Honble GOYAL, J.–As many as three accused were inducted for trial before the learned Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur in sessions case No. 7/1999 for having committed murder of Raju. Learned Judge vide judgment dated 2.3.2000 convicted the accused appellant Sheelu @ Suresh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Other accused Peetu and Mahesh @ Bulla were however acquitted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the accused appellant Sheelu @ Suresh preferred this appeal. (2). The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Meetha Ram (PW4) father of the deceased Raju submitted a written report Ex.P2 in S.M.S. Hospital to Suresh Kumar (PW.17), S.I., Police Station Mansarover, Jaipur on 10.11.1998 at 10:15 p.m. to the effect that at about 9 p.m. when he was sitting in a shop situated in his house No. 62/331-32, Rajat Path, mansarover, son of the servant Bhojraj Kabari came and told that an altercation had taken place between Raju, accused Sheelu and Bulla, upon which the complainant asked his tenant Bhagwan Das (PW5) to go to the spot. Bhagwan Das left the place and soon thereafter one Raju-auto driver informed that Sheelu and Bulla had attacked the complainants son Raju and he had been taken to hospital by Bhagwan Das (PW.5) and Kara (PW.2). He immediately closed his shop and rushed to the hospital where Kara met him and he told that Raju has been stabbed with knife by Sheelu and Bulla. When the complainant reached at the emergency of the hospital, the dead body of Raju which had many injuries thereon was lying there. (3). Suresh Kumar, S.I. after due endorsement sent its report to the S.H.O., Police Station Mansarover, Jaipur where a case under section 302 I.P.C. was registered. (4). Suresh Kumar, S.I. prepared the site plan Ex.P4 on 10.11.1998, samples of blood stained peaces of road and simple road peace were taken vide Ex.P11, Panchnama Ex.P5 was prepared on 11.11.1998 and certain articles were seized vide Ex.P3. Post- mortem on the body of Raju was conducted on 11.11.1998 by the medical jurist Sh. Kishan Dhanka (PW.12) on 11.11.1998. Scooter No. RJ14-4739 belonging to the accused Sheelu @ Suresh which was lying on the place of incident was seized vide Ex.P7. Post- mortem on the body of Raju was conducted on 11.11.1998 by the medical jurist Sh. Kishan Dhanka (PW.12) on 11.11.1998. Scooter No. RJ14-4739 belonging to the accused Sheelu @ Suresh which was lying on the place of incident was seized vide Ex.P7. Scooter No. RJ-14 19M 4758 belonging to Kara (PW.2) was also seized vide Ex.P8 from the place of incident. (5). The accused appellant Sheelu @ Suresh and co-accused Bulla @ Mahesh were arrested on 11.11.1998 vide Ex.P12 and Ex.P18 respectively. Accused Peetu was also arrested on 18.11.1998 vide Ex.P17. The blood stained clothes of Bulla @ Mahesh and Sheelu @ Suresh were also seized vide Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. (6). On the information Ex.P31 given by the accused Sheelu, knife was recovered on 12.11.1998 vide Ex.P20 and the site map of place of recovery of the weapon Ex.P21 was also prepared. Accused Bulla @ Mahesh gave information Ex.P32 on 11.11.1998 upon which the blood stained Khukhari was recovered vide Ex.P22 on 22.11.1998 and the site map f place of recovery (Ex.P23) was also prepared. Likewise upon information of accused Peetu which is Ex.P33 his blood stained clothes were recovered vide Ex.P14. The statement of Kara @ Rajkumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded on 13.11.1998. The blood stained clothes, knife and Khukhari were sent to the laboratory for analysis from where report Ex.P34 was received. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed the charges for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (7). In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including Jai Kishan (PW1), Kara @ Rajkumar (PW2), Sant Ram (PW3), Meetha Ram (PW4), Bhagwan Das (PW5), Raja @ Kanhaiya Lal (PW6), Munshi Ram-constable (PW7), constable Ram Singh (PW8), Uma Shanker Sharma (PW9), Hari Kishan Khichad (PW10), Ram Singh (PW11), Dr. Kishan Dhanka, medical jurist (PW.12), Kalu (PW13), Satish Gupta (PW14), Ram Khiladi (PW15), Kana Ram (PW16) and Suresh Kumar, Investigating Officer (PW17). (8). Statements of accused persons were recorded under SEction 313 Cr.P.C. In defence Harish Kumar (DW1) and Bhagwan Das (DW2) were examined. The learned Trial Judge vide impugned judgment having acquitted two accused persons namely Peetu and Bulla @ Mahesh, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Sheelu as indicated hereinabove. (9). (8). Statements of accused persons were recorded under SEction 313 Cr.P.C. In defence Harish Kumar (DW1) and Bhagwan Das (DW2) were examined. The learned Trial Judge vide impugned judgment having acquitted two accused persons namely Peetu and Bulla @ Mahesh, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Sheelu as indicated hereinabove. (9). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the relevant evidence and material on record. (10). In order to establish that the death of Raju was homicidal, the prosecution examined Dr. Kishan Dhanka, medical jurist (PW12) who conducted authority on the dead body of Raju. As per the post-mortem report Ex.P26 Raju sustained following external injuries:- 1. Abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm on below right knee cap with dry red clotted blood present. 2. Lesion 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on middle 1/3 of left leg anterior aspect surrounded by enflamation with black brownish hard scab duration about one wk. 3. Abrasion 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm on lower 1/2 of right thigh anterior aspect. 4. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on upper 1/2 of left leg anterior aspect. 5. Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on Dorsum of left hand below root of left thumb. 6. Abrasion 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm on right side front of chest 7.00 cm above right nipple. 7. 2 stab wound of size early 4 cm x 1/6 cm x muscle deep over right side front of chest lower part over and above costal margin with irregular margin and both are puncture lacerating wounds with fresh clotted blood present with gap of 10.0 cm. (Incised wound) 8. Stab wound 1.75 cm x 10.0 cm deep over right anterior axillary live upper part on right chest 7.0 cm lateral to right nipple. 9. Incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm x skin deep on centre of upper lip with fresh clotted blood present obliquely placed with clean cut margin with tailing down word. 10. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over centre of chin more on right side surrounded by abrasion 4.0 cm 3.0 cm. 11. Abrasion 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm above centre of chin. (Incised) 12. Stap wound 1.75 cm x 0.8 cm x and deep on antero lateral left side of neck lower part 4.0 cm above left sterno clavinatar joint obliquely placed with clean cut margin. 11. Abrasion 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm above centre of chin. (Incised) 12. Stap wound 1.75 cm x 0.8 cm x and deep on antero lateral left side of neck lower part 4.0 cm above left sterno clavinatar joint obliquely placed with clean cut margin. 13. 2 Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm with gap of 1.0 cm over angle of left mandible. 14. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm scalp deep on left parietal region of head with fresh clotted blued present. (skull) 15. 2 stab wound of size each 1.4 cm x 1.6 cm x muscle deep with gap of 1.0 cm over left costal margin 8.0 cm from mid line with irregular margin and both are puncture lacerated wound with fresh clotted blood present. On dissection of injury No. 8 on right lateral of chest the track of wound going inside through 4th enter vastal space by cuttle of the upper margin of 5th rib reaching upto right middle lobe upper part through pleura the cut of size 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm with right side wound naemo thorax 300 cm parially clotted blood present. On dissection of injury No. 12 on antero lateral left side of neck lower part the track of wound going inside into left clavicular focca through cutting the left subclavinartery through and through reaclarif upto left upper lobe of lung (apex) through cutting plenra the cut wound over lung 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.0 cm with left side haemothorax about 1200 cc partially clotted blood present with dark red blood present over the healthy skin over left clavicular area. All injuries are antemortem in nature and fresh enduration prior to death. (11). In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage as a result of injuries of blood versels and both lungs, which were antemortem in nature. Injury No. 12 caused by sharp edged weapon was opined to be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. it is made clear that cause of death of Raju has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. (12). Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that independent eye-witnesses Sant Ram (PW3), Kalu (PW13) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. it is made clear that cause of death of Raju has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. (12). Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that independent eye-witnesses Sant Ram (PW3), Kalu (PW13) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Another witness Bhagwan Das (PW5) who is said to be present at the scene of occurrence also did not support the prosecution case. Remaining sole eye-witness Kara @ Rajkumar (PW2) was man of criminal antecedents who himself was involved in many criminal cases including gambling, murder etc. and he was the fast friend of deceased Raju and was having enmity with the appeal it who had also lodged a F.I.R. against Kara and deceased Raju on the same day and thus sole statement of such an interested witness could not have been relied upon. It was also argued that conduct of this witness Kara was unnatural as after the incident he remained absconded for three days and there are several infirmities and contradictions in his