JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 21/85, whereby co- accused Omiya was convicted under section 307 IPC and appellant Mahadev for offence under section 307/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts, which are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal, are that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of PW2 Ramesh Ex.P/1, police registered a crime report on 25.8.1984 for the offences under sections 341, 323 and 324/34 IPC against the appellant and co-accused Omiya. After usual investigation, police filed the challan for the offences under sections 307, 326/34 IPC The appellant was put to trial. Prosecution adduced the evidence by producing as many as 10 witnesses and also the documents Exhibits P/1 to P/10. The accused made statement under section 313 Cr.PC. and denied the allegations. The trial court after trial convicted and sentenced the appellant and co-accused Omiya as noticed above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the judgment and order impugned as also scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record. 4. In Parcha Bayan Ex.P/1, injured PW2 Ramesh stated that when he reached near to his house in a street, he found co-accused Omiya alias Jay and appellant standing, both of them obstructed his way. Co-accused Omiya had a knife in his hand. He inflicted a knife injury on his abdomen. Thereafter, the appellant caught hold of him and co-accused Omiya again wielded the knife blow, which he tried to protect but it resulted in causing injury on his right thumb. According to injury report Ex.P/3, there was an incised wound 2cm X1cm. The injury report is as under: "An incised wound 2cm X 1cm X omentum protruding out present on left hypochondrum anteriorly." 5. Om perusal of the injury report, there is no injury on thumb, PW2 Ramesh, in his statement before the Court, stated that Omiya had a knife and appellant caught hold of him. The injury report is as under: "An incised wound 2cm X 1cm X omentum protruding out present on left hypochondrum anteriorly." 5. Om perusal of the injury report, there is no injury on thumb, PW2 Ramesh, in his statement before the Court, stated that Omiya had a knife and appellant caught hold of him. Omiya inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen. PW3 Tulsidas is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He stated that after hearing hue and cry at about 9.30 PM., he came out from his house and saw the appellant catching hold of Ramesh and co-accused Omiya causing knife injury. In cross-examination, he stated that he was taking meals and from that place, the place of occurrence is about 60-70 steps. On hearing the call from Ramesh to his brother Dayal. he went to the place of occurrence, on the way, there was a little light. When he reached the spot, by the time, accused ran away. However, in the next breath, he stated that accused were running. He admitted that he has not seen any of the accused causing injury to the injured. When he reached the place of occurrence, there were 30-40 persons, therefore, he could not see to which direction the assailants ran away. PW4 Thakurdas is another eye- witness. He stated that upon hearing cries, he reached the spot and found that there were 10-15 persons. The occurrence took place about 10-15 steps from his house on the road near to "Pulia Wala Chauraha". He stated that when he came out from his house, he did not see the occurrence clearly. PW2 Ramesh was surrounded and one person had caught hold both the hands of Ramesh. After assaulting Ramesh, the accused ran away. On the spot, on Bhagwandas were intervening. Bhagwandas has not been produced by the prosecution. PW5 Dr. Jagdish, Medical Jurist proved the injury report Ex.P/3. According to PW5, he noticed the injury as stated above, which was by sharp edged weapon. The injured was kept under observation. At the time of making injury report, he has not mentioned as to whether the injury was simple or grievous in nature. However, subsequently, police sought the clarification regarding nature of injury vide Ex.P/4 and on the back of Ex.P/4, he has given his opinion that the injury is grievous in nature. The injured was kept under observation. At the time of making injury report, he has not mentioned as to whether the injury was simple or grievous in nature. However, subsequently, police sought the clarification regarding nature of injury vide Ex.P/4 and on the back of Ex.P/4, he has given his opinion that the injury is grievous in nature. He came to the conclusion that the injury is grievous in nature on the basis of bed-head ticket. The bed-head ticket has not been produced by the prosecution before the trial court. PW7 Dayaldas is not the witness to the occurrence. PW8 Allahbux is the witness to the recovery of the knife from co-accused Omiya. PW9 Indra Singh is also a witness to the recovery of knife from co- accused Omiya. PW10 Desraj is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the site inspection note Ex.P/6, Parcha Bayan Ex.P/1, site inspection Ex.P/7, arrest memo of co-accused Omiya Ex.P/8, information furnished by co-accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act hereinafter) Ex.P/9 and recovery of knife Ex.P/5. He also stated that a clarification was sought from the Medical Officer regarding the nature of injury suffered by PW2 Ramesh vide Ex.P/4. He has not stated anything against the appellant. It is stated that after conviction by the judgment and order impugned, co-accused Omiya has expired. 6. The question for determination in this appeal is as to whether PW2 Ramesh was first caught hold of by the appellant and then co-accused Omiya inflicted a single knife injury in his abdomen; or co-accused Omiya first inflicted the knife injury and thereafter the appellant caught hold of him; or any overt act has been established against the appellant. In Parcha Bayan Ex.P/1, the injured himself stated that co-accused Omiya inflicted a knife blow and thereafter, the appellant caught hold him and co-accused Omiya again inflicted a knife blow on his thumb. According to PW5 Dr. Jagdish, Medical Jurist, he noticed only single injury vide injury report Ex.P/3. According to the injury report Ex.P/3 and the statement of PW5 Dr. Jagdish, the injured suffered only single injury and there was no injury on his thumb. 7. PW3 Tulsidas could not stand on his statement in the cross-examination and when he was subjected to cross- examination, he admitted that when he reached the spot, by the time, accused persons had already fled away. Jagdish, the injured suffered only single injury and there was no injury on his thumb. 7. PW3 Tulsidas could not stand on his statement in the cross-examination and when he was subjected to cross- examination, he admitted that when he reached the spot, by the time, accused persons had already fled away. Even otherwise, according to this statement, he was taking meals and occurrence had taken place at a distance of 60-70 steps from the place he was taking meal and when he was on the way, there was a dim light. Therefore, it is not possible for him to see the occurrence and thus, he has rightly admitted that he has not seen the occurrence. He stated that when he reached the spot, accused had already fled away. 8. PW4 Thakurdas is also not the person, who has witnessed the occurrence. He stated that when he reached the place of occurrence there were 10-15 persons. He categorically stated that one Bhagwandas was intervening. The prosecution has not produced Bhagwandas for the reasons best known to it. Had Bhagwandas been produced, probably, he could throw regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place. More so, PW4 Thakurdas stated that one person caught hold both the hands of PW2 Ramesh. He did not name the appellant as the person, who had caught hold the hands. According to the medical evidence, the injured suffered only single injury and even as per the injured himself, in his Parcha Bayan, the injury was caused by co-accused Omiya and thereafter, the injured is alleged to have been caught hold of by the appellant. Thus, even if the evidence of the injured is taken to be true, then he was caught hold after having suffered the injury at the hands of co-accused Omiya and thereafter, no other injury was caused to him. The other witnesses are the witnesses against co-accused Omiya regarding the information under section 27 of the Act and recovery of knife etc. 9. When PW2 Ramesh was examined in court, of course he has improved his earlier statement Ex.P/1 and stated that the appellant caught hold of him and co-accused Omiya inflicted knife injury to him. This appears to be a material improvement and no plausible explanation has been given. The conviction can be based even on solitary statement of the injured eye-witness, if it finds a material corroboration. This appears to be a material improvement and no plausible explanation has been given. The conviction can be based even on solitary statement of the injured eye-witness, if it finds a material corroboration. In the instant case, there is no corroboration from the medical evidence or from any of the eye witnesses involving the appellant in the commission of the crime. Injured PW2 Ramesh categorically stated that he was first given a knife blow by co-accused Omiya and thereafter, he was caught hold by the appellant and again Omiya inflicted the knife blow on his thumb. This part of his statement neither finds corroboration from the medical evidence nor from the statements of other witnesses as there being no other injury much less on thumb and in the circumstances, therefore, it is highly unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of solitary witness PW2. Thus, I am of the view that the trial court fell in error in convicting the appellant with the aid of section 34 IPC. 10. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Judgment and order under appeal qua appellant Mahadev is set aside. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******