S. Barman Roy, J.-- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.9.1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No.21 (WT/A) of 1984 convicting the sole appellant Abul Kalam " under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentencing him thereunder to suffer regorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case, in short, is that PW 16 Anil Das lodged an information to the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Sonarmura Police Station at Sonamura Primary Health Centre on 4.5.1982 at about 8.30 AM alleging, inter alia, that on that day in, the morning at 5.30 AM deceased being a co-villager of the informant told the informant that he would go to Sonamura and for that purpose he requested the informant to take him to Sonamura on a bicycle as Nurul Islam (since deceased) apprehended that the sons of Sovan Miah might kill him as the deceased and his brothers were accused in a murder case concerning murder of Joynul Abadin who is also son of said Sovan Miah. So, being requested by the deceased, informant accompanied the deceased on his bicycle and set out for Sonamura and when they reached in front of Chandibari (Kali Temple) at Srimantapur at about 5.45 AM, accused Ali Aswab came forward from the side of the grocery shop of one Akshoy Dutta and cried out 'arrived, arrived'. Seeing this, informant was trying to turn this bicycle towards the West but accused Ali Aswab inflicted injury upon the chest of the deceased. Immediately informant left the bicycle and caught hold of accused Ali Aswab from his back side. Deceased as well as the bicycle were lying on the road. Informant raised alarm .saying 'save, save'. Informant also saw the appellant Abul Kalam rushing with a dagger in his hand towards Nurul Islam and inflicting blows with the said dagger upon Nurul Islam (the deceased). Nurul Islam was then lying on the ground yet the appellant went on inflicting stabs upon the deceased. Accused Ali Aswab used abusive language and asked the appellant to inflict blows. At that time, other accused Ali Akbar caught hold or the informant from behind and Ali Aswab was saying to strike him. Then out of fear informant suddenly got rid of Ali Akbar and started running. The appellant and other two accuseds chased him towards the West. Accused Ali Aswab used abusive language and asked the appellant to inflict blows. At that time, other accused Ali Akbar caught hold or the informant from behind and Ali Aswab was saying to strike him. Then out of fear informant suddenly got rid of Ali Akbar and started running. The appellant and other two accuseds chased him towards the West. However, informant could reach Srimantapur Border Out Post and gave them information about the incident. Informant also stated that when the appellant and other accuseds were chasing the informant, PW 5 Akshoy Dutta saw it. However, the informant along with staff of the Border Out Post again came to the place of occurrence and found deceased lying on road with bleeding injuries on several parts of his body. At that time, deceased only once told him "Did you receive injuries on your person? Take me to the Hospital". After that he could not speak any more. Informant then with the help of the Border Security Force personnel lifted the deceased and started for the hospital. Meanwhile, a taxi came there and in that taxi informant reached Sonamura Primary Health Centre with the deceased. Deceased was till then under the treatment in the said Primary Health Centre. Bicycle was lying at the place of occurrence itself. This is in short the information lodged by PW 16 Anil Das. Said information was reduced into writing by the Sub Inspector of Police at Sonamura Primary Health Centre. Said information was ultimately sent to the Police Station where it was registered as an FIR at 9.30 AM under section 307/326/109IPC. It needs to be mentioned here that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of about 2 Kms from the police station. After usual investigation police submitted chargesheet under section 302/34 IPC and also under section 302 IPC against the present appellant and other two (2) accuseds. In due course of time, case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. On perusal of the materials on record, learned trial Court framed charges under section 302/34 IPC against all the appellants. Learned trial Court also framed a charge under section 302/114 IPC against Ali Akbar. Another charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against accused Ali Aswab and the appellant. All the accuseds including the present appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charges. Learned trial Court also framed a charge under section 302/114 IPC against Ali Akbar. Another charge under section 302 IPC was also framed against accused Ali Aswab and the appellant. All the accuseds including the present appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charges. In course of the trial, prosecution examined in all 33 witnesses. Out of the said 33 witnesses, only PW 16 Anil Das appears to the eye witness. The accused examined none on their behalf. Defence of the appellant was that of complete denial of the prosecution. On conclusion of the trial appellant alone was convicted and sentenced as already stated. It needs to be mentioned here that during pendency of the case before the leared trial Court, accused Ali Aswab died and as a result case proceeded against the appellant and the other accused Ali Akbar only. Ali Akbar was of course ultimately acquitted by the learned trial Court. 3. We have heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor. Both of them have taken us through the evidence on record. 4. After going through the evidence on record it appears that only PW 16 Anil Das figured in this case as the eye witness. The impugned judgment is based on the testimony of this solitary witness. We need not go into detail of the evidence of this witness except that the basic story which he divulged in the FIR was maintained by him before the trial Court also. Of course there are some variation here and there. We do not like to high light those variation for various reasons. 5. Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proff of any fact. Court is, therefore, concerned only with quality of evidence. If the evidence of a solitary witness appears to be trustworthy and credible, same can also be foundation of conviction. Therefore, the main question in the instant case is whether testimony has given by PW 16 is sufficiently trustworthy or not. If it is found to be trustworthy an safely reliable, the conviction of the appellant has to be maintained. If on the other hand it is found not trustworthy and not free from reasonable doubt, conviction has to be set aside. 6. If it is found to be trustworthy an safely reliable, the conviction of the appellant has to be maintained. If on the other hand it is found not trustworthy and not free from reasonable doubt, conviction has to be set aside. 6. In Masalti vs. State of Uttar Praesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 , it was held by the Supreme Court that "it is true that under the Evidence Act trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain conviction. But where a criminal Court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses who give evidence." 7. Again in Vahula Bhusan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 236 , it was held by the Supreme Court that "the testimony of a single witness if it is straight forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness." Likewise, in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981 , the Supreme Court held that the appellant was convicted on a charge of murder on the sole testimony of a witness. The question arose whether such a conviction can be sustained or not. It was held that there was no statutory requirement that a conviction cannot be made on the testimony of a single witness unless it is corroborated. The Court can accept the evidence of a single witness though uncorroborated and convict an accused except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself required, as a matter of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness an accomplice or any others of an analogous character." 8. The Court can accept the evidence of a single witness though uncorroborated and convict an accused except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself required, as a matter of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness an accomplice or any others of an analogous character." 8. It therefore appears after going through the aforesaid decisions and a catena of such similar decisions of the Apex Court that under law there is no bar to convict a person on the basis of a testimony of a single eye witness. But the testimony of such a single witness must be reliable and trustworthy. If it is found that the same is not that trustworthy, it may not be possible to convict a person on the basis of evidence of such a witness. Therefore, in the instant case we are called upon to decide as to whether evidence of PW 16 is trustworthy or not. 9. Case as stated by PW 16 in the FIR and subsequently in his evidence is that deceased was assaulted with a knife. It was not stated by him that the appellant or other accused who were accompanying the appellant and assaulted the deceased had any weapon like sharp cutting weapon. As a matter of fact there is not even an iota of evidence that any of the assailants carried with them any weapon except dagger/knife. Therefore, it is expected that the injuries of the deceased should be in the nature of punctured wounds by and large. Soon after the occurrence, deceased was taken to the hospital, namely, Sonamura Primary Health Centre. There PW 29 Dr. Sailesh Ranjan Das gave first aid to the deceased after noting down the injuries found in the person of the deceased and thereafter in view of the serious nature of the condition of the deceased, he was referred to GB Hospital where in the GB Hospital deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries. PW 29 Dr. Sailesh Ranjan Das stated in his evidence that on 4.5.1982 he was posted at Sonamura Primary Health Centre as its Medical Officer-in-charge. On that day at about 6.30 AM deceased was brought to the said Primary Health Centre with serious injuries. PW 29 Dr. Sailesh Ranjan Das stated in his evidence that on 4.5.1982 he was posted at Sonamura Primary Health Centre as its Medical Officer-in-charge. On that day at about 6.30 AM deceased was brought to the said Primary Health Centre with serious injuries. Upon examination of the injuries, he found the followings in the person of the deceased : (1) One cut injury measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the left side of the nost. This injury was simple in nature and it was caused by sharp weapon. The age of injury was below 24 hours. (2) One cut injury measuring 3 cm x 2.5 cm on the left side of the cheek. This injury was simple in nature and it caused by sharp cutting weapon. The age was below 24 hours. (3) One cut injury measuring 3 cm x 1 cm under the tongue. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon and it was severe in nature. Age of the injury was below 24 hours. (4) One cut injury measuring 5 cm x 3cm x 2cm on the upper part of the right side of the chest. The injury was severe in nature and it was caused by sharp cutting weapon. The age of the injury was below 24 hours. (5) One cut injury measuring 5 cm x 3cm x 2cm on the left deltoid muscle. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon and it was severe in nature. Age of the injury was below 24 hours. (6) One cut injury measuring 5 cm x 4cm x 3cm on the right deltoid muscle. It was severe in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. The age of the injury was below 24 hours. (7) One cut injury measuring 3 cm x 2cm x 2 cm over the right elbow. The injury was severe in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and the age of the injury was below 24 hours. (8) One cut injury measuring 10 cm x 3 cm x skin depth on the right auxiliary region. It was caused by sharp cutting weapon and the injury was severe in nature. The age of the injury was below 24 hours. (9) One cut injury measuring 5 cm x 2cm x 2cm over the left forearm. The injury was severe in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. It was caused by sharp cutting weapon and the injury was severe in nature. The age of the injury was below 24 hours. (9) One cut injury measuring 5 cm x 2cm x 2cm over the left forearm. The injury was severe in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. The age of the injury was below 24 hours. (10) One cut injury measuring 1cm x 1cm x 1 cm on the left side of the waist. The injury was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and its age was was below 24 hours. (11) One scratch measuring 5cm x l/2cm x skin death, on the left thigh. The injury was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and its age was was below 24 hours. (12) One cut injury measuring 3cm x 3cm x skin depth on the right side of the thigh. The injury was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and its age was was below 24 hours. (13) One cut injury measuring 8cm x 3cm x skin depth over the vertex. The injury was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and its age was v\ as below 24 hours. 