JUDGMENT U.B. Saha , J. In thisappeal, the challenge is to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura , Kailashahar dated9.09.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 21 (NT/K) of 2006 wherein the appellant wasconvicted under Section 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI forthree years and to pay a fine of Rs . 2,000/- indefault, further RI for six months. The fine money if realized shall be paid tothe victim as compensation. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Deb,learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A Ghosh ,learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Theaccused was admittedly an ex-employee of the shop of the victim’s son, Sri Shyamal Choudhury , PW 10. On14.11.2004 at about 6.00 p.m. theaccused came to the house of the victim and met with her when she was alone inher house. As the accused requested the victim, PW 3 to supply him some foodshe immediately supplied the same to the appellant. After supplying food whileshe was taking rest in her bed and was in a semi-sleeping stage, at that momentshe heard a sound inside the house and hearing such sound she opened her eyesand noticed that the accused was searching something opening the door of theirsteel Almirah and at that time she asked the accusedwhat he was doing but the accused without giving any reply instantly gagged hermouth with the help of a pillow pressing her mouth and nose so that she couldnot raise any alarm and thereafter he entered into the kitchen of her house andtaking a bothy dao (chopper) again came back to her and started to give blows on her with the helpof the said bothy dao andas a result there were seven injuries in her person and ultimately she becamesenseless. 3. Inthe meantime, the informant, Sri Priyatosh Choudhury , PW 1 came to the homestead of the victim andheard some sound inside the house of the victim and instantly he noticed that aperson came out from that house and ran away towards the back side of thathouse. Immediately, PW 1 entered inside the house and found the victim withsevere injuries on her person and she was groaning. Immediately, PW 1 entered inside the house and found the victim withsevere injuries on her person and she was groaning. As the victim was not in aposition to speak she gave some signs by her hands towards the articles lyingscattered inside the house and seeing that situation PW 1 raised alarm andhearing his cry some neighbours rushed to the placeof occurrence and immediately the victim was shifted to Kumarghat Rural Hospital. 4. Someof the neighbours instantly started searching theaccused and after some time they found him behind the house of the victiminside a bush where he took shelter and the accused confessed to them that hecommitted the incident. Thereafter, he was taken to a club namely, Youth Clubof Kumarghat wherefrom he was handed over to thepolice. Narrating about the aforesaid incident PW 1 lodged a complaint with theOfficer in Charge of Kumarghat P.S. on 15.11.2004 atabout 1320 hrs and the said information was registered as Kumarghat PS case No. 78/2004 under Section 326/307IPC. 5. Theaforesaid police case was entrusted to PW 11 Sri Bir Kishore Tripura for investigationwho during investigation arrested the accused and ultimately, upon recordingthe statement of the witnesses filed the charge sheet under Section 326/307IPC. 6.Before receiving the information lodged by P.W. 1, the Duty Officer of the Kumarghat P.S. on the date of incident received atelephonic call from the TRTC stand of Kumarghat tothe effect that one Smt . Pratima Choudhury of TRTC stand was attacked by one personwith the help of a Dao and the said information received through Telephoniccall was entered in the GD Entry No. 636 of the GD Book of Kumarghat P.S. 7. Onreceipt of the charge sheet the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura took cognizance and thereafterfollowing the procedure committed the case to the court of learned SessionsJudge, North Tripura , Kailashahar . Learned SessionsJudge upon receipt of the case record and hearing the parties framed chargeunder Section 307 IPC and the said charge was also read over and explained tothe accused in Bengali to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to berried . 8. Theprosecution to establish the charges levelled againstthe accused examined as many as 11 witnesses including the victim Smt . Pratima Choudhury ,PW 3 as well as the Medical Officer of RGM Hospital who treated PW 3 and theIO of the case. 8. Theprosecution to establish the charges levelled againstthe accused examined as many as 11 witnesses including the victim Smt . Pratima Choudhury ,PW 3 as well as the Medical Officer of RGM Hospital who treated PW 3 and theIO of the case. On completion of examination of witnesses the accused wasexamined under section 313 Cr.P.C . to which he deniedthe prosecution case and claimed to be an innocent. Finally, learned SessionsJudge considering the evidence on record convicted the accused, appellantherein, and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence, the appeal. 