JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. -- 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.92 of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain passed in S.T. No. 269/90 whereby accused-appellant has been convicted U/s 302 of IPC for having committed murder of Kanchanlal S/o Bhagirath on the intervening night of 9th and 10the June, 1990 in village Moyakheda and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,500/-; 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, 90 Kanchanlal was found lying on his cot in an unconscious condition with injury on his head. He was gasping. One Omprakash who initially located Kanchanlal 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 PW-4 Dayaram vide Report Ex.P/4. The same was recorded by Shri Shastri, Sub-Inspector Police (PW-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 alongwith the body and the same was seized vide Ex.P/7. Shri Shastri (PW-13) visited the spot on 11.6.96 and prepared site-map Ex.P/6 in presence of the witnesses. 3. Dr. M.K. Singhal (PW-1) conducted autopay on the body of Kanchanlal and found following injury – Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm above the left ear. There was swelling on the head and above both the eyes. On dissection Dr. Singhal (PW-7) found fracture of temporal bone of the size 10 cm x 8 cm. The membrans was torned. According to Dr. Singhal injury was ante mortem. Injured died of injury on the head. Injury could be caused either by a 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. The membrans was torned. According to Dr. Singhal injury was ante mortem. Injured died of injury on the head. Injury could be caused either by a 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. PW-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 the statement of PW-12 Ashok was got recorded U/s 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 PW-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 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 from the evidence of witnesses of inquest from the evidence of Dr. Singhal (PW-1). 12. The whole case rests on the single testimony of Ashok (PW-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. 13. The expression of doubt by these witnesses would 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. 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 witnesses would 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. PW-12 Ashok has stated that Shankar (accused) took this witness alongwith 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 upto 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 Section 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 secracy. It is not the case of the prosecution that Ashok as 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 particeps 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 U/s 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 (PW-12) they could have resorted to the procedure as prescribed U/s 306 and 307 Cr.P.C. 17. No such procedure in the case has been adopted. In fact, if the prosecution really believed on the version and the disclosure of Ashok (PW-12) they could have resorted to the procedure as prescribed U/s 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 U/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 PW-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 (PW -12). 21. The very fact that the statement of Ashok was got recorded U/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 (PW-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 persons interested in detection as such crime or in gaining knowledge of such incident without any rhyme or reason mayor may not be treated to be accomplice but shall require a corroboration for his evidence being acted upon. 23. If a person witnesses a ghastly crime being committed fails to disclose it to either persons in authority or some persons interested in detection as such crime or in gaining knowledge of such incident without any rhyme or reason mayor 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 trust worthy 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.