JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 9.6.1983 passed by learned Sessions Judge. Pratapgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) in session case No. 83/81 whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the accused under section 147, 447 and 307/149 I.PC. and sentenced them for one year R.I. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, I have scrutinised the record and reappreaciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciation of the evidence is that; on 14.6.1980 at about 8.30 a.m., Balu lodged a written report at P.S. Parsoli to the effect that in the night of 13.6.1981, Kana, complainant's younger brother was sleeping in the 'bera' for watching the bullocks, Due to animosity, Harikishan, Dev Bux, Raju Ugama and Chhoga armed with lathis, entered the Bera and tied the hands and feets of Kana and took him to a well of one Badri Das Bairagi and threw him into it. On the next morning when Badri Das went to his well for taking bath and dipped a bucket into the well, the bucket was caught by somebody, thereupon, Badri Das went to the village and informed the villagers that a man has fallen in his well. On this information, 10-15 villagers went to the spot and took out Kana from the well. Kana was unconscious. It was further stated by the complainant that he was informed by Heera and Bhola about this incident. 4. On the basis of this information, the Police registered a case under section 147, 307 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and started usual investigation. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Begun. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 29.8.1981, committed the accused to the Court of Sessions at Pratapgarh for trial. During trial, 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case and ultimately, the learned Judge found the accused guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. 5. The appeal is pressed on the ground that there is no merit in the conviction as no other eye-witnesses in this case and the accused are being convicted on the sole testimony of the victim who allegedly was thrown into the well by the accused. 5. The appeal is pressed on the ground that there is no merit in the conviction as no other eye-witnesses in this case and the accused are being convicted on the sole testimony of the victim who allegedly was thrown into the well by the accused. The learned counsel argued that it was insufficient in the circumstances to rely on the conviction. I have scrutinised the evidence of the victim. He has given a very good description of the manner in which he was thrown into the well. By the providence, he was saved or else the accused would be guilty of murder. In any case, there is no law that merely because an order of conviction is passed on the testimony of the sole witness, it is liable to be set aside. It has been held on many occasions by the Supreme Court of India that reliance on testimony of a single witness for conviction should be cautiously placed. Such action has been exercised by the learned trial Judge. I have also very carefully examined the evidence and find no reason to hold that the learned trial Judge was in any manner wrong in relying on the sole testimony. The appeal is therefore, liable to be rejected and conviction is liable to be maintained. 6. That brings me to the question of sentence. The accused are on bail for last 17 years. The aspect of not sending the accused back in jail after 17 years has been thoroughly considered by me in several judgments. For those reasons therefore, it would be just and proper that the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge is maintained, however, the sentence is reduced to already undergone by the accused. The accused are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******