JUDGMENT : Asper S.L. Kochar , J . : - 1.Appellants Raju and Vinod have preferred their appeals (1088/2000 & 1151/2000) against the impugnedjudgment dated 30-8-2000 passed in S.T. No. 526/93 and appellant Nav alias Anand has preferred hisappeal (948/2001) against the impugned judgment dated 23-6-2001 passed in sameS.T. No. 526/96, by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.), whereby convicted all the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IndianPenal Code (for short "the IPC"), sentenced them to RI for life withfine of Rs . 500/-to each. In default of payment offine, they shall suffer additional RI for three months. 2.The short resume of the prosecution case, as placed before the Trial Court, isthat complainant Usha Bai (P.W. 18) was residing in Bhavna Nagar , Indore .On 27-4-1993 in the nightat 8.30 p.m. her brother-in-law Radheshyam reached her house and they were standing outsidetheir house. At that moment, at about 9.00 p.m. appellant Vinod and deceased accused Robart came to the house of Usha Bai and took Radheshyam at thehouse of Vinod . It is said that there they picked upquarrel with Radheshyam and assaulted him. When Usha Bai came to know about thequarrel, she reached on the spot and saw that appellants Vinod and Nav alias Anand having knife and appellants Raju anddeceased accused Robart were having lathis and assaulting the deceased. Appellants Nav and Vinod caused separateinjuries on the hips of deceased by knife and deceased accused Robart and appellant Raju struck lathi blows on the head. After assault all the accused fledaway from the scene of occurrence. Usha Bai took Radheshyam in injuredcondition with the help of Kishore to police stationand also lodged the report ( Exh . P-21) in the nightat 9.50 p.m. Radheshyam was admitted in M.Y. Hospital ,where he died in the night at 2.00 a.m. On receiving information of death, the Investigating Officer reached in thehospital and prepared inquest report ( Exh . P-2), healso prepared spot map ( Exh . P-23). Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was performed by Dr. P.C. Jain (P.W.11), who also issued post-mortem report ( Exh . P-14). Accused persons were arrested and on their disclosurestatements various weapons were seized. The seized articles were sent toForensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet wasfiled against 4 accused persons for the offences under Section 302/34 of theIPC. 3.The fourth accused Robart died during the course oftrial. P.C. Jain (P.W.11), who also issued post-mortem report ( Exh . P-14). Accused persons were arrested and on their disclosurestatements various weapons were seized. The seized articles were sent toForensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet wasfiled against 4 accused persons for the offences under Section 302/34 of theIPC. 3.The fourth accused Robart died during the course oftrial. Initial charge-sheet was filed showing appellant Nav alias Anand absconding but later on he was arrested and separately tried by the learned Trial Courtin Sessions Trial No. 526/96. 4.Appellants pleaded innocence and claimed for trial but they have not examinedany witness in their defence . Learned Trial Courtfound the prosecution case proved against the applicants, convicted andsentenced them as noted hereinabove. 5.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the entirerecord carefully. It is culled out from the record that conviction is based onsolitary testimony of Usha Bai (P.W. 18), sister-in-law of the deceased and learned Trial Court soughtcorroboration to her testimony by her report ( Exh . P-21) and medical evidence of Dr. P.C. Jain (P.W. 11). 6.Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that solitary testimony of Usha Bai is not worth for placingreliance in view of her own statement, which shows that either the FirstInformation Report ( Exh . P-21) was not lodged by heror brought into existence into ante date and time after suppressing theoriginal report lodged by the deceased. Learned Counsel have placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments passed in case of Namavar Dube Vs. State of U.P.,1996 M PWN 76 and Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,2005 SCC ( Cri .) 1050. 7.Per contra, learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgmentand finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court. 8.On perusal of the record, it is clear that though prosecution examined severalwitnesses but none had supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.Nothing substantial has come in cross-examination by Public Prosecutor. 