Honble MADAN, J.–This appeal u/S. 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.95 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicted and sentenced Ramveer, Mukesh and Mata Prasad, appellants, u/S. 302 r/w. Sec. 34 IPC to imprisonment for life and Rs. 500/- as fine or in case of default in making payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months Mukesh appellant was further convicted and sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 and to six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 323 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution case in brief is as under- On February 7, 1991, at about 4.00 p.m. Sewaram, deceased and his brother Ram Khilari, had gone to bring sand in their camel cart from the bank of river running in the vicinity of village Simona. While they were on their way to the bank of river, the three appellants appeared on the way. All the three appellants were armed with lathis. They opened an attack upon the deceased and PW. 3, Ramkhilari, Mukesh appellant gave a lathi blow to PW 3, Ramkhilari on his back making him to run away from the spot. All the three appellants continued their assault upon Sewa Ram deceased and caused him fatal injuries. PW 3, Ramkhilari, went to the village and called upon Moji Ram PW 10 and Jagdish PW 5 and taking a cot with them all the three brought the dead Sewaram from the jungle to his house. (3). The incident was reported by PW 3, Ramkhilari to the Police Officer, at Police Station, Rajakhera, Distt. Dholpur at 8.15 p.m. on that very day. In the absence of PW 21, Gendilal, the then SHO of the Police Station, his subordinate PW 19, Hanuman Singh ASI registered Crime No. 14/91, u/S. 302, 323, 341 r/w. Sec. 41 IPC vide FIR Ex.P. 22 on the basis of the written report (Ex.D-2), submitted to him by PW 3 Ram Khilari, and commenced investigation. (4). PW 19 Hanuman Singh went to the place of occurrence on the next day at about. 9.00 a.m. He prepared the Panchnama and conducted other preliminary investigation in the case. In the course of investigation the three appellants were arrested and certain lathis were recovered from their possession as per their information u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act. (4). PW 19 Hanuman Singh went to the place of occurrence on the next day at about. 9.00 a.m. He prepared the Panchnama and conducted other preliminary investigation in the case. In the course of investigation the three appellants were arrested and certain lathis were recovered from their possession as per their information u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act. After having conducted the preliminary in- vestigation Hanuman Singh, ASI, submitted the papers before PW 21 Gendi Lal, the then SHO, who arrested Ramveer, accused, and after completing the investigation submitted a report u/S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. against the present appellants. (5). On committal of the case to him the learned Add/ Sessions Judge framed charges u/S. 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC against all the three appellants. Mukesh, appellant, was further charged with the offence u/S. 341 and 323 IPC. After holding the trial the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found all the three appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated above. (6). Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently urged that there was no reliable and trustworthy evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the appellants or any of them with the commission of the offence against Seva Ram, deceased, in the present case. Mr. Gupta particularly pointed out that the prosecution case hinges on two types of evidence, one the testimony of PW 3 Ramkhilari, who has been examined as an eye witness in the present case, and two, the extra judicial confession, alleged to have been made by three appellants before PW 1 Smt. Bhuri Devi, the widow of the deceased Seva Ram, and her sister PW 2 Smt. Bhagwan Devi. It was submitted that neither the ocular evidence, as tendered by PW 3 Ramkhilari in the case, was truthful and reliable nor the extra judicial confession, alleged to have been made by the appellants, can be accepted against them or any of them. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly speak that PW 3 Ramkhilari was a made-up witness who was not at all present at the time of commission of offences against Seva Ram, deceased. Mr. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly speak that PW 3 Ramkhilari was a made-up witness who was not at all present at the time of commission of offences against Seva Ram, deceased. Mr. Gupta thus submitted that since there was no reliable and satisfactory evidence against any of the appellants and they or any of them cannot be held guilty of any of the offence of which they were charged with. (7). Mr. G.D. Parwal, the learned Public Prosecutor, duly assisted by Mr. Anil Jain, the learned counsel for the complainant, not only supported the judgment and order under appeal but also further submitted that PW. 3 Ramkhilari was injured himself and, therefore, his presence at the time of commission of the offences against him as also against the deceased cannot be doubted. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that since the deceased and the present appellants were in litigation from before the incident and since Sevaram, deceased, Ramkhilari PW 3 and Ramchitra PW 4 were being prosecuted by the appellants, they had a motive to assault the deceased and caused his death. The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Jain further submitted that after the incident the appellants had gone to the house of the deceased and informed his widow that they had murdered the deceased and that his dead body was lying in the jungle. It was submitted that it was an act and conduct of !he appellants which may show as to how dare devil they were. The learned counsel further submitted that not only there was truthful and reliable direct evidence in the statement of PW 3 Ramkhilari against the present appellants but also that the evidence of extra-judicial confession was quite satisfactory and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no good reasons to disbelieve either the direct evidence or the circumstantial evidence on the record of the trial court. (8). We have given due consideration to the rival submission, advanced before us, and also studied the evidence, available on the record of the trial court. (9). In the present case it was not disputed before us that on the day, time and place, i.e. February 7, 1991, at about 4.00 PM, Seva Ram deceased had died a homi- cidal death as a number of injuries with blunt weapons had been caused to him. (9). In the present case it was not disputed before us that on the day, time and place, i.e. February 7, 1991, at about 4.00 PM, Seva Ram deceased had died a homi- cidal death as a number of injuries with blunt weapons had been caused to him. In that behalf Mr. Gupta, was fair enough not to challenge that Seva Ram deceased had died a violent death and that in his death an offence punishable u/S. 302 iPC can be said to have been committed. On a study of the record of the lower court we find that PW 16 Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed, Medical Officer at Govt. In that behalf Mr. Gupta, was fair enough not to challenge that Seva Ram deceased had died a violent death and that in his death an offence punishable u/S. 302 iPC can be said to have been committed. On a study of the record of the lower court we find that PW 16 Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed, Medical Officer at Govt. Dispensary at Raja- khera, had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Seva Ram, deceased, on 8.2.91 and had observed the following injuries on his person— 1- uhyxw 5 lseh xq.kk 3 lseh- nk;ha tka?k ij vUnj dh rjQ chp ds rhljs fgLls esa vkM+hA 2- [kqjlV 3 lseh- xq.kk 1 lseh- vfu;fer ck;sa ?kqVus ij vkxs dh vksjA 3- [kqjlV 4 lseh- xq.kk <kbZ lseh- ck;sa iSj ij iksfLVj;ksysVjyhA uhps ds rhljs fgLls ij vkM+h vkSj uhyxw 8 lseh- xq.kk 3 ck;h iSj ij iksfLV;ksysVjyh bUVjfeMsUVyh [kqjlV ds pkjksa vksjA ck;ha Vkax ihNs dh rjQ eqM+h gqbZA vUn:uh phj QkM+ ij ,sady TokbZUV ¼V[kus dk tksM+½ vyx gks x;kA 2 [kqjlV 3 lseh-x1 lseh- vkSj 2 lseh-x1 lseh- ck;sa iSj ij vkxs uhps ds rhljs fgLls ijA 4- 2 lekukUrj uhyxw 18 lseh- xq.kk <kbZ lseh- vkSj 16 lseh- xqkk <kbZ lseh- ¼Dyc ekdZ½ ykBh dk fukku ck;ha tka?k ij chp ds mijh rhljs fgLls ls vkM+h ¼frjNh½ ehfM;ks ,UVh;jyhA uhyxw ¼Dyc ekdZ½ ykBh dk fukku 8 lseh- xq.kk 3 lseh- ck;ha tka?k ij ihNs dh vksj chp ds rhljs fgLls esa vkM+hA 5- uhyxw 8 lseh- xq.kk 3 lseh- nk;ha Vkax ij ihNs uhps ds rhljs fgLls ij bUVjfeVsUVyhA 6- cgqr lkjs vkil esa ,d nwljs ls feys gq, uhyxw fukku 8 lseh- xq.kk 6 lseh- ds {ks= esa nk;sa pwrM+ ijA 7- uhyxw fukku 6 lseh- xq.kk 3 lseh- ck;sa pwrM+ ij ykBh dk fukku vkM+kA 8- dbZ vkil esa feys gq, uhyxw fukku chp ds vkSj rhljs fgLls esa vkSj uhps ds rhljs fgLls Nkrh ds ihNsA 22 lseh- xq.kk 12 lseh- {ks= esaA ck;ha rjQ ,d uhyxw ¼ykBh dk fukku½ Dyc ekdZ 10 lseh- xq.kk 3 lseh- nk;ha Nkrh ij ihNs dh rjQ mijh rhljs fgLls esa vkM+hA 9- dqpyk gqvk ?kko 2 lseh- xq.kk 2 lseh- gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd xgjk cka;s vxz ckgw ij chp ds rhljs fgLls ijA 10- ,d uhyxw fukku 8 lseh xq.kk 8 lseh- {ks= esa ck;ha Hkqtk ij ihNs vfu;fer bUVjfeVsUVyhA chp ds rhljs fgLls esaA Hkqtk eqM+h gqbZ ihNs dh rjQ ,d feMy FkMZ ijA 11- ,d uhyxw 8 lseh xq.kk 8 lseh- {ks= esa nk;ha Hkqtk ij ihNs chp ds rhljs fgLl esa vfu;fer bUVjfeVsUVyh vkSj ckgw ihNs dh rjQ eqM+h gqbZ chp ds rhljs fgLls ijA 12- uhyxw QsUVsM ¼gYdk½ ck;ha Nkrh ij vkxs dh vksj chp ds rhljs fgLls esa 8 lseh- xq.kk 8 lseh- dk bUVjfeVsUVyhA (10). Dr. Ahmed had found 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs of left side of the body of the deceased fractured. The left lung had been damaged and the right lung was found congested. In the opinion of the Medical Officer the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from injuries to chest and other multiple injuries. Looking to the fact that as many as 12 injuries had been ca- used to the deceased with blunt weapon and some of the injuries had damaged his vital organs, we are clearly of the opinion that the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. The death of the deceased had been reported to the police soon after the occurrence and the postmortem examination had also taken place on the following day. In view of the evidence placed before us we are satisfied that Sevaram deceased had died a death by violence and that in his death an offence punishable u/S. 302 IPC was committed. (11). On making further study of the record of the trial court we note that although the prosecution had examined as many as 27 witnesses but the extra-ju- dicial confession, as stated by PW 1 Smt. Bhuri Devi and PW 2 Smt. Bhagwan Devi, as also ocular evidence, led by PW 3 Ramkhilari, had been made sole basis for the conviction of the appellants u/9. 