Judgment Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The three appellants along with three others were put on trial on a charge under Sec.302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered Ramchandra Singh (deceased) in furtherence of common intention of all on the night of 28.7.89 in village Hariyabhir, P. S. Korha in the district of Katihar. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 31st May 1991 acquitted the other three but convicted the three appellants and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 2. On hearing a rumour that a person has been beheaded and killed in village Hariyabhir, S. D. entry No.680, dated 29.7.89 was recorded and sub-Inspector Sachidanand Choudhary (P. W.12) left Korha police station at 6. a. m. along with the officer-in-charge of the police station, namely Sudhir Kumar Singh. The Officer-in-charge recorded the fardbayan (Ext.5) of Anil Kumar Singh (P. W.9), son of the deceased at the P. O. village at 7 a. m. wherein he stated that on the previous night at about 8-8.30 p. m. while he was sitting in front of his house after taking meals, he heard the shouts of his father coming from the north-east. He ran alone in that direction and when he reached near the Banana field of Jagdish Prasad sinha, he saw in the flash light of torch that 10-12 persons were assaulting his father and his father was making efforts to free himself. Among them he identified Bangali singh A-1, Kapildeo Singh A-2 and karn Singh A-3. After assaulting his father they threw him on the ground and A-3 severed his neck by a sword like weapon. The informant who was taken aback ran to his house raising alarm and narrated the occurrence to his mother. On his hulla the villagers went to the Banana field and found the headless body of his father lying there. Despite best efforts the head could not be traced out. The motive for the occurrence mentioned in the fardbeyan is land dispute between the deceased and the three appellants. The deceased had executed some registered sale deed in favour of the appellants which he was getting cancelled on account of their not paying the consideration money. The three other persons (since acquitted) were also named in the fardbeyan as suspects. 3. The deceased had executed some registered sale deed in favour of the appellants which he was getting cancelled on account of their not paying the consideration money. The three other persons (since acquitted) were also named in the fardbeyan as suspects. 3. The Officer-in-charge in presence of P. W.12 held the inquest on the body of the deceased vide inquest report (Ext.6) and after preparing the dead body chalan sent it to Purnea for post-mortem examination. The Officer-in-charge then handed over charge of investigation to P. W.12 and on return to the police station drew the formal F. I. R. (Ext.7), P. W.12 inspected the P. O. , recorded the statements of the witnesses, received the post-mortem report of the deceased and thereafter handed over the investigation to the officer-in-charge and in course of time charge-sheet under Secs.302/34, i. P. C. was filed against all the six accused, persons including the three appellants. In course of trial as many as 12 witnesses were produced for the prosecution including the informant (P. W.9) who happened to be the solitary eye-witness of the occurrence. The defence case was of false implication on account of enmity with the appellants who were all full brothers. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence plea and after holding the prosecution case as proved, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner already indicated above. 4. Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants assailed their conviction on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge had completely misdirected himself by basing the conviction of the appellants on the solitary testimony of a partisan witness namely the informant (P. W.9)when his testimony was full of inconsistencies and improbabilities. The informant is the son of the deceased and enmity between the parties is admitted. All the three appellants are sons of Bahadur Singh. The informant himself admitted that the appellants had purchased lands from his father in the name of their mother surti Devi, w. o. Bahadur Singh and had not paid the consideration money after the registration of the documents. The sale deed was got cancelled on that account and appellants were, therefore, annoyed on that score. The informant has given further details about the dispute. The sale deed was got cancelled on that account and appellants were, therefore, annoyed on that score. The informant has given further details about the dispute. The appellants had got the land mutated in their favour by the Circle Officer and when a petition filed by his father before the C. O. for cancellation of the mutation was rejected his father had filed an appeal before the d. C. L. R. which was allowed. Though the appellants sought to give their own side of the story in the matter of dispute with regard to the sale, the fact remains that land dispute between the parties is more or less admitted. As rightly observed by the court below enmity is a double-edged weapon and if it can be a motive for commission of the occurrence, it can also be a motive for false implication. 