Judgment :- S.P. TALUKDAR, J (1.) The appellant, Uttam Mistry, was convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced accordingly by the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad. The said judgment of conviction dated 8.9.1989 and the order of sentence dated 9.9.1989 are under challenge in the instant appeal. The prosecution case was: - On 6th Chaitra, 1390 B.S. at about 2-30 P.M., one Mahadeb Mistry was murdered on his way to Berhampore. He had a bag containing cash of Rs.5, 000/-and some documents relating to his litigation with Ananda Mistry. Soon after his coming out of the house, one Tapan Mistry snatched away the said bag. Swapan Mistry and Uttam Mistry assaulted him with wooden stick. Ananda Mistry instigated them in the commission of such crime. Accused Tapan Mistry was charged for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Ananda Mistry was charged for the offence under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Swapan and Uttam Mistry were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found accused Ananda Mistry not guilty of the offence under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Tapan Mistry was found not guilty of the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Swapan and Uttam Mistry, however, were found guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2.) So far accused Swapan Mistry was concerned, he was released on bail and the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampore was directed to hold an enquiry regarding his age. Relying upon the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Children Act, 1959, accused Swapan Mistry was not sentenced pending such enquiry. (3.) Prosecution in order to establish the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant convicted Uttam Mistry examined as many as 10 witnesses. Of them, P.W.1 is the daughter of the victim. In her evidence in chief, she stated that after her father, the victim, went out of the house, accused Tapan Mistry started following him. He suddenly hit her father with a Lathi on his face. Her father caught hold of the Lathi, Tapan Mistry then snatched the bag containing cash and the documents and ran away leaving his cycle behind. Her father chased him. He suddenly hit her father with a Lathi on his face. Her father caught hold of the Lathi, Tapan Mistry then snatched the bag containing cash and the documents and ran away leaving his cycle behind. Her father chased him. Then accused Swapan and the present appellant, Uttam Mistry arrived in front of her father and assaulted him with two pieces of wood, ordinarily known as Ara. Her father was repeatedly struck on his head, face and chest. He fell down. The assault continued. The victim died there. She then stated that Majem, Joynal, Khodajul and Majems son shifted her father to hospital. The Medical Officer declared him dead. P.W.1 deposed that she made a statement to the police officer at Hariharpara Primary Health Centre. (4.) It was reduced to writing. She identified her signature on it, marked Ext.1/1. P.W.2 in his evidence in chief stated that on the date of occurrence at about 2-30 P.M., he along with Majem and others after coming out of the agricultural farm during the Tiffin hour at about 2-30 P.M. found a mob on the road. They went to the spot and found the dead body of Mahadeb Mistry lying over there. He stated that Chandana Sutradhar (P.W.1) was sitting there with her fathers head on her lap. Her mother was also there. P.W.2 with the help of Fajlul, Jahur, Khodajul and Jalauddin took the body on a bullock cart and carried it to the Hariharpara Primary Health Centre. He stated that he did not see the occurrence but could learn from the persons that the victim was murdered by Ananda Mistry and his sons. (5.) P.W.3 in his evidence in chief claimed that he saw accused Tapan Mistry hitting Mahadeb Misrtry with a piece of wood on the right side of his face. Mahadeb caught hold of the said wooden piece. Tapan Mistry snatched the bag of Mahadeb Mistry and ran way. So Mahadeb Mistry chased Tapan Mistry. Accused Swapan Mistry then assaulted Mahadeb Mistry with a piece of wood. (6.) P.W.4, who was also placed as an eyewitness, in his evidence in chief stated that he found the victim, Mahadeb Mistry, lying on the road surrounded by a crowd. This is, in a nutshell, the evidence of the de facto complainant and the three eyewitnesses. Accused Swapan Mistry then assaulted Mahadeb Mistry with a piece of wood. (6.) P.W.4, who was also placed as an eyewitness, in his evidence in chief stated that he found the victim, Mahadeb Mistry, lying on the road surrounded by a crowd. This is, in a nutshell, the evidence of the de facto complainant and the three eyewitnesses. (7.) Learned Counsel for the appellant, while analyzing the evidence on record pointed out at the inherent inconsistencies in such evidence. The de facto complainant did not claim in her evidence in chief that Majems son witnessed the incident. She only stated that they shifted her father to hospital. P.W.2 did not claim to have witnessed the incident. He found the body of the victim. He also claimed that Majem and others came out of the farm with him at about 2-30 P.M which was the Tiffin hour. He categorically deposed in his evidence in chief that he did not see the occurrence but only learnt from the persons over there that the victim was murdered by Ananda Mistry and his sons. Though P.W.3 in his evidence in cross-examination admitted that he and P.W.2 came out of the farm at the same time, he found Tapan Mistry hitting Mahadeb Mistry with a piece of wood on the right side of his face. P.W.4 stated that he did not see anything other than the victim, Mahadeb Mistry lying on the road being surrounded by a crowd. Thus, evidences of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who reportedly came to the place of occurrence at the same time narrated the incident in a manner, which could not lend much support to the prosecution case. P.W.1 never claimed that those three persons were there at the time of assaults on her father. P.W.2 only found her sitting at the place of occurrence with her fathers head on her lap. In the evidence of P.W.3, there is no reference to accused Uttam Mistry and P.W.4 added nothing to the same. (8.) It may be mentioned that Section 134 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Even evidence of a single witness can prove a fact if it can pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Quality and not quantity is the demand of law. Even evidence of a single witness can prove a fact if it can pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Quality and not quantity is the demand of law. P.W.5 is the Doctor who held post-mortem examination over the dead body of the victim. In his evidence in chief, he described the nature of the injuries. According to him, death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the injuries as referred to by him, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He also deposed that such injuries could be caused by hard and blunt substance like a wooden piece. In his cross-examination, he clarified that such injuries could not have been sustained either by being knocked down by a vehicle or from the fall on the road after being dashed by a vehicle. The nature of the injuries was thus indicative of death due to assault by hard substance like a piece of wood. (9.) P.W.6 is the post occurrence witness. He claimed that he along with Jahur, Fajlul and Joynal took the victim to Hariharpara Primary Health Centre, where the victim was declared dead. Again in his cross-examination he deposed that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Chandana Sutradhar (P.W.1) was not there and she arrived thereafter. This evidence again does not support the claim of P.W.1 and contradicts the evidence of P.W.2. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.7, who was just tendered for cross-examination. P.W.8 was not asked anything in his chief. In his cross-examination he categorically mentioned that the place of occurrence is not visible from the house of Chandana Sutradhar. Thus, the second batch of witnesses seems to have caused further damage to the prosecution case. P.W.8 by his unambiguous statement that the place of occurrence is not visible from the house of P.W.1, raised doubt regarding possibility of P.W.1s witnessing the incident of assault. (10) Learned Counsel, Mr. Kabir, while assisting Mr. Bagchi as learned Counsel for the appellant, invited attention of the court to the inherent inconsistencies and the latent deficiencies in the evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution. (10) Learned Counsel, Mr. Kabir, while assisting Mr. Bagchi as learned Counsel for the appellant, invited attention of the court to the inherent inconsistencies and the latent deficiencies in the evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution. He submitted that the I.O. did not prepare any sketch map of the place of occurrence and this was with the motive to suppress the truth regarding the fact that it could not be possible for P.W.1 to witness the incident of assault from the house of her father, the victim, as virtually admitted by P.W.8. So, referring to the perfunctory manner of investigation, it was submitted that there had been no seizure of controlled earth. He also submitted that the document which had been treated as F.I.R. was a subsequent statement and as such, was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (11.) According to him, having regard to the nature of the evidence on record, Ext. 2 should have been treated as F.I.R. Learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. Ghosh submitted that there are certain deficiencies in investigation but those cannot demolish the prosecution case, if the same can be otherwise substantiated by cogent legal evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Goswami, laid emphasis on the statement of P.W.4 in cross-examination that he stated before the I.O. that he saw Swapan and Uttam assaulting Mahadev Mistry with Acacia wood. (12.) P.W.9 and 10 are the police officers. P.W.9 took up the investigation. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not meet any person named Sunil Bhaskar during investigation. The Medical Officer handed over the written complaint (Ext.2) to him. After perusal of the complaint, he went to the house of the victim. P.W.1 made a statement, which was recorded. He then read it over to her. She put her signature. P.W.9 identified the recorded statement, which had been marked Ext.1. He stated about various steps taken by him in course of investigation. The doubt regarding the first statement disclosing the incident thus got intensified with the evidence of P.W.9. There is no reference of distance between the house of the victim and the place of occurrence in his evidence. Evidence of P.W.10 is formal in nature. He just submitted charge sheet in this case. The doubt regarding the first statement disclosing the incident thus got intensified with the evidence of P.W.9. There is no reference of distance between the house of the victim and the place of occurrence in his evidence. Evidence of P.W.10 is formal in nature. He just submitted charge sheet in this case. There is nothing significant in the statement made by the accused during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (13.) This being the nature of the evidence on record, I find it difficult to brush aside the submission made on behalf of the appellant/convict. True, it cannot be disputed that minor inconsistencies or marginal mistakes do not demolish the prosecution case. It is well settled that credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends on a judicial evaluation of the totality ------ not isolated scrutiny. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the guideline and not a fetish. Truth sometime suffers from infirmity when projected through human process. This by itself cannot destroy the prosecution case. But this does not take away the onus on the prosecution to establish that the particular incident took place in a specified place at a specified time and in the specific manner as claimed. So far the prosecution case is concerned, the evidence on record is far too weak. Even the principal witness, P.W.1, did not depose in a manner, which could inspire confidence of the court. (14.) It is well settled that mere relationship of the witness with the deceased is no ground to discard testimony, if it is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. But, as a matter of prudence, court should look for some independent corroboration of testimony to decide about involvement of the accused in the crime. (Ref: Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 Supreme Court 282). The evidence on record thus, reminds one of the blind man searching a black cat in a dark room. We find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept the reasons given by the learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal being C.R.A. No.389 of 1989 succeeds. The judgment of conviction dated 8.9.1989 and order of sentence dated 9.9.1989 be set aside. The appellant, Uttam Mistry, be held not guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is hereby acquitted accordingly. (15.) The appellant/Uttam Mistry, if on bail, be released from bail bond at once. The judgment of conviction dated 8.9.1989 and order of sentence dated 9.9.1989 be set aside. The appellant, Uttam Mistry, be held not guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is hereby acquitted accordingly. (15.) The appellant/Uttam Mistry, if on bail, be released from bail bond at once. Send a copy of this judgment to the Learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. (16.) Criminal Department is directed to supply urgent certified copy of this judgment as expeditiously as possible. Trial Court Record be sent back at once.