Judgment Rajendra Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal by sole appellant Bujhawan Ram is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.1987 passed in Sessions Trial no. 76 of 1986 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Charnparan, Bettiah, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge found and held appellant guilty for charge u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story relates to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 3.9.1985 at 9 P.M. at village Belwa Pakaria, P.S. Nautan, District West Charnparan, in which, the informant Satyanarayan Raut was alleged to have been assaulted which resulted his death. 3. The prosecution story, as disclosed by informant Satyanarayan Raut (deceased), in short, is as follows: On 3.9.1985 at 9 P.M. while the informant (daceased) and his brother Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1) were lying at their Bungla, 5 to 7 persons armed with gun, lathi, bhala came there and asked for some papers and caught the deceased and his brother. As per informant (deceased) he and his brother (P.W. 1) identified Ramashish Chamar (acquitted), Baidyanath Ram (acquitted), Sonu Ram, Moti Lal Tatwa (acquitted) and Nathuni Ram (acquitted) in the light of lantern which was burning at that time. As per informant, Ramashish Chamar was armed with gun, Hari Shankar Ram and Bujhawan Ram (appellant) were armed with Nalkati and others were armed with lathi and bhala. All of them asked for some papers and after not getting the same entered into house and started searching papers etc. but such papers could not be found. Thereafter, all of them asked the informant (deceased) to go to canal (nahar) where they would talk to him (informant) and saying this they (accused) took informant (deceased) and his brother Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1) towards south of canal (nahar) and after taking them about 200 yards south near the trees of Katahal and Banana, appellant Bujhawan Ram fired at informant (deceased) hitting left side of the chest of the deceased. Thereafter the informant (deceased) and his brother Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1) fleeing came to their house and both of them narrated the occurrence to villagers. The informant (deceased) stated that his brother Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1) had seen the entire occurrence and had also identified the accused. Thereafter the informant (deceased) and his brother Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1) fleeing came to their house and both of them narrated the occurrence to villagers. The informant (deceased) stated that his brother Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1) had seen the entire occurrence and had also identified the accused. Therafter with the help of villagers the Informant (deceased) was brought to Bettiah hospital on tyrecart tanga where ha was undergoing treatment. Cause of occurrence is said to be land dispute and the informant further claimed that with intention to grab land the named accused wanted to kill him and his brother and so taking him and his brother out of house fired. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of deceased (Ext. 3) Nautan P.S. Case No. 56 of 1985 dated 4.9.1985 under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act was registered and the investigation of the case was given to A.S.I., P.N. Singh (P.W. 11). 5. On completion of investigation chargesheet under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act against Bujhawan Ram (in custody) and Ramashish Chamar (absconder) submitted. The other co-accused named in the F.I.R. were not sent up by the police. 6. Though the appellant Bujhawan Ram and one Ramashish Chamar only were chargesheeted by the police, later on in course of trial, on the basis of statements of Shambhu Sharan Prasad (P.W. 1), other accused named in the F.I.R., namely, Hari Shankar Ram, Baidyanath Ram, Moti Lal Tatwa and Nathuni Ram were also summoned. Thereafter the learned trial court framed charge u/s. 302 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Hari Shankar Ram, Nathuni Ram, Motilal Tatwa, Baidyanath Ram and Ramashish Chamar, charge u/s. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Ramashish Chamar and charge u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Bujhawan Ram. However, learned trial court found and held the sole appellant guilty for charge u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court found and held other five co-accused who were tried together with the appellant not guilty for the charges framed against them and accordingly acquitted them. 7. The learned trial court found and held other five co-accused who were tried together with the appellant not guilty for the charges framed against them and accordingly acquitted them. 7. As it appears from trend of cross examination and also the statement of appellant recorded u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. the defence is denial of charges, plea of innocence and false implication because of land dispute between the parties. 8. In order to prove and establish its case the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Two prosecution witnesses, namely, Shambhu Sharan Prasad and Mahanth Singh are numbered as P.W. 1 and no witness appears to have been examined as P.W. 7. The prosecution also proved signature of Shambhu Sharan Prasad on inquest report (Ext. 1.), Post Mortem Ruport (Ext. 2), Fard beyan (Ext. 3), F.I.R. (Ext. 4) and Inquest Report (Ext. 5). 