ORDER The judgment dated 25-2-2004 in Crl.A. No. 150 of 2002 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirpathi is under challenge in this revision. 2. The petitioner herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3071 PC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi in S.C. No. 250 of 2001 by his judgment dated 02-07-2002. On appeal, the conviction was sustained, but sentence was modified to two years. 3. The gravemen of the charge against the petitioner is that on 20-02-2001 atabout01.30 p.m. the petitioner, while accompanying P.W. 1 - T. Mohan Reddy on his hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 9914 at Nalanda Nagar, Near R.T.C. Office turning, stopped P.W. 1 on the pretext of attending calls of nature and sprinkled chilly powder into the eyesofP.W.1 and caused injury on the throat with a barber's knife with an intention to kill him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 4. The petitioner herein shall be referred as accused hereinafter for the sake of convenience. 5. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this revision can be stated as follows: P.W. 5 - P. Jyothi was married to one Nagarju in the year 1992 and they were blessed with two children i.e. one son and one daughter. Subsequently, she developed acquaintance with the accused in the year 1996 and since she got acquaintance with the accused, her husband left her. Then, P.W. 5 started living with the accused in Tamil Nadu and then shifted to Tirupathi, however, no marriage was solemnized between the accused and P .W. 5. Subsequently, PW, 5 - Jyothi developed acquaintance with P.W. 1- T. Mohan Reddy. P.W. 5 introduced P.W. 1 to the accused. P.W.1 used to visit the house of P.W. 5. The children of P.W. 5 were residing at Thummindapalem, Near Chittoor. The mother of P.W. 5 seems to have requested P.W. 1 to send P.W. 5 to her village, as her children are very eager to see her. When P. W. 1 informed the same to P.W. 5, without informing the accused, she (P.W. 5) proceeded to Chittoor and she was residing with her children at Chittoor. The mother of P.W. 5 seems to have requested P.W. 1 to send P.W. 5 to her village, as her children are very eager to see her. When P. W. 1 informed the same to P.W. 5, without informing the accused, she (P.W. 5) proceeded to Chittoor and she was residing with her children at Chittoor. The accused was suspecting that P.W. 1 separated P.W. 5 from him and that P.W.1 might have eloped P.W. 5. 6. P.W. 1 was working as manager in Janachaithanya from 1994. According to P.W. 1, three days prior to the date of incident, the accused came to his office and enquired about Jyothi-P.W. 5 and threatened that if P.W.1 fails to entrust P.W. 5to him, he would kill him. On 20-2-2001, at about 1.30 p.m. while P.W. 1 was in his office, the accused came there and requested him to accompany him to RTO office to get his auto released, which was seized by RTO. Then, P.W. 1 followed the accused. P.W.1 was driving Hero Honda motorcycle and the accused was the pillion rider and when they reached Nalanda Nagar Cross Roads and negotiating a curve near RTO office, the accused requested P.W. 1 to stop the vehicle on the pretext of attending calls of nature. Then P.W. 1 again started his motor cycle and accused was sitting on near seat after crossing few yards, the accused sprinkled chilly powder on the face of P.W. 1 with the left hand and caused bleeding injury on his throat with a sharp edged weapon. When P.W. 1 fell down and was rubbing his eyes, the accused came with stone. Seeing the accused with stone P .W. 1 ran towards RTO office, crying: "help" "help". On hearing his cries, two persons who were proceeding ahead of him came to the rescue of P.W. 1 and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. One among those two persons was Muralikrishna Reddy. Then, they shifted P.W. 1 to hospital and on the way P.W. 1 met Bhaskarand Subrahmanyam, who were coming from opposite side direction on a two wheeler and P.W. 1 narrated the incident to them. 7. P.W. 8-DoctorV.V.Panduranga Vittal examined P.W. 1 and found the following injuries: A lacerated cut like injury of about 6 x 2 cms on the anterior part of the neck i.e. in front of the neck. 7. P.W. 8-DoctorV.V.Panduranga Vittal examined P.W. 1 and found the following injuries: A lacerated cut like injury of about 6 x 2 cms on the anterior part of the neck i.e. in front of the neck. The doctor opined that the said injury was possible with a weapon like M.O. 3-. Then P.W. 8 sent hospital intimation to the police. P. W. 9 - P. Abhishekam, who was working as S.1. of Police, M.R. Palle received Ex. P-7 hospital intimation and proceeded to SVR.R. Hospital and recorded Ex. P-1 statement of P. W. 1. Then he returned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No. 28 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and issued FIR - Ex. P-8. Then he again proceeded to hospital and examined P.W. 1 and