M. C. JAIN, J. This jail appeal has been preferred by Jeet Singh who has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by judg ment dated 16-12-1996 passed by Sri Mohammad Tahir, the then IX Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1995. 2. Briefly placed, the facts are that the deceased Bhajan Kaur was the step grand mother of the accused- appellant whose murder is said to have been committed. The incident occurred at about 9 p. m. on 7-9- 1994 in village Harsinghpur, Police Station Kotwali, Pooranpur, District Pilibhit. The F. I. R. was made by Darshan Singh-grand father of the accused-appel lant on 8-9-1994 at 8. 30 a. m. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was 4 km; The first wife of the informant Darshan Singh had died and about nine years before the incident he had remarried with the deceased. His second marriage with her was not liked by his grand-son (accused-appellant) and he was very much annoyed on this score. He used to ask him to turn out the deceased from his house. He (informant) did not yield to such pressure exerted by the accused-appel lant and started living with the deceased at the tube-well of Dr. Jogendra Singh, earning his livelihood by working as labourer. In the fateful night, he was lying with his wife at tube-well when the accused-appellant ap peared there with a BANKA (sharp cutting weapons ). He told him that as he would not turn her (deceased) out of the house, he was ending the root. Saying so, he assaulted his wife Bhajan Kaur with BANKA on her neck and committed her murder. On the lodging of the such F. I. R. by informant Darshan Singh, a case was registered and investiga tion followed. 3. The dead body of the deceased was sent by the Investigating Officer for post mortem which was conducted on 8-9-1994 at 3. 35 p. m. by P. W. 3 Dr. A. P. Sharma. The deceased was aged about 65 years and about 1/4 day had passed since she died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person: 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep present 4 cm below chin 3rd cervical Vertebra cut. All the structures anterior to vertebral column cut. 2. A. P. Sharma. The deceased was aged about 65 years and about 1/4 day had passed since she died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person: 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep present 4 cm below chin 3rd cervical Vertebra cut. All the structures anterior to vertebral column cut. 2. Incised would 15 cm x 4 cm x bone deep present on the neck on both sides 3 cm below injury No. 1. 5th cervical ver tebral cut. All the structures anterior to V. columns cut. 3. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present on left side of forehead ex tending to right side, artilery cut. Brain matter along with membranes also cut. 4. Incised wound 12 cm x 2-1/2 cm x bone deep present on the left cheek. 5. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm (bone deep) present on the left shoulder. 6. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present 3 cm below injury No. 5. 7. Abrasion 19cmx2mm. present on the chest across on both sides at the level of 4th coastal cartilage. 8. Abrasion 8 cm x 2 mm. present on the right forearm in the middle on the posterior aspect. 4. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 5. It is also the prosecution case that the accused-appellant got recovered the weapon of offence- BANKA Ext. 5 and the blood stained shirt Ext. 6 that he was wear ing at the time of committing the offence. 6. After conclusion of the investigation, the accused-appellant was booked for trial. At the trial, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses. P. W. 1 Darshan Singh was the informant and the only wit ness of the incident. P. W. 2 S. I. Harpal Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case. P. W. 3 Dr. A. P. Sharma had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and P. W. 4 Constable Chet Ram, was the formal witness who proved the chik F. I. R. and G. D. , 7. The defence of the accused-appel lant was of denial and that he was falsely implicated. P. W. 3 Dr. A. P. Sharma had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and P. W. 4 Constable Chet Ram, was the formal witness who proved the chik F. I. R. and G. D. , 7. The defence of the accused-appel lant was of denial and that he was falsely implicated. He too examined one Sarvda Hand as D. W. 1, who was as astrologer/astronomer and deposed that 7-9-1994 was the second day of Shukla Paksh of the Hindi month of Bhadonand it was a dark night, the moon having gone down at 7. 09 p. m. 8. The trial Judge believed the prosecution case and evidence. He accord ingly, convicted and sentenced the ac cused-appellant who has now preferred this appeal from jail. 9. Sri Apul Ma was appointed as amicus curiae to argue out the appeal on behalf of the accused- appellant by our order dated 14-10-1999. We have heard his arguments in support of the appeal and those of the learned AGA on behalf of the State who had supported the judgment under appeal. It is submitted for the ac cused-appellant that there was no motive on his part to commit this crime; that the F. I. R. was anti-timed; that the sole inter ested testimony of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh had not been corroborated by any inde pendent witness or sources and that the accused-appellant had simply been con victed on suspicion, surmises and conjec tures. We have carefully examined the evidence on record of the case to ascertain the worth of what has been argued by the learned amicus curiae in support of this appeal and we find substantial force in his submissions for the reasons that we proceed to detail in the succeeding dis cussion. 