9. Mr.Deb while urging for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence wouldcontend that the learned trial court passed the order of conviction as impugnedon the basis of the solitary evidence of PW 3 and no other independent witnessis examined for corroborating the evidence of PW 3, particularly the storyrelating to incident of gagging her mouth with the help of pillow as well ascausing injury on her person with the help of bothy dao , allegedly collected from her kitchen. He also submitsthat PW 1, the brother of the victim, PW 3 and PW 2 in their evidence statedthat the police visited the house of PW 3 and seized blood stained bed sheet, oneblood stained pillow cover, one white T-Shirt and one blood stained bothy dao and prepared a seizurelist exhibit-P1. It appears that the place of seizure of the aforesaidmaterials as shown in the seizure list is at Kumarghat TRTC stand near Ramanada Sahani’s house which creates a doubt regarding the seized articles. He further submitsthat none of the seized articles was sent for forensic test, even the bothy dao was also not sent tothe finger print expert. Thus, it cannot be said that the bothy dao was used either by the accused or by any personat the time of alleged occurrence. 10. Heagain contended that the investigating agency has not mentioned in the siteplan the exact PO and also from where the alleged bothy dao was collected by the accusedfor attempting to commit murder of the victim PW 3. According to him, it isincumbent upon the Investigating Officer, who has enquired the facts from thewitnesses, to mention this material point in the hand sketch map/site plan.Absence of these things in the site plan also creates doubt regarding theprosecution case. According to him, it isincumbent upon the Investigating Officer, who has enquired the facts from thewitnesses, to mention this material point in the hand sketch map/site plan.Absence of these things in the site plan also creates doubt regarding theprosecution case. To support his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance ona decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana , AIR 2004 SC 124 whereinthe Apex Court has thrown sufficient light in this regard and has laid down thelaw that essential features should have been shown in the site plan and theomission to show them in the site plan cannot be said to be a mere lapse on thepart of the Investigating Agency. For better understanding, it would be properto reproduce paragraph 29 of the said law report. 29. Sofar as the ladder is concerned, PW-5, Balbir Singhstated that the ladder was in the same position when the Investigating Officercame to the place of occurrence but he could not explain why it was not shownin the site plan prepared by the police. Even PW-10 the Investigating Officerhad to admit that in the site plan the position of the ladder was not shown.These features of the prosecution case also support the conclusion reached bythe trial court that the occurrence must have taken place in a manner differentthan the one deposed to by the alleged eye-witnesses. The evidence on recordwith regard to the existence of cots in the courtyard of Gurdeep Singh, the existence of a bicycle, as also about the existence of a ladder israther unsatisfactory and creates a serious doubt as to whether the prosecutionwitnesses are telling the truth. The omission to show them in both the siteplans cannot be attributed to a mere lapse on the part of the investigatingagency. In fact so far as the site plans are concerned, the case of theprosecution is that they were prepared in the presence of PW-5 and anotherwitness and on their pointing. However, PW-5 denied that the plans wereprepared in his presence. The other witness was not examined. 11. In fact so far as the site plans are concerned, the case of theprosecution is that they were prepared in the presence of PW-5 and anotherwitness and on their pointing. However, PW-5 denied that the plans wereprepared in his presence. The other witness was not examined. 11. Onthe same point, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Courtin Baldev Singh &Anr, v. State of M.P. AIR 2003SC 2098, wherein the Apex Court said that the preparation of site plan is not amere formality but it is an essential feature in order to reach a firmconclusion by the Court in order to ascertain whether the offence has beencommitted by the accused or not. The Apex Court also said that since there is serious infirmity in the site plan as it is notindicated from which place the accused/appellant fired the gun and the placewhere the deceased was standing. Ultimately, the Apex Court provided the benefit of doubt to the accusedof that case. 12. Hefurther submits that the learned trial court in its judgment while discussingthe evidence of PW 3 specifically observed that from her evidence it has notbeen established beyond doubt that the accused with an intent to kill hergagged her mouth with the help of a pillow pressing her mouth and nose but hedid the said act with an intention so that she could not raise alarm and withina few minutes the accused entered into the kitchen of her house and aftertaking the bothy dao camenear to her and started to give blow by that bothy dao . Thus, some doubt was there in the mind of the trialcourt regarding the alleged action of the accused appellant. 13. Healso submits that the learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant notonly on the solitary evidence of PW 3 but also on circumstantial evidencethough the link of chain to come to a conclusion that it is only the accusedappellant who committed the offence has not been established. 