9. The defence has also examined one Satya Narayan Prasad as D.W. 1 who proved fard beyan of Satya Narain Raut son of Raghuni Raut of Village-Pakaria, P.S. Nautan District West Champaran recorded by S.I. S.S. Pal of Bettiah Town Police Station on 4.9.85 at 2 A.M. at M.J.K. Hospital (Ext. A), Fardbeyan of one Ramji Prasad, son of Bhikam Prasad of village Ghummagar, Sakra Tola recorded by S.I. Anil Kumar of Bettiah P.S. on 14.9.85 at 16.15 hours at chour near Zore river (Ext.A/1), two F.I.Rs drawn on the basis of fard beyan of one Ramji Prasad son of Bhikham Prasad of village Ghumnagar Rupwa tola District-West Champaran and another on the basis of written report of injured Sheo Pujan Prasad son of late Jag Narain Prasad of village Musahri, P.S. Nautan, District-West Champaran (Exts. B and B/1) and Endorsement on fardbeyan of Ramji Prasad (Ext.C). 10. Out of 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1, Shambhu Sharan Prasad, is the brother of Satya Narain Raut (deceased) and as per fard beyan (Ext. 3) he was with the deceased at the time of occurrence and had seen the occurrence. It appears from the statement of this witness that on the alleged date and time of occurrence i.e. on 3.9.85 at 9 P.M. he and his brother (deceased) were sleeping in his Bangla. A lantern was burning. 4 6 persons entered into bangla (portion of village house used by male members). It appears from the statement of this witness that on the alleged date and time of occurrence i.e. on 3.9.85 at 9 P.M. he and his brother (deceased) were sleeping in his Bangla. A lantern was burning. 4 6 persons entered into bangla (portion of village house used by male members). He identified Ramashish, Bujhawan Ram (appellant), Harishankar Ram, Baidyanath Ram, Sonu Ram, Moti Lal and Nathuni Ram. Ramashish Ram was armed with gun, Bujhawan Ram and Harishankar armed with Nulkati and remaining armed with lathies. He, further stated that Bujhawan asked his brother (deceased) where was paper. The brother of this witness (deceased) replied that papers were not with him. Some of the accused started searching papers. Ramashish, Bujhawan (appellant) and Harishankar caught hold him and his brother. Having not found papers they took them towards south. There were Katahai and Banana trees before 200 yards of Nahar (canal). This witness stated that Ramashish asked to shot at upon which Bujhawan (appellant) opened two firings of which first firing missed and second firing hit the chest of Satya Narayan (deceased). This witness fled away. Accused persons also fled towards south and while fleeing accused persons fired at him but he (this witness) escaped. This witness has further stated that after receiving shot his brother proceeded and fell down at road infront of Bangla. Upon shouting of this witness villagers came to whom this witness narrated the occurrence. He has further stated that thereafter he took his brother to Bettiah hospital on a Tyre Tanga. He has further stated that at 2 A.M. in the night police from Town P.S. came and recorded the statement of injured. He had gone out to purchase medicine. He has further stated that on 4.9.85 police of Nautan police station recorded the statement of his brother. He has further stated that his brother died on 10.9.85 in the hospital. He has further stated that Darogajee prepared Inquest report. This witness proved Inquest report (marked Ext. 1). He further claimed to identify accused persons. He has further stated that he had filed protest petition. This witness has also been cross examined at length and in his cross examination this witness has admitted land dispute with appellant Bujhawan. However, this witness appears to have denied that he made continuous attempt to take possession of the land. 1). He further claimed to identify accused persons. He has further stated that he had filed protest petition. This witness has also been cross examined at length and in his cross examination this witness has admitted land dispute with appellant Bujhawan. However, this witness appears to have denied that he made continuous attempt to take possession of the land. He has further stated that he and his brother always sleep at the Bangla and the wife of his brother and children sleep in house. At the time of occurrence he was in sleep. This witness also expressed ignorance as to whether a case relating to murder of father-in-law of this witness was pending against his brother(deceased). There is nothing more in his cross examination so as to take into consideration. 11. Mahantnh Singh, who is also numbered as P.W. 1, is not an aye witness to the alleged occurrence. As per this witness on the date and time of occurrence he was sitting in his osara (extended portion of the village house), wife of Satya Narain (deceased) came and informed this witness that dacoits came in her house and thereafter she went to the darwaja of Mahatam Singh (P.W. 4). This witness climbed on the roof and started calling one Ramnath. This witness has further stated that no sound came from Darwaja of Satya Narain (deceased). There was no light. Thereafter this witness shouted calling Jagu who raised nullah in his Tola. He heard sound of firing coming from tree of Katahal and thereafter this witness asked his nephew Rudal Singh to open fire who opened two round of firing. He has further stated that towards West- South miscreants again fired and then villagers collected. Family members of Satyanarain started weeping. This witness further stated that he saw Satya Narain (deceased) fallen down in injured condition on road. The chest of Satyanarain was bleeding. Satyanarain asked this witness to take him to Bettiah. He has further stated that on seeing Satyanarain fallen Shambhu took him to Bettiah on cycle. In his cross examination this witness has stated that Nahar is situated at a distance of 200 yards of Katahal tree. He has also stated that he had talked with no one. 12. P.W. 2, Rudal Singh, and P.W. 3, Urmila, daughter of Satya Narain Raut are tendered witnesses. 