Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The back up of the case is that aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.6.2011 passed by Special/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Session Trial No. 172 of 2009 (State Versus Ram Mahesh Chaudhary and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2009, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar, the complainant/first informant has approached this Court under Section 372 Cr.P.C. with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and to punish the respondent nos. 2 and 3. We have heard Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and have carefully perused the lower courts record. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written report was lodged by the appellant at Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar to the effect that on 22.6.2009 at 3.00 P.M. when his grand father Ram Tirath Chaudhary was returning after taking tea at a tea stall and had reached near the house of Somai Maurya and flour grinding mill of Chhotkai, the accused persons Ram Mahesh, who is real uncle of informant, and his son Ramesh Chaudhary made an attack on him by a 'Bogda' ( a sharp edged weapon) and killed him. The informant further mentioned in the F.I.R. that the dead body of his grand father is lying on the spot and the 'Bogda' used by the accused to kill him is also lying there at a distance of 3 feet from the dead body. The motive behind the occurrence was also written in the F.I.R. which according to informant was land dispute. On the basis of this written report, a criminal case under Section 302 of I.P.C. was registered against both the accused (respondent nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal) at Case Crime No. 455 of 2009 and the matter was investigated. The police recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted the inquest and sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. 2 and 3 in this appeal) at Case Crime No. 455 of 2009 and the matter was investigated. The police recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted the inquest and sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. The I.O. prepared the site-plan and recovery memo of 'Bogda', recorded the statements of witnesses and after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons under Section 302 I.P.C. The case being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, it was committed to the sessions court where charge under Section 302 readwith 34 I.P.C. was framed against both the accused persons, who denied the charges and claimed their trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced seven witnesses in all, out of whom only one witness was of fact and the remaining were of formal character. The first informant Anil @ Raj Kumar Chaudhary (the present appellant) was produced as P.W. 1. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution are witnesses of inquest, the doctor conducting the post-mortem, the police constables and the I.O. The learned trial court, after a detailed appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the instant case rests on the sole testimony of P.W. 1 but his testimony does not appear to be trustworthy because it does not find corroboration with medical evidence or any other evidence available on record. Learned trial court was also of the view that the informant himself had greater motive to kill the deceased Ram Tirath Chaudhary in comparison to the accused persons. Accordingly the learned trial court disbelieved the prosecution story and acquitted the accused persons. Learned trial court was also of the view that the informant himself had greater motive to kill the deceased Ram Tirath Chaudhary in comparison to the accused persons. Accordingly the learned trial court disbelieved the prosecution story and acquitted the accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed written submissions to support the grounds taken in appeal and has challenged the impugned judgment on the following grounds : (i)the present case is a day light incident committed at about 3.00 P.M.; (ii) the F.I.R. has been lodged promptly; (iii)the P.W. 1 is an eye witness of the incident and he has fully supported the prosecution case but the learned trial court on the basis of minor contradictions disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 1 which is not sustainable in the eye of law; (iv)the medical evidence fully corroborated with the ocular version; (v)on the clothes of accused persons blood was found and it is also a circumstance against them; (vi)there was strong motive with the accused respondents to commit murder of the deceased who was real father of accused Ram Mahesh and there is no reason of false implication. Per contra learned A.G.A. has argued that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution story and has passed the judgment in accordance with law. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal by this court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a careful scrutiny of the judgment impugned it appears that this case rests upon the sole testimony of P.W. 1. the first informant/appellant Anil @ Raj Kumar Chaudhary. There is no doubt that conviction can be based on the basis of sole testimony of a witness. It is also well settled legal principle that quality and not the quantity of witness is relevant. However, the courts while convicting a person on the sole testimony of a witness should be cautious enough that the deposition of sole witness is reliable, worthy of credence and it should inspire confidence. It is also well settled legal principle that quality and not the quantity of witness is relevant. However, the courts while convicting a person on the sole testimony of a witness should be cautious enough that the deposition of sole witness is reliable, worthy of credence and it should inspire confidence. Now reverting to the facts of the case in hand, the statement of P.W. 1 shows that he has stated that on 26.6.2009 at 2.00 P.M. his grand father Ram Tirath Chaudhary had gone to take tea at a tea stall situated at Motiganj crossing, the informant was present at his house at that time. At about 3.00 P.M. he thought to take back his grand father from the tea stall. When he was going to