Virender Singh, J.;— 1. The appeal on hand is preferred by State of J&K impugning the judgement of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda dated 24-06-2010 whereby acquitting Mohd. Amin S/o Abdul Majid Malik R/o Thalela, the respondent herein for the charges punishable under Section 302 RFC and 7/27 Arms Act. It needs to be mentioned here that the other two co-accused of Mohd. Amin, namely, Mohd. Ashraf S/o Mohd. Shafi R/o Chiralla and Shokat Ali S/o Mohd. Zarif R/o Sun-arthawa, Tehsil Thathri died before their case could be committed for trial, as such, their names were deleted by the trial court. It is only Mohd. Amin, who faced the trial and has now earned acquittal. 2. Since Mohd. Amin was confined in jail in connection with other case, his service was effected through Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. As he went unrepresented, High Court Legal Services Authority has engaged the services of one Ms. Mudasir Yousuf, Advocate, the legal retainer, to defend his case. Trial court record has also been received. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2003, Police Post Karara received an information from a reliable source that during the previous night, certain unknown persons had shot dead Javed Iqbal S/o Mohd. Yousuf Khan R/o Sunarthawa with certain fire arms and his dead body was lying on the spot. On this information, formal FIR bearing No. 33/2003 for the offences punishable under Section 302 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act came to be registered with Police Station, Thathri and during investigation, it revealed that on 30.07.2003, deceased Javed Iqbal was sitting on the bed in his kitchen along with his wife, when at about 8.30 pm, some assailants came there and fired shots from their AK-47 rifle, which hit different parts of the body of the deceased. Ultimately, they fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the respondent and aforesaid two persons, namely Mohd. Ashraf and Shokat Ali were shown to be involved in the present occurrence. As already said, Mohd. Ashraf and Shokat Ali died, the challan was filed against Mohd. Amin only, who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 RFC and 7/27 Arms Act. 4. May be, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case, the prosecution case primarily hinges upon the evidence of Mohd. Yousuf, Mst. Hamida Begum and Mst. Bashira Begum. Mohd. Amin only, who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 RFC and 7/27 Arms Act. 4. May be, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case, the prosecution case primarily hinges upon the evidence of Mohd. Yousuf, Mst. Hamida Begum and Mst. Bashira Begum. Mohd. Yousuf is the father of the deceased, Mst. Hamida Begum is his mother and Mst. Bashira Begum the widow of the deceased. Mst. Hamida Begum and Mst. Bashira Begum have not shown the presence of Mohd. Amin at the time of occurrence. 5. Mst. Hamida Begum when stepped into the witness box stated that five persons, namely, Abdul Rashid, Jahangir, Bashir, Bilal, Shokat and Ashraf came to their house and Jahangir fired at Javed Iqbal, who died on the spot. Mst. Bashira Begum, the widow of the deceased when stepped into the witness box stated that she along with her husband were in their house and when they were taking tea, certain unknown persons came there and shot her husband dead. She then talks of five persons, who fired.at her husband. She could, name Jahangir, Ashraf and Shokat. She also does not name Mohd. Amin in her substantive statement. 6. Mohd. Yousuf, the father of the deceased, however, in his substantive statement has said that on the day of occurrence, he was sitting in his house at Sewaha at 8 pm when the respondent with others came on their window and his son Javed, who was residing separately but in the same house was shot dead by one of them. At that time Javed was sitting in the kitchen on a bed. He further stated that he tried to come out, but his door was bolted from outside and he could manage coming out through the same window where the assailants were standing and chased them. Two fires were also shot at him. but his wife (Mst. Hamida Begum) dragged him inside. Thereafter many people assembled there at the spot and on the next day, police of Police Post, Karara came and took the dead body into its possession. 7. In his cross-examination, Mohd. Two fires were also shot at him. but his wife (Mst. Hamida Begum) dragged him inside. Thereafter many people assembled there at the spot and on the next day, police of Police Post, Karara came and took the dead body into its possession. 7. In his cross-examination, Mohd. Yousuf was confronted from his previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C on certain material aspects and ultimately the learned trial court after entering into a detailed discussion and taking the material contradictions also into consideration did not believe the statement of Mohd. Yousuf for holding conviction, as such acquitted Mohd. Amin of both the charges viz. 302 RFC and 7/27 Arms Act. 8. We have heard Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Mudasir Yousuf, learned counsel for the acquitted respondent-Mohd. Amin. Evidence of Mohd. Yousuf recorded by the trial court has once again been read over to us for our better appreciation. 9. Mr. Bakshi submits that may be the wife and the mother of the deceased have not named Mohd. Amin in their respective substantive statement, there appears to be no reason for disbelieving the statement of Mohd. Yousuf, the father of the deceased, who was also present in the house at the time of occurrence and he when stepped into the witness box named Mohd. Amin as one of the assailants. He would contend that the conviction can be based even on the statement of solitary eyewitness, if he is believable and in the present case, Mohd. Yousuf, who appears to be the most natural witness to the occurrence, should not have been discarded by the trial court on certain minor contradictions, which are bound to occur with the lapse of time even in the statement of most natural witness. Mr. Bakshi, thus, submits that the judgement deserves to be disturbed as case of the prosecution against respondent-Mohd. Amin is proved to the hilt. 10. While supporting the impugned judgement of acquittal, Ms. Mudasir Yousuf has drawn our attention to the relevant observation made by the trial court from the evidence available on record and submitted that the prosecution case is not proved against. Mohd. Amin beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Amin is proved to the hilt. 10. While supporting the impugned judgement of acquittal, Ms. Mudasir Yousuf has drawn our attention to the relevant observation made by the trial court from the evidence available on record and submitted that the prosecution case is not proved against. Mohd. Amin beyond reasonable doubt. 11. After having heard learned counsel for both the sides and perusing the impugned judgement as well as the material available on trial court record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgement of acquittal which is based on proper reasoning after appreciating the entire evidence in its right perspective. 12. No doubt, the conviction can be based on the statement of solitary eyewitnesses, provided it is trustworthy and free from any doubt. The witness being in relation of the deceased again is no ground to discard him and the only test to be applied by the court in such a situation is, the test of care and caution. We have applied the same test. 13. Admittedly, when in the present case, the other two witnesses to the occurrence, out of one being the wife of the deceased who happened to be with her husband in the kitchen at the time of occurrence has not named the acquitted respondent at all and instead named other persons to be the assailants and the same being the situation even with the mother of the deceased, who happened to be present along with her husband (Mohd. Yousuf) in another room and reached the spot after firing of the shot, the evidence of Mohd. Yousuf calls for appreciation with a note of caution. In this eventuality, not even the minor contradictions occurring in his statement can assume some significance, the major contradictions, in any case, would certainly go deep to the roots of the case. That is the situation in the present case and also noted by the learned trial court. For reference, relevant observation of the trial court to this effect is thus: "It is well settled law that the conviction can be based on the testimony of sole eye witness, but to rely on such witness, his evidence must inspire confidence of the cqurt.To inspire confidence, the evidence of the witness must be free from infirmities and material contradictions and above all his narration must be probable in the given circumstances. In the case in hand, a bare perusal of statement of PW Mohd. Yousuf as a whole reveals that he has contradicted himself not only to his statement under section 161 CrPC but also various versions have been given by him in court. As per statement of eye witnesses including this witness under section 161 CrPC, after the occurrence when they came out, they saw the accused persons as named in the charge sheet fleeing away and charge sheet seems to have been framed on this version. They have not stated before police that they saw the accused persons firing at the deceased who consequently died. But PW Mohd. Yousuf exaggerated in the court when he stated that he saw all the three accused persons at the window and one of them fired at the deceased. The I/O has categorically deposed that no such statement was made by him before him." 14. May be at the cost of repetition, another aspect, which in our considered view, assumes importance is that when Mst. Bashira Begum, the widow of the deceased was the person who had the opportunity to see the assailants at the first instance as she was sitting by the side of the deceased in the same kitchen, does not name Mohd. Amin as one of the assailants, Mohd. Yousuf, who came there subsequently after the firing of the shots and ran after the assailants, could not possibly see the assailants firing the shots in which Mohd. Amin, was also there. Not only that PW Mohd. Yousuf has categorically stated that he never named the assailants either before the police or anybody else and rather disclosed their names for the first time in the court in his substantive statement. Being that the fact situation, it is not understandable, how the investigating officer came to know about the involvement of Mohd. Amin in this case. Not only that PW Mohd. Ashraf, the constable, who accompanied the I.O on the next day at the spot has also stated that prosecution witnesses made their statements to the police to the effect that they could not identify the assailants in the dark. This statement gets corroboration from the statements of certain other witnesses, may be of formally character but had gathered at the spot. This statement gets corroboration from the statements of certain other witnesses, may be of formally character but had gathered at the spot. Taking all these aspects collectively into consideration, the learned trial court has observed that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against Mohd. Amin beyond all reasonable doubts, as such acquitted him. 15. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, no doubt, the Court can review the entire evidence, but would interfere only if there are compelling or substantial reasons. Eliminating material evidence in the process of reasoning can be said to be a ground for interfering in the order of acquittal. Admittedly, that is not the fact position in the case on hand.- 16. Appreciating the case on all counts, we do not find any reason much less good reason warranting indulgence by us in the well reasoned judgement of acquittal earned by Mohd. Amin, the respondent herein. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed at this stage itself. 17. Trial court record be sent back forthwith for consigning it to records.