JUDGMENT In the present Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.2.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC.), Nayagarh in ST Case No. 103/42 of 2002/2001 under Section 302, IPC and consequent sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and informant (P.W.1) are two sons of the deceased (Birabar). On 22.6.2000 at about 10 A.M., the informant (P.W.1) came to the house of his father, Birabar (deceased) to take his bullocks where he saw the appellant and the deceased have entered into an altercation and the appellant was abusing his father concerning cultivation of some land. P.W.1 also saw that the appellant entered into the house of his father (deceased) and brought a Tangia (M.O.I) from his house. When the deceased asked him if he would hack him, the appellant suddenly dealt repeated blows by the said Tangia on the head of the deceased for which he sustained severe bleeding injuries, fell down and succumbed to injury. When the appellant saw the informant (P.W.1), he threatened to assault him and ran away with the said Tangia. Thereafter, P.W.1 reported the matter at Khandapara Police Station. The police registered the case and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the present appellant under Sections 302/506, IPC. The plea of the appellant was complete denial. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses including the doctor (P.W.6) and the Investigating Officers and exhibited nine documents. On the other hand the defence had examined none. On completion of trial, the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh convicted the present appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6 (doctor). 4. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.1 is an interested witness and inimically disposed towards the appellant and he had not seen the occurrence. He was not in a position to see the occurrence as he was at a distance. In the cross-examination, he has given different versions relating to his witnessing the occurrence. Therefore, he is not a reliable witness. Further, there exists no independent corroboration. He was not in a position to see the occurrence as he was at a distance. In the cross-examination, he has given different versions relating to his witnessing the occurrence. Therefore, he is not a reliable witness. Further, there exists no independent corroboration. Alternatively, he argued that the case is coming under the purview of Section 304, IPC since there was an altercation between the deceased and appellant over cultivation of some land. Therefore, conviction of the appellant may be altered to one under Section 304, IPC. 5. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that there is no material to discard the evidence of P.W.1 and both the appellant and P.W.1 (informant) are sons of the deceased. His evidence is very clear with regard to assault. Mr. Pradhan further submits that the doctor (P.W.6) corroborates the above evidence. There is also no material before the Court that the case is coming under the purview of Section 304, IPC, since three successive blows were given by the appellant to the head and neck of the deceased. Thus, the learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the impugned judgment is legally correct and does not require any interference. 6. Perused the LCR and gone through the evidence on record carefully. P.W.1 is the informant, brother of the appellant and son of the deceased. In his examination in chief he deposed that on 22.6.2000 at about 10 A.M. he was in his house. At that time he was coming to the house where his father (deceased) was residing to take his bullocks which were tied in front of the house of his father. When he reached the house of his father, he saw the appellant was holding a Tangia (M.O.I) and his father and the appellant were shouting with each other. When his father asked him to as to if he would hack him, then the appellant dealt three successive blows by the Tangia on the left side head and neck of his father as a result of which his father sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. P.W.1 immediately tied the injured place by a Dhoti but his father died at the spot. Thereafter, the appellant fled towards the mango tope with the Tangia. P.W.1 then came to the police outpost of Koska. P.W.1 immediately tied the injured place by a Dhoti but his father died at the spot. Thereafter, the appellant fled towards the mango tope with the Tangia. P.W.1 then came to the police outpost of Koska. He got a report drafted on his instruction by a person, whose name he did not remember. The said person read over the report to P.W.1 and after understanding the contents, P.W.1 signed and presented the same before the police officer-in-charge of the said out post. He proved the said report under Ext. 1. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that since 5 to 6 years of the occurrence they all were staying in separate houses. His house may be half kilometer away from his father's house. The appellant resides in the house which is also half kilometer away from the house of his father (deceased). As they diet not pull on well with the appellant, they decided to live separately and accordingly they were separated. In the cross-examination he further admitted that while he was half way to the house of his father, he saw the appellant was running away with a tangia. When he reached the house of his father, he saw his father lying dead with injuries and many persons have already gathered. While he was coming he saw the appellant dealing blows by the Tangia to his father. The house was visible from a distance. He saw that around 15 to 20 persons have gathered and surrounded his father and he saw it from a distance of 200 cubits. P.W.2 is a co-villager. He turned hostile and on being confronted with previous statements, he denied to have made the same P.W.3 is another co-villager, who turned hostile. He is examination-in-chief stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he saw the appellant shouting with his father and the appellant ran away with a Tangia from the house of Birabar (deceased). However, when confronted with previous statements, he denied to have made the same. P.W.4 is a co-villager. He in his examination-in-chief stated that he could not say who assaulted the deceased. He further stated that the police came to the village held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. In his presence, the police prepared the inquest report. He proved the same under Ext. 2. P.W.4 is a co-villager. He in his examination-in-chief stated that he could not say who assaulted the deceased. He further stated that the police came to the village held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. In his presence, the police prepared the inquest report. He proved the same under Ext. 2. He turned hostile and when confronted with the previous statements, he denied the same. P.W.5 is another co-villager. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the occurrence took place about 3 years back one day around 10 A.M. in front of the house of Birabar (deceased). He was returning from his Bari. When he reached the house of Birabar (deceased), he saw Birabar lying dead with severe cut injuries on his head and neck. He did not know who assaulted the deceased. Many persons had also gathered. He turned hostile and when confronted with the previous statement, he denied the same. In the cross-examination, he admitted that when he was working at his "Potal Bari", he heard that Birabar (deceased) has been killed. It would take about one hour to reach the village from my bari. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries : "1. One incised injury of size 6" x 1" width and 1½" depth on the left side of the neck just below the mandible with cutting of the underline muscle, blood vessels and bone, Bone pieces were seen outside. 2. Incised wound 1" x ½" x ½" over the left temporal region ½" above left ear pina. 3. Incised wound 1" x ½" x ½" over the left side of the neck 2" below the first injury (Injury No. 1)" P.W.6 opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Death was due to severe bleeding from the above injuries and due to the cutting of the blood vessels of the neck. The injuries were possible by heavy sharp cutting weapon like a Tangia. He proved the post mortem report under Ext. 3. In cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited. P.W.7 is a co-villager. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on being asked by the police he signed on a paper vide Ext. 2/2, Ext. 5 and Ext. 7. He turned hostile and when confronted with the previous statement, he denied to have made the same. P.W.8 is the uncle of the deceased. In cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited. P.W.7 is a co-villager. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on being asked by the police he signed on a paper vide Ext. 2/2, Ext. 5 and Ext. 7. He turned hostile and when confronted with the previous statement, he denied to have made the same. P.W.8 is the uncle of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the deceased was murdered but he could not say who killed the deceased. He had seen the dead body of the deceased but had not seen any injury. In his presence, the police seized the blood stained earth and prepared the seizure list under Ext. 7. He further stated that no tangia was ever seized in his presence. He was declared hostile and when confronted with the previous statement, he denied the same. P.W.9 was the O.I.C. of Khandapara Police Station. He took charge of the investigation and arrested the appellant. While in custody, the appellant told P.W.9 regarding concealment of the Tangia (M.O.I) on the roof of his thatched house (Attu) by him and led P.W.9 and witnesses to his house from where he produced the Tangia before P.W.9. The Tangia was stained with blood. In presence of the witnesses, P.W.9 seized the said Tangia and prepared the seizure list under Ext. 6/1. He produced the appellant before the Medical Officer, Khandapara to collect nail clippings from him and also for his blood grouping. He forwarded the seized Tangia, clothes and blood stained earth for Chemical Examination to S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar through J.M.F.C., Khandapara. He proved the forwarding report under Ext. 9 and Chemical Examination Report under Ext. 10. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet. In the cross-examination, P.W.9 admitted that he recorded the statements of the seizure witnesses who were present during seizure of M.O.I. and prepared Ext. 6/1 only after the Tangia was produced by the appellant. He did not mention in Ext. 6/1 that the Tangia was brought by the appellant from the roof of the thatched house commonly known as Attu. He did not ascertain as to who others were staying with the appellant in the said house. P.W.11 is a co-villager, who turned hostile. He was confronted with his previous statements, but he denied the same. P.W.12 was the A.S.I. of Police of Koska Police Out-post. He did not ascertain as to who others were staying with the appellant in the said house. P.W.11 is a co-villager, who turned hostile. He was confronted with his previous statements, but he denied the same. P.W.12 was the A.S.I. of Police of Koska Police Out-post. In his examination-in-chief he deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 1 P.M. P.W.1 presented a written report before him. As it revealed a cognizable case, he entered it in the Station Diary and forwarded the same to the O.I.C., Khandapara Police Station (P.W.9) for formal registration of a case. He took up preliminary investigation. He examined the complainant. He visited the spot at 1.30 P.M. on the same day. He saw that the deceased Birabar was lying dead on the verandah of the house. During visit, he seized the sample of blood stained earth and blood stained clothes. He further deposed in the cross-examination that P.W.1 and appellant were brothers and they were both living in separate houses away from house where deceased was living. 7. There is no dispute that death of the deceased was homicidal. In the case of Vadivelu v. The State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 , the apex Court has held as under : "Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely : (1) wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first-category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single, witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. 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, direct or circumstantial." 8. By applying the above ratio, this Court has to examine the evidence. P.W.1, who is the informant and brother of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he appellant was holding a Tangia and his father (deceased) and the appellant were shouting at each other. The deceased asked him as to if he would hack him. By applying the above ratio, this Court has to examine the evidence. P.W.1, who is the informant and brother of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he appellant was holding a Tangia and his father (deceased) and the appellant were shouting at each other. The deceased asked him as to if he would hack him. Then, the appellant dealt three successive blows by the said tangia on the left side head and neck of his father (deceased) as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. In the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that while he was half way to the house of his father (deceased), he saw the appellant running away with a Tangia. When he reached the house of the father, he saw his father (deceased) was lying dead with injuries and many persons have gathered. Thereafter, when the question was put to P.W.1 by the Court, he answered that while he was coming he saw the accused dealing blows by the Tangia to his father (deceased). The house was visible from a distance. In further cross-examination, he stated that he saw that around 15 to 20 persons have gathered and surrounded his father (deceased) and he saw it from a distance of 200 cubits. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided in AIR 1957 SC 614 (Supra), it is crystal clear that P.W.1 changed his version from time to time. Therefore, he is not at all a reliable witness. In such background, it can only be said that P.W.1 had only seen the appellant running away with a Tangia and since 15 to 20 persons have surrounded the deceased, he had not seen the assault and had not heard any altercation between the deceased and the appellant. 9. By taking into the evidence in entirety, it appears that the trial Court has gone wrong in convicting the appellant basing upon the evidence of P.W.1. Since he is not a reliable witness, we cannot deduce that the appellant was the author of the crime. In view of the above, this Court sets aside the judgment dated 24.2.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nayagarh in S.T. Case No. 103/42 of 2001 and directs that the bail bond of appellant be discharged forthwith. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.