R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) APPEAL is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-3-1992 of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain passed in S. T. No. 269/90 whereby accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of I. P. C. for having committed murder of Kanchanlal s/o. Bhagirath on the intervening night of 9th and 10th June, 1990 in village Moyakheda and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1500/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer R. I. for six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that deceased Kanchanlal was owning a well which was situated on his field. It appears he was sleeping near the well for the security of crops and instruments of the well. In the morning of 10th June, 1990 Kanchanlal was found lying on his cot in an unconscious condition with injury on his head. He was gasping. One Omprakash who initially located Kanchan Lal informed the persons and thereafter Kanchanlal was taken to hospital in a tractor but he died in, between i. e. in village Jawasiya. The matter was reported by P. W. 4 Dayaram vide Report Ex. P/4. The same was recorded by Shri Shastri, Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 13) who visited the spot and prepared inquest report vide Ex. P/5. He sent the body for post-mortem examination with a letter of request vide Ex. P/12. The cot was also brought along with the body and the same was seized vide Ex. P/7. Shri Shastri (P. W. 13) visited the spot on 11-6-1996 and prepared site-map Ex. P/6 in presence of the witnesses. ( 3 ) DR. M. K. Singhal (P. W. 1) conducted autopsy on the body of Kanchanlal and found following injury :-LACERATED wound 7 cm. x 1 cm. 1/2 cm. above the left ear. There was swelling on the head and above both the eyes. On dissection Dr. Singhal (P. W. 1) found fracture of temporal bone of the size 10 cm. x 8 cm. The membrane was torned. According to Dr. Singhal injury was ante mortem. Injured died of injury on the head. Injury could be caused either by big stone or a heavy wooden lathi. He prepared Report Ex. P/1. ( 4 ) DURING investigation it was revealed that Kanchanlal was having some dispute with present accused-appellant, and one other person Babulal. The membrane was torned. According to Dr. Singhal injury was ante mortem. Injured died of injury on the head. Injury could be caused either by big stone or a heavy wooden lathi. He prepared Report Ex. P/1. ( 4 ) DURING investigation it was revealed that Kanchanlal was having some dispute with present accused-appellant, and one other person Babulal. ( 5 ) P. W. 12 Ashok, who was missing from his house, subsequently disclosed the fact of incident to his parents and was taken to police-station, made a disclosure that he had accompanied accused Shankar who had a plan of killing Kanchanlal. As such accused Shankar was arrested vide Ex. P/9 and recovery of lathi (Ex. P/11) was made at his instance. ( 6 ) IT appears that the statement of P. W. 12 Ashok was got recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. as well. ( 7 ) AFTER completion of investigation accused was prosecuted who denied the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 8 ) LEARNED trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as above. Hence this appeal. ( 9 ) CONTENTION of learned counsel for appellant is that prosecution witness P. W. 12 Ashok is wholly unreliable. He is an accomplice and there is no corroboration. He failed to disclose the incident for about seven days and, therefore, conviction cannot be based on the basis of his evidence. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the State though initially supported the case of prosecution but during the course of arguments he conceded on the point that he (Ashok) if is treated an accomplice an independent corroboration connecting the accused would be required. ( 11 ) WE were taken to the evidence on record. There is no dispute as to the homicidal death of Kanchanlal. Even otherwise that stands proved (apart from the evidence of witnesses of inquest) from the evidence of Dr. Singhal (P. W. 1 ). ( 12 ) THE whole case rests on the single testimony of Ashok (P. W. 12 ). All other witnesses examined in the case excepting Dr. Singhal and Police Officer and the witnesses of seizure of lathi and inquest report had expressed their doubts about the complicity in the crime of accused-appellant Shankar. They have also expressed doubt about the complicity of one Babulal as there was standing dispute between him and Kanchanlal as well. All other witnesses examined in the case excepting Dr. Singhal and Police Officer and the witnesses of seizure of lathi and inquest report had expressed their doubts about the complicity in the crime of accused-appellant Shankar. They have also expressed doubt about the complicity of one Babulal as there was standing dispute between him and Kanchanlal as well. ( 13 ) THE expression of doubt by these witnesseswould not help the prosecution in any way. That may work as a motive but it will not be sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. ( 14 ) P. W. 12 Ashok has stated that Shankar (accused) took this witness along with him and stated that he wanted to kill Kanchanlal and this witness (Ashok) should accompany him. Ashok refused and thereafter he was terrorised by showing a knife. He, therefore, accompanied accused up to the well where Kanchanlal was sleeping on the cot. He further states that accused took out a big and heavy wooden stick (danda) for causing injury to Kanchanlal. Apprehending the intention of Shankar (accused) this witness fled away and remained in jungle for whole of the night. He went to his relation (brother-in-law) next day and remained there for a day but was asked to go out and after 5-6 days he met his father who took him to the police station and thereafter he disclosed this fact to the police. His statement was also got recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. ( 15 ) FIRSTLY, we do not find any cogent reason as to why this accused-appellant who has planned to kill a man by causing injury by a heavy stick to a sleeping man would repose a confidence on Ashok and would carry him upto that place. Such designs are accomplished in secrecy. It is not the case of the prosecution that Ashok was a fast friend of Shankar (accused ). Secondly, if prosecution witness Ashok accompanied accused Shankar knowing it fully well that he (Shankar) has a design to kill Kanchanlal, he becomes an accomplice, a participepa criminis in the case. Thus, he becomes an offender and a person of bad character from his own admission. ( 16 ) LAW provides for making use of such accomplice and co-accused and specific procedure under Ss. 306 and 307, Cr. P. C. has been laid down. Thus, he becomes an offender and a person of bad character from his own admission. ( 16 ) LAW provides for making use of such accomplice and co-accused and specific procedure under Ss. 306 and 307, Cr. P. C. has been laid down. No such procedure in the case has been adopted. In fact, if the prosecution really believed on the version and the disclosure of Ashok (P. W. 12) they could have resorted to the procedure as prescribed under Ss. 306 and 307, Cr. P. C. ( 17 ) BUT instead of adopting and adhering to the prescribed procedure the investigating officer himself decided the matter, granted him pardon which he was not authorised and got his statement recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. In our opinion in such cases police officer himself has got no right to grant pardon to such a person who is a particeps criminis. ( 18 ) THUS, either P. W. 12 Ashok is a got up witness who has been procured for creating evidence against accused Shankar or is a particeps criminis who could not be pardoned without obtaining the procedure prescribed under the law. ( 19 ) SECTION 133 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. But rule of prudence requires that evidence of accomplice ought to be corroborated on material particulars and the corroboration should come as far as possible from independent source. ( 20 ) THOUGH the prosecution has tried to seek corroboration from the recovery of weapon of offence i. e. danda seized from the appellant-accused but that has not been found blood-stained muchless stained with human blood and, therefore, that recovery cannot be taken sufficient for corroborating the statement of Ashok (P. W. 12 ). ( 21 ) THE very fact that the statement of Ashok was got recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. goes to show that at one stage of investigating agency itself doubted the veracity of this witness. There is an admission to this effect also in para 9 of the statement of (P. W. 12) Ashok. ( 22 ) THE non-disclosure of incident for about seven days further makes this witness untrustworthy. P. C. goes to show that at one stage of investigating agency itself doubted the veracity of this witness. There is an admission to this effect also in para 9 of the statement of (P. W. 12) Ashok. ( 22 ) THE non-disclosure of incident for about seven days further makes this witness untrustworthy. If a person witnesses a ghastly crime being committed fails to disclose it to either persons in authority or some person interested in detection of such crime or in gaining knowledge of such incident, without any rhyme or reason may or may not be treated to be accomplice but shall require a corroboration for his evidence being acted upon. ( 23 ) WE do not find sufficient corroboration in this case which may make the evidence of this witness to be reliable and trustworthy and in our considered opinion the conviction of the accused cannot be upheld on the basis of such unreliable evidence. ( 24 ) AS a result appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Accused is acquitted of the offence charged with. He is on bail. His bail-bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if paid, shall be returned to the accused. Appeal allowed. .