Judgment : ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1) THE hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 39/ 1993 [s. T. No. 2 of February, 1995] on 10. 3. 1995. (2) THE miniaturised version of the prosecution is that on 8. 9. 91 at about 3. 00 p. m. when the de facto complainant Kartick Roy (PW. 1) was catching fish nearby his house from a tank named "nolo Pukur", accused Parimal Saha, who took lease of the said tank for making pisciculture, along with accused Monoj Roy and three others suddenly appeared there and caught hold him. While his elder brother biswanath Roy came to his rescue they leaving the complainant caught hold him resulting in a scuffle between them. The complainant reported the matter to his house and a few neighbourers. Anjali Roy (PW. 2) rushed to the P. O. for saving her husband Biswanath. Accused Monoj struck Biswanath with a knife on his left hand and left side of his back and then all of them started fleeing away. The complainant along with neighbourers Madan Roy (PW. 3), Shibu Roy (PW. 15), paltan Roy (PW. 9), Sanatan Roy (PW. 8), Lakshmi Roy (PW. 7), Dipu Roy (PW. 16)and many others chased them and could apprehend one Ashok Roy who confessed that accused Parimal brought them to commit murder for prevention of catching fish from the tank. Biswanath on his way to hospital succumbed to his injuries. Hence, all the six accused persons were charged under section 302/34 IPC. (3) THE defence case is a denial of the commission of alleged offence. (4) AS many as twenty-one witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, whereas none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record the learned Court below while acquitted accused Ashok Roy and three others of the charge, convicted accused Parimal Saha and Monoj Roy under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. (5) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of conviction and sentence, accused Monoj and Parimal preferred the present appeals being cra No. 52 of 1995 and CRA No. 38 of 1995 respectively, out of which on account of death of Parimal the latter appeal i. e. CRA No. 38 of 1995 was abated. (6) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence against the appellant Monoj. (7) OUT of the above witnesses, sole eye-witness PW. 4 Bhiva Roy - wife of the victims brother, PW. 7 Lakshmi Roy and PW. 8 Mrityunjoy @ Sanatan Roy-cousin brothers of the victim, autopsy surgeon PW. 11 Dr. Santi Kumar Ghosh and PW. 21 I. 0. SI. A. A. Mollah are vital, balance witnesses being either formal or are of little or no aid to the prosecution. (8) BEFORE examining the evidence of the said important witnesses, the evidence of other witnesses may be discussed. (9) PW. 1 Kartick Roy (de facto complainant), who was declared hostile by the prosecution, did not see who attacked and killed his brother Biswanath. He gave ezahar at the PS under the instructions of others. According to him, local people chased the miscreants and caught one Ashok Roy, and his brother on way to hospital succumbed to his injuries. PW. 2 Anjali Roy -wife of the victim, found her husband injured and dead, but she did not see anybody to attack and assault her husband. As per evidence of PW. 3 Madan Roy - nephew of PW. 1 there was a dispute on the date of occurrence when Kartick (PW. 1) went to catch fish from Nolo Pukur and later Biswanath also went there. He found parimal Saha, who took lease of the pond, by the side of the pond on the date of occurrence, and Biswanath was attacked and killed by the men who took lease of the said pond but he did not see who actually assaulted Biswanath. A man was caught soon thereafter but he cannot tell his name. He did not chase the miscreants which is contradictory to the FIR (Ext. 3) where it has been specifically borne out that he along with others chased the miscreants and could apprehend one Ashok Roy. A man was caught soon thereafter but he cannot tell his name. He did not chase the miscreants which is contradictory to the FIR (Ext. 3) where it has been specifically borne out that he along with others chased the miscreants and could apprehend one Ashok Roy. He is a witness to the inquest and seizure of a cycle at the spot made by the police. PW. 5 Nemai Chandra Ghosh, who was declared hostile, stated that in 1991 Parimal Saha reared fish in Nolo Pukur. He was not present at the spot and he saw the deadbody of Biswanath in the evening but he did not find any man apprehended by local people in connection with murder of Biswanath. PW. 6 Arati Roy, who too was declared hostile, expressed her ignorance as to how her husbands brother Biswanath died. PW. 9 sankar Roy @ Paltan, who was also declared hostile, expressed his ignorance as to whether any man was detained by local people in connection with murder of Biswanath. As per evidence of PW. 10 