JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed tills appeal against acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 5 (accused No. 1 to 5) for offences punishable under Sections 383, 307, 342, 384, 385, 506B read with 34 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. for State and Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution and inter se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses may be states thus: P.W. 1-Shankar is the husband of P.W. 2-Nagarathna. P.W. 3-Bhagyamma is the elder sister of P.W. 2. P.W. 6-N.S. Vijaya is a neighbour of P.W. 1. P.W. 4~Saraswathi is the landlord of the building where accused No. 1. was running a travel agency. 4. During the year 2000, P.W. 1 had lent a sum of Rs.25,000/- to accused No. 1, Incidentally, it is necessary to state that accused No. 1 and P.W. 1 hail from Nonavlnakere Hotall, Turnkur District Accused No. 1 did not. repay the amount for a period of 2 or 8 years. 5. On 17.4.2000, during afternoon, P.W. 1 had gone to the Travel agency office run. by accused No. 1 and demanded him to repay a sum of Rs.25,000/-. There was exchange of words between P.W. 1 and accused No. 1. Therefore, P.W. 1 return back to his house. At about 4,00 p.m., accused No. 1. came to the house of P.W. 1 and told him to come to his travel agency office as he is likely to receive money from some person, P.W. 1 with a fond hope to recover money visited the travel agency office of accused No. 1 at 7.30 p.m. He parked his motorcycle near the travel agency office and went inside the travel agency office. When he demanded accused No. 1. to repay the money, accused No. 1 bolted the door from inside. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were in the travel agency office. Accused No. 1 to 5 mercilessly assaulted P.W. 1 with a cricket bat and wickets. After hearing the noise of quarrel, P.W. 4-Saraswathi, landlady of the building came there and questioned as to why they were creating nuisance in the building. Thereafter, accused Nos. I to 5 took P.W. 1 In an. Ambassador car to a farmhouse and P.W. 1 was wrongfully confined in the farmhouse. After hearing the noise of quarrel, P.W. 4-Saraswathi, landlady of the building came there and questioned as to why they were creating nuisance in the building. Thereafter, accused Nos. I to 5 took P.W. 1 In an. Ambassador car to a farmhouse and P.W. 1 was wrongfully confined in the farmhouse. The accused, continued to beat P.W. 1 in the farmhouse. The accused assaulted P.W. 1 with burning fire wood sticks. The accused had threatened P.W. 3 to pay ransom of Rs.1 Lakh for his release, P.W. 1 agreed for the same. Therefore, on the following day morning viz.. 18.4.2000 around 5.00 a.m.. accused No. 1 to 5 brought P.W. 1 in a Ambassador car to his house and left him there, P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were in the house saw the miserable plight of P.W. 1 and took him Inside the house. P.W. 6-Vijaya who was constructing a house in front of the house of P.W. 1 also saw the plight of P.W. 1. and advised P.Ws. 2 and 3 to shift P.W. 1 to hospital. Accordingly, P.W. 1. was shifted and admitted in Rajashekar Hospital and Maternity Centre. 6. On 19.4.2000, at about 10.00 p.m., the jurisdictional police officer visited Rajashekar hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. 1 and registered Crime No. 199/2000 against first, accused and 4 others for the aforestated offences. 7. The Investigating officer visited the place of Incident and recovered the weapons of offence. During investigation accused No. 1 was arrested and from his possession investigating officer recovered two gold rings. P.W. 1 has identified the same as gold rings belonging to him. The investigating officer alter completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused. 8. During trial P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined, documents as per Ex.P1 to P12 and material objects as per MO’s.1 to 8 were marked. On behalf of the defence, contradictory portion of statement of P.W. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, was marked as per Ex. DL 9. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned counsels for parties acquitted the accused. Therefore, the State is before us, 10. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has relied on the following: (i) Motive (ii) Eyewitness account of P.Ws. 1 to 4 (iii) Recovery of MO. DL 9. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned counsels for parties acquitted the accused. Therefore, the State is before us, 10. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has relied on the following: (i) Motive (ii) Eyewitness account of P.Ws. 1 to 4 (iii) Recovery of MO. 1 & MO.2-gold rings from the possession of accused No. l so also, recover)” of MOs.3 and. 4 on the information volunteered by accused. No. 1. P.W. 1 has deposed: that, he had lent a sum of Rs.25,000/- to accused No. 1. P.W. 1 has not deposed that when he had lent the money, he had not produced any documents. P.W. 1 has deposed; that, accused No. 1 had given a cheque when P.W. 1 had lent a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused, however, P.W. 1 had not produced the cheque before the Court. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that P.W. 1 had lent a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused. 11. P.W. 4-Saraswathi is the landlady of the building in which accused No. l was running a travel agency. P.W. 4 has not. supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 4 has deposed that about 3 years prior to her examination before the Court on 4.7.2003, the police had come near tier house and took duplicate key of the room let-out to accused No. 1 from her and inspected that room. P.W. 4 was declared as a hostile witness for resiling from a part of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, her evidence is of no avail to the case; of prosecution. 12. P.W. 1-Shankar has deposed; that on 17.4.2000, at about 1(3.00 a.m., he had gone to the travel agency office of accused No. 1 and demanded accused No. 1 to repay a sum of Rs.25,000/- which accused No. l had borrowed from P.W. 1, There was heated discussion between. P.W. 1 and accused No. 1, however, accused No. 1 did not return the amount, therefore, P.W. 1 returned to his house. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m.. accused No. l. came to the house of P.W. 1 and told P.W. 1 that he is likely to receive money from someone and asked P.W. 1 to come to his travel agency office to collect money. On that day. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m.. accused No. l. came to the house of P.W. 1 and told P.W. 1 that he is likely to receive money from someone and asked P.W. 1 to come to his travel agency office to collect money. On that day. at about, 7.30 p.m., P.W. 1 came to the travel agency office of accused No. !. He parked his motorcycle near the travel agency office and entered the office. Accused No. 1. to 5 were present in the travel, agency office of accused No. 1. P.W. 1 demanded accused No. 1 to repay the money. At that, lime, accused No. l bolted the door of office from inside, Accused No. l to 5 repeatedly assaulted. P.W. 1 with cricket bat and wickets. The accused had also pierced on different, parts of the body of P.W. 1. with sharp edges of wickets. On hearing the noise of quarrel, P.W. 4-Saraswathi, landlady of the building came and questioned, as to why they are making galata In the building. There after, accused No. 1 to 5 took P.W. 1 In an Ambassador car to peripheral road. When P.W. 1 was being taken in the ear. the accused were assaulting him. P.W. 1 was taken to a pump house, He was not able to get down from the ear. The accused took him from the car and dumped him in the pump house. As there was no electricity in the pump house, the accused set fire to the branches of coconut frees. During midnight (at about 3,00 a.m.), the accused forcibly relieved P.W. 1 of his two gold rings, a Titan watch, and gold, chain, P.W. 1 pleaded the accused, even if they were to take away his gold ornaments and even if they don’t return the amount, it doesn’t matter and he may be left alive. The accused told P.W. 1 to pay ransom, of Rs.1 Lakh and also threatened that he should not inform the matter to the police, P.W. 1 pleaded that he was not able to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh. The accused told him that unless a sum of Rs.1 Lakh was paid to him they would not spare him. The accused told P.W. 1 to pay ransom, of Rs.1 Lakh and also threatened that he should not inform the matter to the police, P.W. 1 pleaded that he was not able to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh. The accused told him that unless a sum of Rs.1 Lakh was paid to him they would not spare him. The accused took assurance from P.W. 1 that lie would pay Rs.1 lakh and he1 would not, lodge a complaint with the police arid thereafter accused took P.W. 1 in the same car arid dropped him near his house1, on the following day, i.e., on. 18.4.2000, at about 5,00 a.m. P.W. 2-Nagarathana (wife of P.W. 1) and P.W. 3-Bhagyamma (Sister of P.W. 2) who were in the house came out. and took P.W. 1 into their house. P.W. 6-N.S.Vijaya, the neighbour of P.W. 1 also came to the house of P.W. 1 and all of them enquired P.W. 1 as to what had happened to him. P.W. 1. was frightened, therefore, he wanted some time to reveal as to what had been done to him by the accused. After sometime, P.W. 1 revealed the entire incident to P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6. Thereafter, he was admitted in Rajashekar Hospital. The Doctor after examination told. P.W. 1 that he had suffered fracture of bones of his left, leg and right fore arm. The relatives of P.W. 1 decided to lodge a complaint, against accused. When P.W. 1 was being treated in Rajashekar Hospital, the police came and recorded the statement P.W. 1. as per Ex. P1. On 30.4.2000, he was discharged from the hospital. The police showed him two gold rings, which they had recovered from the accused and P.W. 1 identified, them as his gold rings. lie also identified bat and wicket with which he was assaulted by the accused. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that he had undergone operation, for reduction of fracture of his right ulna. When confronted with the first, information, he has admitted the contents of first, information to the effect that his gold rings and a gold chain had fallen somewhere when he was being assaulted by the accused. P.W. 1 has admitted that he had suffered bleeding injuries when the accused pierced his body with sharp edges of wickets. 13. When confronted with the first, information, he has admitted the contents of first, information to the effect that his gold rings and a gold chain had fallen somewhere when he was being assaulted by the accused. P.W. 1 has admitted that he had suffered bleeding injuries when the accused pierced his body with sharp edges of wickets. 13. We find that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of solitary witness (P.W. 1). In a decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 (in the case of Wadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras), the Supreme Court has held: “The contention that in a murder case, the Court should Insist upon, plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. The Indian. Legislature has not insisted on laying dotyri any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in S 134, which by laying down that “no particular number of witnesses shall, in any ease, be required for the proof of any fact” has enshrined the well recognised maxim that “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in. the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial, evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, eases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It. is here that the discretion, of the presiding judge conies into play. The matter thus must, depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an. accused person may be proved by the testimony of a. single witness, the innocence of an accused person, may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testily to the truth of the case for the prosecution.” 14. From the evidence of P.W. 1 we find that there was no cordiality between P.W. 1 and accused No. 1. From the evidence of P.W. 1 we find that there was no cordiality between P.W. 1 and accused No. 1. P.W. 1 has admitted that accused No. 2 to 4 were not known to him, In the first information, P.W. 1 had not given the physical features of accused No. 2 to 5. 15. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 have deposed that on 18.4.2000, at. about 5.00 a.m., the accused brought P.W. 1 in a Ambassador car arid accused No. l held P.W. 1 and helped him to reach the gate of his house. Thereafter, the accused fled away from that place In the same ear. If the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and. 6 that accused No. l brought P.W. 1 in a car and also helped P.W. 1 is accepted, in the evidence of P.W. 1. that he was wrongfully confined by accused and he was not manually assaulted by accused and accused took his gold ornaments and there was demand for ransom of Rs.1 Lakh looks improbable. 16. The evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 is not consistent. P.W. 1 has deposed; that not only he was dropped in a car near his house but. also, his motorcycle was brought. and parked near his house by one of the accused, P.Ws. 2. 3 and 6 have not deposed that one of the accused had brought motorcycle of P.W. 1 and parked motorcycle near the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has deposed that the accused dropped him near his house and left that place. P.W. 2 has deposed that the accused brought P.W. 1 in a car to his house and also helped P.W. 1 to get down from the car and reach the gate of his house, thereafter, the accused left that place in the same car. The evidence of P.W. 3 is similar to the evidence of P.W. 2. 17. P.W. 6-N.S.Vijaya has deposed; that on 18.04 at about 5.00 a.m., the accused brought P.W. 1 in. a car. The accused helped P.W. 1. to get down from the car. P.W. 1 was not able to walk. The first accused lent, support to P.W. 1 to reach the gate of his house and other accused were sifting in the car. The first accused lent, support to P.W. 1. and took him to the gate of his house. Thereafter, P.Ws. The accused helped P.W. 1. to get down from the car. P.W. 1 was not able to walk. The first accused lent, support to P.W. 1 to reach the gate of his house and other accused were sifting in the car. The first accused lent, support to P.W. 1. and took him to the gate of his house. Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came out of the house and took P.W. 1 into their house. Accused No. 1 after leaving P.W. 1. near his gale left that place along with other accused in the same car. 18. It is not in dispute that accused No. 1 and P.W. 1 were known to each oilier. If the accused had assaulted P.W. 1 and relieved him of his gold ornaments, and demanded ransom of Rs.1 Lakh for his release, the accused would not have brought P.W. 1 to the house of P.W. 1 and waited till the arrival, of inmates of the house to take care of P.W. 1, The accused would not have brought the motorcycle to leave it near the house of P.W. 1. The investigating officer had not-seized the motorcycle or the car. The investigating officer had not visited the place where accused had confined P.W. 1 during the intervening night of 17/18.4.2000. 19. We also see from the records that the first Information, relating to the alleged offence came into existence at about 11.00 p.m., on 19.4.2000. If the accused after assaulting P.W. 1 and causing fractures to him, had brought, him and dropped him near his house, the inmates of house namely P.Ws. 2 and 3 would not have kept quite. P.W. 1 was admitted in Rajashekar Hospital, on 18.4.2000. If P.W. 1 had suffered injuries due to assault, the hospital authorities would have sent a medico legal report, to the jurisdictional police. For the reasons known to P.W. 1 the incident; was kept as a secret till 9.00 p.m., on 19.4.2000. P.W. 6 has deposed that his statement, was recorded at 10.00 a.m., on 18.4.2000, which is contrary to the evidence of investigating officer regarding registration of first Information at 11.45 p.m., on 19.4.2000, At the first blush, P.W. 6 appears to be an independent witness. 20. On careful scrutiny of consideration of evidence of P.W. 6, we find that he was closely associated with P.W. 1 and his family members. 20. On careful scrutiny of consideration of evidence of P.W. 6, we find that he was closely associated with P.W. 1 and his family members. In fact, P.W. 6 had appeared as a witness for the prosecution in a criminal case initiated by the wife of P.W. 1 against the first accused and his brothers. P.W. 6 was working as a Hindi Lecturer in BES College. If he had seen the accused bringing P.W. 1 in a car and leaving him near his house, there was no impediment for P.W. 6 to inform the matter to police. 21. These discrepancies are further compounded by medical evidence given by P.W. 7-Dr. Venkatesh who examined P.W. 1 and found the following injuries: (i) Fracture of left lateral Malleolus (comminuted) (ii) Fracture of right Ulna, junction upper 2/3rd and lower (iii) Fracture of right second rnetaiarsal bast”, 22. P.W. 1 has deposed; that he was assaulted by the accused with cricket, bat and wickets. The accused had also caused bleeding injuries on several parts of the body of P.W. 1 by piercing with the sharp ends of wickets. P.W. 1 has deposed; that he was also assaulted by the accused with burning firewood. 23. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W. 7 and the contents of wound certificate, P.W. 1. had not suffered any external injuries much less bleeding injuries. P.W. 7 has deposed that P.W. 1 had suffered fractures, however, he had not produced the X-ray and reports to prove that P.W. 1 had suffered fractures. P.W. 7 had not produced medical records regarding treatment, given to P.W. 1 In Rajashekar Hospital. Therefore, direct evidence given by P.W. 1 and medical evidence given by P.W. 7 are contradictory. 24. As already stated, there was no cordiality between the accused and P.W. 1. The entire case of prosecution rests upon the solitary evidence of P.W. 1. In view of the discrepancies, which have been discussed supra, we cannot safely rely on the solitary testimony of P.W. 1. 25. P.W. 8 has given evidence relating to recover 17 of gold rings and wickets, P.W. 8 has deposed; that two gold rings were recovered from the possession of accused No. 1. In view of the discrepancies, which have been discussed supra, we cannot safely rely on the solitary testimony of P.W. 1. 25. P.W. 8 has given evidence relating to recover 17 of gold rings and wickets, P.W. 8 has deposed; that two gold rings were recovered from the possession of accused No. 1. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that, in the first information, P.W. 1 has stated that when the quarrel, took place, his Titan watch, gold rings and a sum of Rs.500/- had fallen near the place of quarrel. In the first information, P.W. 1 has riot stated that accused had relieved him of his gold rings. Therefore, the case of prosecution that accused had extorted two gold rings from the possession of P.W. 1 is an improvement, during trial. 26. P.W. 8 has deposed that accused No. 1 took him to Raghavendra Travels run by him at door No. 450, 1SI floor, 17th Cross, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore and opened the door, The accused removed the gold rings from the drawer of a table and also took out wicket and cricket hat from the room. At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the evidence of P.W. 4 who has deposed that after the Incident, the police took her to the room, which was in occupation of the first accused. The room was under lock. The police inspector took the duplicate key from her possession and opened the room and had inspected the room. 27. In the circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 8 regarding recovery of above incriminating articles after the arrest of accused loses its significance. Above all, in the first information, P.W. 1 has not stated that, accused had relieved him of his gold rings. Therefore, the evidence of recovery does not inspire confidence. 28. The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 29. Accordingly we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.