JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17.7.2002 passed by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 172/ 2000 by which the appellant has been convicted u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment without the mandatory fine. According to the case of the prosecution the appellant is the main assailant in an incident which took place at 7:30 p.m. on 1.5.1999. 2. The F.I.R./Fardbeyan (Exhibit-2) was lodged at 9: 15 p.m. on 1.5.1999 by Afzal, P.W. 2 who is the younger brother of the deceased Izharool @ Fantush. According to the FIR, on 1.5.1999 the deceased left the house in the morning and did not return for his meals, therefore the informant went in search. At Pandarpala the informant claims to have met (i) Md. Sahazad (P.W. 9, who turned hostile in the trial), (ii) Md. Zahid (P.W. 4, who also turned hostile at the trial) and (Hi) Guddu (who was not produced as a witness in the trial). These people allegedly told the informant that they had seen the deceased at Rahamatganj. Thereupon, the informant alongwith these three persons went to Rahamatganj searching for his brother. As soon as they readied the ground near the clinic of one Dr. Salauddin at about 7:30 p.m. they saw that co-accused Rinku and co-accused Istyaque caught hold of the deceased and the present appellant took out a Bhojali (a sharp edged weapon) and stabbed the victim in the chest. The victim fell down and then the appellant repeatedly stabbed the victim with the same weapon. The accused chased the informant and his companions also. By the alarm being raised, people of the locality came to the spot whereupon the accused fled away. None of the people of the locality have been produced in the evidence. According to the informant the deceased told the informant and his companions referred above, that the three accused had taken revenge. The victim died before he could reach a hospital. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet u/s 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons. During the course of trial altogether 14 witnesses were examined who are as follows: P.W. 1. Raisa Khatoon (Mother of the victim). P.W. 2. Afzal (Informant). P.W. 3. Ishaque (Father of the deceased). P.W. 4. Md. Zahiej (hostile eyewitness). P.W. 5. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet u/s 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons. During the course of trial altogether 14 witnesses were examined who are as follows: P.W. 1. Raisa Khatoon (Mother of the victim). P.W. 2. Afzal (Informant). P.W. 3. Ishaque (Father of the deceased). P.W. 4. Md. Zahiej (hostile eyewitness). P.W. 5. Binod Kumar, (formal) who proved fardbeyan Ext.-2 forwarding report Ext.-2/1, seizure list Ext.-3 Inquest report Ext.-4, formal F.I.R. as Ext.-5. P.W. 6. Dr. C.S. Prasad, who conducted the Post Mortem P.W. 7. Ram Chandra Pandit (hearsay). P.W. 8. Ahmad Raza. P.W. 9. Md. Sahazad (hostile eye witness). P.W. 10. Sri Amrit Lal Yadav, J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad proved Ext.-6, Exts.7, 7/1, Ext.-8, statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W. 11. Md. Tara Hussain (hostile). P.W. 12. Abdul Rahman (hostile). P.W. 13. Md. Habib (hearsay). P.W. 14. Md. Irfan (hostile). P.W. 15. Besides oral evidence the following documentary evidence had been produced : Exhibit-1-Signature of the informant on fardbeyan. Exhibit-2-is the fardbeyan. Exhibit-2/1-forwqrding report. Exhibit-3-Seizure list. Exhibit-4-lnquest report. Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R. Post mortem report also has been marked Exhibit-5. Exhibit-6-Afzal's informant's statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.) Exhibit-7-Statement of Ishaque recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-7/1-Statement of Raisa Khatoon (Mother of victim) recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-8-Statement of Zahid recorded u/s 164 Cr.P .C. The defence of the accused persons is of total denial of the occurrence u/s 313 Cr.P.C. 3. Thus, there are four eye witnesses of which only three have been produced, two of whom have turned hostile at the trial. Therefore, only the informant Afzal, P.W. 2 is left as a eye witness. 4. This informant initially lodged the F.I.R. dated 1.5.1999 which is his first statement. Next he was examined on oath on 16.6.1999 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate, which is his second statement. And lastly he was examined and cross-examined in Court as P.W. 2 on 22.1.2001, which is his third statement. There are vital variations between these three statements. The two hostile eye witnesses P.W. 4 Md. Zahid and P.W. 9 Md. Sahazad .are mentioned in the F.I.R., but in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. they are not mentioned. U/s 164 Cr.P.C. P.W. 2 said that when he went to Pandarpala he met three four boys who told him that they had seen the deceased in Rahamatganj. Thereafter, he continues to say that he went to Rahamatganj alone. Sahazad .are mentioned in the F.I.R., but in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. they are not mentioned. U/s 164 Cr.P.C. P.W. 2 said that when he went to Pandarpala he met three four boys who told him that they had seen the deceased in Rahamatganj. Thereafter, he continues to say that he went to Rahamatganj alone. This is another reason for doubting the presence of these hostile witnesses on the scene of crime. 5. Further, according to the statement given by P.W. 2 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. when he went to Rahamatganj he saw his brother (deceased) sitting with the three accused. He told the deceased to come home for food, and the deceased said to the informant that the informant should go - ahead and the deceased would follow. According to the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. when the informant was leaving and had gone about ten steps he turned round and saw the three accused assaulting the deceased. This is extremely unnatural. Apparently, the deceased was sitting with these three accused comfortably and did not show any sign of anxiety when the deceased told the informant to g6 ahead and the deceased would follow. This would indicate that the deceased was on comfortable terms with the accused. Nothing is disclosed as to what transpired all of a sudden resulting in such viscous attack by the accused on the deceased who according to the post-mortem has received as many as ten injuries. Further according to the F.I.R. the informant left to search a for the brother on his own, whereas act- if cording to the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and his deposition as P.W. 2, his mother (examined as P.W. 1) told him to fetch the deceased. It is noteworthy that no reason has been disclosed why the informant chose the locality of Pandarpala in the first instance for searching the deceased, where he is said to have met the three alleged eye witnesses who informed him about the deceased having been seen at Rahamatganj. This co-incidence is coupled with another coincidence that the informant reaches the scene of crime at the exact moment when the offence is taking place, as if the accused were waiting for an audience to arrive to witness the crime. This co-incidence is coupled with another coincidence that the informant reaches the scene of crime at the exact moment when the offence is taking place, as if the accused were waiting for an audience to arrive to witness the crime. Thus, not only this informant is an also, lute chance witness, the manner in which he reaches the place of occurrence is also not cogently and properly explained by the prosecution. When the conviction is required to rest upon the sole testimony of one witness, that testimony must be very cogent and free of variations so as to inspire confidence. When both the motive as well as the manner in which the assault has taken place is abnormal or unusual or unnatural, more solid evidence is required. Where the witness is a chance witness his deposition must inspire utmost confidence in order to sustain conviction. 6. We also find from the deposition of P.W. 1 who is the mother of the deceased that there is a thoughtless attempt by the prosecution to improve the case by making this witness depose that the deceased had been taken away from his house by the three accused. This statement of P.W. 1 the mother of the deceased is totally unbelievable in view of the fact that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. nor in his deposition as P.W. 2, there is any whisper by the informant that his mother told him that the deceased had been taken away by the accused. This becomes more important because according to the mother the P.W. 1, when the deceased had been taken away after breakfast by the three accused, the mother was so disturbed that she could not even eat anything, which would mean that she was apprehending. something from that early stage. However, no such motive or enmity on the part of the accused has been shown by the prosecution. 7. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant on this kind of a testimony of the informant P.W. 2. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed the impugned order is set aside the appellant is acquitted. 9. The appellant has not been granted bail during the pendency of this appeal and is in jail. He will be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.