statement and thus conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable. It was further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge heavily relied upon the evidence of recovery of knife on the information of the appellant and blood stained clothes of the appellant but such recoveries were not supported by the independent witnesses Uma Shanker Sharma (PW9) and Satish Gupta (PW14), who were declared hostile. It was further submitted that recovery of knife has also been proved to be concocted from the statements of Kanaram, F.C. (PW.16) and Suresh Kumar, S.I. (PW.17). (13). It was also contended that as per the F.S.L. Report ex.P34 no specific human blood group could be detected on the clothes of the appellant. Thus, the said evidence of recoveries does not connect the appellant with the crime. (14). He also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Shekhu @ Ikramuddin vs. State (1), in which it was held that ``according to the doctors statement, the stab-wounds were clean-cuts. It means that the weapon used for inflicting the injuries,w as of double edges, because, only when a double-edged weapon is used for inflicting injuries, clean-cuts are found. Further it was observed that ``the edge of knife (Art.1) was blunt on one side and sharp on the other. It means that the weapon used for inflicting the injuries,w as of double edges, because, only when a double-edged weapon is used for inflicting injuries, clean-cuts are found. Further it was observed that ``the edge of knife (Art.1) was blunt on one side and sharp on the other. We thus fail to understand as to how clean-cuts could be caused by such a knife (Art.1). (15). It was also contended that the star witness of prosecution PW 2 Kara deposed that the appellant Sheelu inflicted injuries by knife and another accused Peetu inflicted the injuries by Khukhari on various parts on the body of the deceased Raju but the deceased Raju was having nine other injuries by blunt object which injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. Thus, the .... genesis of the crime has been deliberately suppressed which causes serious doubt in the prosecution case. (16). It was further argued that the testimony of Kara (PW2) was not found to be reliable as regards other accused persons Peetu and Bulla alias Mahesh and therefore they were acquitted but on the same set of evidence appellant Sheelu erroneously found guilty which is not legally tenable. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Punjab (2) and Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmer vs. State of Gujarat (3). (17). In Prem Singhs case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``Now, if the evidence of these two witnesses was disbelieved by both the lower courts in regard to participation of the four other accused in the incident, it is difficult to see how it could be accepted so far as the role assigned to the appellant is concerned. The conviction of the appellant is found solely on the evidence of these two witnesses whose testimony cannot be said to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. (18). In Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmars case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that although the ocular evidence was not trustworthy enough for the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 10 implicit reliance can be placed on it in the case of appellant who, in our opinion, must be given the benefit of the same doubt which made it imperative for the two courts below to acquit his co-accused. (19). (19). It was also contended that according to the statement of Kara (PW2), about 40-50 persons were present at the spot and the shops were open but the investigating officer did not choose to record their statement which also creates doubt on the fairness of the investigation. (20). Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and argued that Kara (PW2) has rightly been believed as an eye-witness of the incident whose testimony was supported by recovery of blood stained knife, recovered on the information of the accused Sheelu having blood group ``A which was also found on the clothes of the deceased Raju. (21). We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the entire material evidence on record. This incident took place at about 9 p.m. on 10.11.1998 and the report Ex.P2 was given at about 10:15 p.m. in S.M.S. Hospital. According to the contents of this F.I.R. son for the servant of Bhojraj Kabari first came to meetha Ram (PW4) father of the deceased Raju and informed about quarrel between Raju and two accused Sheelu (appellant) and Bulla but before the Trial Court, this witness was not examined by the prosecution. Further Bhagwan Das, Raju-auto driver and Kara were named as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. apart from Bhagwan Das (PW.5), Raju @ Kanhaiya Lal (PW6) and Kara (PW2) the prosecution examined Sant Ram (PW3) and Kalu (PW13) both as eye-witnesses. Out of these five witnesses none except Kara (PW2) supported the prosecution case. (22). Bhagwan Das (PW5) was tenant of Meetha Ram (PW.4). As per his