Judgment P.K.Sinha and B.N.P.Singh JJ. 1. Appellant Panna Lal Mandal (Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 1995) stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the other two apellants aforesaid (relating to Criminal Appeal no. 232 of 1995) stand convicted under section 302 readwith section 34 of the Code, all having been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of prosecution in brief and as coming out of Exhibit-2, fardbayan of Harish Chandra Mandal recorded on 11.12.1992 at about 11.30 A.M., is that when at about 7.30 A.M. when he, along with his cousin Prem Lal Mandal, was going on a cycle and had reached on the pitch road, in front of the house of Yogendra Yadav, Yogendra Yadav pulled the bicycle causing both the riders to fall. Both Yognedra Yadav and Prem Lal Mandal indulged with each other physically at which the informant hid himself. Soon thereafter Suresh Yadav, Kapil Deo Das, Chano Tatma, Ramchandra Das, Panna Lal Mandal, Laddu Mandal and Mikki Mandal emerged out of a nearby place and carried Prem Lal Mandal towards east at "Bhagwati Asthan" but this witness out of fear stayed at the road, When some people came then they went to "Bhagwati Asthan" where he found the beheaded body of his cousin, the head being carried away by the accused. 3. The defence of the appellants, who had faced the trial, was denial of the entire occurrence and their complicity in that. The informant was suggested that he was going nowhere with the deceased nor he had seen any occurrence but out of enmity he had filed this case. 4. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1 (Jitan Das) and P.W. 2 (Moti Lal Das) had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were tendered for cross- examination who also have not said anything of any significance. P.W. 3, Jai Prakash Yadav, had come to witness stand to prove the inquest report of which he was a witness (Exhibit-1). P.W. 6 is Ram Prabodh Mandal, uncle of the deceased, who though had supported the murder of his nephew, but also said that he did not know as to who had killed him. P.W. 3, Jai Prakash Yadav, had come to witness stand to prove the inquest report of which he was a witness (Exhibit-1). P.W. 6 is Ram Prabodh Mandal, uncle of the deceased, who though had supported the murder of his nephew, but also said that he did not know as to who had killed him. He also said that the deceased had quarrels with the bad characters of Damgara.ln cross-examination he said that the accused were not concerned with any of those groups of criminals, rather they were good people. Obviously, the evidence of the uncle of the deceased also has not helped the prosecution. P.W. 8 is Dr.Gyanendra Kumar Singh, who had performed autopsy upon the dead body. 5. The only witness supporting the prosecution case is the informant himself P.W. 7. 6. Salient points of his evidence may be noted first. In his evidence he said that at about 7.30 A.M. he along with the deceased was going on a bicycle and when he reached near the house of Yogendra Yadav, Yogendra Yadav pulled the bicycle bringing them down whereafter he and the deceased wrestled physically with each other. Here he said that he kept himself about ten to fifteen yards away. Thereafter, other appellants along with others, as named in the first information report, came there and carried Prem Lal Mandal to Bhagwati Asthan" which was ten to fifteen yards to the west. This witness thereafter said that all the accused fell the deceased down at "Bhagwati Asthan" and caught hold of his body whereas appellant Panna Lal Mandal severed his head with Garassa After sometime on hulla some people also came whereafter the accused fled away with the head of Prem Lal Mandal. This witness, in cross-examination, admitted that appellants Panna Lal Mandal and Laddu Mandal were full brothers whereas Mikki Mandal was their cousin. He also said that his other cousin Kapildeo Das was also earlier murdered in which, amongst others, Yogendra Yadav was also accused alongwith Janardan Das which Janardan Das also was murdered. He also admitted that in between Ramchandra Mandal and Panna Lal Mandal there was a case under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he also was a party. 7. During cross-examination this witness admitted that to the east of the road on which he was travelling there was dense population. He also admitted that in between Ramchandra Mandal and Panna Lal Mandal there was a case under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he also was a party. 7. During cross-examination this witness admitted that to the east of the road on which he was travelling there was dense population. He also admitted that from the place where Prem Lal Mandal was caught hold of by the accused, up to "Bhagwati Asthan" there were a number of houses. This witness also admitted in cross-examination (paragraph 6) that house of Yogendra Yadav was about one kilometer away from the road. He said that he had raised hulla for about five minutes and, in the meantime, other accused also had come from the eastern side of the road. He could not say as to which house other accused had come from, because there were many houses there. He also said that he had hid himself to the east of the road under the eaves (Oltee) of a house about five to six yards away from where the victim had fallen down. He also said that he had hid himself in a lane, but the lane going to "Bhagwati Asthan" was different. however, he claimed that from the place where he had concealed himself "Bhagwati Asthan" was visible. He claimed that he himself had seen the accused severing the neck of the deceased which fact he also had mentioned in the first information report. He could not identify others who had reached there, but said that Jitan, Moti and Akali (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5) had reached when he was at "Bhagwati Asthan". He also said that blood had fallen down at the place of occurrence. According to him he had seen the accused fleeing away with the severed head tied in a bundle. However, he also claimed that he had gone to the Police Station on the bicycle of another, as his bicycle was taken away by accused Ram Chandra Das, which was not found thereafter. He also admitted that he had not shown the Police Officer the place where he had concealed himself, that is, the place from where, though it was in other lane, he claims to have seen the occurrence. 