10. No doubt, the motive is not evidence in a case, but it satisfies the judi cial mind about the authorship of a par ticular crime. It assumes greater impor tance when the case rests on the testimony of a solitary interested eye witness as is the situation in the present case. The only motive assigned by the prosecution against the accused-appellant is that he was an noyed of the marriage of his grand-father. It assumes greater impor tance when the case rests on the testimony of a solitary interested eye witness as is the situation in the present case. The only motive assigned by the prosecution against the accused-appellant is that he was an noyed of the marriage of his grand-father. P. W. 1 Darshan Singh with the deceased about nine years back subsequent to the death of his first wife and he used to ask him to turn her out of his house. P. W. 1 Darshan Singh had not agreed to it and had started living separately at the tube-well of Jogendra Singh with his second wife (deceased), earning his livelihood by working as labourer. It has also been stated by him before the Court that he did not have any land in his name either when the incident occurred or earlier thereto. It also came down that he had four sons out of whom one Mukhtar Singh is father df the accused-appellant. He also stated that he was aged about 70years when he remarried with the deceased. It is apparent from his statement that his relations were not cor dial with any of his four sons including the father of the accused-appellant, because his statement was that though he had four sons but for him they were almost non existent. Now, it does not stand to reason that the accused- appellant would take it into his head to murder his step grand mother even when he was not going to gain anything thereby. His grand-father (whose second wife deceased was) was a landless labourer and was living separately from the entire family with his second wife (deceased ). He and his second wife were harmless creatures so far as the accused- appellant or other members of his family were concerned. Moreover, if the accused-appellant was annoyed of the second mar riage of his grand-father with the deceased, then his anger displeasure and annoyance would have been at the pinnacle when the marriage was performed about nine years back or a little thereafter when his grand father had declined to turn her out of his house. In ordinary and natural course, he would have translated his anger into action at that time. In ordinary and natural course, he would have translated his anger into action at that time. In other words, there could hardly be any reason or occasion for his committing the murder of his step grand mother after a lapse of nine years of his remarriage when she and her husband (grand- father of the accused-appellant) were living separately from the family at the tube-well of Jogendra Singh. So, the motive assigned by the prosecution against the accused- appellant as contained in the F. I. R. and the testimony of P. W. 1 Darshari Singh does not stand to be logical. It calls for a very cautious scrutiny of the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh in respect of other details concerning the commission of this crime by the accused-appellant. 11. Coming to the next point, there is a popular adage that the witnesses may lie but the circumstance will not. The applica tion of external check does not support the lodging of the F. I. R. at the given time viz. 8-9-1994 at 8. 30 a. m. We find that in the Challan Lash Ext. Ka-5 "ratri Agyat" is written in the column meant for scribing the time of death. P. W. 2, S. I. Harpal Singh, Investigating Officer has stated that he had proceeded at the spot after the lodging of the F. I. R. and had then prepared the neces sary papers including this one for the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. The F. I. R. states that the incident took place in the night of 7-9-1994 about 9 p. m. If the F. I. R. had been lodged at 8. 30 a. m. on 8-9-1994 where after he has proceeded to the spot, then in the normal course, this date and time have been written in the column meant for filling up the same in which words "ratri Agyat" were written by him. It is an indicator that the F. I. R. was not even ready by the time the papers relating to the post- mortem of the dead body of the deceased were prepared by the Investigating Officer. The possibility can not be ruled out that the informant was questioned as to whom he could suspect to be the assailant and applying the process of suspicion, the accused-appellant came to be named as assailant. 12. The possibility can not be ruled out that the informant was questioned as to whom he could suspect to be the assailant and applying the process of suspicion, the accused-appellant came to be named as assailant. 12. Thirdly, the prosecution case is almost completely shattered by what has been stated by P. W. 1 Darshan Singh him self. His version in paragraph 21 is that iri the morning, the accused- appellant reap peared at the scene of occurrence after taking his bath and changing the clothes and he went with him at the Police Station where he was given a beating by the Police personnel. Now, it is completely against natural human conduct that the accused-appellant would have reappeared at the scene of occurrence in the morning and would have accompanied his grand-father-P. W. 1 Darshan Singh willingly to the Police Station. Such a conduct is whol ly in irreconcilable with his guilty con science. If he was the culprit, he would have been the last person to reappear at the scene of occurrence in the morning and to have accompanied the informant to the Police Station. The informant P. W. 1 Darshan Singh was an aged man of about 80 years and the accused-appellant was a young man of about 25-26years. Thus, an old man of about 80 years could not have forced him to accom pany him to the Police Station. He himself did not even say so. The conduct of the accused-appellant of having accompanied the informant to the Police Station is in compatible with his guilt. 