Judgment K. S. GAREWAL, J. 1. Sukhvinder Singh appellant was tried by the learned Additional sessions Judge (I), Panipat for the murder of Kuldeep Singh and vide judgment dated June 9/10, 1997, Sukhvinder Singh was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. Sukhvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh deceased were employed at the factory owned by Harpal Singh (PW-7), known as M/s mohindra Jaqguard Factory and located at Jattal Road, Panipat. In 1994 sukhvinder singh was a machine operator at the said factory, Kuldeep Singh deceased and his brother-in-law (sala) Harjinder Singh (PW-5) was also employed in the said factory. 2. According to the prosecution, on May 19, 1994 at 5.30 PM sukhvinder Singh stabbed Kuldeep Singh with a knife, in the presence of harjinder Singh (PW-5) and Harpal Singh (PW-7), and escaped. It appears that 3-4 days earlier the two of them had a fight but the reason for the fight was not revealed. Injured Kuldeep Singh was shifted to Hydrabad hospital, panipat and then to Civil Hospital, Panipat, where he was declared dead. The Medical Officer sent intimation of this to In-charge Police Post, bus stand at 6.10 P. M. On receipt of the intimation S. I. Gurdial Singh (PW-6)went to the hospital and recorded statements of the witnesses. The case was registered under Sec.302 IPC at 8.20 PM on the basis of the statement of harjinder Singh (PW-5 ). Special report was delivered to the Judicial magistrate, Panipat, at 10.30 PM. The Investigating Officer conducted the inquest proceedings and then sent the body for post-mortem. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Rajiv Sethi (PW-1) who found the following injuries. "there was an incised wound elliptical in shape sharp ends, size 1.8 cm x 0.8 cm in middle present on the left side of back of chest obliquely placed, upper end being 3 cm left to the mid line 7 cm below the nape of neck and 16 cm from the tip of left shoulder. On probing the direction of the wound was forward, downward and medially corresponding cut was present in the shirt. On probing the direction of the wound was forward, downward and medially corresponding cut was present in the shirt. On further exporation muscles and facia on the way were cut, incised wound was present on the upper part of posterior pleura and the back of upper lobe of left lung passing through the lung tissue. Further medially a linear nick size 0.3 cm long was seen on the postero superior part of arch of aorta on descending limb. Blood was present in the mediastinum. " In the opinion of the Medical Officer the cause of death was injury to vital organs like left lung and arch of aorta, leading to hemorrhage and shock. The time that elapsed between the injury and the death was only a few minutes but between the death and the post mortem was 4 to 48 hours. The Investigating Officer also conducted investigation at the spot. 3 The investigation was taken over by ASI Kitab Singh (PW-4)on May 25, 1994. The Investigating Officer arrested Sukhvinder singh on that day. The accused was interrogated on the following day and on the basis of his disclosure statement the knife was recovered from his possession on May 27, 1994 lying buried underneath the earth near malik petrol Pump, G. T. Road, Panipat. 4. After completion of investigation, accused Sukhvinder Singh was sent up for trial. At the trial, charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined Dr. Rajiv Sethi (PW-1), ASI Bhaiya ram, (PW-2), Draftsman Ramesh Kumar (PW-3), ASI Kitab Singh (PW-4), harjinder Singh (PW-5), SI Gurdial Singh (PW-6) and Harpal Singh (PW-7)and closed its evidence. The statement of the accused was recorded and the various circumstances which appeared against him were put to him but denied by him. The accused submitted that he was innocent and the witnesses had deposed falsely. In fact Kuldeep Singh had fallen on a machine in the factory and suffered injuries on that account. On being called upon to enter into defence, the accused examined Sewa Singh (DW-1) who testified that on the date of occurrence at 5 PM when he was returning to the factory after tea, he found that kuldeep Singh with injuries out side the factory gate. He was made to sit on his scooter and taken to Hyderabadi Hospital, Panipat. On being called upon to enter into defence, the accused examined Sewa Singh (DW-1) who testified that on the date of occurrence at 5 PM when he was returning to the factory after tea, he found that kuldeep Singh with injuries out side the factory gate. He was made to sit on his scooter and taken to Hyderabadi Hospital, Panipat. The witness then returned to the factory and informed Dharam Pal Singh about the incident. 5. The witness was categoric that on that date neither Harjinder Singh nor sukhvinder Singh had returned to the factory after lunch. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and rejected the defence and resultantly convicted the accused and passed sentence against him as described above. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the conviction of the appellant was based on the solitary statement of harjinder singh (PW-5) as the other witness Harpal Singh (PW-7) had not supported the prosecution case. The criticism regarding the testimony of harjinder singh (PW-5) was that his statement could not be trusted because he did not seem to know the real name of the assailant. At the trial Harjinder singh had stated that it was Jasvinder Singh who had stabbed Kuldeep Singh. If the witness was working in the same factory where the accused was working then he would have at least known his name as it was a small factory employing only 20 workers. This showed that the witness was not present in the factory when the occurrence took place. The presence of the witness also stood falsified from the fact that his taking injured Kuldeep Singh to hospital was not proved. The injured had actually been taken to the hospital by Sewa Singh (DW-1) and not by Harjinder Singh (PW-5 ). There was no corroboration of Harjinder Singhs presence at the hospital, as the admission slip was not produced. Furthermore, the witness had stated that the assailant had thrown his knife at the spot whereas the Investigation officer recovered the knife from the possession of the appellant on the basis of his disclosure statement. The Investigating Officer had also not been able to lift any blood from the spot. This showed that the occurrence had not taken place at the spot mentioned by the witnesses and, therefore, not in the manner the witnesses have described. 7. The Investigating Officer had also not been able to lift any blood from the spot. This showed that the occurrence had not taken place at the spot mentioned by the witnesses and, therefore, not in the manner the witnesses have described. 7. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on the statement of harjinder Singh (PW-5) because Harpal Singh (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution although he admitted that both Sukhvinder Singh and kuldeep singh were working at his factory. He also admitted that Kuldeep singh had been murdered on May 19, 1994 but at the time of murder neither he was not present in the factory nor he had nor he seen the occurrence. 8. Therefore, we shall have to closely scrutinize the statement of harjinder Singh (PW-5) who is the solitary eye witness in this case. All that harjinder Singh (PW-5) stated was that four days after the old dispute jasvinder Singh had caused injury with a knife to Kuldeep Singh. The witness identified the accused in court as the person who had given the knife blow on the back of Kuldeep Singh. The witness went on to testify that he and Sewa Singh had shifted Kuldeep Singh to Hydrabadi hospital. He also stated that at the time of the occurrence Harpal Singh (PW-7)had also seen the occurrence. Furthermore, the accused was said to have fled from the spot leaving his knife behind. The witness stated in his crossexamination that after the incident the deceased had tried to chase the accused but fell down and became unconscious. The injury bled and the clothes of the witness had also got stained with blood but the police had not taken his blood stained clothes into possession. The witness had shown the blood on the spot which had oozed out on account of Kuldeep singhs injury, but the police did not take it into possession. 9. The statement of Harjinder Singh does not appeal to us to be the statement of a witness who had actually seen the occurrence but the statement of one who was later on introduced as a witness. We have many reasons to hold this view. Firstly, there is no documentary evidence that harjinder Singh (PW-5) was working at the factory and present on the factory floor when the occurrence took place. We have many reasons to hold this view. Firstly, there is no documentary evidence that harjinder Singh (PW-5) was working at the factory and present on the factory floor when the occurrence took place. Secondly, there was no proof that Harjinder Singh accompanied Kuldeep Singh to Hydrabadi hospital and later to Civil Hospital, Panipat. Thirdly, the witness stated that his clothes had got blood stained in the process of looking after Kuldeep singh when he fell down and became unconscious but these clothes were not taken into possession. Fourthly, although the witness stated that while fleeing the accused had left his knife yet the Investigating Officer managed to recover the knife, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused, from near the Malik Petrol Pump. Fifthly, no blood was recovered from the spot even though the wound must have bleeding profusely. Sixthly, the witness introduced Harpal Singh as a false witness. From the above analysis of the statement of the solitary witness, we come to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant on the basis of such scanty, contradictory and unreliable testimony. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge.