Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. These four appellants have been found guilty for committing the murder of Sahdeo Pasawan alias Bataha and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment and order dated 26.7.1985 in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 1983 by Sri Shyam Nandan Prasad Verma. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. 2. To put in brief, the case of the prosecution as disclosed in the fardbeyan of Singheshwar Paswan (PW 9) is that on 10.3.1983 at about 3 p.m. deceased Sahdeo Paswan had gone to graze she-buffalo near the eastern Bandh. At about 4 p.m. Anant Paswan (PW 8) brought the said she-buffalo to the house. When deceased Sahdeo Paswan did not return to his house, the informant and his brother went to search for him but they could not trace out. On the next day, when they again started searching him. appellant Ghuttar Pandit informed at about 9 a.m. that on the previous day. since Sahdeo Paswan was found grazing his she- buffalo in the wheat crop of his field, therefore, he had given him one slap. But thereafter, he had no knowledge about the whereabout of Sahdeo Paswan. On the same day at about 2 p.m. while the search was going on. the informant found the dead body of his son in the water of a ditch. On India, the villagers assembled there and the dead body of Sahdeo Paswan was taken out from the water and kept on thebandh. 3. The fardbeyan of Singheshwar Paswan was recorded at 7 p.m. on the same day at Maro Baswa outpost. The Police ultimately took charge of the body and sent for post-mortem examination. 4. The defence of the appellants, as would appear from the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was total denial of the charges and false implication on account of enmity. A plea was also taken by appellant Lal Babu Yadav that since his brother was a witness in the case of his grandfather, he was falsely implicated. 5. The prosecution, as would appear from the record, examined altogether 14 witnesses. PW 1 Rambadan Singh, PW 2 Sitaram Mishra and PW 3 Harish Chandra Jha are formal witnesses to prove the first information report (Exhibit 1). 5. The prosecution, as would appear from the record, examined altogether 14 witnesses. PW 1 Rambadan Singh, PW 2 Sitaram Mishra and PW 3 Harish Chandra Jha are formal witnesses to prove the first information report (Exhibit 1). fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) and Inquest report (Exhibit 3). respectively. PW 4 Rameshwar Paswan. PW 6 Smt. Maheshwar Paswan and PW 8 Anant Paswan have corroborated the version of the informant that on the following day. the dead body of Sahdeo Paswan was recovered from the tank. They have also stated appellant Ghuttar Pandit had confessed his guilt before the informant that he had slapped the deceased Sahdeo Paswan he was grazing the she-buffalo in his field. PW 5 Maheshwar Paswan has been tendered by the prosecution. PW 7 Ram Babu Sao is the solitary eye witness and claimed to have seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. PW 9 Singheshwar Paswan is the informant. PW 10 Sattar Nadaf is the witness with regard to recovery of the dead body and PW 11 Rooplal Paswan was declared hostile. PW 12 Ram Chandra Sharma is the Investigating Officer who carried out investigation and submitted charge-sheet. PW 13 Nathuni Paswan is a hearsay witness and is the labourer of the informant. PW 14 Dr. Akhileshwar Kumar Verma conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sahdeo Paswan on 12.3.1983 and found two abrasions, two bruises and one lacerated wound on the dead body. In his opinion, injury No. 4 was grievous and also sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. From the case of the prosecution as well as evidence of the doctor, there appears no doubt that Sahdeo Paswan died on account of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, question arises as to who was the assailant of the deceased. 7. I have already mentioned that PW 7 Ram Babu Sao is the solitary witness who had gone to the field at the time of the occurrence near the place of occurrence for grazing his she-buffalo and claimed to have seen the accused persons assaulting deceased Sahdeo Paswan in the wheat field of Subai Dhobi. He also said that after committing murder, the accused persons covered the dead body of Sahdeo and left in the field. But unfortunately, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW 7. He also said that after committing murder, the accused persons covered the dead body of Sahdeo and left in the field. But unfortunately, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW 7. Though this witness had seen the accused persons assaulting Sahdeo Paswan on 10.3.1983, but he did not disclose these facts either to his parents or to any of the villagers. It is also surprising as per the materials brought on the record, this witness continued to search the deceased alongwith others and remained present throughout at the time when the dead body was recovered from the tank but in spite of that he did not disclose that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased on the day of occurrence. It also appears quite unnatural that the Police arrived in the village on the day of occurrence itself and recorded the statement of witnesses but this witness did not disclose anything. However, on 16.3.1983 for the first time this witness stated before the Police that he had seen the accused persons assaulting deceased Sahdeo Paswan. Therefore, such type of conduct of this witness creates doubt whether he had seen the actual offence. 8. It is well known that in a murder case where the entire prosecution case depends on the evidence of a sole eye witness, who did not disclose the name of the assailant to other witnesses immediately after the occurrence, such disclosure will be a serious infirmity which can destroy the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. Reference in this regard can be made to a decision of the apex court in the case of State of Orissa V/s. Mr. Barahmananda Nanda. AIR 1976 SC 2488 . Reliance can also be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar. 1996 (2) PLJR 120 : 1996 (2) East Cr C 516. In this case, the solitary witness of murder though visited the house of the deceased after the occurrence but divulged the name of the accused persons after a long delay. The Court held that on the basis of the evidence of such eye-witness, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and highly shaky. 9. In this case, the solitary witness of murder though visited the house of the deceased after the occurrence but divulged the name of the accused persons after a long delay. The Court held that on the basis of the evidence of such eye-witness, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and highly shaky. 9. Learned counsel for the State however, contended that simply because PW 7 Ram Babu Sao divulged the name of the accused persons after some delay, the entire prosecution case cannot be doubted. Because it was quite possible for PW 7 to loose balance and remain dumb founded after seeing the ghastly murder of Sahdeo Paswan. Therefore, even if the sole eye witness did not immediately disclose the names of the accused persons to the inmates of the family or the villagers, it cannot be said that there was a fatal defect in the case of the prosecution. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance to a decision of the apex court in the case of Narayan Singh and others V/s. State of M.P.. AIR 1985 SC 1678 : 1986 East Cr C 164 (SC). 10. In my view, the ratio laid down in the abovementioned case may not be universally applied to the facts of each case. In the case before me, indisputedly success of the prosecution depends upon the testimony of PW 7. It has already been noticed that this witness had gone to meet the villagers and his parents for several days. But he did not disclose the name of the accused. Even at the time of recovery of the dead body from the tank though this witness was present but he did not disclose their names. Therefore, such type of unnatural conduct of PW 7 creates a doubt whether actually he had seen the occurrence on 10.3.1983. 11. There is no doubt, as would appear from the findings recorded by the trial Court and evidence of PW 4 Rameshwar Paswan. PW 6 Smt. Maheshwar Paswan and PW 9 Singheshwar Paswan that accused Ghuttar Pandit had made extra judicial confession and stated that on the day of occurrence he had given a slap to the deceased. 11. There is no doubt, as would appear from the findings recorded by the trial Court and evidence of PW 4 Rameshwar Paswan. PW 6 Smt. Maheshwar Paswan and PW 9 Singheshwar Paswan that accused Ghuttar Pandit had made extra judicial confession and stated that on the day of occurrence he had given a slap to the deceased. But in my view on the basis of such extrajudicial confession, it would not be safe to hold that having sustained injuries by slaps, the deceased Sahdeo Paswan died and his dead body was thrown in the ditch. That apart, the evidence of the doctor and the post-mortem report would further show that the deceased had seven injuries on his person. Therefore, even the extra-judicial confession of this accused is accepted, it would be difficult to hold that the injuries found on person pf the deceased were caused by these appellant at the time of the occurrence. 12. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid infirmities in the case of the prosecution, a doubt arises whether the prosecution witnesses have come forward with true version. Accordingly, I have no option but to acquit the appellants while giving benefit of doubt and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. Appeal is allowed accordingly. N.N.Singh, J. 13 I agree.