JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 60/2000 (297/2000) for having committed murder of Megha. The learned Judge vide judgment dated January 16, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC - To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer one Month Simple Imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC - To suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution story is woven like this on July 18, 2000, informant Heera Lal (PW.l) instituted report with the police station Phalasia District Udaipur with the averments that his father Megha (now deceased) was belaboured by Bheema and Hakra. Hakra caught hold of Megha and Bheema gave three lathi blows on his head as a result of which, Megha fell down and became unconscious. P.S. Phalasia, on the basis of said report registered a case under Sections 341,307,323/34 IPC and investigation commenced. Megha died during the pendency of investigation and his dead body was subjected to autopsy. Offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Bheema and Hakra wee arrested. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up[ for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur. Charge under Sections 302 and 323 IPC was framed against the appellant and under Section 341, 302/34 and 323 IPC was framed against the appellant and under Sec.341, 302/34 and 323 IPC against co-accused Hakra. Appellant denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 24 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. On hearing the final submissions, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above but acquitted co-accused Hakra. 3. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently criticized the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge and canvassed that Heera Lal (P. W. 1) who was examined eye witness, was not present at the time of occurrence as is evident from his cross-examination, wherein he stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Megha was lying having injuries on his head. Keshi Bai (PW.3), the wife of the deceased also testified that after Roop Singh, Karan Singh and Jabbar Singh took her husband on a cot, Heera Lal arrived. Mani Lal, Investigating Officer(PW. 16) also deposed that during investigation he came to the conclusion that Roop Singh and Gulab Singh were the eye witnesses of the occurrence. In such a situation no reliance could be placed o the testimony of Heera Lal. 4. Per Contra, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that Heera Lal was the injured eye witnesses and his testimony was rightly relied on. 5. We have reflected over the rival submissions and weighed the material on record. 6. Coming to the nature of injuries received by Megha, we find that as per the injury report (Ex.P-11) Megha sustained three lacerated wounds on frontal and middle part of the head and according to post mortem report (Ex.P-13), the cause of death was coma as a result of anti mortem head injury. As per injury report (Ex.P-12), Heera Lal (PW. 1) sustained contusion 4cm x 1 cm on left scapula. 7. On a close scrutiny of the material on record the fact situation that emerges, may be summarised thus:- (i) Heera Lal (P.W.I) changes his statements at every step. In one breath he deposed that on hearing hue and cry when he reached at the spot, he found his father lying down and blood was oozing. In another breath he stated that in his presence Bheema inflicted two lathi blows on the head of his father. (ii) Kesi (PW.3) the wife of deceased in her deposition stated that when she along with Heera Lal and Lachhu Bai reached, her husband was lying in injured condition while assailants had already filed away. (iii) In regard to injury sustained by him, Heera Lal stated in the FIR that lathi blow was inflicted by Bheema just below his shoulder while he intervened, but at the trial he deposed that after his father fell down and became unconscious, Bheema gave lathi blow on his waist. (iv) According to Mani Lal, Investigating Officer, (PW. 16) Roop Singh and Gulab Singh were the eye witnesses of the incident. 8. (iv) According to Mani Lal, Investigating Officer, (PW. 16) Roop Singh and Gulab Singh were the eye witnesses of the incident. 8. The settled principles rejecting acceptability of the evidence of sole eye witness were laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam (AIR 1993 SC 1463 ) thus:- Indeed conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye witness is wholly reliable witness the courts have not difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in to and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. 9. On scanning the testimony of Heera Lal from the point of view of trustworthiness, we find him a wholly unreliable witness. He reached at the place of incident with his mother Kesi while assailants had already fled away and he saw the deceased lying in injured condition. As per the testimony of Mani Lal, Investigating Officer (PW. 16) Roop Singh and Gulab Sigh were the eye witnesses of the incident but the prosecution did not examine them. Conjoint reading of the statements of Heera Lal (PW. 1), Kesi (PW.3) and Mani Lal (PW.16) demonstrates that at the time of incident Heera Lal was not present. As the evidence of sole eye witnesses of the incident but the prosecution did not examine them. Conjoint reading of the statements of Heera Lal (PW. 1), Kesi (PW.3) and Mani Lal (PW.16) demonstrates that at the time of incident Heera Lal was not present. As the evidence of sole eye witness Heera Lal is wholly unreliable, the substratum of prosecution case does not remain intact and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 10. Conjoint reading of the statements of Heera Lal (PW. 1), Kesi (PW.3) and Mani Lal (PW.16) demonstrates that at the time of incident Heera Lal was not present. As the evidence of sole eye witness Heera Lal is wholly unreliable, the substratum of prosecution case does not remain intact and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated January 16,2001 and acquit the appellant Bheema of the charges under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The appellant, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******