Lakshman Chandra Ghosh, before 1992 Parimal Saha took lease of Nolo Pukur for three years, and Biswanath was murdered in 1991. PW. 12 Sailaja Prasad Chatterjee, Upa-Pradhan of gourangapur area, on being called by the local people over the murder of a man of Gourangapur, saw the deadbody and noticed an assembly of many people who surrounded a man but could not see his face. PW. 13, who carried the victim for treatment, expressed his ignorance as to how he was murdered. PW. 14 swapan Roy was simply tendered for cross-examination. PW. 15 Shibu Roy also expressed his ignorance as to how Biswanath was murdered. PW. 16 Dipu Roy similarly expressed his ignorance about the said murder. PW. 17 Debasis bhattacharya, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Chandannagore, proved the statements of PWs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 recorded under section 164 Cr. PC. PW. 18 SI Prodomya Banerjee, the then OC, Bhadreswar PS recorded the ezahar of PW. l, started Bhadreswar PS Case No. 200 dated 8. 9. 91 under section 302/34 IPC and endorsed the case to SI A. A. Mollah (PW. 21) for investigation. PW. 19 ASI Ranjit Kumar Das seized one lungi on 09. 09. 91 at the PS under a seizure list (Ext. 6) in presence of PW. 20 homeguard Biswanath Tiwari. l, started Bhadreswar PS Case No. 200 dated 8. 9. 91 under section 302/34 IPC and endorsed the case to SI A. A. Mollah (PW. 21) for investigation. PW. 19 ASI Ranjit Kumar Das seized one lungi on 09. 09. 91 at the PS under a seizure list (Ext. 6) in presence of PW. 20 homeguard Biswanath Tiwari. (10) ACCORDING to the evidence of PW. 4, on the date of incident when she was washing her mouth in Nolo Pukur near their house, her husbands brother kartick (PW. 1) came there to catch fish. Parimal who took lease of the said pond was present at that time. She noticed Monoj and two other persons there. An altercation between Monoj and Kartick took place over the issue of catching fish. Kartick managed to escape from the clutch of Monoj. Biswanath then came by the side of the pond when a scuffle between Monoj and Biswanath took place in presence of Parimal. She found Monoj to bring out his knife and to strike Biswanath on his chest. Arati (PW. 6), wife of her husbands brother, who was washing a silver container in the pond, was present when Monoj assaulted Biswanath. PW. 7 stated that about three years back Kartick went to catch fish with a fishing rod in Nolo Pukur, and on hearing a shout he came out near the pond and found Biswanath was murdered. The local people detained one Ashok Roy as one of the suspects of the murder. Ashok told in his presence that Parimal, Monoj, Biplab and others were involved in the murder. His statement was recorded by a Magistrate. He, however, failed to identify the accused persons. PW. 8 found Kartick, Biswanath and Monoj by the side of the pond, lease of which was taken by Parimal. He noticed altercation amongst monoj, Kartick and Biswanath, and there were 2/3 other persons whom he did not know, but Parimal was not present. One person was detained by the local people after the murder of Biswanath. His statement was recorded by a magistrate. PW. 11 on holding post-mortem examination over the deadbody of the victim on 09. 09. He noticed altercation amongst monoj, Kartick and Biswanath, and there were 2/3 other persons whom he did not know, but Parimal was not present. One person was detained by the local people after the murder of Biswanath. His statement was recorded by a magistrate. PW. 11 on holding post-mortem examination over the deadbody of the victim on 09. 09. 91 found (1) injury over left elbow 1" x " and 1" x 1" and (2) injury over posterior aspect and back below the scapula 1" x 1/4 ", and opined that the death was due to the effect of several injuries by sharp-cutting weapons which was homicidal in nature. PW. 21 after taking over charge of Bhadreswar ps, Case No. 200 dated 08. 09. 91 visited the PO which was by the side of a tank called "nolo Pukur" on 08. 09. 91 itself, found the deadbody of Biswanath on a rickshaw van, held inquest (Ext. 1) over the deadbody, arranged for sending the deadbody for post-mortem examination, inspected the P. O. , prepared a sketch map with index (Ext. 7), seized earth, controlled earth and a Hero Jet cycle under a seizure list (Ext. 2), took custody of a suspect named Ashok Roy detained by the local people and sent him to hospital for treatment as he was beaten by the public, examined witnesses, forwarded some of the witnesses to the Magistrate for recording their statements under section 164 Cr. PC, collected post-mortem report and thereafter submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. (11) MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellant, on referring to the testimony of PW. 4 contended that her evidence is not only inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses but also is not supported by any other witness, and as such no reliance should be placed upon her sole testimony. Mr. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that though PW. 4 is the sole eye-witness, in the absence of any adverse material she should not be disbelieved and so it is enough to sustain the conviction of the present appellant monoj. (12) IT is well-settled that for proof of a fact, not plurality but quality of evidence is needed, and conviction can rest on the evidence of a solitary witness if it is clear, cogent and unimpeachable. (12) IT is well-settled that for proof of a fact, not plurality but quality of evidence is needed, and conviction can rest on the evidence of a solitary witness if it is clear, cogent and unimpeachable. As a general rule, Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, that unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute the Court should not insist upon corroboration except in cases where the nature of testimony of a single witness itself requires the same as a rule of prudence e. g. , in the case of a child witness or witness in a position analogous to that of an accomplice, and that whether corroboration of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be three classes of witnesses viz. (a) wholly reliable, (b) wholly unreliable and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The question of corroboration arises only in case of the witness of the last category in which the Court is called upon to be circumspect, as was held in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 sc 614 . (13) LET us consider how far the testimony of the said PW. 4 is reliable. (14) THAT she noticed an altercation between Monoj and Kartick over the issue of catching fish, as deposed by PW. 4, does not find place in the FIR, according to which while PW. 1 was catching fish, Parimal along with Monoj roy, Ashok Roy and three others came there and caught hold and pulled him and when his elder brother Biswanath went to his rescue, leaving PW. 1 they caught Biswanath resulting in a scuffle and on getting information from him, his brothers wife Anjali Roy (PW. 2) first rushed to the PO to save her husband from their clutches. Neither PW. l nor PW. 2 (who was not declared hostile)support the above evidence of PW. 4. That Arati (PW. 6) who was washing a silver container in the pond, was present when Monoj assaulted Biswanath, as stated by PW. 4, is not buttressed by PW. 6 who was declared hostile and is totally silent about any such incident. According to the FIR when Biswanath came to his rescue, Parimal, Monoj, Ashok and three other accused persons on leaving PW. 6) who was washing a silver container in the pond, was present when Monoj assaulted Biswanath, as stated by PW. 4, is not buttressed by PW. 6 who was declared hostile and is totally silent about any such incident. According to the FIR when Biswanath came to his rescue, Parimal, Monoj, Ashok and three other accused persons on leaving PW. 1 caught hold Biswanath resulting in scuffle between them and at that time Monoj assaulted Biswanath with a knife which was in his hand, on his left hand and left side of back, but the evidence of PW. 4 is otherwise, as she stated that Monoj brought out his knife and struck Biswanath on his chest. It is further evidence in cross-examination that Monoj struck him twice but she cannot say how many strikes were virtually inflicted by him. PW. 3 noticed injuries on the right chest of the victim and four or five other places which does not appear to be in consonance with the post-mortem report (Ext. 4) and evidence of autopsy surgeon (PW. 11) who found (1) injury on left elbow and (2) injury over posterior aspect and back below the scapula. The inquest report (Ext. 1)reveals one cut injury of 11/4" over upper left elbow, one deep cut injury of 1" over left "shina", three scratch marks on chest and abdomen and one swelling injury on right sideburn. The learned Court below appears to have equated "chest" with "shina" observing that the line of demarcation between chest and shina i. e. scapula is very thin and as such did not find any discrepancy in the evidence of PW. 4 which is far from correct and is not at all acceptable. Therefore, when the above ocular testimony of PW. 4 stands uncorroborated by medical evidence and there is clear inconsistency, it will be unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW. 4. (15) AS per her (PW. 4) evidence the incident took place on the eastern side of the pond and she claims to have witnessed the alleged occurrence from the eastern side itself. The sketch map (Ext. 7) prepared by I0 (PW. 21) is not on record. 