Murali Krishna Reddy in the presence of P.W. 6 and seized blood stained clothes-M.Os.1 and 2 under a cover of Ex. P-2 panchanama. Then he visited the scene of offence and seized sharp edged M.O. 3 i.e., barber blade in the presence of mediators. He has also secured the presence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and Subramanyam Reddy and recorded their statements. He has also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence in Ex. P-9. On 23-3-2001, he arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of panchayatdars and P.W. 1. Then the accused led the police party and mediators to thorny bushes near SV Petrol bunk and produced M.O.4-knife. Then P.W. 9 examined other witnesses and secured wound certificate and filed charge sheet. 8. The stand of the accused is of total denial. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-9 and material objects are marked as M.Os. 1 to 4. 10. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated supra and the same has been confirmed by the appellate Court as stated supra. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that the original version in this case has been suppressed and the doctor who examined P.W. 1 initially noted that P.W.1 sustained injury in a road traffic accident and that the injuries sustained by P .W. 1 is a lacerated injury. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that the original version in this case has been suppressed and the doctor who examined P.W. 1 initially noted that P.W.1 sustained injury in a road traffic accident and that the injuries sustained by P .W. 1 is a lacerated injury. His main submission is that P.W.1 with a mala fide intention to prevent the accused from interfering with his relationship with P.W. 5 - Jyothi falsely implicated the accused in this case. His further submission is that except P.W. 1 there are no other eyewitnesses and that P.W. 1, being a highly interested witness, inimical towards the accused. It is also submitted that P.W.1 has changed his version from time to time, and therefore, his evidence cannot be taken as basis for convicting the accused. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of the Courts below and submitted that the evidence on record shows that P.W. 1 sustained injury on his throat and that the same is corroborated by medical evidence. 13. The only point that arises for consideration is that whether the judgments of the Courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside. 14. According to P.W. 1, mother of P.W. 5 requested him to send P.W. 5to her village as the children of P.W. 5 were intending to see her. Then he advised P. W. 5 to go to her village to see her children and sent her to Chittoor. His further case is that three days prior to the date of incident, the accused came to the office and enquired about P.W. 5-Jyothi and also threatened him with dire consequences if he fails to entrust P.W. 5 - Jyothi to him. It is also his case that the accused threatened him to kill if he fails to entrust P.W. 5-Jyothi to him. His specific case is that on 20-2-2001 the accused came to his office and asked to accompany him to RTO office and that then he and accused proceeded to RTO office. Further case of P.W. 1 is that the accused was a pillion rider on his motor cycle and that when they reached the scene of offence, the accused sprinkled chilly powder on his face with the left hand and then handled a sharp edged weapon with the right hand and caused bleeding injury to his throat and that he fell down. His further case is that then the accused lifted a stone to kill him and then he ran towards RTO office and on hearing his cries two persons came to his rescue and on seeing them the accused ran away and one among those two persons was Muralikrishna Reddy. 15. Admittedly, other witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W. 2 - M.R. Seshu Kumar and P.W. 3 - Bhaskar Reddy deposed that they found P.W. 1 with bleeding injury and that they shifted him to the hospital. According to P.W. 4, he saw the accused and P.W. 1 proceeding on a motorcycle at 1.30 p.m. on 20-2-2001. P.W. 6 is a witness for observation of scene of offence and seizure of M.O. 3. He has not supported the case of prosecution that he was also present when the accused made confessional statement and that M.O. 4 was seized at the instance of the accused in his presence. P.W. 7 is another mediator. Of course, he supported the case of prosecution, but he stated that the accused made a confessional statement and in pursuance of confessional statement, M.O. 4 - knife was recovered at the instance of the accused. P.W. 7 admitted that he was shown as panch witness in four cases relating to Rural Police Station and that he used to appear as witness in two or three cases in every year. It appears that P.W. 7 is a stock witness of the police and his evidence cannot be relied upon to base a conviction. 