13. Fourthly a close judicial scrutiny of the testimony of the sole eye-witness P. W. 1 Darshan Singh reveals that it suffers from patent defects and cannot be believed without corroboration by independent sources. He stated in Paragraph 8 that he raised shouts in the morning and as a result of the same a number of persons collected there. According to him, he quietly kept sitting near the dead body of his wife throughout the night as otherwise the dead body would have been ravaged by stray dogs. It has come down from his version that the house of Jogendra Singh (at whose tube-well the incident occurred and who used to provide meals to him) was only at a distance of about 70-80 paces. Indeed, Jogendra Singh was his well-wisher. It has come down from his version that the house of Jogendra Singh (at whose tube-well the incident occurred and who used to provide meals to him) was only at a distance of about 70-80 paces. Indeed, Jogendra Singh was his well-wisher. There seems to be no earthly reason as to why he did not raise shouts in the night itself at the time of the incident or just thereafter. The house of Jogendra Singh being only at a distance of 70-80 paces, he or some one from the family would have been attracted to the scene of occurrence in the night itself. Such un natural conduct of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh himself creates a genuine doubt about his actually having witnessed the same. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he came to know or discovered the murder only in the morning when he raised shouts and he subsequently named the accused-appellant merely on suspicion. His tes timony of having witnessed the incident sounds to be improbable when judged from another relevant angle. In the F. I. R. he stated that when the accused-appellant had appeared at the scene of occurrence in the night with a BANKA, he had told him that as he was not turning his wife out of the house, he was putting an end to the whole episode. On the other hand, what he stated in his testimony before the Court was that he did not get up during the course of incident and kept lying out of fear and for safety of his own life. To quote his own words, he stated "mai MULJIM KE DAR KEE WAJAH SE NAHIN UTHA THA KYONKI AGAR MAIN UTHATA TO WAH MUJHE BH1 KAAT DETA". It is a pointer as if he feigned to be sleeping for the safety of his own life. In the present case resting on the sole interested testimony of an eye-witness which is found to be replete of many inconsistencies on crucial aspects, corroboration by independent sources was very much required. The disturbing feature of the case is that there is no corroboration of the testimony of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh either by independent witness or from other inde pendent sources in the form of physical evidence. 14. The disturbing feature of the case is that there is no corroboration of the testimony of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh either by independent witness or from other inde pendent sources in the form of physical evidence. 14. So far as the incriminating recovery of BANKA and blood stained shirt of the accused-appellant allegedly got made by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the testimony of P. W. 2, S. I. Harpal Singh, Investigating Officer in this behalf. No independent witness of recovery was produced in support of what he stated that the accused-appellant got recovered the BANKA from the paddy field of his uncle and that he was found wearing the blood stained shirt when he was arrested by him on 9- 9-1994 near a bridge of Gihai river at about 8. 40 a. m. It runs against natural and probable conduct of a guilty person that he would be wearing blood stained shirt (that he was putting on at the time of incident) even after about 36 hours of the commis sion of the crime. According to the Inves tigating Officer. BANKA had been got recovered by him from a muddy spot containing water and in the process of taking it out, the blood stains had washed off. But the report of chemical analyst was to be effect that the BANKA contained human blood. If it had got washed during the course of recovery, there could hardly be any question of there remaining any blood stains on it. Obviously, P. W. 2 S. I. Harpal Singh, I. O. came up with an imaginary story regarding the alleged incriminating recovery got made by the accused-appel lant. The statement of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh was poles apart that the recovery of shirt and BANKA was got made by the accused-appellant from his house. It is im possible to reconcile his statement with that of the Investigating Officer regarding the alleged recovery. The result is that there is no corroboration of the testimony of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh and of what has been stated by P. W. 2 S. I. Harpal Singh, Investigating Officer. The two statements rather run contrary to each other. 15. The result is that there is no corroboration of the testimony of P. W. 1 Darshan Singh and of what has been stated by P. W. 2 S. I. Harpal Singh, Investigating Officer. The two statements rather run contrary to each other. 15. In view of the above discussion relating to all the relevant aspects of the case we are of the opinion that the convic tion of the accused-appellant is not based on trustworthy and credible evidence. The sole testimony of the eye-witness, namely, P. W. 1 Darshan Singh suffer from con spicuous pitfalls. There is no corrobora tion of what he has stated. Rather his state ment and that of P. W. 2, S. I. Harpal Singh cannot reconciled. We are well aware that minor lapse in investigation cannot be the ground for rejection of the prosecution case, but here the reality is that it is not only the investigation lapse, but the own testimony of P. W I Darshan Singh does not stand the lest of scrutiny and fails to the anvil of reliability. No conviction can be based on such unstable evidence as has been adduced in the present case. Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute of proof. We need not labour much on the point that the conviction cannot be based on fantastic possibilities or freak inferences. 16. For the reasons contained hereinabove, we find the appeal to be well merited and we hereby allow the same by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. Appellant-Jeet Singh is in jail right from the very beginning. He shall be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other connection. 17. Sri Apul Misra, Advocate, who argued the appeal as amicus curiae for the accused-appellant shall get his fee accord ing to rules. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within fif teen days. Appeal allowed. .