Amar Saran, J.:- This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.9.1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 91 of 1982, convicting and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C and to two year R.I under section 148 I.P.C. 2. t may be pointed out that out of eight appellants, three appellants Vishram, Shiv Narain Singh and Lal Singh have died and a report confirming their deaths was received from the Magistrate concerned. By an order dated 30.4.2013, the appeal of the said three appellants abated. 3. As the learned counsel for the appellants was not appearing, an order was also passed for appointment of Sri J.K. Sisodia as Amicus Curiae in this case on 30.4.2013. However, today when the case was called out for hearing, Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate and Sri J.K. Sisodia, learned Amicus Curiae appeared for the appellants. We have heard them also and Sri Anand Tiwari, learned A.G.A for the State. 4. Briefly the prosecution case was that on 4.10.1981 at 10.00 A.M, the deceased Madhav Singh along with the informant Baleshwar Singh, who was his brother and their nephew Radhey Shyam were returning after making a bandh ( dam) for preventing inundation of their field which was adjoining the river. When they were returning back to their homes, the deceased Madhav Singh was going ahead, whereas Baleshwar and Radhey Shyam were walking a few paces behind him. When they reached near the tube well of appellant Vishram Singh, then 8 accused persons came out of the room adjoining Vishram's tube-well. The accused Vishram Singh, Ram Naresh alias Naresh and Chhotey Lal were armed with Lathis. The appellants Jasram and Shiv Narain Singh were armed with Hockey sticks. The appellant Jashram was carrying a knife. Appellant Sarveer Singh was armed with a spear and appellant Lal Singh was armed with a Kanta. They all began to assault Madhav Singh. The deceased raising an alarm ran towards the south, whilst he was being chased and beaten by the accused and fell down in the field of one Vijay Narain. On the alarm of the informant and his brother, the deceased, the co-villagers who were working in their fields viz Rakshpal, Ram Singh, Amar Singh and Ram Ratan arrived at the spot. On the alarm of the informant and his brother, the deceased, the co-villagers who were working in their fields viz Rakshpal, Ram Singh, Amar Singh and Ram Ratan arrived at the spot. On their cry, the accused ran away towards the south through the Bajra fields. The deceased Madhav Singh was carried on a bullock cart to the police station but he died on the way near the brick-kiln of Babu Ram. A case was pending between the accused and prosecution side under section 107/116 Cr.P.C and because of this dispute, the appellants are said to have murdered the deceased. 5. The report as aforesaid scribed by Subhash Chand Yadav was lodged by the informant Baleshwar Singh PW-1 at police station Karhal which was at a distance of three miles on 4.10.1981 at 12.15 P.M. whereupon a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. 6. PW-5 Head Moharrir Jaipal Singh prepared the check report on the basis of the report Ext. Ka-1 and also made the necessary G.D. entries and registered the case. 7. PW-7 S.O. Yad Ram Verma, commenced the investigation of this case. He got the inquest conduced by SI J.P. Suman PW-4. After recording the statement of the informant PW-1 Baleshwar Singh and Radhey Shyam ( who has not been examined in Court), the I.O. reached village Kanjra, where he could not find the accused in their houses. On 5.10.1981, he recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statements of Raksh Pal and Ram Singh, who have not been produced and Amar Singh, who has been examined as PW-2. He also inspected the spot. On the pointing out by the witnesses, he prepared the site plan Ext. Ka 16. He collected plain and blood stained earth from the field of Vijay Narain ( Ext. Ka-17). He also recorded the statements of the other witnesses named in the FIR ( who have not been produced). On receiving the post-mortem report, he completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet ( Ext. Ka-18). He also obtained papers relating to the 107/116 Cr.P.C proceedings between the parties ( Exts. Ka 19 and 20). 8. PW-6 Dr. S.C. Dubey, conducted autopsy ( Ext. Ka- 13) on the body of the deceased Madhav Singh aged about 32 years on 5.10.1981 at about 12.15 P.M. About one day had elapsed since the death. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the deceased: 1. Ka 19 and 20). 8. PW-6 Dr. S.C. Dubey, conducted autopsy ( Ext. Ka- 13) on the body of the deceased Madhav Singh aged about 32 years on 5.10.1981 at about 12.15 P.M. About one day had elapsed since the death. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the deceased: 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left maxillary bone. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm over upper eyelid. 3. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left side of skull about 11 cm above left ear. The Margins were sharp and clear cut. The wound was taping downward and medially. 4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left side of skull anteriorly about 9 cm above from left eye brow Margin were sharp and clear cut. The wound was taping downwards. 5. Three abrasions in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm over frontal medially left leg, intermingled with each other. 6. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep over front to lateral aspect of lower part of left thigh. 7. Multiple contusions in an area of 52 cm x 26 cm all over back of chest and back of waist. 9. On the head region, no abnormality was detected ( NAD). However, the thorax, right side thoracic cavity contained 4 cm of dark coloured blood. The 3Rd, 4th, 8th and 9th ribs were fractured on the right side. Right lung and pleura were lacerated. In the abdominal cavity there was 4 oz. of dark coloured blood. The Liver was lacerated. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital parts. 10. Apart from the aforesaid formal witnesses, Head Constable Shrutisen Singh has been examined as PW-3. He has filed his check report of an incident dated 29.12.1979 at Crime No. 256A of 1979 which was marked as Ext. Ka-2. In his cross examination, he has admitted that case crime No. 256 was also filed by appellant Jasram on the same day. Only two witnesses have been produced as witnesses of fact. They are PW-1 Baleshwar Singh, who was the brother of the deceased Madhav Singh and PW-2 Amar Singh. 11. PW-1 Baleshwar has deposed that the deceased Madhav Singh was his brother. Only two witnesses have been produced as witnesses of fact. They are PW-1 Baleshwar Singh, who was the brother of the deceased Madhav Singh and PW-2 Amar Singh. 11. PW-1 Baleshwar has deposed that the deceased Madhav Singh was his brother. He used to look after the family cultivation and was also doing pairavi in the pending case between the parties. On the date of incident at about 10.00 A.M, the deceased Madhav Singh, informant Baleshwar Singh and Radhey Shyam were returning to their homes after taking steps to prevent the boundary of their field being inundated by the adjoining river. The deceased Madhav, was walking 10 paces ahead of them. When they reached near the tube well of Vishram on the way, the eight accused persons emerged from the room adjoining the tube well and began to assault the deceased, with kanta, ballam, bhala, knife, lathis, and hockey sticks. Whilst the accused continued to assault him, the deceased ran to the South and fell down at the field of Vijay Narain. On the alarm raised, Amar Singh, Ram Ratan, Rakshpal and Ram Singh arrived from their fields and on their cries, the appellants ran away towards the south. Then a bullock cart was arranged for carrying Madhav Singh to the police station Karhal but he died on the way near the brick-kiln of Babu Ram. The report was scribed by Subhash Chandra. Two years prior to this incident, there was a dispute between the informant's side and the accused persons over a field. In that incident, the accused had fired on Madhav Singh which case was pending and the deceased was doing pairavi of that case at the Mainpuri civil court. In the said case there was a date before the trial Court one day prior to the incident. The accused Vishram and Shiv Narain had asked the deceased Madhav Singh to compromise the dispute, but the deceased had turned down the proposal. 12. PW-2 Amar Singh has however, not supported the prosecution case. He stated that on the date of incident at about 6.30 or 7 A.M, he was at his house. After an outcry was raised in the village, he had gone to the brick-kiln of Babu Ram. He had however, turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution had been permitted by the Court to cross examine the witness. 13. After an outcry was raised in the village, he had gone to the brick-kiln of Babu Ram. He had however, turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution had been permitted by the Court to cross examine the witness. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the testimony of the single witness Baeshwar Singh was not sufficient for establishing the prosecution case without any independent corroboration. It was a case of en masse false implication because as many as 8 persons had been nominated on the basis of this uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. The only other witness PW-2, Amar Singh who has been produced has not supported the prosecution and has been declared hostile. The scribe Subhash Chand had been examined as DW-2 and he had claimed that the FIR was dictated by the investigating officer at the police station. The medical evidence was not wholly consistent with the eye witness account inasmuch as there were no typical knife or spear injuries which could be attributed to two accused and even the so called injuries of incised wounds on the head did not appear to be due to the 'Kanta,' which was assigned to one of the accused. Further the accused had suggested that as a matter of fact the deceased appears to have been murdered in the dark hours of the night when he was returning after seeing Ramleela at 2.30 A.M at Karhal and that is why there was semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased which was inconsistent with the incident having taken place at 10.00 A.M. Even the doctor has admitted in his cross examination that the incident could have taken place even 36 hours back. As the deceased and the witness PW-1 Baleshwar Singh and Radhey Shyam were said to be returning after making a boundary to their field and according to PW-1, the deceased was wearing a 'Ghutanna' and 'Sando' vest it was surprising why he would be carrying a 'Kurta' and 'Dhoti' on his shoulders, and furthermore how the said items would not have fallen on the way when the deceased was running after being assaulted by 8 persons near the tube well of Vishram and thereafter repeatedly till he fell down at the field of Vijay towards the South at a distance of over one furlong. So far as the allegation of motive was concerned, it was alleged that there was no strong motive for the accused to have committed this crime, as there were cross cases, and the FIR had been lodged against some of the accused by the deceased Madhav Singh more than two years earlier. Moreover the allegation of motive cuts both ways, as in view of the said land dispute between the parties, there was also good reason for the false implication of the appellants. The fact that the deceased had gone the previous day for the purpose of pairavi in the case against the accused and others was not mentioned in the FIR, but has only been mentioned in his evidence. 14. Learned A.G.A on the other hand argued that there was strong motive for the commission of this crime as the deceased Madhav Singh had been fired upon by the appellants Jasram and Shiya Ram with a gun and country made pistol two years prior to this incident, and the deceased used to do pairavi in that case and was unwilling to compromise the cases between the parties. There were no improvements in the testimony of PW-1 Baleshwar Singh, which was consistent throughout. The Lekhpal who had prepared the site plan Ext. Kha 1 on 9.9.1982 mentioning the distance between tube well of Vishram Singh and the Babool tree in the field of Vijay Singh as 514 feet, had measured the distance without authorization behind the back of the complainant, and the distance between the two points was only 30 paces as mentioned by PW 1 Baleshwar. Suresh Chand DW-2 who claimed to be the scribe in this case, was not actually the scribe, but it was another Suresh Chand who had scribed the FIR and who was different from DW-2. 15. Analysis of evidence: The crucial question to be considered in this case is whether implicit reliance could be placed on the solitary testimony of PW-1 Baleshwar Singh, brother of the deceased Madhav Singh for upholding the conviction of the appellant or whether his testimony was not of that sterling and unimpeachable quality, which required corroboration and whether there were any other circumstances in this case which provided the required independent corroboration for establishing the complicity of the accused persons. 16. 16. It may be noted that section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. What the Court is concerned is with the quality of the evidence and not its quantity. If the evidence of the witnesses, single or more are found to be entirely reliable, credible, trustworthy and free from taint the Court can without hesitation act on the same and no further corroboration would be needed. 17. The landmark legal proposition enunciated in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 has been reiterated in a number of decisions including Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P., 1995 SCC ( Cri) 160. In the latter case it was stated as follows: "8. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated provided the testimony of that single witness is found out entirely reliable. In that case, there will be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 wherein this Court has classified the testimony of a witness into three categories viz. ( 1) wholly reliable ( 2) wholly unreliable and ( 3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and observed that although in the first two categories of classification, there may not be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion either accepting or rejecting the testimony, it is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial." 18. The facts in Jagdish Prasad's case ( supra) were that there was great enmity between the solitary witness PW 1 and the fifth accused, the other two witnesses PWs 2 and 3 having failed to support the prosecution case. PW 1 was also the main target of attack of the 6 accused, yet he did not flee from the spot and remained present to witness the entire incident. PW 1 had omitted the name of an accused Pangoo Lal and later that of Mishri Lal in the trial, because of which the two were acquitted. PW 1 was also the main target of attack of the 6 accused, yet he did not flee from the spot and remained present to witness the entire incident. PW 1 had omitted the name of an accused Pangoo Lal and later that of Mishri Lal in the trial, because of which the two were acquitted. In that background it was held by the Apex Court that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the remaining accused on the uncorroborated testimony of the witness. 19. Closely scrutinizing the facts of the present case, we find that in the FIR lodged by PW-1 Baleshwar Singh, it is mentioned that the informant along with his nephew Radhey Shyam and the deceased Madhav Singh had gone to their field at about 7 a.m. on the fateful day to prevent inundation of Madhav Singh's field which fell on the banks of the river and they were returning after completing this exercise when this incident took place at about 10.00 A.M. On the alarm raised by the deceased and the witnesses the co-villagers Rakshpal, Ram Singh, Amar Singh and Ram Ratan arrived at the spot and on their outcry the accused fled from the spot. 20. However, we find that out of the six persons, who were shown as witnesses in the FIR, only the informant PW-1 Baleshwar Singh has come forward to support the prosecution case. The only other witness PW 2 Amar Singh who was examined has turned hostile and has failed to support the prosecution case. The other witnesses named above have not been produced. 21. In his cross examination, PW-1 Baleshwar Singh has deposed that he was not even aware about the number of chaks and rent payable on the land and that he was ailing from tuberculosis and thus would take less interest in matters relating to land and cultivation. This was one of the reasons to cast a little doubt on his presence at the spot. However this doubt could have been mitigated, if the other accompanying witness who had gone along with the deceased to the field, namely his nephew Radhey Shyam had come forward to corroborate the version of this solitary witness. But the prosecution has chosen not to examine him and has failed to offer any explanation for his non-examination. 22. However this doubt could have been mitigated, if the other accompanying witness who had gone along with the deceased to the field, namely his nephew Radhey Shyam had come forward to corroborate the version of this solitary witness. But the prosecution has chosen not to examine him and has failed to offer any explanation for his non-examination. 22. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, according to PW 1 Baleshwar the deceased was assaulted with hockey sticks, Lathis, spear ( Bhaala), Kanta and knife. However, an examination of the antemortem injuries in the autopsy report reveals that there was no typical punctured wound which could be attributed to the user of a knife or spear. Even so far as the two incised wounds on the head of the deceased were concerned which were 5 cm x 1 cm, and 4 cm x 1 cm in length on the left side of the skull above the left ear and left eyebrow, they were only bone deep, and under the said injuries no abnormality was detected. Thus it was even questionable whether the said head injuries could indeed have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon like a Kanta. As per medical jurisprudence sometimes blunt object injuries on bony portions give the impression of being incised injuries. Taking note of the absence of any punctured wound, PW-1 has been made to modify his version in his cross examination and he has alleged that the Ballam and Bhala were not used in the incident. Learned A.G.A is therefore incorrect in his submission that this witness has remained wholly consistent though out and has not tried to improve his testimony. 