JUDGMENT : Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. The appeal against appellant no.3 Gupteshwar Koeri and appellant no.5 Bihari Koeri abated because they have died during pendency of the appeal. 2. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 18.01.1989 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1983 holding them guilty along with others namely, Gupteshwar Koeri and Bihari Koeri (both are dead during trial) under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life and further holding guilty appellants Deo Narain Koeri, Kedar Koeri along with Gupteshwar Koeri (since dead) under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. On 28.10.1982 at 7.15 A.M. the informant’ elder brother Ram Shakal Singh (deceased) was folding his bed. At that very time, Deo Narain Koeri alias Munnijee, Kedar Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri, both of Mahthin Tola, P.S. Bihian armed with country made pistol came and entered inside the room and a shot was fired upon Ram Shakal Singh, brother of the informant. On cry of his brother Ram Shakal Singh, the informant tried to go inside the room but he was chased by Bihari Koeri (now dead) and Hardeo Koeri. His domestic help Lali Choudhary and his nephew Lal Bihari Singh were also threatened by them. After the accused persons retreated, the informant, his nephew and his servant Lali Choudhary entered into the room and found his brother in injured condition. With the help of villagers namely, Jadu Singh, Rama Paswan, Rajendra Singh and Ras Bihari Singh, the injured Ram Shakal Singh brought Piro Hospital for treatment where after sometime he was pronounced dead. 4. The motive of the occurrence is that the informant’s brother Ram Shakal Singh (deceased) had forcibly taken certain land in his possession near railway station. The said land was being sought to be grabbed by Deo Narain Singh and Ram Singhasan Singh and that was the reason of enmity. The occurrence was witnessed by Lali Choudhary (P.W.5), Ras Bihari Singh (PW4), informant’s brother Surendra Singh (P.W.11) and other villagers. The fardbeyan (Ext.2) resulted into Piro P.S. Case No. 0169 dated 28.10.1982 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. Formal F.I.R. was drawn up but it has not been formally proved. The occurrence was witnessed by Lali Choudhary (P.W.5), Ras Bihari Singh (PW4), informant’s brother Surendra Singh (P.W.11) and other villagers. The fardbeyan (Ext.2) resulted into Piro P.S. Case No. 0169 dated 28.10.1982 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. Formal F.I.R. was drawn up but it has not been formally proved. It appears from the record that no inquest report was brought on record. The place of occurrence was inspected, post mortem report (Ext.4)) was obtained and the statements of the witnesses were taken. During investigation, a petition on 11.01.1983 was filed by Gupteshwar Koeri (now dead) stating therein that he is not the person who has been named in the fardbeyan rather the person named Gupteshwar Koeri is a different person. He showed complete ignorance with the killing. Upon the said petition, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued direction to consider it. Direction was also given to put him on test identification parade so that he could show his innocence but it appears that the test identification parade was not done. The Investigating Officer has stated that no such order was received by him. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and after cognizance, case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal was framed against accused Deo Narain Koeri @ Munni koeri, Hardeo Singh, Gupteshwar Koeri and Bihari Koeri (both are now dead), charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was framed against Kedar koeri and charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against Deo Narain Koeri and Gupteshwar Koeri (now dead). Charges were explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded innocence. Hence trial proceeded. 5. The common defence of the accused persons are of false implication due to enmity. The specific defence of accused Gupteshwar Koeri (now dead) was that he was not the person who was sought to be implicated by the informant. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 14 witnesses. Hence trial proceeded. 5. The common defence of the accused persons are of false implication due to enmity. The specific defence of accused Gupteshwar Koeri (now dead) was that he was not the person who was sought to be implicated by the informant. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 14 witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Satya Narain Singh, P.W.2 Somaru Prasad, P.W.3 Ramadhar Prasad, P.W.4 Ras Bihari Singh, P.W.5 Lali Chaudhary, P.W.6 Ram Narain Singh, P.W.7 Sidhnath Yadav, a Choukidar, P.W.8 Hulas Yadav, another Chowkidar, P.W.9 Kamta Singh, the informant of the case, P.W. 10 Rajendra Singh, P.W.11 Surendra Singh, P.W.12 Birendra Kumar Das, the Investigating Officer, P.W.13 Dr.Jagdish Prasad, who held post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.14 is Murat Ram. 7. P.Ws.1 is an attesting witness of the fardbeyan. P.W.2 has been examined on the point of occurrence. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been declared hostile. P.W.14 is a formal witness who has proved O.D. Slip as Ext.5. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.13 is the doctor who held post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. The important witness of this case are P.W.9, the informant, P.W.11, brother of the deceased. Simultaneously, exhibits were marked. 8. The trial court after considering the entire evidences on record and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties opined that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and has passed the order of conviction and sentence, as stated above. 9. This Court is required to reappraise the evidences on record and to see as to whether there were materials on record to prove the charges against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 10. First of all, we would like to discuss the evidence of the informant who is P.W.9 and brother of the deceased. This witness has stated that on 28.10.1982 at 7.00 A.M. he was at his house which is situated in Hassan Bazar near railway station. At that time, Lali Choudhary (P.W.5), Ras Bihari Singh (P.W.4) Pattu Singh (not examined) and Ram Sakal Singh (deceased) were there. This witness was cleaning his face and his brother Ram Sakal Singh was dressing his bed inside the room. At that time, Lali Choudhary (P.W.5), Ras Bihari Singh (P.W.4) Pattu Singh (not examined) and Ram Sakal Singh (deceased) were there. This witness was cleaning his face and his brother Ram Sakal Singh was dressing his bed inside the room. At that very time, Deo Narain Koeri alias Munni alias Devan, Hardeo Koeri, Kedar Koeri, Gupteshwar Koeri (now dead) and Bihari Koeri (now dead) came. Devan, Gupteshwar and Kedar were armed with pistol and they entered into the room in which informant’s brother was present. In the meantime, sound of firing came from the room. Informant’s brother cried that he was shot at by Kedar. This witness when tried to enter into the room, the accused Devan, Gupteshwar (now dead) and Kedar wanted to fired upon him, then this witness retreated. Thereafter the accused persons escaped. The informant went inside the room. The informant’s elder brother told him that he was shot at by Kedar. In the meantime, Rajendra Singh (P.W.10), Pattu Singh (not examined), Ras Bihari Singh (P.W.4), Ramadhar Paswan (P.W.3) and others came and before whom also name of Kedar was taken by Ram Shakal Singh as the person who had shot at on him. The motive of the occurrence was that one Ram Singhasan was killed earlier and in that case, the informant and his persons were doubted. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was a land owned by the Railway. The informant’s brother has taken possession of that land but it was not being tolerated by the accused persons and so the present occurrence was occurred. For clarify about the identity of Gupteshwar (now dead), this witness has stated that the name of police station of Gupteshwar was given as Jagdishpur and not Bihian. This witness is consistent that he has not seen the occurrence rather it was told by his brother that Kedar had shot at which proved fatal. According to oral dying declaration of the informant’s brother, which was made before a number of persons, Kedar was his shooter but unfortunately those such persons have not supported such dying declaration when they were examined in court. 11. P.W.2 though has supported the occurrence but he has not named any of the person and has stated that he was there from before but he could not identify any of the assailant. 12. 11. P.W.2 though has supported the occurrence but he has not named any of the person and has stated that he was there from before but he could not identify any of the assailant. 12. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 though were material witnesses but none has supported any part of the occurrence and have been declared hostile. 13. P.W.1 is an attesting witness of the fardbeyan. Though he was not cited as witness of the occurrence but before the trial court he has stated that he heard the sound of firing and thereafter the informant’s brother told that that it was Kedar who fired at him. The evidence of this witness in paragraph 4 discloses wrong identification of the accused in dock. Not only that, his statement before the police was not in the capacity of being a witness of the occurrence. According to evidence of this witness, he saw escaping the accused persons and the informant’s brother was narrating that Kedar fired upon him. But in view of wrong identification of the accused, his evidence cannot be relied and it can be said that this witness was not present at the time of occurrence. 14. P.W.10 has stated that when he was at his shop, he heard sound of firing and saw escaping accused Devan, Kedar, Hardeo and Gupteshwar holding pistols in their hands. This witness has also stated that he had taken Ram Sakal Singh to Hospital where he was dead. 15. One of the most important witness of the case, who is also brother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.11 but his statement during investigation before the police is altogether different and has not claimed as an eye witness. 16. The doctor P.W.13 who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found two ante mortem injuries; One was wound of entry and another was wound of exit. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has held that besides informant no person has seen the occurrence and the prosecution has based its case only on the basis of sole testimony of the informant and other important witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1 and 11 were not relied by the learned trial court. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has held that besides informant no person has seen the occurrence and the prosecution has based its case only on the basis of sole testimony of the informant and other important witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1 and 11 were not relied by the learned trial court. It has also been submitted that non- preparation of inquest report and non-seizure of blood or soil containing blood of the deceased show grave insufficiency and deliberately blood and soil containing blood were not sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 18. Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that even on the basis of sole testimony, conviction can be recorded. In the present case, the informant has claimed himself to be an eye witness and has remained consistent. 19. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have analysed the evidences on record. Fardbeyan is the detailed narration of the occurrence though the informant was in agony at the time of occurrence and threw the account in another occurrence and described the manner in which the accused persons have committed the offence and escaped. In the first version of the occurrence, this witness has shown the role to others but subsequently he inflated his version and tried to make Kedar Koeri as the assailant of the deceased as there was one ante mortem injury and the prosecution was mandated to single out a person as to the assailant and for this Satya Narain Singh made an oral statement regarding his shooter. Fardbeyan has not mentioned that Kedar was the shooter of the deceased. Therefore, the name of Kedar was subsequently added as shooter which creates doubt as to whether the said version was of the deceased or not. After the fardbeyan and evidence of the informant are compounded and were compared with the evidence of others, then informant has claimed Kedar as the shooter of Ram Shakal Singh but except informant no other person came to say that they are material and impartial witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. They have denied the version of the informant. Therefore, the prosecution reliance is completely on the evidence of one witness who makes the prosecution case weak and doubtful. They have denied the version of the informant. Therefore, the prosecution reliance is completely on the evidence of one witness who makes the prosecution case weak and doubtful. The investigation was totally perfunctory as there was no explanation why inquest report was not prepared at the spot, no blood was seized, no sketch map of the place of occurrence was prepared, why clothes of the deceased were not sent for chemical examination and why despite specific direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accused Gupteshwar Koeri (now dead) was not put on test identification parade. These were the circumstances which have warned to the prosecution case. In a case in which the prosecution case is based on testimony of sole witness, then onus comes upon the prosecution to prove that sole witness is wholly reliable and if that is not then the prosecution case can not be deemed to be proved and the informant version is not proved due to dying declaration. In case of relying on evidence of a single witness, the order of conviction can be recorded but on such a sketchy evidence of the informant of this case, it cannot be said that there were materials on record to prove the charges against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. As such the appellants deserve acquittal. 20. In the result, this appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and they are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.