14. Heagain contended that the doctor, PW 8 in his medical report specifically statedthat out of seven injuries five are lacerated injuries and two are grievous innature and the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon though he subsequently inhis evidence before the Court stated that those injuries can be caused by theback side of the bothy dao . 14. Heagain contended that the doctor, PW 8 in his medical report specifically statedthat out of seven injuries five are lacerated injuries and two are grievous innature and the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon though he subsequently inhis evidence before the Court stated that those injuries can be caused by theback side of the bothy dao . Though PW 3 in her statement nowhere stated that the accusedcaused the injuries with the help of the back side of the bothy dao . 15. Hefinally contended that the scribe of the FIR was also not examined and not onlythat, none of the Members of the Kumarghat Youth Clubwas examined though the accused was admittedly taken to the said club. More so,PW 3 in her cross specifically stated that at the time of incident it was darkinside the room then how the accused was identified by the victim PW 3 andadmittedly, there is no explanation by the prosecution on that count. Thus,there is a doubt regarding identification of the accused and as such theaccused-appellant is entitled to get acquittal, on benefit of doubt, if notclear acquittal. 16. Mr. Ghosh , learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned judgment of convictionand sentence would contend that the conviction is based mainly on the evidenceof PW 3, injured victim which is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 8,Doctor. Thus, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW 3 cannot be relied uponin view of the contradictory evidence relating to seizure of weapon used i.e. bothy dao and other materials. Hehas further submitted that the solitary evidence of PW 3 itself is enough asher evidence relating to injury has been corroborated by PW 8 who has examinedher and found 7 (seven) injuries as stated by her. He again contended that atthe time of incident except PW 3 there was no other person inside her room.Thus, corroboration of her evidence by independent witness does not arise atall. He again contended that it is not the quantum of evidence but the qualityand credibility of witness have to be looked into. In support of his aforesaidcontention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Malkiat Singh& Ors. v. State of Punjab , (1991) 4 SCC 341 , wherein the Apex Court discussed regarding the evidence of solitary witness. In support of his aforesaidcontention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Malkiat Singh& Ors. v. State of Punjab , (1991) 4 SCC 341 , wherein the Apex Court discussed regarding the evidence of solitary witness. He has again submittedthat when PW 1, PW 2 and PW 11 identified the seized materials including the bothy dao , weapon used at thetime of incident, non-examination of the seized articles by the forensic expertas well as the finger print expert itself would not create a doubt regardingthe seizure and involvement of the accused appellant when he was identified byPW 3 and PW 1 along with others who apprehended the accused. Mr. Ghosh also urged that when the accused was admittedly knownto PW 3 from earlier then in that situation identification of the accused evenwhen the room was dark is possible. 17.Before visiting the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, itwould be proper to discuss the evidence of P.W. 1, the informant, namely, Mr. Priyatosh Choudhury , PW 2, a seizurewitness, Shri Gautam Deb,PW 3, Victim Smt . Pratima Choudhury , PW 8, Dr. Debabrata Debnath who has examined the victim and PW 11, Sri Bir Kishore Tripura ,the Investigating Officer. 18.P.W. 1, the informant Sri. Priyatosh Choudhury , who is the brother-in-law of the victim, in hisdeposition stated that while he was returning to his home he heard sounds inthe house of PW 3 and then went in front of the door of the house of the victimand found the door closed and then he called the victim as ’ boudi ’’ boudi ’ but there was no response. At that time henoticed that one unknown person opening the door of the house and ran awaytowards the back side of the house. Thereafter, he entered inside the house ofthe sister-in-law, victim and switched on the light of the house and noticedthat his sister-in-law, PW 3 was lying on her bed with bleeding injuries on herperson. As she was unable to say anything he became afraid and came out of thehouse and raised alarm. Hearing his cry some neighbours came there and helped him to shift the victim in Kumarghat hospital. As she was unable to say anything he became afraid and came out of thehouse and raised alarm. Hearing his cry some neighbours came there and helped him to shift the victim in Kumarghat hospital. This witness also stated that with the help of some neighbours the accused was apprehended from the back sideof the house of his sister-in-law where he was hiding himself inside the bushand recognized the person apprehended as Haradhan Das as because he was an employee of the shop of hisnephew, Shyamal Choudhury (P.W. 10). They interrogated the accused and the accused also admitted that heassaulted PW 3 causing injury on her person and thereafter the accused wastaken in club house