Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge of committing the murder of Sitaram Singh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, they have been convicted and sentenced under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for one year rigorous imprisonment. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) and elucidated in evidence, is as under : The informant (Manika Devi) is the wife of appellant (Chandradeo Singh). They were married 6/7 years ago. Her brother (Sitaram Singh), the deceased in exchange was married to Soma Devi (Uma Devi), PW 2. The deceased came to his matrimonial home in the evening of 25.5.1987 and was staying there. His wife (PW 2) was at her paternal home. On the fateful morning, around 6 a.m., the deceased was sitting on a cot on the northern verandah and his wife as well as the informant were cooking food on the same verandah. The appellant (Chandradeo Singh) was separating tiles, whereupon co-accused (Saudagar Singh), maternal grand father-in-law of the informant, his sons (Suraj Singh and Samu Singh) (who have been acquitted on benefit of doubt), Guiab Singh (the appellant), her unclein-law and his sons (appellants Bechan Singh and Mahabir Singh) arrived and with the assistance of appellant (Chandradeo Singh), her husband, they overpowered the deceased and forcely took him in a room and bolted from inside. The deceased was loudly requesting to spare and was asking as to why they were assaulting him, whereupon the informant and her sister-in-law (Soma Devi) (PW 2) went near the door and pushed in vain to open it. Sura] Singh, the co-accused opened the door and threatened them to keep a mum, else they would be burnt to death. After about an hour, the accused-persons opened the door, brought the deceased in an unconscious state and laid him on the cot and fled away. Froth was coming out from the mouth and nose of Sitaram Singh later on, it was observed that there was throttling mark on the neck of Sitaram Singh. The informant sent Gopal Razak (PW 3) to fetch a doctor from Pathalgarha, which is at a distance of about 1 km. Froth was coming out from the mouth and nose of Sitaram Singh later on, it was observed that there was throttling mark on the neck of Sitaram Singh. The informant sent Gopal Razak (PW 3) to fetch a doctor from Pathalgarha, which is at a distance of about 1 km. The doctor came, washed the mouth and nose of the deceased and while he was administering medicine, Sitaram Singh died. Thereafter, Bechan Singh, the co-accused, on the request of the informant, conveyed her father (Laljee Singh), PW 6, about the death of Sitaram Singh. Thereafter, her father arrived. The villagers wanted to cremate the dead body, but her father did not allow them. The body of the deceased was carried on a small cart to the police station by her father. Ultimately, she gave her fardbeyan (which is, in fact, First Information Report) before the police officer, Chatra P.S. (situate at a distance of 40 kms. West to the P.O. Village) on 28.5.1987 at 9 a.m. She has alleged that Dhanu Singh, her father-in-law, had threatened that he would cut her brother into pieces. On the basis of the fardbeyan (exhibit 2), the present case came to be instituted, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit 3) was drawn up, investigation commenced, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid in Court against the accused-persons. 3. The main defence is of innocence, bare denial of involvement of the accused/appellants in the occurrence and of false implication. 4. At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, PW 7 (Madhusudan Prasad) is a formal witness, and PWs 5 and 6 (Syamsundar Singh and Laljee Singh, respectively) have been tendered. PW 2 (Soma Devi), widow of the deceased has not supported the prosecution case. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The other PWs are : PW 1 (Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupt?), who held autopsy on the dead body, PW 3 (Gopal Razak) and PW 4 (Manika Devi), the informant, herself. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness. 5. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The other PWs are : PW 1 (Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupt?), who held autopsy on the dead body, PW 3 (Gopal Razak) and PW 4 (Manika Devi), the informant, herself. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness. 5. On consideration of the evidence, on record, and mainly relying on the solitary testimony of the informant (PW 4) as well as the medical evidence, the trial Court found the appellants guilty of the charge under Sections 302 read with 34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced them, as stated above. The trial Court acquitted the other four accused, namely, Saudagar Singh, Dhanu Singh, Suraj Singh and Samu Singh, on giving benefit of doubt. 6. The point which falls for consideration/determination is : whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge to the accused/appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 7. The factum that the death of the deceased was unnatural and homicidal is not in dispute. PW 1 (Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupta) has testified to the effect that on 28.5.1987 he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sitaram Singh and he found the following ante-mortem wounds : (i) Bruise marks of fingers around the neck on front side and both sides, at the level of thyroid cartilage and blow, and on dissection there was extravasation in the area of sub-cuteneous tissues and the finger marks. (ii) Larynx and trachea contained blood froth and were congested. (iii) Neck was swollen and veins were engrossed. (iv) Colour of skin of the neck, face, tongue was bluish black. (v) On dissection there was fracture of 3rd rib on right side and 4th left rib. (vi) Liver, kidney, intestine and spleen were congested and stomach was also congested and fresh food particles with smell of kerosene oil were found. Exhibit 1 is the carbon copy of the postmortem report in his pen, which shows that the post-mortem examination was held by him on 28.5.1987 at 1.40 p.m. According to PW 1, the death was due to asphyxia, caused by throttling after keeping the deceased under poisoning. On the basis of the symptoms, he came to the conclusion that the deceased was under influenced of poison. He has further opined that the time elapsed since (death was about 30 hours of the post-mortem examination. On the basis of the symptoms, he came to the conclusion that the deceased was under influenced of poison. He has further opined that the time elapsed since (death was about 30 hours of the post-mortem examination. PW 2 (Soma Devi), widow of the deceased and PW 3 (Gopal Razak) have testified to the effect that the deceased has consumed poison. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case regarding the time of the occurrence and that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The fact that the deceased met with his death at his Sasural is established beyond doubt from the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4. 8 The crucial point, which now arises for consideration, is : whether the appellants were instrumental in the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case, on the complicity of the appellants in the crime rests on the solitary testimony of PW 4 (Manika Devi), sister of the deceased. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of an eye-witness, if it is wholly reliable, even without corroboration. Her evidence has to be carefully scrutinised. Now bearing this principle in mind, one may proceed to analyse and discuss her evidence. She has testified to the effect in her chief-examination that in the morning, on fateful day, the four appellants and the acquitted accused (Saudagar Singh, Suraj Singh and Samu Singh) caught hold of the deceased, took him to a room, bolted the door from inside, the deceased was crying inside, she and the wife of the deceased (PW 2) tried to open the door, whereupon Suraj Singh, the acquitted co-accused, abused them and ordered to keep quiet, else they would be killed and the door was opened after about an hour and half and the accused-persons carried and laid the deceased on a cot on the Verandah and thereafter they fled away. She has further stated in her chief-examination that froth was flowing from the mouth of the deceased and he was breathing slowly, whereafter she sent a son of a dhobi (Gopal Razak, PW 3) to call a doctor from Pathalgarha, the doctor came and washed the stomach of the deceased by putting a tube through the nose and gave an injection and the deceased died soon thereafter. She admits in her cross-examination that her husband (appellant- Chandradeo Singh) did not love her, he ill-treated her and did not give clothes to her. Thus, she may be having grievance with her husband and in-laws. She has even broken the ties with her husband after the occurrence and lives at her paternal home. The doctor, who is said to have treated the deceased has not been examined in the case. PW 3 (Gopal Razak) does not whisper in his evidence that he had called the doctor. In her cross-examination, PW 4 has further stated that on her alarm 15/16 persons had arrived, but not the neighbours. But, none of them has been examined in the case to say whether she had immediately disclosed the names of the accused-persons, who had caused the death of the deceased. She has made candid statement in her cross-examination that no blood was flowing from the mouth of the deceased, she believed that the deceased had taken poison, she cannot even say whether the deceased himself took poison or the poison was administered to him. She has further stated that she had disclosed to PW 3 that the deceased had himself consumed poison. This fact has also been testified too by PW 3. 9. PW 2 (Soma Devi), widow of the deceased, who was present in the house at the time of the occurrence, has clearly stated in her chief-examination that in anger, the deceased had taken poison and died. She has denied that any of the accused-persons had assaulted or administered poison to her husband. No doubt, she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. She has denied the prosecution suggestion to have made the statement before the police, implicating the accused-persons. The Investigating Officer has not been examined to contradict her with reference to her previous statement. It does not stand to reason as to why she would shield those who had done her husband to death. 10. The evidence of PW 4 (Manika Devi), as noticed above, suffers from infirmity. There is inconsistency in her evidence on the point of administration of poison to the deceased. It is in her own evidence that on her request the accused had informed her father and brother about the death of the deceased. This would be against the conduct of a murderer. There is inconsistency in her evidence on the point of administration of poison to the deceased. It is in her own evidence that on her request the accused had informed her father and brother about the death of the deceased. This would be against the conduct of a murderer. PW 4 does not state that she had complained to her father and brother that the accused-persons had caused the death. Her father (PW 6) does not whisper about it in his evidence. PW 4 is not an eye-witness on actual assault on the deceased. It has been noticed above that PW 4 had occasion to nurse grievance against the appellants. So, she might have implicated them out of vengeance. There is no independent corroboration of her testimony. It would not be safe to rely on her sole testimony on participation/involvement of the appellants in the crime. There may be grave suspicion against the appellants. But suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof. For the reasons, stated above, the appellants are acquitted of the aforementioned charge, on giving benefit of doubt 11. In the result, the appeal in allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the Court below are set aside. The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case(s). R.A.Sharma, J. 12 I agree.