the police. Thus, even the testimony of P.W. 7 Heersingh is of no consequence. (28). P.W. 23 Smt. Malu has been examined to prove that she saw Sarpanch Amarsingh going on a motor cycle, locally known as Phatphatiyan, while she was going to her parental house at Lundara. She has resiled from her police statement. She is supported by P.W. 24 Dhannaram that she never came to Lundara before four years. (29). Some other witnesses have also been examined to prove that Sarpanch Amarsingh was seen going on a motor cycle. P.W. 8 Soma, P.W. 9 Baga and P.W.31 Krishnabhai have categorically stated that they did not see Sarpanch Amarsingh on that day going on a motor cycle. They have also been declared hostile and have been cross- examined with their earlier statements made before the Police but they have no supported the prosecution case. (30). Now, we are left with the sole testimony of P.W. 10 Modaram, who has stated that he has seen the occurrence. According to him, on 18.9.1986, earlier he Went to his field and then he was going towards the railway station to receive his guests. On that day, between 4 to 5 PM, when he was on the way going from Lundara well to railway station, he saw that Sarpanch Amarsingh was standing on the way with his motor cycle and one bullock cart was also standing on the way. On that day, between 4 to 5 PM, when he was on the way going from Lundara well to railway station, he saw that Sarpanch Amarsingh was standing on the way with his motor cycle and one bullock cart was also standing on the way. Accused-appellants Ajit Bhanusingh, Mohabatsingh, Mohanlal and Poonaram encircled him. Accused Ajit Bhanusingh was armed with an axe and he struck a blow with his axe on the head of Sarpanch Amarsingh and, thereafter, accused Mohanlal also struck a blow with his lathi. Accused Poonaram and Mohabatsingh also inflicted injuries with their lathis. Seeing this, he became frightened and has hidden himself in the Garhi of his field. Thereafter, in the evening, he went to his house by the way of Kabristan (Burial ground). He did not tell about it to anybody. For about 6-7 days, he did not come out of his house because he was suffering from fever and dicentary. However, after the accused-persons were arrested, he went to the police and narrated the entire story. It may be stated here that his police statement was recorded on 27.9.1986 i.e. after about 8 days of the occurrence and in his police statement, this fact is absent that he was ill and out of fear, he did not approach the police. (31). In his cross-examination, P.W.10 Modaram has stated that this fact was brought to the notice of his wife by him but he did not tell it to the police, He has further stated that when the police recorded his statement, he did not bring this fact to the notice of the Police. We have already discussed the evidence of P.W.1 Pataram, P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh, P.W. 15 Mannaram, P.W.16 Ummedsingh and P.W.25 Kanaram. All of them have categorically stated that P.W. 10 Modaram was throughout present when the site was inspected and the investigation was done by the Police on 19.9.1986. He also attended the cremation of Sarpanch Amarsingh and it was he, who brought the phtotographer to take the photographs of the dead body and was also present at the house of Sarpanch Amarsingh during his twelve days and was serving the people coming to pay condolence visits. Even according to P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh, P.W. 10 Modaram visited the police station every day along with P.W. 27 Devisingh. Even according to P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh, P.W. 10 Modaram visited the police station every day along with P.W. 27 Devisingh. The house of Sarpanch Amarsingh is situated at about 100 paces away from the police station. The testimony of this witness viz., P.W. 10 Modaram has been implicitly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that the evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted and this is what has been held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in V. Thevar vs. State of Madras (3). (32). The learned Sessions Judge has also placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Shrishail Nageshi Pare vs. State of Maharashtra (4), wherein it has been held that the evidence of an eye witness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases, the Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot for instance be made to depend for its acceptance on the * truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons etc. at the instance of the accused by the police. (33). As stated above, in this case, it has been stated by the witnesses that Sarpanch Amarsingh, P.W.10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal were on friendly relations and they were inimical to the accused -persons and their party. It has also been stated by the witnesses that Sarpanch Amarsingh used to sit at the shop of P.W.10 Modaram and he allotted a piece of land in his favour and also granted a Patta thereof. The witnesses have further stated that P.W. 10 Modaram participated in the cremation of Sarpanch and was available at the house of Amarsingh during his twelve days. P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh has stated that P.W. 10 Modaram used to come to the police station. These witnesses have also stated that P.W.10 Modaram was available at the spot when the site was inspected by the Police and investigation was done by the Police on 19.9.1986. P.W.10 Modaram even went to call the photographer to take the photographs of the dead body of Sarpanch Amarsingh. These witnesses have also stated that P.W.10 Modaram was available at the spot when the site was inspected by the Police and investigation was done by the Police on 19.9.1986. P.W.10 Modaram even went to call the photographer to take the photographs of the dead body of Sarpanch Amarsingh. Thus, if such a person - who is so highly interested in the deceased and is inimical towards the ac-cused-persons, gets himself examined by the police after about 8 or 9 days of the occurrence, such