Judgment GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal appellant Bhola has challenged his conviction under Sec. 302. IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000 recorded by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh,. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that on the night intervening 17-9-78 and 18-9-78 Gurdeo Singh (deceased) was sleeping on the cot outside a liquor shop. Santosh Kumar, Servant on the liquor hop was sleeping in the shop. He heard the cries of Gurdeo Singh and when he got up he saw accused Bhola alias Bhagat Singh inflicting. Gandasi blows to Gurdeo Singh. He also saw Brijlal standing there. Santosh Kumar tried to, intervene but he was threatened to he killed. After giving beatings to Gurdeo Singh the two assailants left the place of occurrence Santosh Kumar came out and found that Gurdeo Singh was alive. He was lying on the ground. Santosh Kumar put him on the cot and proceeded to inform Bhura Singh, brother of the deceased. Bhura Singh along with Gurtej Singh, Sarpanch went at the place of occurrence but by that time Gurdeo Singh had died. The first information report was lodged in the early morning of 18-9-78 on which a case was registered. The police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses, got the post-mortem examination done, arrested a accused and at his instance recovered a "gandasa". After the completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted against 5 persons. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sec. 302, IPC against appellant Bhola and u/s. 302 read with 34 against Brijlal but discharged three others. The prosecution examined PW l Dr. S. P. Jakhad, PW 2 Bhoora Singh, PW 3 Santosh Kumar, PW 4 Roshanlal, PW 5 Angrez Singh, PW 6 Devilal, PW 7 Gurtej Singh, PW 8 Jiwan Singh and PW 9 Bhanwarlal. Accused in their statements denied the correctness of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The case set up by the accused Bhola was that because of the enmity he has been falsely roped in the case. The learned Sessions Judge found that Gurdeo Singh had met homicidal death. He did not accept the prosecution case that Brijlal was also involved in the matter. He, however, found charge against Bhola proved and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him. The learned Sessions Judge found that Gurdeo Singh had met homicidal death. He did not accept the prosecution case that Brijlal was also involved in the matter. He, however, found charge against Bhola proved and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and perused the record of the case. ( 5 ) MR. D. K. Purohit strenuously argued that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the sole eye-witness PW 3 Santosh Kumar. Pointing out that the witness was inimical to the accused and there are material discrepancies in his statement and that his statement was not corroborated by the medical evidence. Mr. Purohit argued that the witness should not be held to be of sterling worth. He submitted that the recovery of "gandasa" does not connect the accused with the crime because it was not recovered in consequence of the information given by him but it was recovered in consequence of the information given by Lekhraj who was though challenged by the police but was discharged by the learned Sessions Judge. He contended that a copy of Inquest Report was not sent to the medical officer and, therefore it should be presumed that by the time post-mortem examination was done. Inquest Report was not prepared and also it was not known as to who had seen the occurrence. It was further urged that the weapon of offence was not shown to the medical officer when he was in the witness box and therefore the medical evidence cannot be used to corroborate the direct evidence. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. ( 7 ) AS per the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Jakhar (PW 1), some 28 injuries were found on the person of Gurdeo Singh and out of them 4 injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. There were 3 lacerated wounds and remaining were either abrasions or bruises. The Medical Officer opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death in the natural course. There were 3 lacerated wounds and remaining were either abrasions or bruises. The Medical Officer opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death in the natural course. By this evidence, it is fully established that Gurdeo Singh had died of the multiple injuries suffered by him and the injuries were caused by sharp as well as the blunt weapons. ( 8 ) THE medical evidence cannot be disbelieved on the ground that a copy of Inquest Report was not supplied to the medical officer at the time of post-mortem examination. The provisions of Police Rules, 1965 are relevant. Rule 6. 30 requires the officer-in-charge of police station to prepare inquest in the manner prescribed by Sec. 174, Cr. P. C. Rule 6. 34 prescribes that when the investigation has been completed. Investigating Officer shall draw up a report in duplicate by the carbon copying process in Forms 6. 