16. A critical reading of evidence gives an impression that except the evidence of P .W. 1 there is no other evidence in this case. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence of P.W. 1 can be accepted to base a conviction and whether he is a reliable witness and his evidence is wholly trustworthy. 17. It is settled law that a conviction can be based on solitary evidence of a witness, provided the same appears to be wholly trust worthy. When the evidence of solitary witness appears to be not wholly reliable then corroboration is required. Corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses, particularly circumstantial evidence gives assurance and then such evidence of solitary witness can be relied upon when it is so corroborated. 18.ln any criminal case, the earliest version assumes much importance. When the evidence of solitary witness appears to be not wholly reliable then corroboration is required. Corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses, particularly circumstantial evidence gives assurance and then such evidence of solitary witness can be relied upon when it is so corroborated. 18.ln any criminal case, the earliest version assumes much importance. The earliest version would be the spontaneous version and the chances of adding the accused or deleting the accused or the chances of false implication of accused would be less. But where in a case inordinate delay is there such delay gives scope for embellishment. Ex. P-6 is a wound certificate. In Ex. P-6, the date of incident is noted as 20-1-2001 at 2.30 p.m. and the name of the injured is mentioned as P.W. 1-Mohan Reddy. It also shows that one Murlikrishna Reddy brought P.W. 1 to the hospital. It is mentioned that the injuries were said to have been caused on 20-1-2001 due to fall from Hero Honda motorcycle. The description of injuries are noted as follows: A lacerated cut like injury of about 6 x 2 cms on the anterior part of the neck i.e. in front of the neck. It is also mentioned that the patient is conscious and coherent. The doctor further opined that the injuries are simple in nature and the age of injuries is six hours. Ex. P-6wound certificate shows that the injuries have been caused due to fall from Hero Honda motorcycle. There is no whisper about the involvement of the accused in the said offence. The important document to be considered in this case is hospital intimation - Ex. P-7. In Ex. P-7, it is noted that P.W. 1 was brought by one Muralikrishna Reddy. Initially, it is written as RTA, but subsequently the words RTA are struck off and assault is written. Of course, the doctor says that he has corrected the same. However, in Ex. P-7 also the date is noted as 20-1-2001. According to 10, he received the hospital intimation and later proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. 1. Ex. P-1 is the statement recorded by P.W. 9. Though it is stated that he recorded the statement in the hospital, but the time of recording the said statement was not noted. Ex. P-8 is the FIR. The contents of FIR Ex. Ex. P-1 is the statement recorded by P.W. 9. Though it is stated that he recorded the statement in the hospital, but the time of recording the said statement was not noted. Ex. P-8 is the FIR. The contents of FIR Ex. P-8 show that the FIR was noted in the General Diary at about 5.00 p.m. on that day, but the endorsement of the Magistrate show that he received the same on 22-2-2001. There is no explanation as to why the FIR reached the Magistrate two days after the date of registration of the FIR. It, therefore, creates a doubt as to whether Ex. P-1 was recorded on the same day or not. As discussed above, the earliest information furnished to the doctor is totally contradicting the version of P.W. 1. According to P.W. 1, the accused caused him injury, but the wound certificate shows that he sustained injuries due to fall from Hero Honda motorcycle. P.W.1 is working as Manager in Janachaitanya since 1994. P.W. 2 and 3 are friends of PW. 1. P.W. 3 is also working in Janachaitanya. Their case is that they have taken P W. 1 to hospital immediately. Nothing prevented P.Ws. 2 and 3 to inform the police about the incident, but they have not informed the same to the police. As per the contents of Exs. P-6 and P-7, one Muralikrishna Reddy, had taken P. W. 1 to the hospital. But, the said Muralikrishna Reddy is not examined by the prosecution. In the circumstances, it appears that the earliest version in this case is suppressed and the same creates a reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the case. The Courts below have not considered the above referred important lacunas in the prosecution case, which are glaring from the record. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below appear to be perverse and not based on proper appreciation of record. Therefore, the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Courts below. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/accused shall be refunded.