a testimony of an interested witness becomes totally unreliable and unbelievable. He was not a natural witness. He could be there only per chance, and therefore, the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Lal vs. State of Maharashtra (5), has no application to the facts of the present case. P.W.10 Modaram is not a witness whose presence at the place of the occurrence was natural and, therefore, his examination by the police after 8 or 9 days of the occurrence can not be overlooked. (34). In Ananda Tangla vs. State (6), it has been observed that where a case is dependent on the testimony of a single witness proving circumstantial evidence, it is very much necessary to scan and scrutinise his testimony. Although it is not the principle of law that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a single witness yet it is well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that before convicting a person on the sole testimony of a witness, the Court must have implicit faith and reliance on his testimony. It has been further observed that where the single witness who was not an eye witness was interested, hostile to the accused, unreliable, not firm and discrepant, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted. (35). In Babuli vs. State of Orissa (7), it has been held that if the solitary eye witness is inimical against the accused persons and his behaviour is unusual and he has not disclosed the name of the assailant for 28 hours then his evidence is totally unreliable. A Division Bench of this Court in Shravan & Ors. vs. State of Raj. (8), has held that were presence of an eye witness on the scene of the incident is no guarantee that his description of the incident is true. A Division Bench of this Court in Shravan & Ors. vs. State of Raj. (8), has held that were presence of an eye witness on the scene of the incident is no guarantee that his description of the incident is true. It has been further held that if a witness keeps mum of 15 days and further admits in the court statement that he went to police station at the behest of two others then it will be treated that he is a concocted witness. (36). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Venkatesh & Ors. (9), have held that if a witness gives some information about the crime with some delay then that witness cannot be relied upon. (37). In this view of the matter, we are firmly of the view that the sole witness i.e. P.W. 10 Modaram cannot be said to be a reliable witness, on whose testimony, the conviction of the accused-persons can be sustained. As stated above, the prosecution witnessed have stated that P.W. 10 Modaram was present at the time when the police inspected the site and conducted usual investigation on 19.9.1986. They have further stated that he participated in the cremation of Sarpanch Amarsingh and he was available all the time during the twelve days of Sarpanch Amarsingh at his house and was serving the people coming to pay condolence visits. P.W. 14 Bhoorsingh has stated that P.W. 10 Modaram came to the police station daily. The prosecution witnesses have further stated that P.W. 10 Modaram and P.W. 35 Maganlal were on friendly relations with Sarpanch Amarsingh and these three persons were on inimical terms with the accused-persons. When P.W. 10 Modaram was available in the village and he did not disclose this fact to the police that he has seen the incident for about 8-9 days of the occurrence, it cannot be said that P.W. 10 Modaram is a reliable witness . (38). It has been contended by Mr. P.N. Mohanani, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-party that presence of P.W. 10 Modaram at the place of the occurrence was natural because at that time, he was going from Lundara we|l to railway station to fetch his guests and his evidence is fully supported by the medical testimony of P.W. 30 Dr. G.C. Gandhi and, therefore, his evidence is believable. G.C. Gandhi and, therefore, his evidence is believable. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in Gulshan Kumar vs. State (10). It may be stated here that this witness is not a natural witness. He has stated in his statement before the court that he went to his field to look-after the crop. It has also been stated by the prosecution witnesses that P.W. 10 Modaram has let out that field to one Kishore Singh. Thus, when he had let out that field to Kishore Singh, there was no occasion for him to go to his field to look after his crop. Thus, his version that he was going to the railway station to receive his guests appears to be afterthought and concocted. The fact that he kept mum for about 8 or 9 days of the occurrence and did not disclose this fact to anybody that he has keen the actual occurrence, though he attended the cremation and was available all the times during the twelve days of Sarpanch Amarsinghs death at his house and served the people coming to pay condolence visits clearly goes to show that he is a planted witness and implicit reliance on his testimony cannot and should not have been placed by the learned Sessions Judge. (39). Of course, it is an admitted case of the parties that after the accused-persons were arrested, certain recoveries were made at their behest but they were not found to be stained with human blood and, therefore, these crime weapons do not connect them with the commission of this crime. (40). In the result, criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1994 filed by accused-appellants Ajit Bhanusingh and others is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-appellants Ajit Bhanusingh, Poonaram, Mohan Lal and Mohabatsingh for the offence under s. 302/34 IPC are set aside. They are acquitted of the aforesaid offence. They be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other case. (41). The Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1994 filed by the State against accused Mahaveersingh has no force and it is hereby dismissed. (42). Let the result of this case be conveyed to the jail authorities for necessary compliance and the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower court forthwith.