302 IPC. PW 4 Ramchitra, another younger brother of the deceased, PW 5 Jagdish, PW 6 Ramcharan, PW 8 Ghamandilal, PW 9 Laxminarain, PW 12 Ramkhilari R/o. Ranchodpura, had undisputedly seen the dead body of Sevaram, deceased, either in the village after the same had been brought to his house or at the hospital. The majority of these witnesses had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. On a close scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses we are satisfied that the testimony of these witnesses does not at all incriminate any of the present appellants. Of the rest witnesses, namely PW 7 Rameshwar, PW 11 Ramkishan, PW 15 Ninnuram, Constable, PW 17 Deewan Singh, PW 18 Ramnath, PW 20 Vijay Singh, Constable, are the witnesses of arrest of the accused and recovery of certain lathis from them, as per information given by them. Of the rest witnesses, namely PW 7 Rameshwar, PW 11 Ramkishan, PW 15 Ninnuram, Constable, PW 17 Deewan Singh, PW 18 Ramnath, PW 20 Vijay Singh, Constable, are the witnesses of arrest of the accused and recovery of certain lathis from them, as per information given by them. The weapons, recovered from the possession of the appellants, are stated to have been sent to the Forensic Science, Laboratory for chemical examination and on the lathis the Serologists had also found human blood. But on going through the statements of the witnesses of recovery of such weapons, we are satisfied that none of such independent witness has supported the recovery of the weapon of assault from the possession of any of the appellants. Almost all the independent witnesses to the recovery of the lathis have also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. The lathis, upon which the blood stains were found present by the Serologist, could not be proved to be connected with any of the present appellants. Thus the evidence of recovery of the weapon of assault from the possession of any of the appellants is not at all convincing so as to connect any of the appellants with the crime, committed in this case against Sevaram deceased. (12). It now brings us to appreciate the first limb of the arguments of Mr. Gupta that the ocular evidence, led by PW 3 Ramkhilari in the present case, is not at all trustworthy and reliable. Mr. Gupta urged that PW 3 Ramkhilari was a highly interested witness and that even if his testimony be accepted in part, conviction cannot be based on such testimony without corroboration from independent evidence. (13). It is well settled in law that no specific number of witnesses or quantity of evidence is required to prove a particular fact. In our system of administration of justice we go by quality of evidence rather than quantity of evidence. This solitary principle has been statutorily recognised in Section 134 of the Evidence Act which says that no specific quantity of evidence would be required to prove a particular fact. This necessarily suggests that the conviction of a person may safely be based on the solitary evidence of a single witness provided that such witness is a truthful witness and his evidence is found to be of sterling worth. (14). This necessarily suggests that the conviction of a person may safely be based on the solitary evidence of a single witness provided that such witness is a truthful witness and his evidence is found to be of sterling worth. (14). In the present case PW 3 Ramkhilari is the only eye- witness. He is not only the informant in the case but also an injured person himself. The question arises as to whether PW 3 Ramkhilari may be held to be a truthful and reliable wit- ness so as to convict the present appellants or any of them for offence u/S. 302 IPC or even a minor offence, as is alleged to have been committed against him. (15). PW 3 Ram Khilari had stated in the FIR that he and his brother Sevaram, deceased, had gone to bring sand in their camel cart from the bank of river, running outside of the village. He further stated that when they had reached in the Jungle, the three appellants had appeared on the way duly armed with lathis, and opened an attack upon them. He further stated that Mukesh appellant gave two lath! blows on his back and rest of the appellants simultaneously opened an attack with their lathis upon the deceased. He further stated that after having sustained two lathi blows from the hands of Mukesh appellant he ran away from the spot and hid him- self in the `sarson field nearby wherefrom he witnessed the entire occurrence. He further stated that after having caused