R. N. BISWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14. 12. 1992 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 40/ 90 (161/91 GDC) wherein while acquitting the accused appellant and the co-accused of the offence under Section 302/34 Indian penal Code he found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence under Section 323 of indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R. I. for six months with direction that the period of detention as U. T. P. shall be set off. ( 2 ) IT is an admitted fact that deceased benu Naik, was the son-in-law and accused-appellant and the juvenile delinquent lochan are the sons of accused Balaram naik (since acquitted ). The case of the prosecution in nub is that on 1. 6. 1991 at about 8 a. m. when deceased Benu Naik asked for repayment of the money to accused Balaram which he had owed to him, the latter told him to come to his house and accordingly as he went there accused Sankar Naik and lochan refused to make payment on the pretext that they had no money. At this the deceased got annoyed and abused them. Being flared up, accused-appellant Sankar naik and the juvenile delinquent Lochan naik holding lathi and axe respectively emerged out of their house and accused appellant Sankar inflicted a lathi blow near the eye-brow and Lochan an axe blow on the right hand of Benu Naik causing profuse bleeding. During that time accused balaram was standing nearby being armed with a lathi. Seeing the incident PW1, the informant rushed to the spot, and he along with PW2, carried Benu Naik to his house and since there was profuse bleeding from the hand of the injured and it did not stop, they immediately took him to Tarasingi hospital, but on the way he succumbed to the injuries at about 10 a. m. PW1 orally reported the incident before the O. I. C. of tarasingi police station, who reduced the same into writing. As the allegation contained in the F. I. R. revealed a cognizable case under Section 302/34 Indian Penal code the O. I. C. registered it thereunder and took up investigation. As the allegation contained in the F. I. R. revealed a cognizable case under Section 302/34 Indian Penal code the O. I. C. registered it thereunder and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he visited the spot, examined the witnesses, sent the dead body of Benu Naik to morgue for autopsy, arrested the accused persons, forwarded them to Court, and after completion of investigation finding a prima facie case, submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code against them, under which they faced trial. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was complete denial. Accused Balaram further took the plea that Dwari Naik (PW1) Churia naik, Chandal Naik, Kirtan Naik (PW2) and deceased Benu Naik all being armed with lathi and axe went to his house and assaulted him and in the process the deceased benu Naik sustained injuries, to which he succumbed subsequently on the same day. ( 4 ) SINCE Lochan was a juvenile delinquent, his case was split up and he was tried by the Juvenile Court. The other two accused persons namely, Balaram and Sankar (appellant) faced their trial before the 1st addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all as against none by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial court found accused Balaram Naik not guilty of the offence and as such acquitted him. He also acquitted the accused appellant Sankar Naik of the offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code but convicted him for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned earlier. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved with the said order of conviction and sentence accused Sankar, has preferred this appeal. ( 6 ) MR. Debasis Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in his evidence before the trial Court PW1 alone deposed that accused appellant inflicted a Badi blow on the head of the deceased causing bleeding injury. Since he had not stated so before the I. O. , while being examined under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code that part of his evidence before the trial Court for the first time cannot be relied upon. Since he had not stated so before the I. O. , while being examined under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code that part of his evidence before the trial Court for the first time cannot be relied upon. We went through the evidence of PW1 it transpires from his evidence that accused appellant Sankar Naik inflicted a blow with a 'badi' on the left side forehead of the deceased Benu Naik causing bleeding injury, but on perusal of the evidence of PW7, the i. O. it is found that he had not stated so before him. PW1 also did not state before the I. O. while reporting the incident verbally before him, which was reduced in writing that the accused appellant inflicted a blow on the forehead of the deceased causing bleeding injury. When he did not say so, while reporting the incident to the I. O. and while being examined under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, his evidence cannot be acted upon. Moreover, on perusal of evidence of PW5, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of benu Naik, it is found that he found one incised wound near the elbow joint and one abrasion on the right eye-brow of the deceased. His evidence is conspicuously silent with regard to any injury on the head of the deceased. Admittedly PW1 is brother of the deceased. Only because of that relationship the evidence of PW1 cannot be brushed aside altogether. But it has to be scrutinized carefully. It is also the settled principle of law that conviction can lie even basing on the evidence of a solitary witness, provided the same is reliable, clinching, trustworthy and beyond reproach. In the case at hand, as stated earlier no other witness has corroborated the evidence of PW1 that accused-appellant inflicted blow with a Badi on the head of the deceased causing bleeding injury PW1 had also not stated so before the I. O. There was no injury on the head of deceased as found from the evidence of doctor, PW5. So the finding of the trial courts that accused-appellant inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased, cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant be discharged of his bail bond.