JUDGMENT By this appeal the appellants are impugning the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur by which he had convicted the appellants for committing an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life as well as fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further RI for one year. Prosecution case in brief is that on 8.12.92 at about noon time, the appellants assaulted deceased with weapons like axes, sticks and caused such bodily injuries which resulted in his death. Prosecution examined PW Bane Singh, PW Kailash, PW Parvatibai, the widow of deceased Hansraj, PW Parvatibai, the daughter of deceased for proving the guilt of the appellants. Prosecution also examined Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh who had performed the post mortem examination in respect of the dead body of deceased Hansraj. Learned trial Judge discarding the evidence of Kailash, Parvatibai and Pavitrabai, believed the evidence of Bane Singh. Learned trial Judge believed the evidence of Bane Singh though he had omitted the names of same of the co-accused whose names were mentioned in Dehati Nalish which was recorded at the instance of this witness. Shri A. Siddiqui, counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that when the prosecution was required to disown the credibility of PW Bane Singh in respect of some of the co-accused when Bane Singh was required to be cross-examined, learned trial Judge has committed error in accepting his evidence for basing the conviction and sentence against the appellants. He submitted further that when Bane Singh was supporting the names of co-accused, it was very risky to base the conviction on his evidence. He submitted that the evidence of solitary witness which has been disowned and declared hostile by prosecution itself, cannot be the basis of a conviction and sentence in a murder case. Shri S.H. Sen, Dy G.A. appearing for the prosecution justified the order of conviction and sentence as correct, proper and legal. We set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned trial Judge for the reasons stated below. Bane Singh was the person who was responsible for recording of Dehati Nalish, which was signed by him. He had mentioned the names of other co-accused, who have not been convicted, in the said Dehati Nalish. We set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned trial Judge for the reasons stated below. Bane Singh was the person who was responsible for recording of Dehati Nalish, which was signed by him. He had mentioned the names of other co-accused, who have not been convicted, in the said Dehati Nalish. The FIR which has been recorded in view of the information given by PW Bane Sing also mentioned names of the co-accused who have not been convicted. PW Bane Singh did not say in his evidence the names of all those accused except the present appellants and, therefore, the prosecution was required to impeach his credit by putting questions to him in the nature of cross-examination. It is pertinent to note that an per evidence of PW Bane Singh, the wife of deceased Hansraj, Parvatibai, Kailash and Pavitrabai, were present to witness the said assault. The widow of deceased had not supported the evidence of PW Bane Singh. Same is the case in respect of the daughter of deceased-Pavitrabai. Though PW Kailash had supported the evidence of PW Bane Singh, learned trial Judge himself has disbelieved him finding that his evidence is not deserving to be believed. If at .all there was truth in the prosecution case, the widow of deceased and his daughter would not have spared the real culprits. They would have also stated the names of appellants as well as co-accused. PW Bane Singh has concealed the names of some of the co-accused and has chosen to mention the names of the appellants only. This shows that Bane Singh was giving evidence in the Court with choose and select tendency, when the conviction in a murder case is to be based on the evidence of such witness, when the widow and daughter of the deceased who have been shown to be eye witnesses of such incident are not supporting his evidence, it would be neither prudent nor legal to base the conviction on evidence of such solitary witness in a murder case. It is settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary eye witness but in such case the evidence of such eye witness should be above board, sterling sound and should create confidence in the judicial minds. It is settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary eye witness but in such case the evidence of such eye witness should be above board, sterling sound and should create confidence in the judicial minds. When such a witness is concealing the names of some of the culprits as contended by the prosecution itself, the conviction can not be based on the evidence of such solitary eye witness. It would be risky to base conviction on the evidence of such witness when the prosecution is required to impeach his credit by disowning his evidence as hostile witness in respect of same part. Learned trial Judge has committed error in basing the conviction and sentence on evidence of Bane Singh and convicting appellants for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC. Thus, the appeal stands allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned trial Judge stands set aside. The appellants are acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged. No interference in the order of disposal of property.