23. Another difficulty that we see in reconciling the eye witness account with the circumstances, items recovered and their place of recovery, and the medical evidence of this case, was that although the solitary witness PW 1 has deposed that the deceased was only wearing a vest and ghutanna and carrying his dhoti and kurta on his shoulder when he was returning after performing physical labour at his field, yet the kurta and dhoti were present when the corpse was found in the field of Vijay Narain. This was indeed surprising. The deceased accompanied by PW 1 and Radheyshyam had left his field on the bank of the river, ( shown as point 2 in the site plan ( Ext. This was indeed surprising. The deceased accompanied by PW 1 and Radheyshyam had left his field on the bank of the river, ( shown as point 2 in the site plan ( Ext. Ka 16), and was walking to the West towards his home carrying his dhoti and kurta on his shoulder. The party was accosted by the 8 accused near the tubewell of Vishram ( point 3 on the site plan). The deceased then ran for a distance of about a furlong through the fields of Lal Singh, Chotey Singh, Angad Singh, and then to the field of Vijay Narain where he finally collapsed as is depicted in the site plan. It appears to have been wrongly mentioned in the evidence of PW 1 Baleshwar that only the field of Angad fell between the point near the tube well from where the assault began to the field of Vijay Narain where the deceased eventually collapsed. The fields through which the appellant ran contained standing or cut bajra. All the time that he was being chased he was being belaboured by 8 assailants with various weapons. In these circumstances it was incredible that if this was the manner of the assault on him, and a distance of about 1 furlong was covered by him through the standing or cut fields of bajra whilst he was being chased and assaulted by the 8 accused, the dhoti and kurta which the deceased was carrying on his shoulder would have been found on the deceased at the place where he had finally fallen down. It may be mentioned that although according to PW 1 the distance that the deceased ran was only 30 paces, but according to PW 2 Amar Singh, the distance of Vishram Singh's tube well from Vijay Narain's field was 1 or 1 1/4 furlongs. Also lekhapal, Ram Shankar DW 2, who has been produced by the defence has found the distance from Vishram's tube well to Vijay Narain's babool tree which was close to the point where the deceased had fallen in the field of Vijay Narain, to be 514 feet on measurement. True that this distance was measured without directions from higher authorities and behind the back of the informant. True that this distance was measured without directions from higher authorities and behind the back of the informant. But as even the I.O. has either not cared to or has deliberately not measured or shown the distances in his site plan or inspection note, we see no reason to prefer the distance between the two points to be 30 paces as mentioned by PW 1 to the distance of about a furlong or 514 feet as mentioned by PW 2 Amar Singh and DW 1 Ram Shankar, Lekhpal. 24. It is also significant that according to the chemical examiner's report, ( Ext. Ka 21) blood was found on the vest, Tahmat, Kurta and Dhoti of this deceased. The largest blood stain of 45 cms was however seen on the kurta, which the deceased was said to be carrying on his shoulder. The dhoti also had a 20 cm long blood stain. These facts suggest that the deceased was wearing the dhoti and kurta and not carrying them on his shoulder as alleged by PW 1, which casts a doubt on the presence of PW 1 with the deceased at the time and place of incident. 25. The autopsy report and PW-6 Dr. S.C. Dubey's statement indicates that the injuries 1 to 6 were all on the left side of the body. Only the injury No. 7 which consists of multiple contusions in an area of 52 cm x 26 cm all were all over the back of the chest and back of waist. But it appears that injury No. 7 was the fatal injury as underneath this injury the thorax, right side thoracic cavity contained 4 cm of dark coloured blood, the 3Rd, 4th, 8th and 9th ribs were fractured on the right side, the right lung and pleura were lacerated, the abdominal cavity contained 4 oz. of dark coloured blood and the liver was lacerated. Under injuries 1 to 6 no abnormality was detected. If the deceased was being chased and constantly beaten by 8 assailants armed with different weapons runs for about a furlong, then the injuries which the deceased would receive whilst running would not all be on the left side. He was likely to have received injuries on all sides. Under injuries 1 to 6 no abnormality was detected. If the deceased was being chased and constantly beaten by 8 assailants armed with different weapons runs for about a furlong, then the injuries which the deceased would receive whilst running would not all be on the left side. He was likely to have received injuries on all sides. From the internal damage under injury No. 7 it appears that the said multiple injury must have been the last injury, where the deceased eventually fell down. If the deceased had received the said multiple injury earlier, then he could not have run the distance. There is also no other independent corroboration, direct or circumstantial for showing that the accused had gathered at the tube well of Vishram, or that the deceased was belaboured between the point on the tube well ( No. 1) upto Vijay Narain's field. As the I.O. has neither collected blood on the way where the deceased was running, nor even pointed out any fields that may have been crushed or damaged when the deceased chased by 8 assailants was running for a distance of about a furlong. No other witness apart from Baleshwar has corroborated this allegation. 