JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.12.2002 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in ST. No. 118 of 1993 whereby and where under the appellants were convicted under Section 148, 323 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offences under Section 148 and 323 I PC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 2. The case of prosecution in short as per the FIR is that the informant Jailal Mahto was returning to his home from Makauli Colliery alongwith Khera Mahto, Akal Mahto, Bhulu Mahto, Keshow Singh. It is further alleged that when the informant reached at Gothawar at about 7 p.m. . suddenly 7 to 8 persons arrived and hurled a bomb. It is further stated that the informant received injury on his right hand and he fell down. Thereafter the aforesaid persons assaulted him repeatedly with iron rod. He further stated that he identified Sarju Singh, Kitti Singh, Mathur Singh and Mithlesh Mahto in the light of torch flashed by some accused persons. He further alleged that Sarju Singh exhorted to• kill him. It is then alleged that the aforesaid persons also assaulted Akal Mahto with rod due to that he received injury. It is further stated that on hearing hulla villagers arrived, then accused persons fled away. 3. On the basis of aforesaid statement Nawadih P.S. Case No. 29 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 341 of the I PC and also under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act instituted against the appellant. It appears that after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149,307,323,324,341 of the IPC. However, no charge sheet submitted under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. It appears that thereafter the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Sections 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the charges framed and explained to the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 342 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter the charges framed and explained to the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 342 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. After close of the case of prosecution, the statement of appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial. The defence also examined one witness in support of its case. It appears that after considering the evidence available on record, learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, against that the present appeal has been filed. 4. While assailing the judgment of the court below, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant case the claim of P.W. 2 Jageshwar Mahto that he witnessed the occurrence from his own eyes, is not correct. Thus, his evidence cannot be accepted. He further submitted that P.W. 3 Sohan Mahto has not supported the case of prosecution and stated that he had not identified the accused persons. P.W. 1 Akal Mahto also not supported the case of prosecution. Thus the entire case rest on the sole testimony of P.W. 4 Jailal Mahto (informant and injured). It is submitted that the manner of occurrence narrated by Jailal Mahto does not find support from the medical evidence. It is submitted that Jailal Mahto had inimical relation with appellant Mithlesh Mahto, Sarju Singh and Kitti Singh. It is further submitted that the appellant has admitted that he has no enmity with his co-villagers, but in spite of that none had come to support the case of prosecution. Accordingly it is submitted that evidence of P.W. 4 is not wholly reliable, therefore his evidence cannot become the basis for conviction of these appellants. Hence, it is submitted that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 5. Learned Additional P.P. submitted that PW. 4 stated that he has been assaulted by the appellants with rod due to that he received injury on his head and also on the right hand. Thus, court below rightly convicted the appellants for the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case and carefully scrutinized the evidence. Thus, court below rightly convicted the appellants for the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case and carefully scrutinized the evidence. As noticed above, in the instant case, prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1 Akalu Mahto declared hostile as he has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 2 Jageshwar Mahto stated that in the evening of the date of occurrence at about 5.30 p.m., he was doing cultivation work in his Bar. He further deposed that at that time he heard hulla and came out of his Bar; and saw that appellants were assaulting his elder brother Jailal Mahto with iron rod and bomb. It is worth mentioning that informant P.W.4 in his fardbeyan and depositions had stated that the occurrence took place at about 7 p.m., at Gothwar, which situates at a distance of about 1/2 k.m. from his village Gungerdih. Thus the claim of P.W. 2 that he saw the occurrence after coming out of his Bari at 5.30 p.m. does not inspire confidence. Firstly the time of occurrence given by P.W. 2 is not correct. According to the prosecution case the occurrence took place at 7.30 p.m. Secondly it is not possible in the evening at about 7. p.m. to see any occurrence from a distance of 1/2 k.m. Moreover informant claimed that he identified the appellants in the light of torch. This shows that at the time of occurrence there is no light at the place of occurrence. Thus, it is not possible for P.W. 2 to identify the appellants from a distance of 1/2 k.m. Thus, I find that P.W. 2 is not reliable and trustworthy witness, hence his evidence is liable to be discarded. 