death of Sevaram, deceased, all the three appellants retired from the place of occurrence and thereafter he went to the place where his brother was lying in injured condition. He found Sevaram dead. He further stated that on finding his brother dead he started crying and seated himself by the side of the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that all the three appellants reached the house of his deceased brother and informed the ladies there of the brutal act, committed by them against the deceased. He further stated that after sometimes he and others lifted the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence and took the same to his house. Thereafter he left for the police station to lodge a report there. He further stated that after sometimes he and others lifted the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence and took the same to his house. Thereafter he left for the police station to lodge a report there. The witness further stated that he came back to the village alongwith the police personnel, who conducted the investigation and got him also examined for his injuries. The question that arises for serious consideration is whether the statement as made by PW 3 Ramkhilari may be accepted on Its face value. (16). It may be observed that Ramkhilari is the brother of the deceased and allegedly an injured person himself. He is thus not only an interested witness but also a partisan one. It is in evidence that the parties were in litigation from before. It can, therefore, be said that he is an inimical witness also. In the appreciation of the testimony of interested, partisan or inimical witness, it is not the rule of eviden- ce that his testimony be discarded outright. The rule which is applicable to the app- reciation of the testimony of such a witness is that his testimony should be weighed in the entirety of the circumstances and only that part of his testimony, which finds corroboration from independent evidence should be accepted. The rule of care and caution has to be applied in appreciation of the testimony of such a witness. When this well established rule of appreciation of the testimony of a witness is applied, we find the PW 3 Ramkhilari is not at all a reliable and truthful witness. (17). PW 3 Ram Khilari has stated in the FIR that after having sustained certain blows at the hands of Mukesh appellant he had run away from the spot. As against such statement he has stated in the court that he did not run away from the place of occurrence but that he hid himself in the sarson field nearby behind a heap of sand and from there he witnessed the entire incident. The statement given by this witness in the court suffers from obvious infirmities and cannot be accepted. It does not appeal to our reasons that this witness, who had accompanied the deceased on a camel cart to bring sand, would run away from the place of occurrence leaving his brother in that condition. The statement given by this witness in the court suffers from obvious infirmities and cannot be accepted. It does not appeal to our reasons that this witness, who had accompanied the deceased on a camel cart to bring sand, would run away from the place of occurrence leaving his brother in that condition. Even if it be accepted that in order to save his life he would run away from the place of occurrence then it is difficult to believe that he would hid himself in the sarson field behind a heap of sand. He does not say that after running from the spot he had raised any alarm. A witness who is injured him- self and has been successful in running away from the place of occurrence and the assailants are not chasing him would raise alarm which may attract other persons in the locality. It cannot be lost sight of that the incident is stated to have taken place at about 4.00 p.m. in broad day light at a place which was the way for the villagers to bring sand from the bank of the river either for sale or for personal use. Ordinarily there was every likelihood of the appearance of any third person on or near the place of occurrence at the relevant time. It is difficult to accept that while the witness and the deceased had so gone to take sand in their camel cart and, as the evidence on record goes to show, other villagers also used to bring the sand from the said river-bed for sale to others, such a place is not likely to be visited from other persons at such a time. If we approve of the statement of PW 3 Ramkhilari, as made by him in the court, then the question necessarily arises as to how the news of a dispute between the deceased and his assailant had reached the village. Almost all the witnesses, a majority of whom is related either to the deceased or to the accused in one way or the other, have stated that in the village they had heard that an incident of marpeet between the parties had taken place and on such information the villagers had rushed to the place of occurrence. Almost all the witnesses, a majority of whom is related either to the deceased or to the accused in one way or the other, have stated that in the village they had heard that an incident of marpeet between the parties had taken place and on such information