take back his grand father and had reached near the flour mill of Chhotkai he saw the accused persons (present in the court), assaulting his grand father with a 'Bogda'. When he asked his uncle not to kill his grand father, they threatened him with the words "SAALE BHAG JAO NAHI TUMHE BHI MAAR DALENGE." Due to injuries of 'Bogda' inflicted by accused persons, his grand father died on the spot. P.W. 1 has further deposed that his grand father had intended to sell his land situated at village Bharat Bhari regarding which he had earlier executed a 'Will' in favour of Savitri, the mother of the appellant/informant and had expressed his intention to buy another land out of the sale proceeds. His grand father had also expressed his intention to give two Bighas of such newly purchased land to the first informant and the remaining land, he had intended to divide equally between his two sons i.e. the father of first informant and accused Ram Mahesh Chaudhary. Deposing about the motive P.W. 1 has stated that as the accused persons thought that his grand father was going to give entire land to him (informant) they killed his grand father. The aforesaid statement of P.W. 1 has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court and we are also of the same view. The statement of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence in our conscience. The reasons are as follows :- (I) P.W. 1 does not appear to have seen the occurrence. The aforesaid statement of P.W. 1 has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court and we are also of the same view. The statement of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence in our conscience. The reasons are as follows :- (I) P.W. 1 does not appear to have seen the occurrence. Although he has claimed himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence but he has not stated anything as to who, out of the two accused, was having 'Bogda, in his hand, or whether both the accused had two 'Bogdas' in their hands. In the F.I.R. he has not mentioned anywhere that the occurrence took place before his eyes. Hence his statement recorded in court that he was present at the time of occurrence does not find corroboration with the F.I.R. The conduct of P.W. 1 is also doubtful as he, neither raised any alarm nor made any effort to save his grand father although he claims himself to be present at the spot and was seeing the assault. If any attempt was made on his part, certainly he would have received some injuries but P.W. 1 has not sustained any injury. The occurrence has taken place on a busy road at 3.00 P.M. But there are no public witnesses. The three witnesses Ram Prakash, Ram Belas and Nag Nath Tripathi, regarding whom P.W.1 has stated to have seen the occurrence, have denied to have seen it. They have stated that they were present at the time of inquest proceedings only. If these witnesses had actually seen the occurrence, their names should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. The motive as alleged by the prosecution appears to be highly doubtful. To the contrary a perusal of record shows that by the death of informant's father, the person who was going to be most benefited was the informant himself which fact is apparent from the defence evidence in this case. The accused-respondents in their defence have filed certified copy of the 'Will' dated 29.4.2008 and the Muhaydanama (deed of agreement to sell) dated 3.6.2009 to support the defence version. This version is that the land of village Bharat Bhari willed earlier in favour of the mother of the informant, was sold by the deceased to one Santosh Srivastava who had paid Rs. 3 lacs to the deceased as earnest money. This version is that the land of village Bharat Bhari willed earlier in favour of the mother of the informant, was sold by the deceased to one Santosh Srivastava who had paid Rs. 3 lacs to the deceased as earnest money. The total value of such land was determined to be Rs. 20,12,000/-. The remaining price of the land was to be paid by Santosh Srivastava to the deceased on 10th October, 2010 (however the deceased was killed on 16.11.2009). The deceased had also expressed his willingness to purchase some new land at cheaper rates out of the sale proceeds and give only two bighas from such land to the informant. The aforesaid facts clearly show that informant was going to be deprived of major portion of land already willed in the name of his mother. Thus, it was the first informant, having a Will executed in favour of his mother was going to be most benefited due to death of his grand father. The accused persons should have no motive to kill their real father/grand father because they were to suffer loss from the death of their father/grand father. The statement of P.W. 1 does not find support with medical evidence. P.W. 1 has stated that his grand father had left the home after taking meal, he has specifically stated that his father had taken Daal, Chawal, Roti and Sabzi as meal but the doctor conducting the post-mortem examination has found the stomach of the deceased empty. The witnesses of inquest are also not reliable. Ram Belas, P.W. 3 produced by the prosecution to prove the inquest proceeding, has stated that Daroga Ji had taken his signatures on the inquest report at police Station. Somai and Chhotkai, near whose house and flour mill the occurrence has taken place, have not been produced by the prosecution. The alleged recovery at the instance of accused Ramesh Chaudhary cannot be relied upon in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Sharma Vs. State of U.P.; 2011(1) JIC 381 in which this Court while relying on the Apex Court judgment rendered in Bahadul Vs. The alleged recovery at the instance of accused Ramesh Chaudhary cannot be relied upon in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Sharma Vs. State of U.P.; 2011(1) JIC 381 in which this Court while relying on the Apex Court judgment rendered in Bahadul Vs. State of Orissa; AIR 1979 SC 1262 has held that : "if accused has not made any statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act relating to recovery, the factum of recovery cannot be admissible under law." In view of all these facts and circumstances discussed above we do not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. ——————