34 (1 ). Sub-rule (2) of this rule provides that such report shall state the apparent cause of death, give a description of mark/marks of violence found on the body and describe the manner in which and the weapon or instrument with which much marks appear to have been inflicted. Sub-rule (3) requires the report to be signed by the police officer conducting investigation and a copy to be sent to Ilaka Magistrate through the Circle Officer. Post-mortem examination is done under Rule 6. 35. Rule 6. 36 requires that the result of the investigating officers examination of the dead body shall be recorded in Form 6. 36 (1) Rule 6. 317 (1) requires that articles shall be sent for medical examination. There is no provision in any rule that a copy of Inquest Report shall be sent to the medical officer. Form No. 6. 36 (1) is to be accompanied to the body sent for medical examination. In this form, name, particulars, sex etc. of the deceased are to be recorded and also the description of injuries and opinion regarding injuries and to be stated. The above provisions indicate that intimation is to be given to the medical officer in Form 6. 36 (1 ). However, a copy of Inquest Report is not required to be sent to the medical officer. of the deceased are to be recorded and also the description of injuries and opinion regarding injuries and to be stated. The above provisions indicate that intimation is to be given to the medical officer in Form 6. 36 (1 ). However, a copy of Inquest Report is not required to be sent to the medical officer. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the copy of Inquest Report was not sent to the medical officer, the medical evidence should be ignored. ( 9 ) THE prosecution had relied on the evidence of extra judicial confession, recovery of weapon and motive besides the direct evidence. ( 10 ) REGARDING the extra judicial confession the prosecution examined PW 5 Angrez Singh. However, his statement has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge and we think he did so rightly. ( 11 ) REGARDING motive, Devilal (PW 1) was examined. Devilal stated that he had gone to take wine and there was scuffle between him and the accused and Gurdeo Singh had intervened. However, this part of the evidence of Devilal has not been held to be believable by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 12 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has relied on the recovery of "gandasa" at the instance of the accused. However, in our opinion, this evidence could not be legally considered against the accused. Bhanwarlal (PW 9) I. O. has deposed that after he arrested the accused on 20th Sept. , 1978 he gave him an information that he had given "gandasa" having wooden handle to Lekhraj and he recorded the information Ex. P/16. He has further stated that thereafter accused Lekhraj while in custody gave him the information that he had concealed that "gandasa" in a house. and in consequences of this information supplied by Lekhraj he recovered the "gandasa". It is thus, obvious that the "gandasa" was recovered in consequences of the information given by Lekhraj. The evidence of recovery under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible only when the fact is discovered in consequence of the information given by the accused. Lekhraj has not been examined as a witness. Lekhraj was arrayed as an accused. Obviously, nothing was recovered in consequence of the information given by accused Bhola. That being so, the recovery of Gandasa cannot connect the accused with the crime. Lekhraj has not been examined as a witness. Lekhraj was arrayed as an accused. Obviously, nothing was recovered in consequence of the information given by accused Bhola. That being so, the recovery of Gandasa cannot connect the accused with the crime. ( 13 ) NOW remains only the direct evidence. The prosecution examined PW 3 Santosh Kumar and Jeevan Singh PW 8 as eye-witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has not believed the statement of Jeevan Singh. The sole point for determination in this case is whether the statement Santosh Kumar can be believed. ( 14 ) SANTOSH Kumar has deposed that at about 1. 30 a. m. he heard the shouting of Gurdeo Singh who as sleeping outside the liquor shop and when he noticed that accused Bhola was landing " Gandasa " blows to Gurdeo Singh and accused Brijlal standing there, he asked the accused not to beat Gurdeo Singh. On this, Bhola threatened him to keep silence otherwise he would also be killed. According to him, he sat on a cot and after accused went away, he came out and saw Gurdeo Singh, who was alive. Thereafter he immediately proceeded to intimate Bhura Singh, brother of Gurdeo Singh and informed him and Bhura Singh in his turn informed Gurtej Singh and Gurtej Singh called Suraj Singh and thereafter he went to police station to lodge the report along with Gurtej Singh and Pritam Singh. The statement of the witness indicates that he had seen occurrence from beginning to end and he had also tried to intervene and also called neighbour Sita Ram but because of threatening given by the accused