13. In his cross examination this witness has stated that Nahar is situated at a distance of 200 yards of Katahal tree. He has also stated that he had talked with no one. 12. P.W. 2, Rudal Singh, and P.W. 3, Urmila, daughter of Satya Narain Raut are tendered witnesses. 13. P.W. 4, Mahatam Singh stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence after taking meal he was at his Bangla. Wife of Satya Narain (deceased) came and asked this witness that miscreants had come and also requested this witness for going. This witness shouted loudly and heard sound of firing. On hullah villagers collected there and they went to Satya Narain. He saw Satya Narain in front of his Darwaja in injured condition. His chest was bleeding. Shambhu took Satya Narain for treatment. Shambhu is brother of deceased. Shambhu told nothing to this witness. This witness has also been cross examined at length and in his cross examination this witness has denied that he had stated before Daroga that he got information from Shambhu that Bujhawan (appellant) with the help of his associates took Satya Narayan and injured him. This witness has also stated that land dispute is going on between Bujhawan (appellant) and Shambhu. He has also stated that Satyanarain was senseless and he stated only to take him to Bettiah. 14. P.W.5., Laljhari Devi, is wife of Satyanarain Raut (deceased). It appears from her statement that on the night of alleged date of occurrence she was sleeping on a Khat. Her husband and P.W. 1 were on Dalan. As per this witness her daughter Urmila informed that her father and Devar were tied by miscreants. As per this witness she came out. She saw 8-9 persons tied both her husband and Devar. She went to Darwaja of Mahanth and Mahatam and narrated the occurrence. On hullah villagers collected. She has further stated that near kathal tree Bujhawan fired at her husband and then fled away. She has further stated that her husband came and fell down at Darwaza. Shambhu took her husband to hospital where her husband died. She did not identify the accused in the court. In her cross examination she has also admitted that there was land dispute between Ramashish and Bujhawan. She has further stated that her husband came and fell down at Darwaza. Shambhu took her husband to hospital where her husband died. She did not identify the accused in the court. In her cross examination she has also admitted that there was land dispute between Ramashish and Bujhawan. She has also stated that Kathal tree was at a distance of 2-3 lagis from his house but she had not gone near Kathal tree. When she came back from Mahanth she saw her husband fallen at Darwaza. She has also stated that she did not identify any accused. She has further stated that her husband told her that at the order of Ramashish Bujhawan assaulted him. She has also shown her ignorance whether a murder case was pending against her husband. She heard sound of four firings. 15. P.W. 6, Raghuni Raut, father of Satyanarain is also a tendered witness. 16. No witness as P.W. 7 has been examined. P.W.8 Dr. Nirmal Kumar held post mortem examination on the dead body of Satyanarayan Rout (deceased) on 10.9.85 and found following antimortem injuries: "(i) Surgically dressed wound on the chest. On removal of the dressing wound lacerated wound was found on the left side of the chest 1" diameter in size, above left nipple. Some area of the skin around the wound was pealed of and some area was black in colour. (ii) There was multiple black coloured area on the left shoulder. On dissection there was blood and blood clots in the underlying wound area of the chest, 4th and 5th ribs on the left side were fractured. Lung on the left side was collapsed and the lung was punctured at multiple places. There was above one and half litre bloody, watery fluid in the chest cavity. 10 pillets and five wades were recovered from the chest cavity during the course of dissection. The time elapsed since death is within 24 hours." This witness also proved post mortem report Ext. 2. As per Doctor the death was caused due to above noted chest injuries caused by fire arm leading to shock and haemorrhage. The pillets and wades were sent to police station under seal and cover. The time elapsed since death is within 24 hours." This witness also proved post mortem report Ext. 2. As per Doctor the death was caused due to above noted chest injuries caused by fire arm leading to shock and haemorrhage. The pillets and wades were sent to police station under seal and cover. In his cross examination this witness, who is a doctor and had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, has stated that the injury was a result of firing from close range. The patient would immediately come in a very high degree of shock. The patient may fall down and become unconscious immediately after receiving the injury. The victim cannot run for a long distance after receiving injury, The pillets and wades are not before him this witness stated. 