namely, Youth Club of Kumarghat .He also stated that the police visited the house of PW 3 and found bloodstained bed sheet, one white pillow cover and one blood stained T shirt and oneblood stained bothy dao andseized those materials by preparing a seizure list wherein he was a signatoryand he has also identified his signature which was marked as Exhibit P1 and theseized materials (MO 1 series). In hiscross, this witness stated that when he entered inside the house of hissister-in-law, PW 3 at that time she was found in unconscious stage and he hasstated those facts to the police but in his statement under Section 161 Cr PCno such statement was found. In his cross, he also stated that the accused wasapprehended with the help of some neighbours but hedid not personally apprehend the accused. He further stated that the room of PW3 was closed and it was dark. 19. PW2, Shri Gautam Deb, who isa seizure witness, in his deposition stated that while he was in his shop hegot information that an incident took place in the house of the informant Sri Priyatosh Choudhury and while hewas proceeding for his house he found the victim, Smt . Pratima Choudhury withbleeding injuries being shifted towards Kumarghat hospital. Thereafter, he came to their house and came to learn that one persontried to commit an incident like dacoity causinginjuries on her person and he was also informed that the person was apprehendedby the villagers in connection with that incident and was kept in the clubnamely, Kumarghat Youth Club. He has identified hissignature which was marked as Exhibit P1/1 and the seized materials ExhibitMO-1 series. 20. PW3, Smt . He has identified hissignature which was marked as Exhibit P1/1 and the seized materials ExhibitMO-1 series. 20. PW3, Smt . Pratima Choudhury , victim in her evidence stated that on 14.11.2004at about 6.00 p.m. . the accused Haradhan an ex-employee of the shop of her son, came to her house and met with her. Atthat time she was alone in her house and more over she was also suffering fromillness. Then the accused told her that he has just come from Agartala and requested her to supply some food andimmediately she managed to supply him food. After supplying food she took herbed for taking rest and accused Haradhan after takinghis food also took his seat in one of the bed lying in her side. In themeantime, while she was in semi-sleeping stage after about 10 minutes hearingsome sound inside the house she opened her eyes and noticed that Haradhan was searching something opening the door of thesteel Almirah and instantly asked him what he wasdoing. He without giving any reply instantly gagged her mouth with the help ofpillow and also pressed in her nose so that she could not raise alarm. Within afew minutes he entered inside the kitchen of her house and taking a bothy dao from there he came backand again started giving blows by that bothy dao . He gave seven blows with the help of the said bothy dao causing injuries to herhands, head, face and forehead. After receiving such injuries once she becamesenseless and her sense regained in the hospital and then she told to a policeofficer that accused Haradhan gave blows with thehelp of a bothy dao causinginjuries on her person. This witness also stated that she was referred to Kailashahar Hospital from Kumarghat Hospital wherein she was giventreatment for 12 days. She also identified the accused in the dock. In hercross examination she stated that at the time of incident there was Dark insidethe room and she did not tell to any police officer that she was given sevenblows by the accused. 21. PW8, Dr. Debabrata Debnath ,the doctor who examined PW 3 in his evidence stated that she had examined one Smt . Pratima Choudhury ,W/O Lt. Sasanka Bimal Choudhury of Kumarghat who wasreferred from Kumarghat Rural Hospital along with injury to her person and he had found 7 Nos. of multiple injuries asmentioned in his report elaborately. 21. PW8, Dr. Debabrata Debnath ,the doctor who examined PW 3 in his evidence stated that she had examined one Smt . Pratima Choudhury ,W/O Lt. Sasanka Bimal Choudhury of Kumarghat who wasreferred from Kumarghat Rural Hospital along with injury to her person and he had found 7 Nos. of multiple injuries asmentioned in his report elaborately. This witness also stated that according tohim the injuries mentioned in Sl . No. 4 and 7 in hisreport were grievous in nature which were caused byblunt object/weapon and other five injuries were simple caused by bluntobject/weapon and all the injuries were fresh in nature. He also identified hisreport exhibit P3. He also stated that the injuries mentioned in his reportexhibit P 3 might be caused by Exhibit MO 1 series (one bothy dao ). On examination of the bothy dao he has also opined that by the back side of thesharp end of the said bothy dao injuries at Sl . No. 4 and 7 might have been causedand other five injuries might have been caused either by the sharp side or bythe back side of the bothy dao . In hiscross examination, this witness stated that he has found the victim inconscious state, He also stated that after receiving the injuries Nos. 1 and 2the patient might have become unconscious for a moment but after regaining hersense she might have recollected everything what happened previously. He alsostated that he did not ask PW 3, Pratima Choudhury whether she became unconscious after receivinginjuries to her person. 