Judgment 1. The State represented by Yadgiri Rural Police Station filed this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.43/2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the respondent-accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 504 and 302 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Clause (1) Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 14.01.2009 there was a Jatra at Mylapur Temple on 'Sankramana'. The deceased Shekhappa, son of the complainant was engaged in writing receipt in the jatra. While so, on 16.01.2009 at about 3.00 a.m. when the complainant and his family members were sleeping, the deceased Shekhappa came to the house and asked the complainant to open the door. Thereafter he went out to attend the nature call. The complainant advised him to come back early. The deceased Shekappa who had gone to attend the nature call did not return to the house even at 6.00 a.m. in the morning. Therefore, the complainant started searching for his son. In the meanwhile, PW8 Bannappa came and informed him that the dead body of his son was lying on CC Road on the way to Village Tank having suffered injury on his neck. Accordingly, the complainant along with PW8 and others went towards the Village Tank and found the dead body of his son lying with incised wound on his neck. They also found an axe with broken handle lying on the tent of a saloon belonging to PW16 Narayan Hadapad. 3. PW8 informed the complainant that a person is sitting on the bund of a Tank holding broken handle of axe. Immediately, the complainant, Bannappa and others went to the said person sitting on the tank and enquired him. He disclosed his name as Sannabasanna, S/o Maragappa Kakera of Village Tatalagera and informed them that he himself killed the deceased Shekappa with the very same axe and he has thrown the remaining portion of the axe on the tent of a nearby shop and that he was holding the broken piece of the handle of the axe and thereafter he pushed all of them and went away. Thereafter, PW1 Sannagundamallappa, father of the complainant lodged complaint before the Inspector of Police Rural P.S, which is registered as Crime No.15/2009 under Section 302 IPC. 4. Thereafter, PW1 Sannagundamallappa, father of the complainant lodged complaint before the Inspector of Police Rural P.S, which is registered as Crime No.15/2009 under Section 302 IPC. 4. The Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this case. He secured the presence of the panch witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and apprehended the accused and recovered the broken handle under the seizure panchanama in the presence of the panch witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the respondent-accused. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent framed charges under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. 6. The plea of the respondent is one of total denial. 7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 22 and marked Exs. P1 to P18 and also relied on M. Os. 1 to 10. 8. Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of PW.13 who is the only eye witness to the incident, the Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW13 and observed that the evidence of PW.13 is not worthy of acceptance. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences, for which he was charged. 9. The fact that the deceased Shekhappa died of homicidal death is not in dispute. The evidence of PW.15, Medical Officer who conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of the deceased, Ex.P9 P.M. report and the inquest report clearly indicates that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 10. The next point for our consideration is: Whether the respondent-accused is responsible for causing the death of the deceased Shekhappa? 11. In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW13. In the evidence, PW13 has stated on the date of the offence, he had put up a Hotel in the Jatra and after closing the hotel he was sleeping inside the tent. At about 3 or 3.30 a.m., he heard some sound near his shop from the place leading to Mylapur tank. Thereafter, he came out of the shop and saw the accused assaulting one person with an axe. After that he went inside the shop and next day morning, he came to know that one person Shekhappa of Mylapur was murdered. 12. Thereafter, he came out of the shop and saw the accused assaulting one person with an axe. After that he went inside the shop and next day morning, he came to know that one person Shekhappa of Mylapur was murdered. 12. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he saw the face of the accused in the street light. After that he identified the respondent-accused in the Court at the time of giving evidence. In the cross-examination, he has further stated that on the next day morning, he narrated the incident to the police. Before the police, he has stated that he identified the accused in the petromax light. He further stated that he did not see the broken handle of the axe. He did not inform anybody immediately after seeing the incident. 13. PW14 the Junior Engineer who prepared the sketch of the scene of offence has not stated about the existence of electric pole near the scene of offence. 14. PW1 father of the complainant who rushed to the scene of offence and identified the dead body as that of his son along with PW8 and others, has stated that by the time they reached the scene of offence, they found one person sitting on the bund with a broken axe. When they enquired him, he informed them that he committed murder of the deceased. 15. It appears PW13 did not inform even PW8 who visited the scene of offence immediately on the next day morning and noticed the dead body of the deceased. He did not choose to inform them about the respondent-accused assaulting the deceased with axe. According to the prosecution, the incident took place in the early morning at about 3.00 a.m. 16. According to PW1, himself and other witnesses visited the scene of offence after 6.00 a.m. The evidence of PW13 shows that after the incident he went away. He did not inform anybody about the accused assaulting the deceased. It is highly improbable to note that after committing the offence of murder, the respondent-accused would stay at the same place holding the broken axe, to inform the persons who came there to identify the dead body of the deceased. He did not inform anybody about the accused assaulting the deceased. It is highly improbable to note that after committing the offence of murder, the respondent-accused would stay at the same place holding the broken axe, to inform the persons who came there to identify the dead body of the deceased. The conduct of PW13, who is the eye-witness is found to be unnatural, when he saw the accused assaulting one person whom he does not know, would certainly raise a hue cry and try to prevent the accused from assaulting the person. He did not choose to go to the scene of offence nor informed the neighbouring shop owners about the incident. He also did not choose to verify as to the person who was assaulted. Even after 6.00 a.m. also he did not choose to go to the place of incident to inform about the accused assaulting the deceased. When PW1 father of the deceased and others came to the scene of offence and enquired the accused as to what had happened, PW2 who also followed the complainant to the scene of offence and who identified the deceased, has stated in his evidence that the police seized the broken handle of the axe in his presence from the possession of the accused. 17. The prosecution produced M.O.2 broken handle of the axe alleged to have been seized from the accused in the presence of PWs.5 and 6. Both PWs.