26. A rival version has also been suggested by the defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses that the deceased might have been done to death in the dark hours of the night when he was returning after seeing Ramleela at Karhal. That is why a blood stained kurta and dhoti were also found on the deceased where he had collapsed, and which he was not said to be wearing whilst attending to his field according to PW 1 Baleshwar. The appellant's counsel also pointed to the semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased, and that the doctor admitted that the incident could also have taken place upto 36 hours prior to the post-mortem examination on 5.10.81 at 12.15 pm, i.e. death was possible at 2.30 am too. In any case the allegation of the appellant returning after seeing Ramleela was only a defence suggestion to the the witnesses, and it was not a story which the defence was required to prove. However, in the above circumstances a doubt is certainly raised in our minds as to whether the deceased was indeed assaulted in the manner alleged by PW 1 Baleshwar. However, in the above circumstances a doubt is certainly raised in our minds as to whether the deceased was indeed assaulted in the manner alleged by PW 1 Baleshwar. It appears more probable that deceased was not assaulted between Vishram's tube well and the place where he finally fell down i.e. the field of Vijay Narain. but he seems to have been assaulted only at the field of Vijay Narain, His injuries do not square up with the eye witness account as given by the witness PW-1 Baleshwar Singh, that when the deceased was running from near Vishram's tube well to Vijay Narain's field, he was being assaulted by 8 accused who were chasing him, as that would have resulted in injuries on all sides of his body, and not only on the left side. The multiple injuries No. 7 on the back appeared to be the fatal injuries, causing extensive damage to the pleura, liver, ribs etc. and appear to be the final injury, which were given after the deceased had fallen down. 27. We further note that there are no recoveries of weapons from the accused which might have provided some independent circumstantial corroboration of their participation in the assault. 28. The motive for this crime been emphasized by the prosecution. But we find that deceased Madhav Singh had received only 1 or 2 pellet injuries on his thigh and left arm which were attributed to the appellant Jasram and Siya Ram and also that in the said FIR dated 29.12.1979 ( Ext. Ka 2) at crime No. 256A under section 307 IPC as many as 11 persons had been made accused on the side of the defence. Also it was admitted by PW 1 that a cross FIR was lodged at that time and that 11 persons were being prosecuted on both sides. Significantly, in this incident of 1979 over a land dispute, one person had died on the side of the accused, about which a case was earlier registered at Crime No. 256 of 1979 under sections 147/148/302 IPC in which both the deceased Madhav and informant Baleshwar were accused. In these circumstances, the averment of Baleshwar PW 1 that the proposal for compromise mooted by the accused side was not acceptable to deceased Madhav Singh seems highly incredible. In these circumstances, the averment of Baleshwar PW 1 that the proposal for compromise mooted by the accused side was not acceptable to deceased Madhav Singh seems highly incredible. As one person had died on the side of the accused, whereas Madhav was shown to have received only stray pellet injuries on his thigh and forearm, it would then be the accused side who would not have been willing for compromise and not the deceased. It is for this reason that there is no reference to the 307 IPC report at Case Crime No. 256 A/1979 in PW 1 Baleshwar's FIR in the present case, but only some 107/116 Cr.P.C dispute between the parties is alluded to in which both sides were challaned. 29. In any case it is well settled that evidence of motive cuts both ways. Whilst the motive may sometimes be the cause of an attack, it also provides a good reason for the false implication of the accused. 30. It was also suggested by the defence that four months prior to this murder, one Vedram was arrested from the grove of Ramdas along with a gun and his other associates Surendra and Sharda had escaped. In the said case, the deceased Madhav Singh was the prosecution witness, hence there could have been other enemies who may have been interested in eliminating him and who may have committed his murder. 31. DW-2 Subhash Chandra scribe has clearly deposed that the FIR was dictated by the I.O at the police station. Learned A.G.A tried to argue on the basis of a suggestion given to this witness that actually the scribe was one Subhash Yadav resident of Garhiya and the report was scribed by Subhash Yadav of Garhiya. The said suggestion was denied by this witness who is a resident of Karhal. The FIR itself shows that the scribe Subhash Chandra was a resident of Karhal and therefore, we think that there is no substance in this suggestion given by the learned A.G.A. 32. Summing up it needs to be kept in mind that in the present case, on the basis of the solitary testimony of Baleshwar, as many as 8 persons were implicated. Summing up it needs to be kept in mind that in the present case, on the basis of the solitary testimony of Baleshwar, as many as 8 persons were implicated. As PW 1 Baleshwar was also a co-accused with the deceased in a 302 IPC case at Crime No. 256 of 1979 filed by the accused, therefore he has a motive for falsely implicating the accused. The companions of Vedram who was in jail for a murder which has taken place 4 months before the present murder, in which the deceased was a witness also had a motive for committing this crime, which could have been committed when the deceased may have been returning in the dark hours after seeing Ramleela as suggested by the accused during cross-examination of the witnesses, or at any unknown time, when witnesses were absent. The presence of Baleshwar was also doubtful as he was ailing from tuberculosis and was generally not concerned with the work of cultivation. The injuries received by the deceased are not fully consistent with the weapons attributed to the 8 accused persons. One of the accused persons Shiv Narain was only 13 on the date of incident, yet he has also been implicated for this crime. Facts such as the deceased having received injuries on only one side of the body and his being able to still carry his blood stained kurta and dhoti on his shoulder for about 1 furlong till his collapse whilst being chased and assaulted by 8 accused persons are not reconcilable. 33. In view of the aforesaid analysis we think that this is not a case where the evidence of PW-1 Baleshwar Singh was of such a sterling quality, and so free of doubt or suspicion that implicit reliance could be placed on it, without any independent corroboration. Clearly in view of the problems with the testimony of Baleshwar alluded to above, this was a case which would fall in Vadivelu Thevar's classification of "neither wholly reliable, nor wholly unreliable", which requires the Court to become circumspect and to look for corroboration by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial. Unfortunately no such independent and reliable direct or circumstantial corroboration is available in this case. No witness other than Baleshwar has come forward to corroborate the prosecution case. Unfortunately no such independent and reliable direct or circumstantial corroboration is available in this case. No witness other than Baleshwar has come forward to corroborate the prosecution case. Even the alleged weapons of assault on the deceased have not been collected which might have been blood stained and could have furnished some circumstantial corroboration for showing the involvement of the accused in this offence. 34. One other circumstance that we need to keep in mind is that out of the 8 accused persons who were prosecuted and convicted by the trial Court on the solitary testimony of PW 1 Baleshwar, 3 have died. Out of the dead accused persons, Lal Singh who was 66 years and Vishram who was 40 years at the time of their 313 Cr.P.C statements in 1982 would have presently been 97 and 71 years respectively as over 32 years have elapsed since the incident. Even the other appellants who were between 20 and 33 at the time of their 313 Cr.P.C statements would presently be middle aged or old men between the ages of 50 and 65, and at this stage after 32 years of the crime, we are left wondering as to who has committed the crime and who, i.e. the accused or his family, should be made to suffer for the same. 35 In these circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. The result is that the the judgment of trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside on all counts. The appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they have been convicted and sentenced. The appellants who are on bail need not to surrender to their bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. The appeal is allowed.