JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.1.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh convicting the appellant of offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated that prosecution case is that on 10.8.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., PW 1 Malu Ram lodged an oral First Information Report at Police Station, Shri Dungargarh stating inter alia that for last 12 years, he was living separately from his father: His father deceased-Nimba Ram used to reside with his brother appellant-Shri Ram. The house is divided by a wall of (sic) feet height. The wife of Shri Ram had gone to her parents house about 6-7 days back. He had gone to the field in the morning. His wife was at the residence. At about 5.00 p.m. his brother Heera Ram informed him that his brother Shri Ram has killed Nimba Ram by inflicting Kulhadi blow on his head. It was also stated that incident was witnessed by PW 3 Kalu Ram. The went to the house and found his father Nimba Ram lying dead. The village people namely PW 6 Rameshwar Singh, Ramlal, Khetaram, Ridmal and Bhanwara had caught Shri Ram and tied him with a rope. On this information, police registered a case for offence under section 302 and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for the said offence. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 13 witnesses and produced certain documents. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Most of the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and as such they were declared hostile. However, the learned Judge relying on the testimony of PW 10 Mst. Hasti Devi and the evidence of recovery of blood-stained Kulhadi found the charges levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced him in the manner noticed above. 4. It is contended by Mr. Ajitabh Acharya, Arnicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that the trial Court has committed gross error in convicting the appellant on the sole testimony of PW 10 Hasti Devi. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced him in the manner noticed above. 4. It is contended by Mr. Ajitabh Acharya, Arnicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that the trial Court has committed gross error in convicting the appellant on the sole testimony of PW 10 Hasti Devi. It is submitted that she is highly interested witness. There is contradictions and improvement in her statement on material points. Thus, she cannot be said to be a witness of sterling worth. The learned counsel has also criticised the recovery of Kulhadi. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 5. We have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence and considered the rival contentions. PW 12 Dr. Ghanshyam Kumar has stated that he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Nimba Ram aged 70 years. He noticed following injuries on his body : (1) Incised wound of size 10 cm x 7 cm x 7.5 cm on full thickness of scalp situated on right fronto parietal region covered with blood clot. On turning of flap a piece of skull bone attached to Lt. measuring approx. 9 cm x 6 cm brain matter is coming out of this wound and base of skull is visible. (2) Incised wound on Lt. Pinna covered with blood clot size 2 cm x 0.7 cm horizontally place cutting full thickness. (3) Extensive reddish bruise on the dossal side of lower 1/2 of arm elbow. Whole forearm (dossal side) and dorsem of hand of left side. Size about 14 cm & 5 cm x 34 cm x 5 cm of forearm and hand. Multiple lacerated wound present on bruise covered with clot. Six in number are on elbow measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on exposing wound compound fracture of olecranon precess hunbees. Three on forearm measuring 5 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm & 1 cm x 3 cm x 0.5 cm covered with blood clot. One on palm of left hand covered with blood clot 1 cm x 0.3 cm near 5th metacorpal bone. (4) One abrasion covered with blood clot on the right elbow 3 cm x 1 cm. (5) One punctured wound on the left side of chest interiorly size .7 cm x .7 cm x 2 cm. One on palm of left hand covered with blood clot 1 cm x 0.3 cm near 5th metacorpal bone. (4) One abrasion covered with blood clot on the right elbow 3 cm x 1 cm. (5) One punctured wound on the left side of chest interiorly size .7 cm x .7 cm x 2 cm. (6) One punctured wound on the left side interior abdominal wall .7 cm x .8 cm x 1.7 cm depth. (7) 3 punctured wound measuring .5 cm x .5 cm x .9 cm, .6 cm x .5 cm x 1.3 cm, 1 cm x .8 cm x 2 cm. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/20. In his opinion the deceased died due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain. The doctor also stated that he examined appellant-Shri Ram and noted two injuries. Both the injuries were simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon. He proved the injury report Ex.P / 21. 