he kept mum and after the accused left the scene of occurrence, he came out of the shop and then he informed the brother of Gurdeo Singh about the occurrence. ( 15 ) THE law regarding appreciation of evidence of solitary witness is well settled. Even conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary witness provided the witness is found to be of sterling worth. However, the position is different where the solitary witness is inimical to the accused and also does not stick to the version and make serious departure in the statement from the version given in the FIR and the witness is contradicted by the medical evidence. However, the position is different where the solitary witness is inimical to the accused and also does not stick to the version and make serious departure in the statement from the version given in the FIR and the witness is contradicted by the medical evidence. It is relevant to read the observations of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 383 : (1976 Cri LJ 331), which are to the following effect :"where an accused is going to lose his life in a serious charge of murder, it is only necessary that the Court should be circumspect and closely scrutinise the evidence to come to an unhesitating conclusion that the eye-witness on whose testimony the conviction is based is absolutely reliable and where the sole witness on whose testimony the conviction was based had himself given the FIR and there were serious departures in his evidence from the version given in FIR and the evidence was contradicted by the medical evidence, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his testimony. " ( 16 ) IN the instant case, Santosh Kumar (PW 3) has admitted that before this occurrence, he had filed criminal proceedings against accused Bhola under Ss. 324 and 323, IPC and before the occurrence he had even given his statement Court. It is, thus, obvious, that the witness was on inimical terms with the accused. According to this witness, he had tried to intervene in the occurrence by requesting the accused that he should not beat Gurdeo Singh. Not only this, he has deposed to have called Sita Ram, a neighbour. The witness has admitted that the accused did not try to inflict blows to him. It cannot be believed that the accused who was inimical to the witness would leave him unhurt when he had seen causing multiple injuries to Gudeo Singh. In that case, the accused could not be satisfied by oral thrashing to the witness only. The natural conduct of the accused would be to cause injuries to Santosh who was his enemy and who had already prosecuted him in a criminal case. In that case, the accused could not be satisfied by oral thrashing to the witness only. The natural conduct of the accused would be to cause injuries to Santosh who was his enemy and who had already prosecuted him in a criminal case. The very fact, that the accused did not cause single blow to the witness, goes to show that this witness was not present at the time Gurdeo Singh had sustained injuries and he has given the eye-witness account just to implicate his enemy in a case. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to Santosh Kumar at 12 in the night he had sold liquor to one Leelu Singh and thereafter this occurrence took place. Leelu Singh was the best witness to depose whether he had visited the liquor shop at 12 in the night and the witness was found there. Then, there are houses of Sitaram and Trilok Chand in front of the liquor shop. Neither Sitaram nor Trilok Chand has been examined It may be that they could not see the occurrence from that distance where they were sleeping, however, they could at least say whether Santosh Kumar was there in the liquor shop during that night. However, none of the witnesses has been examined who could prove the presence of witness during that night on the liquor shop. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the witness was present at the time the occurrence took place. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to Santosh Kumar, the accused had given beatings to Gurdeo Singh for about one and a quarter hours. Had the accused gone with an intention to cause death of Gurdeo Singh and he was having deadly weapon like Gandasa, he would have finished the matter in minutes only. There was no obstacle in his causing injuries on the vital organs of Gurdeo Singh. It cannot be believed that the assailant would cause injuries in leisurely manner particularly when there was no resistance. The testimony of the witness is most unnatural that the accused continued to cause injuries for about one and a quarter hour to Gurdeo Singh. ( 19 ) THEN the witness says that as many as 60 injuries were caused to Gurdeo Singh in his presence. However, the injuries found on the body of Gurdeo Singh are much less than 60. ( 19 ) THEN the witness says that as many as 60 injuries were caused to Gurdeo Singh in his presence. However, the injuries found on the body of Gurdeo Singh are much less than 60. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that 28 injuries were found on the person of Gurdeo Singh. It is true that a witness cannot count the injuries at the time of occurrence but then the natural reply of the witness would be that he had not counted the injuries. The witness has tried to show as if he was counting the injuries. ( 20 ) IT has come in the statement of Santosh Kumar that there was a cot in the shop on which he had slept and when the accused was inflicting blows to Gurdeo Singh, he was sitting on that cot. A perusal of the site inspection memo Ex. P 16 however does not show that in the liquor shop there was a cot lying. The only "charpai" which has been shown in this memo is the "charpai" on which the deceased was found lying. In this case, the witness who had lodged the FIR had claimed to have seen the occurrence while sitting on a "charpai". However, it has not been shown in the site inspection memo. This goes to show that there was no cot in the shop and the witness had not slept that night in that shop. ( 21 ) IN his statement, the witness has tried to introduce the motive for crime. He has deposed that before the occurrence, the accused had beaten Devilal and Gurdeo Singh had intervened in that occurrence and, therefore, the accused bore ill will against Gurdeo Singh. However, this incident was not stated by the witness in the FIR Ex. P. /2, When his attention was drawn towards this omission he could not explain. He only deposed that the police might not have written this fact. It may be stated that there is some averment regarding the incident of Devial in the FIR but it is in different context. In the FIR it was stated that when Bhola was causing injuries, he was asking Devilal as to why he complained against him to the Sarpanch. Thus, according to the facts mentioned in the FIR, Gurdeo Singh had made some complaint against the accused for the beatings given to him to Devilal. In the FIR it was stated that when Bhola was causing injuries, he was asking Devilal as to why he complained against him to the Sarpanch. Thus, according to the facts mentioned in the FIR, Gurdeo Singh had made some complaint against the accused for the beatings given to him to Devilal. Gurtej Singh PW 7 is the Sarpanch. He has nowhere deposed that Devilal had ever complained against accused Bhola to him. According to him, Devilal had complained against Lekhraj (person who was challenged but was discharged by the learned, Sessions Judge ). He has made categorical statement that Devilal had not complained against, Bhola. It is, thus, obvious that Gurdeo Singh had never complained against the accused to the Sarpanch. Devilal (PW 6) has, therefore, stated that he had a quarrel with the accused for which he had complained against the accused to Sarpanch Gurtej Singh. However, we have seen that Gurtej Singh has deposed that no complaint was made against the accused by Devilal. It is relevant to state that even according to Devilal he had a dispute with Brijlal and Lekraj. Even if it is accepted for argument sake that accused had quarrelled with Devilal some 3-4 days before the occurrence, the accused could not have a cause to kill Gurdeo Singh as Gurtej Singh, Sarpanch had not given thrashing to the accused for that occurrence. Thus, the motive introduced by the witness is not proved on record. ( 22 ) THEN it has come in the statement of Bhanwarlal I. O. (PW 9) that when he reached the place of occurrence, he had found the dead body covered by a "chadar". It is a mystery as to who had covered the dead body by a "chadar" before the police reached the place of occurrence. The I. O. claims to have reached the place of occurrence before 6 a. m. because according to him he had recorded statement at 6-6-30 a. m. sitting at the house of Sitaram. Santosh has nowhere stated that he had covered the dead body while going to the house of Bhura Singh. None of the witnesses has deposed that he had placed a "chadar" on the dead body. Santosh has nowhere stated that he had covered the dead body while going to the house of Bhura Singh. None of the witnesses has deposed that he had placed a "chadar" on the dead body. The very fact that the dead body was found having been covered by "chadar" and Santosh does not say that he placed "chadar" on the dead body, goes to show that Santosh had given false statement against the accused because of enmity. It seems that the police and Bhura Singh, brother of the deceased easily found this witness to depose against the accused as he was inimical to him. ( 23 ) ON a careful consideration of the entire evidence and the attending circumstances brought on record, it has to be found that Santosh PW 3 is not of sterling worth and it is not safe to place implicit reliance on his testimony. ( 24 ) THERE is no other stock with the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the accused on the basis of the evidence of the solitary witness who has been found to be unreliable. ( 25 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are set aside and the accused, is acquitted of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. He is on bail. He shall not surrender to the bail bonds which stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.