17 P.W. 9 Shambhu Sharan Prasad who appears to have been examined as P.W. 1 also, is the brother of deceased. P.W. 9 has stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence he and his brother were sleeping in their Bangla and lantern was burning. He has further stated that 6-7 persons came caught them and so he awoke. They also asked this witness not to raise hullah. This witness identified Ramashish and Bujhawan (appellant), Hari Shankar, Baidyanath Ram, Sonu Ram, Nathuni and Motilal. He further stated that Bujhawan (appellant) asked for papers relating to land from his brother (deceased). When his brother (deceased) replied that papers were not with him four persons armed with weapons kept this witness and his brother confined and threatened to kill in case they raised hullah. The remaining accused started searching papers and entered into the house. They did not find papers. Thereafter the accused persons took this witness and his brother towards nahar situated south of Bangla of this witness. Thereafter near trees of banana and katahal accused Ramashish asked other accused to shoot this witness and his brother. On the order of Ramashish, Bujhawan (appellant) fired at brother of this witness with a country-made gun. One firing missed but the next firing hit left side of chest of his brother. Thereafter this witness managed to get rid of them and fled away. His brother (deceased) also fled and fell down at his Darwaza. He has further stated that he took his brother to hospital on tyre cart. His brother died. One firing missed but the next firing hit left side of chest of his brother. Thereafter this witness managed to get rid of them and fled away. His brother (deceased) also fled and fell down at his Darwaza. He has further stated that he took his brother to hospital on tyre cart. His brother died. He further stated that his brother was taken to hospital and in presence of Darogajee of Nautan Police Station his statement was recorded in his presence. He proved his signature on fard beyan marked Ext. 3 and signature of witness Dhivendra Kumar marked as Ext.4. He has also stated that his brother died on 10.9.85 at Bettiah hospital. He has also stated that when his brother came to his Darwaza he narrated the occurrence to the persons present there. This witness has also been cross examined at length and in his cross examination this witness has stated that the occurrence took place because of dispute relating to land. This witness has shown his ignorance as to whether his brother (deceased) was in service. In his cross examination he has further stated that after reaching katahal tree he managed to flee and came to his village. He has further stated that while fleeing he heard sound of one firing and thereafter standing at his door he started shouting and only after his shouting nearby persons came there. When his brother came and fell down how many persons collected there this witness is unable to say and this witness has denied that some unknown had committed murder of his brother and because of land dispute this case has been instituted. 18. P.W. 10 Prabhu Nath Singh appears to be part, Investigating Officer of this case. As per this witness he took charge of this case from ASI P.N. Singh (P.W. 11) on 4.11.85 and submitted chargesheet. In his cross examination this witness has stated that after taking over charge of this case he had gone through the case diary recorded earlier. This witness has proved fard beyan recorded by S.S. Pal of Bettiah Town Police Station marked Ext. A. He has further stated that he had submitted chargesheet against only Ramashish Chamar and Bujhawan Ram and other accused were not sent up for trial. 19. P.W. 11, P.N. Singh is also part Investigating Officer of this case. He proved fard beyan marked Ext. A. He has further stated that he had submitted chargesheet against only Ramashish Chamar and Bujhawan Ram and other accused were not sent up for trial. 19. P.W. 11, P.N. Singh is also part Investigating Officer of this case. He proved fard beyan marked Ext. 3, formal FIR marked Ext. 4. He has stated that he had also investigated this case and had taken restatement of informant and thereafter went to place of occurrence. As per this witness the place of occurrence is darwaja of the house of deceased Satyanarayan of village Belwa Pakaria which is facing south. This witness has further stated that he did not find important thing at the place of occurrence. He recorded statement of witness and handed over charge of investigation of this case to Officer-in-charge on 4.11.85. In his cross examination this witness has stated that fard beyan of deceasd recorded in 4.3.85 by Darogajee of Bettiah police station and also inquest report was received by him. He further stated that after receiving said fard beyan this witness had talked to Officer-in-charge to treat this fard beyan as FIR or not ? but he did not mention ths fact in the case diary. This witness has also stated that no lantern was seized from the place oof occurrence. This witness has also stated that no blood was found at the place of occurrence. Empty cartridges were, also not found there. He further stated that he had taken statement of witness Shambhu Sharan Prasad, who had stated that his brother (deceased) had received only one shot. There is nothing in his cross examination so as to be taken into consideration. 