( 1 ) THE sole appellant was the first accused before the Designated Court II of Delhi under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "tada" ). He has been convicted by the Judge of the Designated Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5 of TADA and Section 4-A of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884. On the last count he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of rs 2000; on the second count rigorous imprisonment for five years plus a fine of Rs 5000; and on the first count rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs 3000. This appeal is under Section 19 of TADA. ( 2 ) AMONG the four accused arraigned before the Designated Court, the fourth accused was Krishan Kumar. He died during the pendency of the trial. The second accused Hoshiar Singh and the third accused Satya Prakash were convicted under Sections 325 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC but they were dealt with by the Designated Court under the provisions of the probation of Offenders Act. This may be the reason that they have not come up in appeal. ( 3 ) THE incident which gave rise to the prosecution case occurred at about 5. 00 p. m. on 8-7-1989. It seems to be the offshoot of a land dispute between pw 5 (Ballu) on the one side and the appellant on the other side. It is said that one of the sons of PW 5 (Ballu) made a bid to take possession of the disputed land on the day of occurrence and that bid was foiled by the resistance offered by the accused persons. That son of PW 5 ran away but was chased up to his residence by the accused. A-2 (Hoshiar Singh) and A-3 (Satya Prakash) had lathis with them while A-4 (Krishan Kumar) had a jelli. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, A-4 (Krishan Kumar) gave a blow on the chest of PW 5 (Ballu) with the aforesaid jelli. On sustaining the injury, PW 5 and rest of the inmates of his house retreated to the interior of their house and bolted the door from inside. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, A-4 (Krishan Kumar) gave a blow on the chest of PW 5 (Ballu) with the aforesaid jelli. On sustaining the injury, PW 5 and rest of the inmates of his house retreated to the interior of their house and bolted the door from inside. It was at this time that the appellant had thrown a hand grenade from the roof of a neighbouring house which fell in the courtyard of the house of PW 5. Fortunately the hand grenade did not explode. ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the police, who was alerted arrived at the scene and one of the police personnel defused the hand grenade. ( 6 ) FIR was lodged at 10. 10 p. m. on the basis of a statement furnished by pw 5 (Ballu ). Further investigation was completed and the case was charge- sheeted against the aforesaid four persons. ( 7 ) THE appellant was convicted on the strength of the evidence of PW 5 (Ballu), which was found to be corroborated by PW 7 (Surajmal), who is the son of PW 5. It is not disputed before us that the only act for which the appellant stands convicted is the hurling of the hand grenade from the roof of the house of A-2 (Hoshiar Singh ). In between that house and the house of pw 5 (Ballu) there is another house belonging to one Satpal. The conviction of the appellant would stand or fall depending upon the reliability of the evidence of PW 5 (Ballu) because his son PW 7 admitted in his evidence that he did not see the actual act of the appellant throwing the hand grenade, all that he knows is that his father told him that such a thing was done by the appellant. ( 8 ) WHEN conviction is to be based on the evidence of a single eyewitness, the testimony of that eyewitness must be wholly reliable. In this case PW 5, no doubt, said that he saw the appellant throwing the hand grenade, but in cross-examination he said that before the hand grenade was thrown there was a quarrel with the accused and then PW 5 had gone inside his house and bolted the door of the house. In this case PW 5, no doubt, said that he saw the appellant throwing the hand grenade, but in cross-examination he said that before the hand grenade was thrown there was a quarrel with the accused and then PW 5 had gone inside his house and bolted the door of the house. He said in the cross-examination that "as soon as we entered our house and bolted the door from inside, the police control room police reached. " Upon the arrival of the police PW 5 was asked to go out of the room and he did so. PW 5 further said that when he came out of the room he saw some brickbats and a hand grenade lying in the courtyard. ( 9 ) MUCH reasoning is not necessary to highlight the insufficiency of the evidence of PW 5 (Ballu) to reach a conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that it was the appellant who had thrown the hand grenade which fell in the courtyard. It could either be an allegation which the aggrieved PW 5 made against the appellant or it may be an impression which he formed in his mind, or it may be something which others would have made him to believe. There is no other corroboration. What his son, PW 7 had deposed was that his father PW 5 revealed to him that he witnessed the throwing of hand grenade while peeping through the space of the bolted door. Even PW 5 did not say in court that he saw the incident through such a narrow space. It is apparently incredible. There is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the hand grenade. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid paucity of evidence, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the offences passed by the Designated Court on the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We acquit him. His bail bonds will stand cancelled.