the villagers had rushed to the place of occurrence. It is also difficult to accept that after having seen the appellants returning from the place of occurrence, PW 3 Ramkhilari would go to the place where the dead body of his brother was lying and instead of trying to take the injured person or the dead body to the village in the camel cart, would chose to remain stayed for all the long hours after until the villagers reached there with a cot. It is again not believable that PW 3 Ramkhilari would remain at the place of occurrence till his nephew, one Ashok Kumar by name, who has not been examined, would reach the village Simona from his own village at a distance of about one and a half miles and then would accompany the other villagers to the place of occurrence and would see PW 3 Ramkhilari sitting there by the side of his dead brother. All these instances of abnormal conduct of PW 3 Ramkhilari create grave doubt of his being a truthful witness. (18). At this stage it was pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the presence of PW 3 Ramkhilari cannot be doubted for the reason that he himself has sustained two injuries with lathi at the hands of Mukesh, appellant, and that PW 16 Dr. Ashfaq had corroborated such a version of the witness. We have examined the injuries of Ramkhilari, as noticed and noted by PW 16 Dr. Ashfaq. Dr. Ashfaq had found the following two injuries on the person of PW 3 Ramkhilari on his examination of his body at 12.15 p.m. on 8.2.91 - 1- uhyxw fNyk gqvk bUVjfeVsUVyh 18 lseh- xq.kk Ms<+ lseh- Nkrh ds ihNs chp ds rhljs fgLls esa feMykbZu dks Økl djrh gqbZ vkM+hA 2- uhyxw fNyk gqvk bUVjfeVsUVyh 18 lseh- xq.kk Ms<+ lseh Nkrh ds ihNs fupys rhljs fgLls esa vkM+h chp dh ykbZu dks dzkl djrh gqbZ lekukUrjA pksV ua- 1 uhpsA (19). Dr. Ahmad opined that both the injuries had been caused to the witness with some blunt weapon within the last 24 hours. Dr. Ahmad opined that both the injuries had been caused to the witness with some blunt weapon within the last 24 hours. The specification of the injuries, given by Dr. Ahmad clearly indicate that PW 3 Ramkhilari was having two parallel abrasions with bruises of same length and same breadth, on his back. We specifically inquired of the learned Public Prosecutor as to in what manner these two injuries, which were quite peculiar in their specification, could have been caused to PW 3 Ramkhilari with two separate lathi blows, but the learned Public Prosecutor could not satisfy us. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Dr. Ahmad has specifically opined that the two injuries cannot be self inflicted. We agree with such opinion of Dr. Ahmad but at the same time we would like to add that the said injuries may well be caused to a person by a friendly hand. The distance between the two injuries, their directions, their similarity in specification, nature, length and breadth probabilises the view that most probably they might have been caused by a friendly hand. If those had been caused by lathis blows then it was not probable that the different lathi blows would cause injuries with same specification, same length and same breadth. As the specification of the injuries goes to show that the upper layer of the skin had been removed from the place of the body whereat those injuries had been caused. Such a position would cause bleeding to the injured on that part of his body and such bleeding must have stained the cloth, worn by the witness. Neither any `baniyan nor any shirt which PW 3 Ramkhilari might have been putting on his body at the time of occurrence was produced before us. We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that the two injuries, as were found on the body of PW 3 Ramkhilari, are not at all indicative of the fact that they had been cau- sed to him by a hostile assailant. There are all possibilities that they were caused to him with some friendly hand. This view gets support from other circumstances, available on the record of the case. (20). Mukesh, appellant, is a lad of about 18 years and was a student of 10th Class at the relevant time. There are all possibilities that they were caused to him with some friendly hand. This view gets support from other circumstances, available on the record of the case. (20). Mukesh, appellant, is a lad of about 18 years and was a student of 10th Class at the relevant time. He categorically slated that he was not at all present in the village on the relevant day DW 1 Bhagwati Prasad is his class teacher who had deposed that on 7.2.91 Mukesh, appellant, was very much present in his college, namely Kisan Inter College, Duripura. The witness further stated that the appellant Mukesh had remained present on 8.2.91 and 9.2.91 also. 10.2.91 was a holiday, Mukesh did not attend his classes with effect from 11.2.91. The sworn testimony of this witness is duly supported with the entries made in the attendance register, kept at that institution. This witness is not in any manner related to or interested in Mukesh, appellant. He was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination but to our mind nothing, which may be fatal to his truthful testimony, could be extracted by the learned Public