9.The prosecution case was supported before the Trial Court only on the testimonyof eye-witness Usha Bai (P.W. 18), sister-in-law of the deceased. It is settled legal position thatevidence of interested and solitary eye-witness must be scrutinized with duecare and caution. Keeping in mind this principle we perused the statement of Usha Bai (P.W. 18), who hasdeposed that on the date of incident deceased and she were standing in front ofher house on platform. It is settled legal position thatevidence of interested and solitary eye-witness must be scrutinized with duecare and caution. Keeping in mind this principle we perused the statement of Usha Bai (P.W. 18), who hasdeposed that on the date of incident deceased and she were standing in front ofher house on platform. At that moment appellants Vinod , Raju and deceased accused Robart called her brother-in-law Radheshyam and they all hadgone to the house of appellant Vinod ; where appellant Vinod threw chilli powderin the eyes of Radheshyam and upon hearing his cry,she reached over there and saw appellant Nav alias Anand and Vinod causing injury onthe back of Radheshyam , and Robart and Raju dealt lathi blowson the head. Further say of this witness is that she took Radheshyam with the help of one Kishore and Kanchan Bai in a taxi to Bhanvarkua Police Station and lodged the report ( Exh . P-21),wherein name of Raju is not mentioned as a person,who called deceased and took to the house of Vinod .She failed to explain this material omission which amount to contradiction inher First Information Report as well as case diary statement ( Exh . D-1). In Paragraph 4, she hasstated that in the police station, Radheshyam disclosed about the incident and police had recorded his report but no suchreport has been filed by the prosecution. Neither prosecutor nor the Court putany question on this issue to this witness to clarify about lodging of thereport, therefore, fact remains unchallenged that police recorded FirstInformation Report at the instance of deceased Radheshyam but said report has not been filed along with the charge-sheet. The adverseinference can be drawn against the prosecution as per provision under Section114 (g) of the Evidence Act. If the said report would have been filed, thecontents therein would not be in favour of theprosecution and against the appellants, that is whythe said report was suppressed and substituted by First Information Report ( Exh . P-21) said to be lodged by Usha Bai (P.W. 18). 10.In Paragraph 5, Usha Bai (P.W. 18) has admitted that her thumb impressions were taken on the same day onreport ( Exh . P-21) and spot map ( Exh . P-23). Spot Map ( Exh . P-21) said to be lodged by Usha Bai (P.W. 18). 10.In Paragraph 5, Usha Bai (P.W. 18) has admitted that her thumb impressions were taken on the same day onreport ( Exh . P-21) and spot map ( Exh . P-23). Spot Map ( Exh . P-23)was prepared on 28-4-1993 ,after 3 days of the incident, meaning thereby on report (E\h. P-21) also thethumb impression of Usha Bai was taken on 28-4-1993 .This admission of Usha Bai further gave a serious jolt to the prosecution case about genuineness andtruthfulness of First Information Report ( Exh . P-21). 11.In view of the above, when First Information Report is doubtful, thenprosecution is required to adduce independently other cogent and reliablematerial to establish the guilt of the accused but except the statement of Usha Bai there is no otherstatement available against the applicants, and her statement cannot be reliedupon in view of concoction of the First Information Report. 12.Yet there is one more deficiency in the prosecution case. According to medicalexpert, the knife injuries were found on hips of the deceased, whereas Usha Bai has stated inexamination-in-chief that injuries were caused on scapula region ("…..Hindi…. back portion) of the deceased, which is just contrary to the medicalevidence of Dr. Jain (P.W. 11). 13.After arrest appellant Nav alias Anand was tried and Usha Bai , aseye witness, was again examined by the prosecution but she has not deposedanything against the appellant Nav alias Anand . The statement of Usha Bai recorded in the trial of other accused persons, cannotbe read out against appellant Nav alias Anand ; when he was tried separately. In this view of thematter, as a matter of fact, against appellant Nav alias Anand there is absolutely no evidence. 14.In view of the above, in our considered view, prosecution has failed to proveits case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, therefore, they are entitled to get benefit of doubt. All the appeals areallowed. Conviction and sentence of all the appellants, as passed by learnedTrial Court, are hereby set aside. Appellants Raju and Vinod are on bail, their bail bonds and suretybonds stand discharged. Appellant Nav alias Anand is in jail, the learned Trial Court is directed toset him at liberty immediately, if not wanted in any other criminal case. 15.Office is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with the record ofthe Trial Court, to the Trial Court immediately. Appellant Nav alias Anand is in jail, the learned Trial Court is directed toset him at liberty immediately, if not wanted in any other criminal case. 15.Office is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with the record ofthe Trial Court, to the Trial Court immediately. 16.Original judgment is kept in Criminal Appeal No. 948/2001, a copy whereof beplaced in the record of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1088/2000 and 1151/2000.