IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27. 10. 2004 passed by iv Additional and Sessions Judge, Meerut in S. T. No. 694/93 whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case mentioned in the first information report lodged by Moti Lal are that he was working in the Diwan Rubber Factory, Rithana. About one and a half year back he alongwith his wife Rita Devi was living in the house of Ramji Lal in village Rithani Shankar yadav s/o Ram Nath r/o Chapa P. S. Chapa District Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh works in Rithani bolt Factory. Me also lives in the same house. About ten days back in his absence Shankar yadav had caught hold of the hand of his wife Rita Devi with an intention of molesting her and she had scolded him. His wife had told him about this occurrence. ( 3 ) HE had informed his brother in-law Keshav Prasad s/o Hari Ram Nai, who also works in his factory. In their presence Shankar Yadav had apologized with folded hands with his wife Rita devi. It is further stated that on 8. 8. 92 at about 11 p. m. he had gone to his factory. His wife Rita Devi was sleeping in Verandah in front of his room and his sister Suraj Mati, who was unwell, was sleeping inside the room. In the morning he returned at about 7. 15 a. m. from his duty and saw his wife sleeping under the mosquito net arid his sister Suraj Mati was inside the room. She had asked him to open the latches of the door from outside. He opened the latches and his sister came out of the door and started crying and told him that in the previous night at about 12. 30 p. m. Shankar Yadav had come near the cot of Rita Devi for committing illicit act and as he tried to commit the same her sister-in-law pushed Shankar Yadav who fell on the ground. She had also raised alarm and she was standing at a short distance near the cot. Shankar Yadav felled his sister-in-law on the ground and shut her mouth and she because unconscious. She had also raised alarm and she was standing at a short distance near the cot. Shankar Yadav felled his sister-in-law on the ground and shut her mouth and she because unconscious. Shankar Yadav laid her on the cot and tried to commit rape. His sister-in-law resisted and thereafter Shankar Yadav strangulated her with the bed sheet. She further stated that Shankar Yadav had bolted the latches of her room from outside and due to this reason she could not come out. ( 4 ) SHANKAR Yadav had left; the place after placing the mosquito net on the cot. It is further alleged in the report that she had witnessed the occurrence in the electric light. He alongwith his sister saw his wife after removing the mosquito net and found his wife lying dead on the cot. Thereafter he went to Keshav Prasad and narrated the occurrence and lodged the report. ( 5 ) AFTER the regiration of the case, Sub-inspector Raj Kumar Singh started the investigation. He recorded the statements of Head Moharrir, Ram Prasad Yadav, Motilal and Keshav Prasad. Thereafter he reached at the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest memo of the dead body, which is Ex. Ka. 2. He prepared the relevant papers for the post mortem examination, which are exts. Ka. 6 to ka. 8. He also recorded the statement of Suraj Mati. He prepared the recovery memo of "kan ka Kundal", "nak ka phool" and pieces of broken glass bangles and prepared its recovery memo which is Ext. Ka. 3. Bed sheet was also recovered and its recovery memo is ex. Ka. 4. He also prepared the site plan, which is Ex. Ka. 9. He also recorded the statements of ram Vilas, Ashok Kuamr Tiwari and Keshav Prasad. On 10. 8. 92 he arrested Shankar Yadav and on 19. 8. 92 he submitted the charge sheet which is Ex. Ka. 10. ( 6 ) AFTER the submission of the charge sheet, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the sessions Judge had framed the charge Under Section 302 I. P. C. against the appellant. ( 7 ) IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined P. W. I Suraj Mati. P. W. 2 Moti Lal, P. W. 3 keshav Prasad, P. W. 4 Ashok Kumar Tiwari. P. W. 5 Dr. ( 7 ) IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined P. W. I Suraj Mati. P. W. 2 Moti Lal, P. W. 3 keshav Prasad, P. W. 4 Ashok Kumar Tiwari. P. W. 5 Dr. Dincsh Kumar and P. W. 6 Raj Kumar singh, Sub-inspector, ( 8 ) P. W. I Smt. Suraj Mati deposed that Rita Devi was the wife of his brother Moti Lal. He was working in Diwan Rubber Factory and her husband was also working in the same factory. Moti lal was living in the house of Ramji Lal for about one and a half years. She lives in Diwan colony. About quarter to two years, back Moti Lal while going on his duty in the night used to leave his wife with her. About one day prior to the occurrence he came to her and asked to go to his house and she went there. She used to go there off and on. ( 9 ) THE duty of his brother starts at 10. 30 p. m. and he had gone at 10. 30 p. m. for his duty. She was unwell at that time. She was sleeping inside the room. Rita Devi was sleeping in the verandah and at that time electric bulb was burning. There were four rooms in the house. The occupants of two rooms were not present. In one room Moti Lal was staying and in another room shankar Yadav used to reside. He was also a tenant. Shankar Yadav was also sleeping outside the door of the room. At about 12. 30 p. m. in the night Shankar Yadav locked her room from the outside and thereafter he started teasing her sister-in-law. He tried to commit rape. Her sister-in-law did not allow him and she slapped him. Shankar Yadav fell on the ground. She woke up. Her sister-in-law started raising alarm. She saw from the wooden door that Shankar yadav strangulated her sister-in-law with a green bed sheet. After committing the murder shankar Yadav had committed rape. She was knocking the door. Nobody was present there. His brother returned at 7. 30 a. m. She raised alarm and Moti Lal opened the door. She narrated the occurrence to her brother and Rita Devi was lying dead on the cot. In the morning Shankar yadav was present and taking tea. She was knocking the door. Nobody was present there. His brother returned at 7. 30 a. m. She raised alarm and Moti Lal opened the door. She narrated the occurrence to her brother and Rita Devi was lying dead on the cot. In the morning Shankar yadav was present and taking tea. ( 10 ) IN the cross-examination she stated that her brother lives two km. away from her house. Her husband had dropped her at her brothers house on a bicycle. She stated that on hearing the noise she woke up and saw that her door was locked from the outside. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 Moti Lal deposed that the occurrence took place about quarter to two year back and he was working in Diwan Rubber Factory for about 3-4 years. His wife used to live with him. Besides him Shankar Yadav was also tenant in a room of that house. In other rooms Ram Naresh and Shyam Baksh were tenants but they were not present. On the date of occurrence his sister was sleeping inside the room. He returned at 7. 15 a. m. in the morning. At that time his sister was raising alarm. The door of the room was bolted from the outside and he opened the door and his sister narrated the occurrence. His wife was lying dead on the cot and the door of the room of shankar Yadav was locked. He went to Diwan Rubber Factory to inform his brother-in-law, who scribed the report and he lodged the same at the police station. He stated that Shankar Yadav was not present around his room. He further stated that about ten days back accused had caught hold of the hands of his wife with an intention of molesting her. Shankar Yadav had apologized with folded hands. ( 12 ) IN the cross- examination he stated that his sister had informed that the accused had tried to commit rape. He could not tell the reason as to why the allegation of rape is not mentioned in the first information report. ( 13 ) P. W. 3 Keshav Prasad stated that Motilal is his brother-in-law. Rita Devi was his wife. He and Moti Lal work in the same factory. Moti Lal was residing in a room of the house of Ramji lal. ( 13 ) P. W. 3 Keshav Prasad stated that Motilal is his brother-in-law. Rita Devi was his wife. He and Moti Lal work in the same factory. Moti Lal was residing in a room of the house of Ramji lal. He was residing there for the last about one and a half year. About quarter to two years back moti Lal came to him at about 7 a. m. and informed that Rita Devi has been murdered. He had prepared the report, Ex. Ka. 1. He stated that ten days prior to this occurrence accused had caught hold of the hands of Rita Devi and she had complained to her husband. Ramji Lal and Ashok kumar were also present there. In their presence Shankar Yadav had apologized with folded hands. He stated that the investigating officer did not record his statement. ( 14 ) P. W. 4 Ashok Kumar Tiwari stated that at about 7 a,m. investigating officer had prepared the inquest memo and he had signed the same. Inquest memo is Ex. Ka. 2. The dead body was dispatched in his presence and the investigating officer had recovered "kan ka kundal", "nak ka phool" and pieces of broken glass bangles and prepared its recovery memo and he had signed, the same, which is Ex. Ka. 3. The investigating officer had recovered the bed sheet and prepared its recovery memo which is Ex. Ka. 4. He further stated that, about ten days prior to the occurrence Shankar Yadav had caught hold of the hands of Rita Devi and thereafter he had apologized. He reached alongwith Moti Lal and Keshav Prasad at the place of occurrence at about 8 a. m. He stated that Shankar Yadav was present at the place of occurrence. ( 15 ) P. W. 5 Dr. Dinesh Kumar had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Rita devi. In the external examination he found average built body, rigor mortis passing off from upper extremity and present in lower extremity. No decomposition. Abdomen distended. Nails cyanosed lips cyanosed face congested. Blood discharging from Nostrils and mouth present. ( 16 ) HE noted following ante mortem injuries: "abraded contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on front of neck middle and lower part extending horizontally. No decomposition. Abdomen distended. Nails cyanosed lips cyanosed face congested. Blood discharging from Nostrils and mouth present. ( 16 ) HE noted following ante mortem injuries: "abraded contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on front of neck middle and lower part extending horizontally. ( 17 ) IN the internal examination he found haemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue and underneath "ms on the neck right corner of Hyoid bone fractured. ( 18 ) IN the opinion of doctor cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. ( 19 ) P. W. 6 S. I. Raj Kumar Singh had submitted the charge sheet after the conclusion of the investigation. Me had denied that Shankar Yadav was present when he reached at the place of occurrence. ( 20 ) THE Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. ( 21 ) THE counsel for the appellant Shri Apul Mishra, Amicus Curiae challenged the findings of the court below on the ground that the appellant had no motive to commit the offence, there was no source of light in which the witness had alleged to have. , recognised the appellant. The testimony of the sole eyewitness P. W. I Suraj Mati is not corroborated by any other source and there is conflict in medical and direct evidence. ( 22 ) IN order to appreciate the submissions of the counsel for the appellant we have to examine the evidence on record in the light of the submission of the counsel for the appellant. ( 23 ) THE testimony of the witnesses shows that the only eye witness of the actual occurrence is p. W. I Smt Suraj Mati and the remaining witnesses are with respect to previous incident which took place about ten days prior to the occurrence. The appellant had caught hold the hands of the deceased with an intention of molesting her and after this occurrence he had apologized. It is suggested that on account of this incident present occurrence had taken place. This is the motive of the crime. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties. It is a case of direct evidence and motive becomes secondary. It is suggested that on account of this incident present occurrence had taken place. This is the motive of the crime. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties. It is a case of direct evidence and motive becomes secondary. If the incident in question as projected by the prosecution is to be accepted then the presence or absence of a motive or strength of the said motive by itself will not make the prosecution case weak. The present occurrence is witnessed by p. W. 1 Suraj Mati only and if her evidence is accepted then the existence of nature of motive would hardly matter. ( 24 ) THE submission of the counsel for the appellant that the occurrence took place in the night and there was no light at the spot in which assailant could be recognised. In the first information report no source of light was mentioned. The testimony of P. W. I Smt. Suraj Mati shows that she had recognised the assailant in the electric light. There was light of an electric bulb in the verandah. The testimony of P. W. 2 Moti Lal shows that there was an electric bulb outside the room. Both the witnesses were cross examined with regard to source of light but nothing could be elicited to show that there was no light at the place of occurrence. The prosecution has successfully proved that there was light at the alleged time of occurrence. The accused was next door neighbor of the deceased and he was known to P. W. I Smt Suraj Mati and could be identified even in faint darkness by her. ( 25 ) THE next submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the solitary testimony of P. W. I smt. Surajmati should not be accepted because she is an interested witness. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and finds no substance in this submission. It is a settled position of law that testimony of witnesses can not be rejected just because the witnesses are related to the deceased, if otherwise their testimony inspires confidence. It is settled by the apex Court in various decisions that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. It is settled by the apex Court in various decisions that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It. is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but. the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence act. ( 26 ) LAST submission of the counsel for the appellant is that there is conflict in the direct and medical evidence. It is submitted that the testimony of the main eye witness of the occurence is not reliable and does not inspire confidence and her testimony is in conflict with the post mortem report. According to the allegation of the first information report in the night appellant had come to the cot of Rita Devi for committing illicit act and as he tried to commit the same her sister-in-law pushed Shankar Yadav who fell on the ground. She had also raised alarm and she was standing at a short distance near the cot. Shankar Yadav got his sister-in-law felled on the ground and shut her mouth and she became unconscious. Shankar Yadav laid her on the cot and tried to commit rape. His sister-in-law resisted and thereafter Shankar Yadav took the bed sheet and strangulated her. In her testimony in court she stated that appellant had bolted her room from the outside and started teasing her sister-in-law and tried to commit sin but her sister in law did not allow him to do so and she slapped him. The appellant had fallen on the ground. Thereafter he had strangulated her with the green bed sheet. She further deposed that after her death he had committed sin. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the testimony of P. W. I. Smt Suraj mati is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The Doctor who had conducted the autopsy did not find any evidence of rape. Thereafter he had strangulated her with the green bed sheet. She further deposed that after her death he had committed sin. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the testimony of P. W. I. Smt Suraj mati is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The Doctor who had conducted the autopsy did not find any evidence of rape. Her testimony shows that she woke up only when shaker Yadav had fallen on the ground but she had narrated the occurrence from the very beginning. She stated that Shankar Yadav had bolted the room from the outside and at that time, according to her own statement, she was sleeping. The manner of killing also does not find support from the post mortem report. She stated that appellant had strangulated her with the bed sheet. But the post mortem report shows that the doctor had found one abraded contusion 10 x 3 cm. on front of the neck middle and lower part and this injury does not fit in the manner of assault as described by this witness. The doctor did not find any other injury on the body of the deceased. According to the testimony of this witness some scuffle had also taken place and she had fallen unconscious on the ground. The investigating officer had also collected one ear kundal, one phool of nose and broken bangles but the story of any scuffle is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The investigating officer did not find the bed sheet wrapped around the neck. ( 27 ) IT is further pointed out that in the first information report there was no allegation of rape. The informant could not tell the reason why it is not mentioned in his report. The counsel further pointed out that allegation of rape is introduced because at the time of inquest proceedings investigating officer had asked P. W. 1 Suraj Mati to examine the private parts of the deceased and she, after examining her had stated that sexual act has been committed. Therefore, the allegation of rape was not mentioned in the report and it is introduced after the inquest proceedings. We find that the submission of the counsel for the appellant is correct that the testimony of P. W. I Smt. Suraj Mati is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the allegation of rape was not mentioned in the report and it is introduced after the inquest proceedings. We find that the submission of the counsel for the appellant is correct that the testimony of P. W. I Smt. Suraj Mati is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The allegation of rape was not mentioned in the report and it is also not corroborated by the post mortem examination report. ( 28 ) WE also agree with, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that P. W. 1 Smt. Suraj mali, sole eyewitness of the occurrence is a chance witness. Her house is about two kilometers away from the place of occurrence. She is mother of three children. She made an effort to explain her presence in the house of her brother. She stated that in the evening her brother came to her house and asked her to stay in his house as he had to attend his night duty. She stated that her husband had dropped her at the house of her brother. She had also denied to have given any statement to the investigating officer; In paragraph 17 of the statement of P. W. 2 Moti Lal it is mentioned that he had brought her sister to his house. It is also relevant that according to her statement she was not well and this is the explanation for her sleeping inside the room in the month; of August whereas deceased was sleeping outside the room. These are. small contradictions but assume importance in the light of contradiction in ocular and medical evidence of the sole eyewitness. ( 29 ) WE also agree with the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the accused shows his innocence. ( 30 ) AFTER the occurrence he was present at the place of occurrence. The statement of P. W. 2 shows that he had returned in the morning from his duty. He had opened the door of the room and his sister came out and narrated the occurrence. Thereafter, he had gone to Deevan Rubber factory to meet his brother in law. They returned at the place of occurrence and after preparation of the report they had gone to the police station. The statement of P. W. I is very clear that she had seen accused in the morning. Thereafter, he had gone to Deevan Rubber factory to meet his brother in law. They returned at the place of occurrence and after preparation of the report they had gone to the police station. The statement of P. W. I is very clear that she had seen accused in the morning. This statement of P. W. 1 is corroborated by he statement of P. W. 4 ashok Kumar Tcwari. He stated that he had reached at the place of occurrence along with Moti lal and Keshav. He admitted that Shankar Yadav was present there. If the complicity of the appellant was known to the witnesses at that time then his presence at the place of occurrence is highly improbable. We find force in the submission of the counsel that up till morning it was not known as to who had committed the offence and after consultation applicant was falsely implicated in. this case due to suspicion. The statement of P. W. I and P. W. 4 clearly shows that when witnesses reached at the place of occurrence appellant was present. The denial of P. W. 2 moti Lal regarding presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is false and cannot be accepted in view of the categorical statements of other witnesses of the prosecution. ( 31 ) WE agree with the submission of the learned counsel that the testimony of sole eye witness p. W. 1 Suraj Mati is not reliable to record a finding of conviction and the Sessions Judge had not considered these infirmities in the prosecution case. ( 32 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case. ( 33 ) OFFICE is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Sessions Judge for compliance. . .