10. Surprisingly, we find all the said injuries as noted down by PW 29 Dr. Sailesh Raojan Das were incised in nature. None of those injuries was punctured wound or penetrating wound. Relying on these circumstances Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is highly doubtful as to whether PW 16 in fact saw the occurrence. Had he seen the occurrence, PW 16 would not have stated that the appellant and other assailants inflicted injuries upon the deceased with daggers/knife. Atleast as per the evidence of PW 29 Dr. Sailesh Ranjan Das, {he body of the deceased did not bear mark of any injury capable of being caused by a pointed weapon like knife/dagger. . 11. Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that it is true that the injuries as stated by PW 29 appears to be of incised nature. But the very same Doctor stated in his evidence that this type of incised wounds can be caused by a dagger also. . 11. Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that it is true that the injuries as stated by PW 29 appears to be of incised nature. But the very same Doctor stated in his evidence that this type of incised wounds can be caused by a dagger also. If is really surprising that when the intention of the assailants was to cause to death of the deceased, they would not inflict any penetrating wound and they would merely cause injuries with the dagger which may appear like incised wounds. We are unable to place reliance upon such statement of PW 29 that such injuries can be caused by, the dagger and, therefore, the assailants must have caused his injuries with the dagger. While it is true that with dagger such injuries can be, but when it is apparent from the number of injuries inflicted upon the deceased that the intention of the assailants was to ensure/death of the deceased, there was no point in not inflicting any punctured wound on the deceased. Therefore, explanation obtained by the prosecution from PW 29 suffers from a serious credibility gap and, therefore, we cannot act upon the same. 12. According to the informant incident occurred at 5.45 AM. FIR was lodged for the first time when police visited the Primary Health Centre. Distance of the police station-from the place of occurrence was about 2 Kms. Such information was lodged to the police at Primary Health Centre at 8.30 AM. Therefore, there was delay of about 2 hours 45 minutes in recording the FIR from the informant. Normally we would have ignored such delay if the evidence of P W 16 is substantially corroborated by some other witnesses. But the case is based on testimony of a single witness. That apart his version is entirely inconsistent with the medical evidence. If further appears that at about 6.10 AM a BSF constable, namely, K. Ajalla came to Sonamura/Police Station and gave information that a person was lying with stab injuries at Srimantapur and accordingly he requested the police to visit that place. Aforesaid information was immediately entered in the General Diary as GD Entry no. 116 dated 4.5.1982. That entry has been marked as Exhibit 19. Aforesaid information was immediately entered in the General Diary as GD Entry no. 116 dated 4.5.1982. That entry has been marked as Exhibit 19. This information contained in the GD at-least discloses commission of an offence under section 324 IPC which is a cognizable offence and, therefore, this information is first on point of time and not the FIR which was lodged by PW 16. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence that PW 16 soon after the occurrence went to the BSF Camp and gave information to the BSF personnel. If PW 16 indeed saw the occurrence and could identify the miscreants, he would have surely divulged the name of the assailants to the BSF personels at the Border Out Post. But the information of the GD Entry given by a BSF Jawan does not contain anything about the assailants. From this it seems that PW 16 did not divulge the names of assailants at the Border Out Post. Further more, incident occurred at 5.45 AM Police Station is situated within 2 Kms from place of occurrence Yet, no-FIR could be lodged at the police station for a long time until at 8.30 AM when IO came to the Primary Health Centre and recorded the statement of the informant (PW 16). These circumstances are to be properly appreciate in the context of the fact that it was early morning at about 5.45 AM when the incident occurred and the testimony of PW 16 is prima facie inconsistent with the medical evidence given by PW29. j 13. However, Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor also drew our attention to the evidence of PW 21, Dr. Ananda Mohan Bhowm ik who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The injuries noted by him during the postmortem examination are as follows : (hot quoted : Editor) From the evidence of PW 21, Dr. Ananda Mohan Bhowmik it appears that only one injury was in the nature of stab wound. But it is also clear that during the treatment of the deceased at GB hospital there were surgical interference and, therefore, nature of the injuries noted PW 21 during the autopsy may not d reflect the actual state of affairs and, therefore, to know the nature of the injuries we have to alternative but to act upon the evidence of PW 29, Dr. Sailesh Ranjan Das. Sailesh Ranjan Das. Even from the evidence of PW 21, Dr. Ananda Mohan Bhowmik it appear that except one injury, all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. But from the evidence of PW 16 we do not find even a whisper that the assailants had any sharp cutting weapon capable of inflicting incised wounds or that they had any weapon except daggers/knife which normally can cause punctured wounds. In view of the aforesaid circumstances of the case and also in view of the inconsistency between occular testimony of the sole eye witness and the medical evidence, it is difficult for us to sustain the impugned judgment and, accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. Appeal is, therefore, allowed.