( 1 ) WHICH has taken place on 26. 6. 1975. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 8. 6. 1977 and 10. 6. 1977 respectively. Facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated in succeeding paragraphs. ( 3 ) THE entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Pushpa Public Witness-6 According to the prosecution version Public Witness-6 of Ram Bhola went to give lunch box to her husband. Appellant Wahiduddin, his wife and children met her and took her to their house where she was kept for 2-3 days. The appellant Wahiduddin told her that he would take her to his sister s house in Merut and had in fact taken her to Public Witness-2, Rajo, who was living in Kabari Bazar at Meerut. The further case of the prosecution is that Wahiduddin wanted to sell prosecutrix to one Rajo in Meerut. Rajo offered Rs. 1,500. 00 whereas Wahiduddin demanded Rs. 2,000. 00 When Public Witness 6 heard this conversation, she became apprehensive and rushed to the downstair and she raised alarm that the appellant Wahiduddin was selling her to Rajo. Some people had collected and they apprehended Wahiduddin. In the meantime the police reached there and recorded prosecutrix s statement, i. e. , Exhibit Public Witness-2. /a. This statement was treated as a First Information Report. Though the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, other than Public Witness-6 but all other are-formal witnesses. The Trial Court on analysis of the prosecution version came. to the finding that Public Witness- 6 was not a woman of virtue and the trial court mentioned that she had voluntarily left the house of her husband Ram Bhola on three different occasions. She had left with Wahiduddin accused on one occasion. This clearly shows that she had known the accused appellant and had voluntarily gone with him to Meerut. ( 4 ) THE trial court gave emphasis on the fact that Wahiduddin. appellant was. indulging in singing and dancing business, from that the trial court had drawn the inference that he must have taken prosecutrix for inducing her to the profession of dancing and singing girls and for no other purpose. ( 4 ) THE trial court gave emphasis on the fact that Wahiduddin. appellant was. indulging in singing and dancing business, from that the trial court had drawn the inference that he must have taken prosecutrix for inducing her to the profession of dancing and singing girls and for no other purpose. The trial court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in the garb of exhibiting the art of dancing and singing, ladies of ill-repute also indulge into sexual intercourse for consideration. The trial court further inferred that from the direct and circumstantial evidence, it is clear that Wahiduddin had abducted Pushpa Public Witness-6. and-convicted the appellant Wahiduddin under Section 366 and the appellant Rajo under Section 368 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year s R. I. ( 5 ) IN these appeals Mr. C. L. Prem and Mr. S. Narain, advocates respectively appeared in these appeals at the time of admission- and thereafter no one had appeared for the appellants in these appeals. Therefore this Court appointed Ms. Neeta Thakur, Advocate as amicus curiae in this cases. ( 6 ) MS. Thakur, the learned amicus curiae strenuously-submitted that the trial court has seriously erred in recording the conviction on the sole testimony of Public Witness-6 which suffers from serious infirmities. She submitted that no conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of a witness, which is wholly unreliable. She has drawn my attention to the First Information Report lodged by Public Witness-6 and her subsequent statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. which was recorded on 8. 7. 1975. She has pointed out that in the First Information Report Public Witness-6 had stated that the appellant. Wahiduddin had induced her to go with him to Meerut. In her statement under Sec. 164 she stated that she was annoyed with her husband and left her home. Similarly, in her statement under Section 164 she stated that the appellant. Wahiduddin had taken her to his house for three days/whereas in the FIR she had not mentioned anything about this fact. Ms. Thakur demonstrated that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material contradictions and infirmities and it would be unsafe to place reliance on her testimony. ( 7 ) MS. thakur, the learned amicus curiae pointed out from the statement under 164 Cr. Ms. Thakur demonstrated that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material contradictions and infirmities and it would be unsafe to place reliance on her testimony. ( 7 ) MS. thakur, the learned amicus curiae pointed out from the statement under 164 Cr. P. C. in which she stated that Wahiduddin and his wife in conspiracy with each other wanted to sell Public Witness-6 for Rs. 2,000. 00 whereas this vital fact is totally missing in the First Information Report lodged by her. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 21. 5. 1977 is also quite different from the First Information Report. In this statement, Public Witness-6 had stated that the appellant Wahiduddin told her that he would take her to his sister s house and-then took her to Rajo at Meerut. In this statement, the prosecutrix did not mention that there was any conspiracy between the appellant Wahiduddin and :his wife to sell Public Witness-6 for Rs. 2,000. 00 In this statement it is stated that there was bargaining between Rajo and Wahiduddin on the amount. This fact is altogether missing in her earlier statements. In the cross-examination before the trial Court, Public Witness-6 stated that she had left her house on three different occasions and on all the three occasions she had left her house on her own accord and free will. In the first instance, she had left and gone with the appellant, Wahiduddin, on the second occasion with Mahavir Prasad and on third occasion with Ram Chander with whom she was still living for the last 15 months. ( 8 ) ON scrutiny her statements and the First Information Report, material contradictions and discrepancies are obvious. ( 9 ) IT is well-settled law of criminal jurisprudence that conviction can be based on uncorroborated testimony of a solitary witness if that witness is wholly reliable or of a sterling worth. In these cases, the entire conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of Public Witness-6. Her testimony suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to base conviction on the sole testimony of Public Witness-6 particularly when her testimony does not find any support from any quarter. The learned amicus curiae has placed reliance on Jagdish Prasad and Others Bawan Kumar Vs. Her testimony suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to base conviction on the sole testimony of Public Witness-6 particularly when her testimony does not find any support from any quarter. The learned amicus curiae has placed reliance on Jagdish Prasad and Others Bawan Kumar Vs. State of M. P. : 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 160 in which well settled principle of law has been retierated. Their Lordships of the Supre Court mentioned that as a general rule a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness is found entirely reliable. In that case, there will be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the conviction is solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. To place implicit reliance on the testimony of such an untrustworthy and unreliable witness would be quite unsound and unsafe. In the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside/both the appellants are set at liberty and their their bail bonds are cancelld. These appeals are allowed and accordingly disposed of. ( 11 ) BEFORE I part with these cases, I would ,l. . like to record my deep sense of appreciation for able assistance provided by Ms. Neeta Thakur, amicus curiae in these appeals.