statement recorded in the Trial Court has did not witness the occurrence. He saw Raju in injured condition and on way to hospital Kara (PW2) upon inquiry by him, told that quarrel took place between the deceased Raju and accused Sheelu and Bulla but did not narrate that who inflicted the knife blow on the deceased Raju. (23). Raja @ Kanhaiya Lal (PW6) auto driver, Santram (PW3), Kalu (PW13) all three were declared hostile. Sant Ram (PW3) denied having seen any such incident. Raja @ Kanhaiya Lal (PW6) also denied any such incident and further denied that injured Raju was taken to hospital in his auto. kalu (PW13) deposed that he even does not know the deceased Raju and any of the accused persons and no such incident was ever seen by him. (24). Sant Ram (PW3) denied having seen any such incident. Raja @ Kanhaiya Lal (PW6) also denied any such incident and further denied that injured Raju was taken to hospital in his auto. kalu (PW13) deposed that he even does not know the deceased Raju and any of the accused persons and no such incident was ever seen by him. (24). It is settled position of law that conviction can be based upon sole testimony of eye-witness provided such statement is wholly reliable. The crucial question which arises for consideration is whether Kara (PW2) is wholly reliable witness? (25). On careful consideration of various submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and material evidence on record it is quite unsafe to base conviction of the appellant on the evidence of Kara (PW2). It is true that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is an interested witness but certainly such evidence requires deep probe. Kara (PW2) deposed that he along with Raju-deceased came to Rajat Path-place of incident, that accused Peetu came there, the another accused appellant Sheelu also came thereafter, that there was a dispute of payment of Rs. 200/- between Raju and Sheelu, Sheelu said that he is coming back, Sheelu went away to come back with friends, that thereupon asking by Raju he (PW2) went to come back with some friends, that the came back alone as no friend was available and he saw both the accused Peetu and Sheelu causing injuries to Raju with knives, that Sheelu was armed with knife while Peetu was armed with Khukari, that Bulla third accused was trying to save Raju, that one boy was sitting aside with sward, that he (PW2) snatched that sward to save Raju, that accused Sheelu came to him to give a beating and thereafter all three accused ran away, that they took away Raju to hospital, that he narrated this incident to Rajus father Meetha Ram who had come there and thereafter he left for his sisters house in Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. (26). Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that his statement is contrary to F.I.R. which was lodged by Meetha Ram (PW4) on the basis of story narrated by Kara (PW2) himself. (26). Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that his statement is contrary to F.I.R. which was lodged by Meetha Ram (PW4) on the basis of story narrated by Kara (PW2) himself. In the F.I.R. Ex.P2 only Sheelu and Bulla were named as accused persons, while as per the statement of Kara (PW2) Bulla was not an accused person rather he was making attempts to save Raju from Sheelu and Peetu but Peetu was not named as an accused in F.I.R. (27). It is also significant to note her that Kara (PW2) even in examination-in-chief admitted that he did not disclose this fact in his statement under sEction 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., that accused Bulla was trying to save Raju from accused persons and he himself came to know about this fact only on 13.11.1998 when he again visited the place of incident and at that time persons present there were telling that Bulla caught hold of Raju only to save him. Thus, it is clear that this witness has made material improvement in his statement from two previous statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. (28). Further his statement about the involvement of Bulla in occurrence is contrary to examination-in-chief. He stated that when he came back, he saw that Bulla has caught hold of Raju and remaining to accused were causing injuries to Raju with knife. He further stated that he disclosed it to Meetha Ram that all the three accused gave beating to Raju. He also stated that ^^esjs igqapus ls igys rhuksa eqyfteku ds vykok vU; fdlh us ekjihV dh gks rks eq>>s ugha ekyqe** Thus his statement with the material contradictions/improvements makes it clear that he has no respect for the truth. (29). It is not in dispute that Kara (PW2) was a friend of deceased Raju and was also having enmity with the accused appellant Sheelu as these facts have been admitted by him. It was also admitted by him that about 30-40 persons including nearby shop keepers were present there. (30). Presence of Santram (PW3) was also admitted by him but the prosecution examined only two out of 30-40 persons who witnessed the alleged incident. These two witnesses namely Santram (PW3) and Kalu (PW13) totally denied any such incident. (31). Further