22. PW11, Sri Bir Kishore Tripura , the 10 of the case in his evidence stated that hereached at TRTC stand at about 7.40 p.m. . as deputed on the basis of GD entry No. 636 dated 14.11.2004and went to the house of PW 1 and found him there who reported that one Haradhan Das assaulted PW 3, Pratima Choudhury causinginjuries to her person and she was shifted to Kumarghat Hospital for treatment. He was also reported that said Haradhan Das was apprehended by the members of the localityand kept in detention in the local club namely Youth Club and accordingly herecorded the statement of two witnesses there. He also stated that on the samedate he seized one bothy dao ,one blood stained bed sheet, a pillow cover and a T-Shirt in presence of somewitnesses under a seizure list. He also stated that on the samedate he seized one bothy dao ,one blood stained bed sheet, a pillow cover and a T-Shirt in presence of somewitnesses under a seizure list. He has also identified the seizure list whichwas marked as exhibit P2. He has also stated that on 15.01.2004 at about 13.20hrs, the informant Priyatosh Choudhury lodged a complaint to the Officer in Charge, Kumarghat PS who after receiving the same registered Kumarghat P.S. Case No. 78/2004 under Section 326/307 IPC and formally endorsed the caseto him for investigation. He also stated that after taking up the investigationhe visited the PO and prepared the hand sketch map withindex which was marked as exhibit P5. In hiscross, he has stated that he did not examine the members of the house as markedA, C, D and E in the hand sketch map. He has also stated that there is nomention of any jungle or any bush in and around the PO in the hand sketch map. It has also not been mentioned in the hand sketch mapfrom which place the accused was apprehended by the local persons. This witnessalso stated that none of the witnesses except witness Bipul Nag (PW 4), whom he examined during investigation reported to him that afterapprehending the accused on their interrogation the accused admitted that heassaulted the victim Pratima Choudhury with the help of a dao causing injuries to herperson. 23. Havingheard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence onrecord it appears that P.W. 1 in his evidence stated that the accused appellantwas apprehended just after the incident but in his cross he has specificallystated that the accused was apprehended with the help of some neighbours and he did not personally apprehend him. Thiswitness in his cross specifically stated that the room of the victim PW 3 wasclosed and it was dark. He also stated that the bothy dao , the weapon which was allegedly used was seizedin the house of PW 3 along with other materials but from the seizure list itappears that the said bothy dao was measuring about 1 1/2 feet length and sharpened portion of the same wasfound stained with blood and hair and was seized at Kumarghat TRTC stand near Raman- danda Sahani’s house, not in the house of the victim, PW3. 24.Though from the evidence of PW 4, Bipul Nag it isevident that some of the persons apprehended the appellant and interrogated himbut from that itself it is very difficult to hold that it is theaccused-appellant who has committed the offence. More so, admittedly the seizedarticles were not sent to forensic expert and in the site plan theinvestigating officer did not mention regarding the kitchen of the victim fromwhere the seized bothy dao was collected by the accused appellant, though the same is the essentialfeature from which a court can come to a conclusion as to whether the accusedcan collect the bothy dao and use the same for committing the alleged injuries. Again when PW 3 herselfstated in her statement that the room where she received seven blows was darkthen how she could have identified the person when P.W. 1 himself admittedlycould not identify the accused who opened the door andran away to the back of the house. More so, when PW 3 was in semi sleepingstate and the room was dark then how she could see the accused while allegedlyhe was taking the bothy dao from the kitchen. All these things create a doubt regarding identification ofaccused and use of the said bothy dao for causing blows over the person of PW 3. 25. Thesubmission of Mr. Ghosh that injuries sustained bythe victim, PW 3 is fully corroborated by the doctor, PW 8, even if the same isaccepted, then also the question before us is as to whether such injuries uponPW 3 were caused with the bothy dao and whether said bothy dao was used by the accused appellant. PW 3 in her evidence stated that it is theaccused who gave seven blows on her person but in her cross she stated that atthe time of incident, the room was dark, then how she identified the accusedand when in her cross she specifically stated that she did not disclose thename of the accused, who allegedly gave seven blows, to any police officer. Nondisclosureof the name of the accused by the victim at the earliest opportunity andsubsequent disclosure of the name of the accused after the arrest of theaccused further creates a reasonable doubt regarding her statement. 26. Nondisclosureof the name of the accused by the victim at the earliest opportunity andsubsequent disclosure of the name of the accused after the arrest of theaccused further creates a reasonable doubt regarding her statement. 