20. P.W. 12 Gopal Prasad is a formal witness who has proved inquest report marked Ext. 5. 21. Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that though prosecution had examined as many as twelve witnesses and also exhibited some documents, it has failed to prove and establish charge levelled against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and in the manner as alleged. 5. 21. Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that though prosecution had examined as many as twelve witnesses and also exhibited some documents, it has failed to prove and establish charge levelled against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and in the manner as alleged. Referring statements of prosecution witnesses, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that out of twelve witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1 though has claimed to be an eye witness to the alleged occurrence, the claim of this P.W. 1 who also happens to be full brother of deceased, cannot be believed in view of contradictions in two fard beyans of deceased, one recorded only after about five hours of the alleged occurrence by S.I. S.S.Pal of Battiah Town Police Station on 4.9.85 at 2 A.M. in M.J.K. hospital and another recorded after about 14 and 1/2 hours after the alleged occurrence by S.I., P.N. Singh of Nautan Police Station on 4.9.85 at 14.30 hours at M.J.K. hospital, Bettiah at Bed No. 5. Learned counsel pointed out that narration and also cause of occurrence stated in two statements of deceased recorded at different times are contradictory to each other inasmuch as in his earlier statement, which was recorded after five hours of the alleged occurrence, the deceased specifically stated that the accused had taken him alone to canal, asked for money and further accused asking him (deceased) to take to jungle opened two rounds of firing at him hitting left portion of his chest and also left hand but in his later statement recorded after 14 and 1/2 hours of alleged occurrence the deceased specifically stated that accused persons took him (deceased) and also his brother towards canal and after going 200 yards towards south under katahal and banana trees, Bujhawan Ram (appellant) fired hitting left side of his chest. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that above contradiction in two statements of deceased on the material point that who actually fired at the deceased is a major contradiction and in face of such major contradiction P.W.1 Shambhu Sharan Prasad cannot be said to be an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that above contradiction in two statements of deceased on the material point that who actually fired at the deceased is a major contradiction and in face of such major contradiction P.W.1 Shambhu Sharan Prasad cannot be said to be an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further referring statement of other witness Mahant Singh (examined as P.W.1) who specifically stated that he saw Satyanarayan (deceased) had fallen down in injured condition on road, P.W. 4 Mahatam Singh who stated that he saw Satyanarayan in front of his darwaja in injured condition, P.W. 5 Laljhari Devi, wife of deceased, who stated that her daughter Urmiia informed that her father and dewar were tied by miscreants and thereafter she came out and seeing her husband and dewar tied by 8-9 persons went to darwaja of Mahant and Mahatarn and also that she had not gone near Katahal tree and only when she came back from Mahant she saw her husband fallen at darwaja, contended that the statements of above referred witnesses are sufficient to indicate that these witnesses were not eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence and so the prosecution is left with statement of P.W. 1 (who has also been examined as P.W. 10) alone and in the face of contradiction in two statements of deceased P.W.1 cannot be believed an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, particularly an eye-witness to the material point that it was appellant who had fired at deceased resulting his death. Learned counsel also pointed out that though P.W. 2 Rudal Singh, P.W. 3 Urmila, daughter of deceased, and P.W.6 Raghuni Rout, father of deceased, were also witnesses in the case but these witnesses having been tendered by the prosecution for cross examination without they being examined in chief shall affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 22. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that from the evidences led by the prosecution as accepted by the learned trial court, it is clear that the prosecution have established and proved the charge levelled against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and in the manner, as alleged, and submitted that the finding of the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court. 23. 23. The only point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the charge levelled against appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and in the manner, as allied. 