6. PW 1 Malu Ram has reiterated what he has stated in the First Information Report. He has stated that on the dead body of Nimba Ram, there were injuries caused by "Jayee". He has also stated that the accused was sitting on the terrace carrying Kulhadi in his hand. The Jayee was collected by the police from the spot. He admitted that there has been partition in their family and he was living separately from deceased father Nimba Ram and appellant-Shri Ram. PW 2 Bhanwar Lal, PW 3 Kalu Ram, PW 4 Kheta Ram, PW 5 Ramlal, PW 6 Rameshwar Singh, PW 7 Ridmal, PW 8 Heera Ram and PW 9 Bhura Ram have not supported the prosecution case and as such they have been declared hostile. PW 13 Sugna Ram is a formal police witness. PW 14 Tara Chand is the Investigating Officer. He has given the details of the investigation. 7. The entire case rests on the testimony of PW 10 Mst. Hasti Devi as the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. She has stated that about 9 months & 20 days back, she was at her house. Her husband had gone to the field. They were living separately from the father-in-law for the last 12 years. Her deceased father-in-law was smoking sitting in the kitchen. He was being belaboured by appellant-Shri Ram. She also stated that he inflicted injuries to deceased-Nimba Ram by Joyce. Her husband had gone to the field. They were living separately from the father-in-law for the last 12 years. Her deceased father-in-law was smoking sitting in the kitchen. He was being belaboured by appellant-Shri Ram. She also stated that he inflicted injuries to deceased-Nimba Ram by Joyce. She further stated that after some time, he left the Jayee and gave two Kulhadi blows from sharp-edged side, on the head of her father-in-law. Thereafter, she went to the house of Kalu Ram and informed about the incident. In the cross-examination, she was confronted with her police statement Ex.D/1 with respect to the use of Joyce in assaulting Nimba Ram. She stated that she was not aware as to why her statement to the effect that appellant inflicted injuries to deceased-Nimba Ram by Jayee has not been written. She admitted that she has not seen appellant giving Kulhadi blow on the head of her father-in-law Nimba Ram. She stated that:- " eSus dqYgkM+h ls ekjrs gq;s esjs llqj dks ugha ns[kk tsbZ ls Bksdrs ns[kk Fkk] dqYgkM+h dh pksVsa Jh jke }kjk fuEck jke dks ekjrs yksxksa us ns[kk FkkA eSaus ugha ns[kkA " She also admitted that it was Kalu Ram who informed her about the death of her father-in-law. She pleaded ignorance as to why all these details does not find place in Ex.D/ 1 recorded by the police. She also admitted that from her house the kitchen of her father-in-law was not visible. She stated : " esjs ?kj ls esjs llqj dh jlksbZ ds vUnj dk Hkkx ugha fn[krk D;ksafd mldk eqWag mRrjkn gS vkSj esjk ?kj vaxw.kh rjQ gSA " 8. A careful reading of the evidence of PW 10 Mst. Hasti Devi clearly shows that her statement is replete with serious contradictions and material embellishments. In order to fit in with the medical evidence, in the examination in chief she tried to show that two weapons were namely Jayee and Kulhadi were used by the appellant in causing injuries to deceased-Nimba Ram. She even went to the extent of saying that initially the injuries were caused by Jaw., but subsequently two Kulhadi blows were given on the head of Nimba Ram. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she had not seen appellant inflicting injuries by Kulhadi. In the examination in chief she stated that the incident took place in the kitchen of his father-in-law's house. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she had not seen appellant inflicting injuries by Kulhadi. In the examination in chief she stated that the incident took place in the kitchen of his father-in-law's house. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she could not have seen the happening inside the kitchen from her house. She is highly interested witness. The relations between both the brothers were strained for the last 12 years. The deceased was living with the appellant. Therefore, there was no reason for him to kill his father Nimba Ram. In fact the relations between the deceased father and Malu Ram the husband of PW 10 Smt. Hasti Devi were strained. In these circumstances, we do not consider it safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant solely on the testimony of PW 10 Smt. Hasti Devi. 9. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh dated 14.1.1999. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 302 IPC. He is in Jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******