26. PW1 and PW 2 though identified their signatures in the seizure list as well asidentified the seized materials, MO-I series in the house of PW 3 then howthose materials were seized at TRTC stand raises a question of doubt regardingthe seizure itself, it further appears from the record that though PW 11, 10 ofthe case in his statement stated that on the same date he seized the materialsMO-I series in presence of some witnesses under a seizure list and the saidseizure list was prepared by him and it contained his signature which is markedas Exhibit P2/2, but it appears from the record, particularly the seizure listthat there is no Exhibit P2/2. Thus, the content in the seizure list cannot betreated as a part of evidence and if the seizure is away from the evidence thenit would be very difficult to connect the accused with the offence. 27.There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Malkiat Singh& Ors. ( supra ) wherein it is stated that: It issettled law that corroboration is not a rule of law, but one of the caution asan assurance. The conviction could be made on the basis of the testimony of asolitary witness. The occasion for the presence at the time of occurrence,opportunity to witness the crime, the normal conduct of the witness after theincident, the nearness of the witness to the victim, his predisposition towardsthe accused, are some of the circumstances to be kept in view to weigh andaccept the ocular evidence of a witness. It is not the quantum of the evidencebut its quality and credibility of the witness that lends assurance to thecourt for acceptance. 28. Inthe instant case, the evidence of PW 3 cannot be wholly reliable and alsowholly unreliable. Rather the evidence is neither wholly reliable nor whollyunreliable. In such a situation, it would be proper for this Court to take noteof the decision in Marwadi Kishor Parmanand & Anr . 28. Inthe instant case, the evidence of PW 3 cannot be wholly reliable and alsowholly unreliable. Rather the evidence is neither wholly reliable nor whollyunreliable. In such a situation, it would be proper for this Court to take noteof the decision in Marwadi Kishor Parmanand & Anr . v. State of Gujarat ,1994 SCC ( Cri ) 1294 wherein the Apex Court discussed how to appreciate the evidence ofsolitary witnesses and noted that: generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified intothree categories, namely, (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable, and (3)neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. So far as the first category ofproof is concerned, the courts have no difficulty in coming to its conclusioneither way i.e. to say it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of thesingle witness, if his testimony is found to be above approach or suspicion ofinterestedness, incompetence or subordination. In the case of second categoryof the witness, the court has equally no difficulty in coming to theconclusion. But in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspectand has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliabletestimony, direct or circumstantial. Most often there are situations where onlya single person is available to give evidence in respect of a disputed fact.Naturally in such a situation the court has to weigh carefully such a testimonyand if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taintswhich tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty toact upon such testimony. 29. Inthe instant case, the evidence of PW 3 as stated in the preceding paragraphs cannotbe reliable so far the accused is concerned as it is very difficult to holdthat the victim was in a position to identify the accused even while the roomwas dark. Preparation of site plan is an essential part of investigation and ifthere is any defect in the site plan and creates any doubt regarding the placeof occurrence and recovery of weapon, the effect of such defect has to be givento the accused as the accused is entitled to get the benefit of every doubt. 30. Preparation of site plan is an essential part of investigation and ifthere is any defect in the site plan and creates any doubt regarding the placeof occurrence and recovery of weapon, the effect of such defect has to be givento the accused as the accused is entitled to get the benefit of every doubt. 30. Inview of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shingara Singh (supra) and Baldev Singh (supra) relied upon bythe appellants there is no other option before this Court except to hold thatthough a defect in the investigation is not always fatal for the prosecutionbut in the instant case non-mentioning of essential features in the siteplan/hand sketch map creates a doubt regarding the prosecution case. In view ofthe above facts and circumstances, it would not be proper on the part of thisCourt to uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial courtrelying upon the evidence of PW 3 as it raises serious doubt regarding theconnection of the accused appellant with the injuries caused to PW 3 by way ofusing the allegedly seized bothy dao .Resultantly; this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is herebyset aside. The appellant is held not guilty of the charges framed against himunder Section 307 IPC and acquitted accordingly under the benefit of doubt. Asthe appellant is at present on bail, he stands discharged of his bail bond. Sendback the LCR.