7. P.W. 3 Sohan Mahto had stated that at the time of occurrence he heard sound of explosion coming from the side of Makauli. He further deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and saw that Jailal Mahto lying on the ground and 2 to 3 persons were fleeing from the place of occurrence. He then deposed that he could not identify them. Thus the evidence of P.W. 3 is of no help to the prosecution. 8. He further deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and saw that Jailal Mahto lying on the ground and 2 to 3 persons were fleeing from the place of occurrence. He then deposed that he could not identify them. Thus the evidence of P.W. 3 is of no help to the prosecution. 8. P.W. 4 Jailal Mahto is the informant and injured of this case. It is worth mentioning that he admits old enmity with the appellant Mithilesh Mahto. He also admitted that prior to the occurrence appellant Sarju Singh, Kitti Singh had threatened him. Under the said circumstance, his evidence is required to be scrutinized carefully. P.W. 4 stated that while he was returning to his house form Makauli Colliery at Gothwar-Gungerdih, appellants, alongwith 3 to 4 un-known persons, arrived variously armed with iron rod and they hurled a bomb on the ground. He further states that he received injury on his shoulder from the splinter of bomb. Thereafter on being exhorted by Sarju Singh, appellants assaulted him with iron rod due to that he received injuries on his shoulder, head and back. He further states that appellants also assaulted Akal Mahto during the course of occurrence. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that Akal Mahto examined in this case as P.W.1. He categorically stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. It is worth mentioning that the prosecution brought on record the injury report of PW. 4 (Jailal Mahto) which was marked as Ext.-2. The doctor had found following injuries on the body of P.W. 4:- i. Abrasions all over the right arm to wrist. The nature of injury simple caused by burning substance. ii. Incised wound 4"x1"x 1/2" over middle of scalp. Nature of injury simple caused by sharp cutting weapon. Thus from the perusal of Ext.-2, I find that the doctor had not found any injury caused by the splinter of bomb that too on the shoulder of P.W. 4. The doctor had also not found any injury on the head, shoulder and back of the informant (PW. 4) caused by hard and blunt substance i.e. iron rod. The doctor had categorically stated that the injury found on the scalp of P W. 4 was caused by sharp cutting weapon. P.W. 4 had not stated that he was assaulted by any sharp cutting weapon. 4) caused by hard and blunt substance i.e. iron rod. The doctor had categorically stated that the injury found on the scalp of P W. 4 was caused by sharp cutting weapon. P.W. 4 had not stated that he was assaulted by any sharp cutting weapon. Thus, the manner of occurrence, stated by P.W. 4, does not find support from the medical evidence. 9. As noticed above, the present case rests on the sole testimony of PW. 4. It is well settled that the court can convict accused on the testimony of single witness provided his evidence is free from any blemish or suspicion and wholly truthful and acceptable. It is equally well settled that the evidence of solitary eye witness is of such a sterling quality that the court finds it safe to base conviction solely on his testimony, in the instant case, as noticed above, it is an admitted position that PW. 4 had strained relations with the appellants. It was also noticed that the manner of occurrence stated by P.W. 4 finds no support from medical evidence. Under the said circumstance, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W. 4 is free from any blemish and suspicion. Under the said circumstance, the evidence of P.W. 4, cannot become the sole basis of conviction. 10. In the instant case. I.O. has not been examined. The P.W. 4 stated that the I.O. seized blood stained cloths and seizure list has been prepared in presence of Akal Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto. Thus, due to non-examination of I.O. the seizure list and the seized article not produced in court. Thus, the statement of P.w. 4 has not been verified as to whether his statement was truthful or not. In the charge sheet Lakhan Mahto, Seni Mahto and Shim Mahto are shown as a witness of fact at column-6, but they have not been examined. Thus, in the absence of any independent corroboration, only on the basis of evidence of P. W. 4 the conviction of the appellants not justified. Accordingly, I find material irregularities in the impugned judgment of court below. 11. In the result, this appeal is' allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. It appears that the appellants are on bail. Accordingly, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.