5. The admitted position in law is that the evidence of a solitary eye witness who is inimical with the accused and vitally interested in the fate of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved on that ground alone. All that is required is that the evidence of such a witness should be strictly scrutinised before it is accepted as reliable and trustworthy. P. W.9 claims to be present in front of his house when he heard the shouts of his father coming from the northeast. He then went towards the direction from which the shouts were coming and saw the alleged occurrence in the Banana field of Jagdish prasad Singh. According to I. O. (P. W.12)who inspected the P. O. , the P. O. is a pagdandi in between the two banana fields. The Aari runs east to west and the house of the informant is at a distance of 300 yards from the P. O. If P. W.9 is to be believed the came back to his house after witnessing the occurrence and narrated the occurrence to his mother. Phool Kumari Devi, mother of the informant and w/o deceased was examined as P. W 8 and the prosecution for reasons best known to them tendered her for cross-examination. If the informant had narrated the occurrence immediately on return from the P. O. to his mother, his mother would have been the best witness to prove that the informant had named the appellants as the assailants of her husband. If the informant had narrated the occurrence immediately on return from the P. O. to his mother, his mother would have been the best witness to prove that the informant had named the appellants as the assailants of her husband. It is the definite case of the informant that on his hulla after he had narrated the occurrence to his mother that the villagers assembled and thereafter he again went to the Banana field along with the villagers. The story does not fit in with the description of the occurrence given by Binedeshwari Singh (P. W.4), the brother of the deceased. P. W.4 claims that he was at his house when he heard the alarm coming from the Banana field and when he went there he saw the informant raising alarm who named the three appellants as the assailants of his father. P. W.4 does not say one word that he came to the house of the informant and thereupon went to the p. O. along with the informant and other villagers. On the other villagers. On the other hand his specific statement jn the cross-examination was that he met the informant near the bamboo clumps by the side of the Banana field. The statement of P. W.4 that when he reached there he found the informant alone also does not fit in with the narration of the events given by the informant himself. Though P. W.4 claimed that his house was at a distance of only 100 steps from the house of the informant, the informant stated that it was some 200 yards south-west. Since the Banana field was quite at a distance towards the north-east of the house of the informant, P. W.4 was required to cover a very long distance before reaching the P. O. field as claimed by him. Hence the claim of P. W.4 that he happened to reach the P. O. while the informant was present there raising hulla cannot be accepted as worthy of credence. 6. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the occular evidence or the informant was inconsistent with the medical evidence on the record. According to the informant a scuffle was taking place in between his father and some 10-12 persons. 6. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the occular evidence or the informant was inconsistent with the medical evidence on the record. According to the informant a scuffle was taking place in between his father and some 10-12 persons. His definite case was that when he along with the villagers returned to the P. O. the dead body was not found there, and it was located at a place some 10 yards away to which place the body had been dragged. It was argued that if the description of the occurrence given by the informant was true some injuries on the body of the deceased besides severing of the neck could have been found. Dr. R. D. Raman (P. W.11) the then Civil Assistant surgeon of Purnea Sadar Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 29.7.89 and prepared the post-mortem report (Ext.4) found the upper part of the body chopped off from the neck with the head missing. The injuries noted by him were ail in respect of severing of the neck by sharp-cutting weapon like sword, hasua, etc. His definite opinion was that he found no external injury on the rest part of the body. It was pointed out that it is highly improbable that the deceased after having a scuffle with 10-12 persons and on being dragged to a distance would not have sustained any external injury on any part of his body. It was also pointed out that according to the Doctor performing the autopsy the neck had been severed not by a single blow but by several strokes by sharp cutting weapons. This was described to be wholly inconsistent with the evidence of the informant which suggested by necessary implication that a-3 had severed the neck of the deceased by one stroke. 7. According to the prosecution case the fardbeyan (Ext.5) was recorded at 7 a. m. on the morning following the occurrence at the P. O. village itself. The informant (P. W.9)also stated in his evidence that the daroga came in the morning and recorded his statement and he had put his signature thereon after its contents were read over to him. Surprisingly the informant had earlier stated that on the advice of the mukhiya he had gone to, the police station at about midnight. The informant (P. W.9)also stated in his evidence that the daroga came in the morning and recorded his statement and he had put his signature thereon after its contents were read over to him. Surprisingly the informant had earlier stated that on the advice of the mukhiya he had gone to, the police station at about midnight. In the cross-examination he re-affirmed the earlier statement saying that he had met the Daroga and he had given a full account of the occurrence to him. After conceding that the Daroga had recorded his statement he immediately resiled from the statement stating that he did not record it and simply made enquiries. What is significant is that according to the informant he had not gone to the police station alone. The Sarpanch abdul Khalid and one Dhiru Narain mehta, brother of the Mukhiya, were also present there. The S. D. entry no.680 dated 29.7.89 of the police station which is referred to in the evidence of the I. O. (P. W.12) was marked as Ext. A in the evidence of the solitary defence witness, namely sheo Prasad Singh examined in this case. It is not disputed that no information was given to the police station by any one including the informant giving a detailed description of the occurrence together with the names of the assailants. The court below had tried to explain the discrepancy by describing the statements of the informant that he had visited the police station during the night of the occurrence to be the result of some confusion on his part. The informant was a young man of 25 years of age and the details given by him in the cross-examination regarding his visit to the P. O. and describing the details of the occurrence to the Daroga there cannot be explained by the aforesaid theory of confusion on his part. The statements made by the informant in the cross-examination regarding his visit to the police station strongly suggests that the informant was trying to conceal the true version of the occurrence and that creates serious doubts about his veracity. According to the prosecution case the occurrence took place at about 8.30 p. m. and the. P. O. village was only at a distance of 8 kms. from the police station. According to the prosecution case the occurrence took place at about 8.30 p. m. and the. P. O. village was only at a distance of 8 kms. from the police station. Since the informant had identified the three appellants in the act of committing the murder there is no good reason that an informant regarding the occurrence could not have been lodged at the P. S. and the police officers of the police station could visit the village only in the following morning and that also acting on a rumour that some one had been killed in the village. 8. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of the local Mukhiya (P. W.7) that the informant had informed him about the occurrence and had named the assailants cannot be relied upon so as to corroborate the testimony of the informant. According to P. W.7, anil Singh (P. W.9), Bindeshwari singh (P. W.4) came along with some persons to him at about 9.30-10 p. m. and told him that the three appellants had severed the neck of the father of the informant. P. W.7 did not state that the informant narrated the occurrence to him mentioning its details or even the fact hat it was A-3 Karn Singh who had severed the neck of the deceased. The evidence of P. W.7 even if relied on is not such as to afford any corroboration to the claim of P. W.9 that he witnessed the occurrence. 9. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Anil Phukan V/s. State of Assam, A. I. R.1993 S. C.1462 wherein it was observed to quote: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. . . Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. . . . . . . . . " In the instant case the testimony of the solitary eye-witness (P. W.9), s/o the deceased, who was on inimical terms with the appellants from before on account of the land dispute is inconsistent with the medical evidence and is otherwise also full of infirmities and improbabilities including the manner in which the F. I. R. was lodged. In the circumstances the testimony of P. W.9 cannot be considered reliable, it is true that on the evidence adduced the deceased had been proved to have been killed. However, for that reason alone the appellants cannot be held guilty of the murder when the testimony of p. W 9 was far from reliable. The learned Sessions Judge was thus clearly in error in convicting the appellants on the sole testimony of the informant. The conviction and sentences of the appellants cannot, therefore, be sustained and are set aside. 10 In the result this appeal is allowed. Bail bonds of appellant Nos.1 and 2 stand discharged. Appellant no.3 is ordered to be set at liberty at once unless required to be detained in connection with some other case. Appeal allowed.