JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Respondent, as accused, faced trial in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1995 for having intentionally caused the death of one Govardhan Naik by assaulting him by means of a wooden thenga. He was charged for commission of offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11.3.1996 having acquitted the Respondent, the State of Orissa has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the early morning of 18.7.1995, the Respondent came to the house of Govardhan Naik and requested him to arrange some coins having impression of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. On the request of the Respondent, Govardhan Naik and his helper Ajodhya Naik (P.W.2) proceeded to village Tatripada to collect the coins. Govardhan Naik thereafter did not return to the house. On 20.7.1995 P.W.2 came to the house of Govardhan Naik and informed his wife (P.W.1) that on 19.7.1995 in the evening at about 6.30 P.M. Respondent had assaulted her husband on the neck by means of a wooden thenga as a result of which he fell down at Litibhata Nala and breathed his last. After receiving information, P.W.1 lodged an F.I.R. in Thuamul -Rampur Police Station on 20.7.1995 at about 12.30 P.M. On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation commenced and after examining different persons and after seizure of the lathi, blood-stained earth from the spot and one bed-sheet stained with blood and after conducting post mortem of the dead body, charge-sheet was submitted in G.R. Case No. 333 of 1995. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial. 4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution got examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents apart from the M. Os. 5. Admittedly, there was only one eye witness to the occurrence, being P.W.2 and as such, his evidence requires careful examination and consideration. 6. P.W.2 is the helper of Govardhan Naik, who was doing business of artificial gold. According to P.W.2, the Respondent came to the house of Govardhan Naik and paid him Rs. 450 and requested him to collect some coins with the impression of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Thereafter, Govardhan, P.W.2 and the accused- Respondent went in a private bus and got down at Bendhajulla Chak. According to P.W.2, the Respondent came to the house of Govardhan Naik and paid him Rs. 450 and requested him to collect some coins with the impression of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Thereafter, Govardhan, P.W.2 and the accused- Respondent went in a private bus and got down at Bendhajulla Chak. On being questioned by the Respondent, Govardhan denied to have collected any coins. Thereafter, Respondent demanded back the money paid by him to which Govardhan evaded. Consequently, they picked up a quarrel and one Sriram Ganda (P.W.6) arrived there and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, Respondent, it is alleged, took out a 'gupti' (knife) and threatened to kill Govardhan if he does not return the money. It is stated that out of fear P.W.2 and Guvardhan went to the house of one Budu Naik of Harijan Pada. On the way they purchased four bottles of liquor from Budu Naik (P.W.6) and went towards village Bedelguda and stayed there in the night in the house of Sumani Bewa, mother of Govardhan. On the next day morning both of them came to Bendhajulla Chaka, where they saw the Respondent from a distance. Seeing him, the deceased, and P.W.2, it is alleged, went to Ramabikasa Chauk and thereafter, they came to village Gopalpur and stayed in that village till 4.00 P.M. Thereafter, they returned to their village in a Matador and on the way in village Th.Rampur, Govardhan made some purchases of house-hold articles. According to P.W.2 when they reached near "Admunda Charana Nala", accused was concealing himself near a tree locally known as 'Litigacha'. When they reached near the said tree, which is by the side of the road, accused came out and gave a lathi blow on the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and out of fear, P.W.2 rushed towards a hillock, wherefrom he saw that accused dealt two lathi blows and thereafter dragged the deceased on the road by holding both his legs. According to P.W.2, he returned to his home in the night and on the next day morning, he went to P.W.1 and informed her with regard to the incident, In cross examination, P.W.2 stated that he did not stay in the house of the mother of the deceased at Bedelguda, but stayed in the house of his uncle. According to P.W.2, he returned to his home in the night and on the next day morning, he went to P.W.1 and informed her with regard to the incident, In cross examination, P.W.2 stated that he did not stay in the house of the mother of the deceased at Bedelguda, but stayed in the house of his uncle. In his evidence he had disclosed that he was detained by the police for two days in connection with the case, whereafter the police left him and arrested the accused. 