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case about the seizure of M.O.2 from the possession of the accused. 18. PW16 also did not support the prosecution case about the seizure of M.O.1 at the instance of the accused. 19. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was still holding the broken handle of the axe in his hands and produced the same before the Police and it was seized under Ex.P4 mahazar. This was not supported by the panch witnesses PW2, PW5 and PW6. 20. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 handle of the axe and broken axe and the alleged confession of the respondent-accused. 21. Even PW2 Basavaraj has also not supported the prosecution case about the seizure of M.O.1 from the scene of offence which was lying on the tent of PW16. 22. 20. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 handle of the axe and broken axe and the alleged confession of the respondent-accused. 21. Even PW2 Basavaraj has also not supported the prosecution case about the seizure of M.O.1 from the scene of offence which was lying on the tent of PW16. 22. Admittedly, M.Os.1 and 2 axe and broken handle of the axe were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination to find out whether it contained human blood. 23. PW-19 Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that he arrested the accused when he was shown by the complainant. Except the alleged confession statement before PW1 and others, there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime by the time PW-19 arrested the accused. On the basis of the information given by the complainant, the accused was arrested on the same day and M.Os.1 and 2 were said to have been seized based on the confessional statement of the accused. 24. PW2 who was present all through has not supported the prosecution case about the seizure of M.O.1, which was lying on the tent of PW-16. The accused was apprehended when he was shown by the complainant and PWs.1 and 2 and others, but not by PW13 who is said to have been witnessed the incident. It appears PW13, who claims to be the eye-witness to the incident was subsequently examined by the police after the accused was arrested. The prosecution did not establish any motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. The evidence of the sole eye-witness PW13 does not inspire confidence. If really he was eye witness to the incident, he would have raised alarm and he would have caught hold of the accused with assistance of neighbouring shop owners. His conduct in not preventing the accused from assaulting the deceased and not informing anybody clearly indicates that he was subsequently planted as eyewitness to the incident. The evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 is not consistent with regard to the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. 25. His conduct in not preventing the accused from assaulting the deceased and not informing anybody clearly indicates that he was subsequently planted as eyewitness to the incident. The evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 is not consistent with regard to the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. 25. PW11 who said to have followed the complainant and found the dead body of the deceased has stated in his evidence that by the time they went to the scene of offence, they noticed the dead body of Shekhappa and also noticed the grievous injury on the neck and also the broken handle of the axe in the saloon shop. Thereafter PW8 Bannappa and others informed them that one person sitting near tamarind tree was holding broken piece of handle of axe. Then some people and police went near that tree and noticed the accused sitting under the same holding broken handle. He has not stated anything about the alleged confession made by the accused when they enquired accused about the incident. His evidence shows after the respondent-accused was found with a broken piece of the axe, some people and police went near to him and apprehended him. 26. These material witnesses did not support the prosecution case about the alleged confession of the accused and his involvement in the crime. Admittedly the confession statement said to have been made by the accused is not admissible in evidence. PW13 who was the eye witness to the incident has not showed the accused to the police who came to the scene of offence. The evidence of PW11 clearly shows that some people were present there and the police went to the place where respondent was sitting with a broken axe and apprehended him, but not on the basis of the statement given by PW13 who witnessed accused assaulting the deceased. It clearly indicates PW13 was planted as eye witness to the incident subsequently after the arrest of the accused. PW13 has not disclosed the incident either to PWs.1, 2, 9 and 11 or to the Police who immediately rushed to the scene of offence and found dead body of the deceased and also found the accused sitting on the bund. 27. The evidence of PW13 appears to be not worthy of acceptance. PW13 has not disclosed the incident either to PWs.1, 2, 9 and 11 or to the Police who immediately rushed to the scene of offence and found dead body of the deceased and also found the accused sitting on the bund. 27. The evidence of PW13 appears to be not worthy of acceptance. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of PW13, whose evidence is not consistent and is not corroborative with the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6, 9 and 11 in all material particulars regarding the incident. 28. The Honourable Supreme Court in Rameshwar Versus State of Rajastan ( AIR 1952 SC 54 ) declared that a "corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction". The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in numerous judgments subsequently. These observations leave no manner of doubt that a conviction can be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of sole witness, provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence. 29. In the instant case the conduct of PW-13 who was the sole eye witness to the incident is appears to be unnatural and suffers from improbabilities. 30. The prosecution further failed to prove the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case about the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2. 31. Considering all these inconsistencies, the learned Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, found the respondent-accused not guilty of the offence under Sections 504 and 302 IPC and has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the whole evidence on record, we are of the considered view that it would be unsafe to convict the accused on the available evidence which is not free from doubts. The respondent/ accused is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal filed by the State therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. 32. The order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The respondent-accused who was brought under warrant before this Court on 20.03.2012 was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court. 32. The order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The respondent-accused who was brought under warrant before this Court on 20.03.2012 was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court. He is committed to prison till he offers surety. If the respondent-accused is still in judicial custody, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 33. The Office is directed to communicate the operative portion of this judgment to the concerned Jail Authority, forthwith. 34. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Amicus Curiae in this case. His fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.