4. (15) AS per her (PW. 4) evidence the incident took place on the eastern side of the pond and she claims to have witnessed the alleged occurrence from the eastern side itself. The sketch map (Ext. 7) prepared by I0 (PW. 21) is not on record. Nevertheless, the evidence of I0 reveals that on the eastern side of the ghat there is a land which is part of the pond and after that there is a kuchha road and a big banana plantation of Lakshman Ghosh, and the PO is in between the gaba and the starting of kuchha road, which needless to mention, is obviously not on the eastern bank of the pond and as such it is consistent with the evidence of I0. (16) AGAIN, it is the evidence of PW. 4 that Kartick left behind his fishing rod and bait when he was chased, and she found on the spot blood of Biswanath, fishing rod, bait, one bhojali and a few cycles which is contradicted by the evidence of PW. 3 and PW. 21, since as per evidence of PW. 3, police recovered a cycle from the spot and PW. 21 deposed that he seized earth, controlled earth, and a Hero cycle under a seizure list (Ext. 2) and he did not find any fishing rod, bait or brother bicycles in or around the P. O. It is nobodys case that Kartick (PW. l) was ever chased by the accused persons, as stated by PW. 4, which is also self-contradictory since her next evidence is that when Biswanath came, kartick left the spot. (17) FURTHERMORE, the alleged incident took place in the broad daylight at about 3. 00 p. m. at Nolo Pukur at a distance of about 30 to 40 cubits from the house of PW. 4, and so chance of witnessing the incident by more than one cannot be ruled out, but none has come forward to support the testimony of pw. 4. PW. 8 noticed altercation amongst Monoj, Kartick and Biswanath, and 2/3 other persons, whom he does not know, were there, but Parimal was not present which is contradictory to the prosecution case as also the evidence of pw. 4. 4. PW. 8 noticed altercation amongst Monoj, Kartick and Biswanath, and 2/3 other persons, whom he does not know, were there, but Parimal was not present which is contradictory to the prosecution case as also the evidence of pw. 4. If he really noticed the said altercation, he would obviously have witnessed the alleged assault of Monoj on the victim with a knife, as according to the prosecution case it followed immediately thereafter, but there is no such evidence on his part. All these give rise to a reasonable doubt as to the presence of PW. 4 at or nearby the PO at the time of the alleged incident. Courts call for corroboration not as a matter of law but as a rule of prudence. If the discrepancies in the testimony of PW. 4 were minor the Court could have ignore it, but when the same go to the root of the matter neither wholly unacceptable nor wholly impeccable, corroboration is essential which is absent here. (18) AS regards extra-judicial confession of accused Ashok Roy, PW. 8 stated that one man was detained by the local people, but he failed to identify accused ashok. PW. 7 is the sole witness who deposed that Ashok disclosed in his presence that Parimal, Monoj, Biplab and others were involved in the murder, but he failed to identify any of the accused persons. When an accused says he did not make the confession that amounts to retraction. Court may convict an accused on his confession alone but although retracted at a later stage, but usually the Court wants some corroboration of the confessional statement before convicting an accused person on such statement. Confession even if retracted can form basis for conviction without corroboration if (1) the confession is found to be perfectly voluntary and (2) if so it is further found to be true and trustworthy. Reference may be made to the case of Sankaria vs. State of rajasthan, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1248 . Here, apart from the fact that there is no corroboration of the above evidence of PW. 7, it appears from the evidence of PW. 21 that after taking accused Ashok in custody he sent him to hospital for treatment as he was manhandled by the public which necessarily denotes that the alleged statement, if any, was not voluntary and as such it cannot be acted upon. 7, it appears from the evidence of PW. 21 that after taking accused Ashok in custody he sent him to hospital for treatment as he was manhandled by the public which necessarily denotes that the alleged statement, if any, was not voluntary and as such it cannot be acted upon. (19) THEREFORE, in the light of the above discussion, the prosecution cannot be said to have brought home the charge against accused Monoj beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such the said accused is also found not guilty. (20) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal be allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside, and accused monoj be acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 IPC, and he be set at liberty at once. Appeal allowed.