Prosecutor on conducting such lengthy examination on the witness. We see no reason to discard the testimony of this witness particularly when such testimony is fully corroborated by the entries, made in attendance register, kept at the institution in regular course of business. (21). Here we would like to point out that though the plea of alibi is the weakest type of pleas, available to an accused, but if such plea is substantiated and proved by cogent evidence the court should not hesitate in accepting such piece of evidence. That apart, the burden to prove the guilt of the accused by positive evidence always lies on the prosecution and the accused is not obliged to prove his innocence. The probability of truth in the plea, taken by an accused, is sufficient to prove his case. (22). In the facts and circumstances of the case we note that in the FIR lodged by PW 3 Ramkhilari, the name of Mukesh, appellant, was not at all mentioned instead the third colleague of appellants was referred to as younger brother of Ram- veer. No test identification parade was held in the course of investigation to establish that the third assailant, referred to as younger brother of Ramveer, was the present appellant Mukesh. No test identification parade was held in the course of investigation to establish that the third assailant, referred to as younger brother of Ramveer, was the present appellant Mukesh. Then we further note that a conscious effort appears to have been made to incriminate this appellant particularly as he was attributed two blows with lathi to PW 3 Ramkhilari. Read together all these facts and circum- stances probabilise the truth in the plea taken by Mukesh, appellant. The positive evidence adduced in support of the plea of alibi of this appellant fatally affects the worth and value of the testimony of PW 3 Ramkhilari. (23). On careful examination of the evidence led through the statement of PW 3 Ramkhilari and looking to his abnormal and unnatural conduct at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, even if we accept his presence there at all, and subsequent to that we do not find him a truthful and reliable witness. As stated above, the sole testimony of a single witness may certainly be made basis of the conviction of an accused but such testimony must be of sterling worth. In the instant case PW 3 Ramkhilari is not found to be a truthful and reliable witness and accord- ingly we discard his testimony altogether. (24). That takes us to appreciate the evidence of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellants to PW 1 Smt. Bhuri Devi and PW 2 Smt. Bhagwan Devi. We may appreciate that hardened criminals may exhibit abnormal conduct after the commission of offences by them. In the facts and circumstances of a given case it may be true that the assailants, exhibiting the conduct of a dare devil may go to the house of his victim and inform the inmates there of the violent act, committed by him, against his victim. In the present case the prosecution alleges the exhibition of such a conduct on the part of the three appellants. But we find no substance in such evidence. (25). Confessions are species of admissions. If a person makes admission against his own interest, that is the best evidence that can be brought on record against him. In the present case the prosecution alleges the exhibition of such a conduct on the part of the three appellants. But we find no substance in such evidence. (25). Confessions are species of admissions. If a person makes admission against his own interest, that is the best evidence that can be brought on record against him. But admission of his guilt by an accused attracts penal consequences and, therefore, in the administration of criminal justice the court should be more careful in receiving and reading such evidence against the accused particularly when such evidence is not brought through a persons in authority It need not be stressed that extra- judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence that can be available to the prosecution against an accused. In the appreciation of such evidence it has to be kept in mind as to what was the occasion of making such a statement by an accused before other persons, who were the persons to whom the confession was made and what was the expectation of the accused in making such admission of his guilt. (26). In the present case all the three appellants are stated to have made confession of their guilt to the two lady witnesses who are sisters interse. PW 1 Smt. Bhuri Devi is the widow of the deceased and PW 2 Smt. Bhagwan Devi is her sister, married to another brother of the deceased. Both the ladies have stated that all the three accused had reached their house and informed them that they had murdered Seva Ram, deceased, and that his dead body was lying in a jungle and they may bring him to the village. They have further stated that thereupon they went to Moji Ram, PW 10 and Jagdish PW 5, who accompanied them with a cot to the place of occurrence where they found the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground and PW 3 Ramkhilari sitting by its side. They further stated that they brought the dead body of the