Oral Judgment (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo RI for three months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by judgment dated 6/7/2004, in Sessions Case No.320 of 2002, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:- PW 1 - PSI Pandurang Tombare, who was attached to the Dahisar Police Station was on night duty between 16/8/2001 and 17/8/2001. When he was on patrolling duty, he had received a message on wireless at about 12.56 a.m. that a person was noticed lying on the Ketkipada Road behind the toll Naka. Upon receipt of the said information, PW 1 - PSI Tombare proceeded towards the place of the incident and reached there at about 1.05 a.m. He noticed a person lying in front of Truck bearing registration No.MMP 1562. He had also noticed blood oozing from the injury and also noticed a tommy (an instrument used by the driver for replacing the punctured tyre). PW 1 - PSI Tombare accordingly called one doctor by name Maurya, who examined the injured and declared that the injured was dead. On opening the cabin of the truck, a telephone diary was noticed. He accordingly called the brother of the deceased, who identified the dead body. PW 1 - PSI Tombare accordingly lodged his report at Exh. 7 against an unknown person. PW 7 - PSI Raghunath Kadam, who was attached to the Dahisar Police Station and was accompanying PW 1 -PSI Tombare, states about noticing an injured person lying on the high-way. He states about recording the statement of PW 1 - PSI Tombare on the basis of which an offence was registered. PW 7 -PSI Kadam then recorded the scene of the offence panchanama at Exh. 12 in the presence of PW 4 -Nimesh. The weapon of the assault was seized and sample of ordinary mud and blood mixed mud was obtained. The dead body was referred for post mortem examination. Statement of brother of deceased was recorded. The investigation was, thereafter, entrusted to PW 8 -PI Vinayak Nimbalkar. 12 in the presence of PW 4 -Nimesh. The weapon of the assault was seized and sample of ordinary mud and blood mixed mud was obtained. The dead body was referred for post mortem examination. Statement of brother of deceased was recorded. The investigation was, thereafter, entrusted to PW 8 -PI Vinayak Nimbalkar. PW 8 - PI Nimbalkar, who was also attached to Dahisar Police Station was informed about the dead body lying on the Ketkipada Road. He, accordingly, proceeded to the scene of the incident and noticed PW 7 -PSI kadam present at the scene of the offence. The investigation was thereafter transferred to PW 8 -PI Nimbalkar on 18/8/2001. The accused was arrested on 24/8/2001 and statement of PW 6 -Santosh, an eye witness, was recorded. During custodial interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place where his clothes have been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum at Exh. 15 was recorded in the presence of PW 5 -Deepak. The appellant led the police and the panch and produced his clothes which came to be seized under panchanama at Exh.15A. The seized articles were then referred to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition at Exh. 19. Further to the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted. 3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 2 framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses. The trial court by placing implicit reliance on the testimony of PW 6 - Santosh, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated. 4. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Mr. Arfan Sait, learned counsel appointed for the appellant and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The clothes of the appellant-accused, which were sent to the Chemical Analyzer and as per the report of Chemical Analyzer, the blood grouping could not be done and the result was inconclusive. Thus, the circumstantial evidence also does not assist the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case, therefore, revolves around the testimony of PW 6 -Santosh, who is the sole eye witness to the incident. PW 6 -Santosh states that deceased Hemchandra Singh was acquainted with him. Thus, the circumstantial evidence also does not assist the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case, therefore, revolves around the testimony of PW 6 -Santosh, who is the sole eye witness to the incident. PW 6 -Santosh states that deceased Hemchandra Singh was acquainted with him. Deceased was owning a truck and was also a Union Leader. According to him, on the day of the incident, he had gone in search of a driver to the Ketkipada, but could not locate the driver by name Tanaji. While he was returning, he noticed deceased and the appellant arguing. Since he knew both of them, he told them that it was not an opportune moment to argue as it was past mid-night. He, therefore, started his scooter and was proceeding further and noticed the appellant assaulting deceased Hemchandra Singh with the tommy. Deceased Hemchandra Singh fell on the ground. According to Santosh, he, thereafter, left the spot and went to his native place and returned on 23/8/2001. On his return, he went to the police station and informed them as to what he had seen. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had left his office in search of the driver at 10.00 p.m. and had reached the Ketkipada around 11.30 p.m. He states that he was at a distance of about 3 ft. from the place where the accused and deceased were arguing. Certain omissions and contradictions have been brought on record in respect of his testimony that he had stated in his statement that he had noticed the appellant going to the truck and bringing the weapon of assault. He has admitted that he had not noticed any weapon in the hands of the appellant when the appellant was arguing with deceased. 5. It is no doubt true that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an eye witness. However, the testimony of an eye witness should be of such quality as to inspire confidence of the court. The quality of the testimony should be of sterling quality which should inspire the court for its implicit acceptance. In the present case, we find that PW 6 -Santosh claims to have witnessed the incident and claims to have actually seen deceased Hemchandra Singh falling on the ground on receiving the injuries. The quality of the testimony should be of sterling quality which should inspire the court for its implicit acceptance. In the present case, we find that PW 6 -Santosh claims to have witnessed the incident and claims to have actually seen deceased Hemchandra Singh falling on the ground on receiving the injuries. We find it inexplicable that PW 6 -Santosh proceeded further and went to his native place without even informing the police about the incident. Santosh claims that deceased was acquainted with him and, therefore, his conduct is extremely suspicious and unnatural. The statement of PW 6 - Santosh was recorded on 23/8/2001 i.e. after about seven days of the incident. During the aforesaid period, PW 6 - Santosh had made no efforts at contacting the family members of the deceased or the police in informing them that he had witnessed the incident. The offence was initially registered against an unknown person. Though it appears that the appellant was a driver, working with the deceased, the offence was not registered against the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2013 (Criminal) 441). The Supreme Court has held that the behaviour of witnessing an incident defers individuals to individuals and there cannot be uniformity of human reaction. The Supreme Court further observed that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing of variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. We have already observed that the behaviour of PW 6 -Santosh is extremely unnatural. PW 6 - Santosh witnessed a gruesome attack on his acquaintance and then without informing either the police or the relatives of the deceased went to his native place. There is enormous delay in recording of the statement of Santosh and there is nothing on record, which would even remotely indicate that, in fact, Santosh was not available till his statement was recorded. 7. In the face of the evidence of PW 6 - Santosh, according to us, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of PW 6 - Santosh. We do not find his evidence to be of such quality as would inspire the court to accept it implicitly. 7. In the face of the evidence of PW 6 - Santosh, according to us, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of PW 6 - Santosh. We do not find his evidence to be of such quality as would inspire the court to accept it implicitly. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of PW 6 - Santosh. There is no other corroborating evidence which would corroborate the evidence of PW 6 -Santosh and, therefore, according to us, the appellant would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. Since the appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the appellant quantified at Rs.3000/-.