there are material contradictions in oral and medical evidence. As per the post-mortem report Ex.P26 prepared by Dr. (30). Presence of Santram (PW3) was also admitted by him but the prosecution examined only two out of 30-40 persons who witnessed the alleged incident. These two witnesses namely Santram (PW3) and Kalu (PW13) totally denied any such incident. (31). Further there are material contradictions in oral and medical evidence. As per the post-mortem report Ex.P26 prepared by Dr. Kishan Dhanka, the deceased had 14 antemortem injuries including 7 abrasions, two lacerated wounds caused by blunt object. As per PW 2 Kara both Sheelu @ Peetu caused injuries only by knives. Thus, the prosecution has given to explanation or evidence regarding a number of injuries found on the body of the deceased Raju which were caused by blunt weapon. (32). The prosecution had also relied on the recovery of blood stained knife of the appellant Sheelu at the instance of the appellant. To prove the recovery of blood stained knife the prosecution produced Uma Shanker Sharma (PW9) and Satish Gupta (PW14) but both Motbir witnesses have denied the recovery of knife in their presence and were declared hostile. Thus recovery of knife is not supported by the independent witnesses. (33). It is also significant to note that according to the prosecution case incident took place at 9 p.m. As per the statement of Kana Ram (PW16) he received telephonic information that some quarrel was going on at Rajat Path which is recorded in `Rojnamcha as Ex.P30 at 9:15 p.m. He also stated that after five minutes Sheelu and Bulla came in police station and lodged report Ex.P31 at 9:20 p.m. and soon thereafter Sheelu and Bulla were sent for medical examination along with the constable Ram Singh. In this sequence the statement of Suresh Kumar, S.I. (PW17) is also relevant who deposed that on the day of incident Sheelu and Bulla met him in the hospital where they came for their medical examination. He further stated that Sheelu and Bulla went with him at the place of occurrence from the hospital and thereafter on the same night at 3 am Sheelu and Bulla were arrested. He also stated that distance of the house of Sheelu from police station Mansarover is 1 km. and house of the sister of Bulla is also at the distance of 3/4 kms. He also stated that distance of the house of Sheelu from police station Mansarover is 1 km. and house of the sister of Bulla is also at the distance of 3/4 kms. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of kana am (PW16), Ram Singh, F.C. (PW.11) and Suresh Kumar, S.I. (PW.17) that soon after the incident the appellant Sheelu and other accused Bulla reached police station Mansarover and lodged report Ex.P31 and thereafter remained with the police till their arrest. So they wee having hardly any time to visit their houses and shield the articles, knife and Khukhari. Thus in the circumstance which goes to show that recovery of knife on the information of the accused Sheelu is concocted. (34). So far recovery of blood stained clothes of the appellant Sheelu is concerned, the same also does not connect the appellant with the crime. From the F.S.L. report it is clear that no specific human blood group was detected from the clothes. Apart from this, independent witness Bhagwan Das (PW5) also did not support the prosecution as he deposed that on the night of the incident the place did not seize the clothes of Sheelu and Bulla while the case of the prosecution is that clothes were recovered from Sheelu on the night of the incident. (35). It is also significant that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted two other co-accused Bulla @ Mahesh and Peetu on the same set of evidence while the appellant Sheelu was convicted. There is n dispute with the preposition that a witness found untrustworthy with regard to one accused should not be taken to be untrustworthy in relation to another accused if the same is found to be reliable with reference to entire material on record but in the instant case the submission of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be well founded because acquittal of the two co-accused and conviction of the third accused appellant Sheelu is based upon the same evidence and there is no other material evidence in support of the oral testimony of Kara (PW.2). (36). As discussed above, ocular testimony of Kara (PW2) which suffers numerous infirmities and which has been disbelieved qua other two accused persons cannot be made the basis of conviction of the appellant Sheelu. (37). (36). As discussed above, ocular testimony of Kara (PW2) which suffers numerous infirmities and which has been disbelieved qua other two accused persons cannot be made the basis of conviction of the appellant Sheelu. (37). For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated March 2, 2000 of learned Special Judge (Prevention of Sati) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. We acquit appellant Sheelu alias Suresh of the charge under Sec. 302 IPC. The appellant Sheelu alias Suresh, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.