deceased to the village and thereafter the police reached the village as a report has been lodged by PW 3 Ramkhilari at the Police Station. They further stated that they brought the dead body of the deceased to the village and thereafter the police reached the village as a report has been lodged by PW 3 Ramkhilari at the Police Station. Apart from the fact that though before lodging the FIR PW 3 Ramkhilari had sufficient occasion to talk to two ladies as also to other villagers, no reference to any extra- judicial confession, allegedly made by the present appellants to the two ladies, was made in the FIR Ex.D-2, Ex.P-22. Had such a confession been made by the appellants or any of them to the two ladies, there were no reason for PW 3 Ramkhilari to have not mentioned that vital fact in the FIR when such FIR had been lodged by an injured person who had sufficient opportunity to talk with the witnesses before whom such extra-judicial confession was alleged to have been made by the appellants. Apart from it in their statements, recorded u/S. 161 Cr.PC. (Ex.D-1) and (Ex.-D 2) they appear to have stated that it was Ramveer, appellant, only who had made extra-judicial confession of his guilt before them. That discrepancy and contradiction in their testimony further destroys the worth and value, whatever may be there in their self contradictory testimony The two ladies had further stated that PW 5 Jagdish and PW 10 Moji Ram had accompanied them to the jungle where the dead body of Seva Ram was lying and PW. 3 Ramkhilari was sitting by Its side. PW 5 Jagdish turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He stated that on his return from Rajakheda he came to know of the death of the deceased and then went to the jungle alongwith other villagers. PW 10 Moji Ram no doubt appears to have stated that Bhuri Devi had informed him of causing death of her husband Seva Ram in the jungle by the appellants whereupon he had gone to the place of occurrence and found PW 3 Ramkhilari sitting and weeping there. But this witness too turned hostile. Taking his testimony as it is we find that he did not state that Bhuri Devi had named all the three appellants as amongst the assailants of SevaRam, deceased. But this witness too turned hostile. Taking his testimony as it is we find that he did not state that Bhuri Devi had named all the three appellants as amongst the assailants of SevaRam, deceased. If the appellants had made confessional statement before PW 1 Bhuri Devi then certainly she would like to disclose the name of such assailants of her husband to PW 10 Moji Ram and the witness would also try to know as to who had caused the death of the husband of the lady. No doubt, in his examination-In-chief PW 10 Moji Ram appears to have stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence and had seen PW 3 Ramkhilari sitting by the side of the dead body of the deceased and weeping, but in the last line of his cross-examination he stated that he had left the village for the place of occurrence on a bicycle but due to fear he had returned back in the middle of the way. It is thus clear that this witness had contradicted himself and his testimony on the point of presence of PW 3 Ramkhilari on the place of occurrence sitting by the side of the dead body of the deceased, cannot be accepted. (27). To sum up the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of extra-judicial confession is also not at all convincing and reliable. Apart from the fact that the two ladies were inimically disposed of against the present appellants, their testimony cannot be accepted for the reasons stated above. We, therefore, reject the evidence of extra-judicial confession, led through the statements of PW 1 Bhuri Devi and PW 3 Bhagwan Devi against the present appellants in the present case. (28). The above discussion takes us to hold that there was no reliable and truthful evidence on the record of the lower court to hold any of the appellants as being the assailants of Sevaram deceased and/or PW 3 Ramkhilari. The prosecution evidence was not only highly interested, partisan and inimically disposed against the present appellants but was also quite unreliable and untruthful and the same could not have been accepted. Accordingly we reject such evidence and would acquit all the three appellants of the charges found proved against them by the learned trial court. (29). In the result, the judgment & order under appeal are hereby set-aside. Accordingly we reject such evidence and would acquit all the three appellants of the charges found proved against them by the learned trial court. (29). In the result, the judgment & order under appeal are hereby set-aside. The conviction and sentence of all the three appellants namely; Ramveer son of Natthilal, Mukesh Son of Natthilal and Mataprasad son of Jomdar under Section 302 IPC are set-aside and they are acquitted of the same. The conviction and sentence of Mukesh-appellant under Section 341, 323 IPC are also set-aside and he is acqui- tted of both the offences. All the three appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall be set to their liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeal stands allowed.