24. Having regard to not only admitted but proved enmity between the parties relating to land dispute, judgment and the order of conviction being based on statement of brother of deceased (P.W. 1) claiming to be an eye-witness and there appearing two fard beyans of deceased (Ext. A and Ext. 3) containing major contradiction on material point as to whether deceased was taken alone or along with his brother (P.W. 1) from his darwaja by accused and whether the appellant alone had fired at deceased, appreciation of evidences brought on record require great care and caution. 25. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of evidences brought on record it is evidently clear that out of 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 2 Rudal Singh, P.W. 3 Urmila, daughter of deceased and P.W. 6 Raghuni Raut, father of deceased, are witnesses who have not been examined-in-chief by the prosecution and have simply been tendered for cross examination and so there is nothing in their statements so as to help the prosecution. P.W. 12 Gopal Prasad is only a formal witness. P.W. 8 Dr. Nirmal Kumar held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and as per his statement cause of death was chest injuries caused by fire arm leading to shock and haemorrhage but this alone cannot also prove the case of prosecution that it was appellant who had caused injuries found by the doctor resulting death of deceased. In his statement the doctor has categorically stated that the injury was a result of firing from close range and the patient would immediately come in a very high degree of shock and patient may fell down and become unconscious immediately after receiving such injury and also that the victim cannot run for a long distance after receiving such injury. This statement of the doctor also tells upon prosecution story inasmuch as as per prosecution cases the deceased after being injured had run and had fallen down at his darwaja which as per prosecution story itself was at least at a distance of 200 yards. P.W. 10 Prabhu Nath Singh and P.W.11 P.N. Singh are I.Os. of the case. This statement of the doctor also tells upon prosecution story inasmuch as as per prosecution cases the deceased after being injured had run and had fallen down at his darwaja which as per prosecution story itself was at least at a distance of 200 yards. P.W. 10 Prabhu Nath Singh and P.W.11 P.N. Singh are I.Os. of the case. The statement of P.W. 11 on the point of place of occurrence also does not support the prosecution case inasmuch as as per P.W. 11 the place of occurrence was Darwaja of deceased but as per prosecution case the deceased was shot at a distance of 200 yards south of Darwaja of deceased near katahal and banana trees. As none of the I.Os. inspected the place being near katahal and banana trees creates doubt as to whether I.O. was told that deceased was shot at near kathal and banana trees. 26. P.W. Mahant Singh who has been numbered as P.W. 1, P.W. 4 Mahatam Singh, P.W. 5 Laljhari Devi, wife of deceased, are also not eye-witnesses on the material point of firing by the appellant inasmuch as Mahant Singh (P.W. 1) stated that he saw deceased fallen on road in injured condition, P.W. 4 Mahatam Singh stated that he saw Satyanarain in front of the Darwaja in injured condition and P.W. 5 Laljhari Devi, wife of deceased, stated that she had not gone near katahal tree. On the face of statements of witness, referred and discussed above, it is evidently clear that though Shambhu Sharan Prasad examined twice as P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 has claimed to have seen the alleged occurrence but contradictory fardbeyans of deceased create sufficient doubt as to whether this witness had actually seen that appellant had fired at deceased. Even if this witness is accepted as an eye-witness to the entire occurrence including firing by this appellant at deceased resulting his death, the statement of this witness, who happens to be brother of deceased and so related cannot be believed as there is no independent witness to support and corroborate the statement of this witness. It is settled principle of law that conviction cannot be based on unsupported and uncorroborated testimony of sole related witness claiming to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. 27. It is settled principle of law that conviction cannot be based on unsupported and uncorroborated testimony of sole related witness claiming to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. 27. From the discussion and appreciation of evidences on record in foregoing paragraphs it is neither possible nor safe to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish and prove charge levelled against the sole appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and in the manner, as alleged. The court below does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidences and also failed to notice the contradictory fard beyans (Ext. A and Ext. 3) of the deceased himself and glaring improvements made in fard beyan which was later in time, i.e., 14 and half hours after the time of occurrence. The improvements in later fardbeyan materially affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case and so it is not safe to base a conviction. 28. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26.9.1987 passed in Sessions trial no. 76/1986 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, convicting and sentencing appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life is set aside and he is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.