8. He also admitted that he had not shown the Police Officer the place where he had concealed himself, that is, the place from where, though it was in other lane, he claims to have seen the occurrence. 8. Post mortem on the dead body was done by P.W. 8 on 12.12.1992 at 2.00 P.M. who found whole of the neck cut and the head missing. Post mortem report is Exhibit-3. He also said in cross-examination that there must have been profuse bleeding at the place where the neck was cut and the blood would be dropping from the head portion at least up to some distance if the head was carried away. 9. This is all the evidence on record. 10. Obviously, the only evidence supporting the prosecution case is that of the informant which has not received support, so far occurrence is concerned, from any other witness though it has been claimed that at the place of occurrence a number of houses were situated and one side of the road was densely populated. The conviction can be based upon the evidence of only one witness provided that the evidence is such that inspires confidence, untainted with doubts. In other words, it is the quality of the evidence that matters, not the quantity. However, if the evidence of the solitary witness appears to be doubtful on vital points then it would be hazardous to base an order of conviction on that evidence alone. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have pointed out a number of circumstances which, as argued, create serious doubts upon the truthfulness of this witnes. As per arguments, the previous enmity is admitted, which could be a ground for falsely implicating the accused including the appellants. 12. Let the evidence of P.W. 7 be now examined in view of the points that have been urged on behalf of the appellants and the defence. 13. In his evidence, P.W. 7 has come up as witness to the actual occurrence stating that he had seen other accused catching hold of the deceased and Panna Lal Mandal severing the neck of the deceased with the help of Garasa. 13. In his evidence, P.W. 7 has come up as witness to the actual occurrence stating that he had seen other accused catching hold of the deceased and Panna Lal Mandal severing the neck of the deceased with the help of Garasa. However, in the first information report he has claimed nothing like that and had stated that after the accused persons carried away Prem Lal Mandal he, out of fear, had remained near the road and when he had gone to the "Bhagwati Asthan" after some people had assembled there, he saw the headless dead body of the deceased. However, it is not reasonable that, if he had seen the murder actually being committed in the manner as claimed by him in evidence, he would have failed to narrate that in the fardbeyan which was recorded three and half hours after the incident. In the first information report informant has claimed that Yogendra Yadav had pulled them from the bicycle at the road by the side of his house. This way he had identified the place of occurrence. However, in his evidence he has admitted (paragraph 6) that the house of Yogendra Yadav was a kilometer away, to the east, from the road. This creates some doubts about the exact place where the cycle was pulled down and from where Prem Lal Mandal was carried away. Investigating Officer having not been examined in this case, this point has remained vague. 14. In the first information report informant said that out of fear he had remained towards the road itself but in his evidence he has claimed that he had hid himself in a lane, under the eaves (oltee) of a house. The way to "Bhagwati Asthan", as admitted by this witness, was through another lane. Though he has claimed that the "Bhagwati Asthan"was visible from that place, but keeping in view his statement in the first informant report, and his evidence as per which he was in another lane, this point could have been clarified had the investigating officer been examined who could have said as to whether such a claim was made even in the further statement of the informant and whether from that hiding place, "Bhagwati Asthan", where murder was allegedly committed, was visible. 15. 15. It was also pointed out that the informant has claimed that he was proceeding on a bicycle with the deceased which fell down and whereafter deceased was carried away leaving the bicycle nearby which the informant himself had stayed. It was argued that no bicycle obviously was found by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence which point could have been cleared by the Investigating Officer had he been examined in the case. It was submitted that realising that cycle was not at the place of occurrence, the informant had woven out another story, not stated in the first information report, that the bicycle was taken away by accused Ramchandra Das. It was argued that after committing the alleged occurrence, as according to the informant, when people had assembled and the accused persons took to their heels, it was highly improbable that one of them would have come back to the road just for committing theft of the bicycle. 16. Besides the points discussed above, we also find that non-examination of !he Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the defence. It was he who could have said about finding, or absence of, pool of blood where dead body was allegedly found, and about the blood drops when the head was being carried away. 17. In view of aforesaid, we do not find it safe to convict the appellants on the basis of this solitary evidence which does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, we find that the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. This being so, these appeals are allowed and the convictions of the appellants as well the sentences, are hereby set aside. Appellants Panna Lal Mandal, if not wanted to be detained in connection with any other case, is ordered to be released from custody forthwith and appellants Laddu Mandal and Mikki Mandal are hereby discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.