7. The evidence of the aforesaid witness is criticized by the defence. It is stated that the said witness is not reliable at all inasmuch as after remaining in police custody for two days, he disclosed the name of the accused-respondent. According to the Respondent, P.W.2 is none else than the helper of deceased Govardhan and was a frequent visitor to his house and as such, it is not known as to what prevented P.W.2 from informing about the said fact to P.W.1, wife of the deceased or any other co-villager. It is stated that the conduct of the witness is suspicious and is not free from doubt. According to the defence, P.W.2 had committed the murder and had falsely implicated the Respondent. 8. P.W.6 is the Gramarakhi, who according to P.W.2 pacified the quarrel between the deceased near 'Bendhajulla' and the accused Respondent. It appears, he had not informed about the said fact though according to him, accused took out a gupti (knife) and threatened to kill Govardhan. Though he went to the spot, he had not informed P.W.12, the I.O. with regard to the earlier incident. A reading of the evidence of P.W.6 would give an impression that just to improve the case a new story had been introduced. 9. Apart from the aforesaid two witnesses, there is no other evidence worth the name connecting the Respondent with the alleged crime. The Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the entire evidence entertained a genuine doubt regarding the complicity of the Respondent in the alleged crime and held that the benefit of such a doubt should go in favour of the accused. Consequently, the order of acquittal was passed. 10. As stated earlier, the said order is assailed, mainly on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have discarded the minor omission here and there. Consequently, the order of acquittal was passed. 10. As stated earlier, the said order is assailed, mainly on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have discarded the minor omission here and there. The evidence of P.W.2 should not have weighed in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the prosecution case. In other words, as conviction can be based on the evidence of the sole witness, the trial court believing the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.6 and the doctor, P.W.3 vis a-vis the post-mortem report should have convicted the Respondent. 11. To appreciate the submissions made, this Court once again went through the evidence of all the witnesses. It is clear that except P.W.2, there is no other witnesses to the occurrence. As a general rule, the Court may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that the said testimony is entirely reliable. Only on such eventualities, there is no legal impediment for recording the order of conviction on the basis of such evidence. But, then, if the evidence of a sole witness is not free from doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration. It is no more res integra that if the evidence of the sole witness is neither reliable nor unreliable, then the court has to circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial. On the touchstone of the aforesaid principle, it would be proper to once again discuss the evidence of P.W.2. Admittedly, P.W.2 was working as a helper of the deceased. He had free access to the house of Govardhan and was also acquainted with his wife. According to P.W.2, he saw the accused assaulting Govardhan in the night of 18.7.1995. Surprisingly, he did not inform any person till the late hours of the next day. According to the said witness on the next day morning, he went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. But then, he did not inform the said fact to anybody immediately. It appears from the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, that on Wednesday night she went to the house of P.W.2 and asked him regarding the whereabouts of her husband. But then, P.W.2 fumbled and did not inform her about the incident. But then, he did not inform the said fact to anybody immediately. It appears from the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, that on Wednesday night she went to the house of P.W.2 and asked him regarding the whereabouts of her husband. But then, P.W.2 fumbled and did not inform her about the incident. On the next day morning he told P.W.1 about the incident. On being questioned as to why he did not inform her about the incident on the previous day night, he replied that he was not in fit mental condition. It is clear from the materials that P.W.2 was detained by the police for quite some time. A cumulative reading of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of I.O., P.W.12 leaves no room for doubt that P.W.2 was last seen with the deceased and that it is not known as to why he went to the spot in the early morning without informing P.W.1 and the co-villager about the incident, which occurred on the previous day night. The conduct of P.W.2 speaks volumes against him. Not informing about the incident at the night definitely reveals that P.W.2 is not a truthful witness and he tried to suppress certain vital facts. His evidence is also full of discrepancies and cannot be relied upon. Learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. 12. After going through the entire evidence and on being satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order of acquittal that too after 14 years. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed