JUDGMENT 1. - On 12.12.2004 as per site plan (Ex.P.2), dead body of Tej Singh @ Teju son of Sohanlal (P.W.8) and Smt. Prakash Devi (P.W.10) was recovered from a deserted well from a jungle of Dhaneta. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P.4) were also carried on 12.12.2004. Case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet submitted against the accused is that on 10.12.2004 at about 11.30 AM deceased Tej Singh had accompanied accused-appellant Sajjan Singh and thereafter had not returned. As per prosecution case, Gajana Ram (P.W.5) on 11.12.2004 at about 8.30-9.00 PM witnessed nine persons namely Bheem Singh @ Bheem Sen, Arjundas @ Arjun, Satpal, Dharmveer @ Surendra, Hansraj @ Vijendra all residents of Village Dhaneta, and Ramesh S/o Ram Kishan and Sajjan Singh S/o. Khandu Ram residents of Village Bandholi, Hari and Darshan Rajpoot causing beating to Tej Singh @ Teju. Thus, the eye-witness Gajana Ram (P.W.5) had named nine persons as accused. Investigating agency had not sent Hari and Darshan for trial and had submitted a chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against seven persons namely Bheem Singh @ Bheem Sen, Arjundas @ Arjun, Satpal, Dharmveer @ Surendra, Hansraj @ Vijendra, Ramesh and Sajjan Singh. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 7.1.2006 only convicted Satpal S/o. Bheem Singh @ Bheem Sen and Sajjan Singh S/o. Khandu Ram for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Sajjan Singh also for offence under Section 364 IPC. However, the trial court acquitted Bheem Singh @ Bheem Sen, Arjundas @ Arjun, Dharmveer @ Surendra, Hansraj @ Vijendra and Ramesh. 2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Satpal and Sajjan Singh instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.134/2006. 3. State of Rajasthan not being satisfied with the acquittal of five accused has preferred D.B Criminal Appeal No.1540/2007 praying that acquittal of the acquitted accused be set aside and they be punished in accordance with provisions of law. 4. Balveer Singh (P.W.1) complainant being uncle of deceased Tej Singh @ Teju has also instituted D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1163/2006 praying that acquittal of Bheem Singh @ Bheem Sen, Arjundas @ Arjun, Dharmveer @ Surendra, Hansraj @ Vijendra and Ramesh be set aside and they be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. 5. Since in both the appeals and the revision, a common judgment has been assailed, we will decide both the appeals and revision petition preferred by the complainant together. 6. 5. Since in both the appeals and the revision, a common judgment has been assailed, we will decide both the appeals and revision petition preferred by the complainant together. 6. Balveer Singh (P.W.1) being brother of Sohanlal (P.W.8) father of the deceased alongwith Prakash Devi (P.W.10) mother of the deceased Tej Singh @ Teju have deposed in categorical terms that on 10.12.2004 Sajjan Singh came and took Tej Singh along for going to Alwar. Thus, these three witnesses have testified regarding the factum of last seen. Prosecution case rests upon the testimony of Gajana Ram (P.W.5) who deposed before the court that he had witnessed the occurrence. Gajana Ram (P.W.5) has been produced and relied as an eyewitness of the occurrence. 7. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written complaint (Ex.P.1) presented by Balveer Singh (P.W.1) on 12.12.2004 at 12.04 PM before Brajendra Yadav (P.W.11) who was then posted as SHO, P.S. Ramgarh, District Alwar. Written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by Balveer Singh (P.W.1) when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The SHO, Police Station Ramgarh, Alwar. Sub.: For taking legal action. Sir, It is submitted that my elder brother Sohan Lal reside at Village Nangali Megha. On 10.12.2004 at about 11.30 AM due to domestic work, I had visited the house of Sohan Lal. I met Sohan Lal and Tej Singh @ Teju. I took my meals and after 11/2-2 hours, Sajjan Singh S/o. Khandu Ram Rajpoot, r/o Bandholi came. He in relation is son of Bhua (sister of the father). We kept on talking and after sometime, Sohan Lal left to Tijara for performing his duty. Sajjan Singh saying that some work is to be perormed took Tej Singh along to Alwar. In the evening Teju had not returned to his house. I searched for him everywhere. Ruda Ram resident of the village informed that yesterday at 3.00 PM he had seen Tej Singh at Bagad Tiraha (Tri-Junction) with Sajjan Singh son of Khandu Ram, Ramesh son of Ram Kishan r/o Bantholi and Satpal son of Bheem Singh Rajpoot, r/o Dhanera. They (brother's family) were saying that they have to go to Ramgarh. I consoled other family members by saying that everyone is a relative therefore we should wait. They (brother's family) were saying that they have to go to Ramgarh. I consoled other family members by saying that everyone is a relative therefore we should wait. Today at about 8.00 AM Gajana Ram s/o Sundar Das, r/o Bantholi on phone informed that in the night he had made many telephonic calls, but calls could not mature. He stated that in the night at 8-9 PM when he was going towards jungle, when he had reached near the boring of Khandu Ram, he saw that in the field of Raghu Fakeer, Sajjan Singh, Satpal, Ramesh, Bheem Singh, Arjun, Hari, Darshan Rajpoot and 6-7 other persons of Dhanera were giving beating to Teju. They had thrown Teju on the ground of the field and were beating him with lathi and fist blows. When Gajana Ram stepped forward to save, everybody started giving fist blows and said that he has caused loss to our honour. We will finish him today. One month ago Biradari had excommunicated Teju after blackening his face and therefore, today there is an opportunity. In the morning at 7.00 AM there were talks in the village that dead body of Teju is lying in the well in the jungle of Gadhi-Dhanera. After receiving information, I, father of Teju, Ramswaroop, brother Darshan, Ajan Khan, Sirmor, Gyan Chand and other many residents of the village had gone to Village Badholi and again inquired regarding the whole occurrence from Gajana Ram. Thereafter we came to the village Dhanera and searched in the jungle. In a deserted well, Teju was found dead. He was identified. Tej Singh had illicit relation with sister of Satpal and due to suspicion in a planned manner Sajjan Singh, Satpal, Ramesh, Bheem Singh, Arjun, Hari, Darshan and 6-7 persons committed murder of Tej Singh and threw his dead body in a well. All the aforesaid persons are absconding from the house. Therefore, legal action be taken against them and justice be delivered. Date 12.12.04 Sd/- Balveer Singh S/o Ramswaroop, Rajpoot, r/o Naswari, P.S. Govindgarh, Alwar." 8. A perusal of the FIR reveals that Balveer Singh only is witness to the last seen. He has further stated that Ruda Ram (P.W.6) had informed him having seen deceased Teju @ Tej Singh at Bagad Tiraha (Tri- Junction). Balveer Singh further stated that Gajana Ram (P.W.5) had witnessed the occurrence. 9. A perusal of the FIR reveals that Balveer Singh only is witness to the last seen. He has further stated that Ruda Ram (P.W.6) had informed him having seen deceased Teju @ Tej Singh at Bagad Tiraha (Tri- Junction). Balveer Singh further stated that Gajana Ram (P.W.5) had witnessed the occurrence. 9. Thus, the prosecution case rests upon evidence of last seen, eye-witness, account, recovery of two lathis from the accused Bheem Singh, recovery of battery at the instance of Rajendra @ Hansraj. 10. To prove the above circumstances, prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses and also got exhibited sixty-four documents being Ex.P.1 to P.64. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They had examined Mahaveer Prasad (D.W.1) and Khandu Ram (D.W.2). Defence relied upon five documents, i.e. previous statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police Ex.D.1 to D.6. 11. We have already stated that Balveer Singh (P.W.1), Sohan Lal (P.W.8) and Prakash Devi (P.W.10) are witnesses to the evidence of last seen. Ruda Ram who had seen the deceased with the present appellants at Bagad Tiraha (Tri-Junction) appeared as P.W.6 and has turned hostile to the prosecution. We shall examine the evidence of Gajana Ram (P.W.5) who claimed himself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. 12. Gajana Ram (P.W.5) in cross-examination stated that he was Phupha (husband of sister of father) of Balveer Singh (P.W.1). He further stated that Tej Singh is nephew of Balveer Singh and son of Sohan Lal. Witness stated in court that on the day of occurrence at about 7.30-8.00 PM, he was going from his fields to his house. When he heard voices of crying and saw that in Rangu's field, Sajjan, Satpal, Hari, Darshan, Bheem, Arjun and two other persons were giving beating to Tej Singh. Gajana Ram (P.W.5) told them not to give beating to Teju, upon which accused started quarrelling with him. Thereafter witness came to his house and narrated the incident to his son Mahaveer. The witness further stated that Bheem Singh, Arjun, Hari, Darshan and two other persons had caught hold of Tej Singh. After two hours, Khandu came from his bore after tying his bed and Khandu Ram went towards the hill. Thereafter Gajana Ram (P.W.5) and Mahaveer followed Khandu Ram and saw that Satpal, Sajjan, Hari, Darshan, Arjun and Bheem were giving beating to Tej Singh. After two hours, Khandu came from his bore after tying his bed and Khandu Ram went towards the hill. Thereafter Gajana Ram (P.W.5) and Mahaveer followed Khandu Ram and saw that Satpal, Sajjan, Hari, Darshan, Arjun and Bheem were giving beating to Tej Singh. Thereafter Khandu felt the pulse of Tej Singh. Tej Singh had died. Thereafter they tied the dead body in a gunny bag, again said that the dead body was wrapped in a Khesh. Gunny bag was tied by Hari and Darshan. The witness further stted that Hari and Darshan were having two sons and their names were not known to him. The witness further stated that they had lifted the dead body and threw the same into the well and thereafter they (he and one Mahaveer) went to their house. The witness further said that he made a telephonic call to Balveer Singh and told him to come to the fields as Tej Singh was killed. Thereafter Police arrived to the well and had recovered the dead body. As stated earlier, Gajana Ram (P.W.5) is Phupha of Sohan Lal (P.W.8) father of Teju deceased. The witness admitted in the cross-examination that he had told the police that he had witnessed the occurrence twice, but the same is not mentioned in his statement (Ex.D.2) recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness was confronted with his previous statement (Ex.D.2) where material facts were not mentioned. 13. It has been canvassed before us that in presence of the witness, not only Teju was giving beating, but his dead body was put in a gunny bag and was thrown into a well. The witness remained silent and did nothing and in the morning, made a telephonic call to Balveer Singh that Tej Singh has been killed. 13. It has been canvassed before us that in presence of the witness, not only Teju was giving beating, but his dead body was put in a gunny bag and was thrown into a well. The witness remained silent and did nothing and in the morning, made a telephonic call to Balveer Singh that Tej Singh has been killed. It is apposite here to reproduce following portion of the testimony of the witness:- " fQj [kaMq us rstflag dh uCt ns[kh rst flag ej pqdk FkkA fQj mldh yk'k dh iksV cka/kh yk'k dh iksV [ksl esa cka/kh Fkh iksV gfj] n'kZu us cka/kh FkhA gfj] n'kZu o buds nks yM+ds ftuds uke eSa ugha tkurk ykfB;ksa ij yk'k dks yVdkdj [kOos ij ys x;s tks dq,a esa Mkyus ds fy, ys x;s Fks fQj ge gekjs ?kj pys x;s FksA lqcg eSaus cyohj dks Qksu fd;k eSaus Qksu ij dgk fd vk tkvks rst flag dks ekj fn;k gS fQj iqfyl vk x;h iqfyl dq,a ij vk;h Fkh ftl dq,a esa rstflag iM+k Fkk ml le; cyohj oxS0 lc vk x;s Fks fQj ogha ij cyohj nj[okLr fy[kdj Mh0,l0ih0 lkgc dks nh FkhA " 14-15. Thus, we find that the witness being a close relation of the deceased had made no effort to rescue Teju and having known that he has been murdered and his dead body has been thrown in a well, made no effort in the night to inform the police. He had made a telephonic call to Balveer Singh in the morning. To us, the conduct of the witness is very unnatural and improbable and therefore, we can safely infer the present witness being close relation and interested, has been imported as an eye-witness. The conduct of the witness belies his presence and rule out his assertion that he had witnessed the occurrence. The trial court in Para-24 of the impugned judgment has stated that the witness was not believed by the investigating agency qua Hari and Darshan as they were not sent for the trial. The trial court also took into consideration confrontation of the witnesses Balveer Singh (P.W.1) and Gajana Ram (P.W.5) with their previous statements, Exhibit-D.2 and D.3 respectively, wherein it was stated that only Satpal, Sajjan and Ramesh in the field of Raghu Fakeer had given beating to Tej Singh @ Teju. The trial court also took into consideration confrontation of the witnesses Balveer Singh (P.W.1) and Gajana Ram (P.W.5) with their previous statements, Exhibit-D.2 and D.3 respectively, wherein it was stated that only Satpal, Sajjan and Ramesh in the field of Raghu Fakeer had given beating to Tej Singh @ Teju. In Exhibit-D.3, the witness Gajana Ram (P.W.5) stated that accused Sajjan, Satpal, Ramesh and Khandu were also giving beating to Tej Singh. Khandu was not made as an accused in the case. The witness was duly confronted and it was brought to the notice of the witness Gajana Ram (P.W.5) that in his statement he had not named accused namely Bheem Singh, Arjun Das, Dharamveer and Hansraj. The trial court further noticed that in court Gajana Ram denied participation and presence of Ramesh at the place of occurrence. The witness was duly confronted and it was brought to the notice of the witness Gajana Ram (P.W.5) that in his statement he had not named accused namely Bheem Singh, Arjun Das, Dharamveer and Hansraj. The trial court further noticed that in court Gajana Ram denied participation and presence of Ramesh at the place of occurrence. We will reproduce Paras-24, 25 and 37 of the impugned judgment for ready reference as under:- " 24- mijksDr ds gh dze esa voyksdu fd, tkus ij ;g Li"V jgk gS fd ifjoknh cyohj flag oLrqr% fnukad 10-12-2014 dks lTtu }kjk rst flag dks ys tk;s tkus dh ?kVuk dk lk{kh ek= jgk gS rFkk vU; ?kVuk ds ckjs esa xtuk jke ds gokys ls tkudkjh izkIr gksuk crykrk gSA ntZ djok;h x;h fyf[kr fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&1 esa xokg us xtukjke ds gokys ls tks ?kVuk cryk;h gS mlesa [k.Mwjke ds cksfjax ds ikl j?kq Qdhj ds [ksr esa lTtu] lriky] jes'k] Hkheflag o vtqZu ds vfrfjDr gfj vkSj n'kZu ds }kjk Hkh ekjihV djus dh ckr dgh gS tcfd gfj vkSj n'kZu tgka ekeys esa vfHk;qDr ugha jgs gS ogha xokg xtukjke ds 'kiFk ij fn;s c;ku ih0MCY;w&5 esa xtukjke us jes'k ds uke dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha djrs gq, rstflag ds lkFk lTtu] lriky] gfj] n'kZu] Hkhe] vtqZu rFkk nks vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk ekjihV djrs gq;s ns[kuk dgk gSA bl xokg ls fd;s izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku xokg us ;g Hkh Li"V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k gS fd iwjs ?kVukdze esa jes'k eqyfte ugha FkkA blh izdkj xokg ds /kkjk 161 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds v/khu ys[kc) dFku izn'kZ Mh&2 o izn'kZ Mh&3 ls lkeuk djok;s tkus ij mdr dFkuksa esa xokg us vfHk;qDrx.k lriky] lTtu o jes'k }kjk j?kq Qdhj ds [ksr esa ekjihV djrs gq;s ns[kuk rFkk c;ku izn'kZ Mh&3 esa vfHk;qDr lTtu] lriky o jes'k ds vfrfjDr [k.Mw dks Hkh ekjihV djrs gq;s ns[kuk dgk gSA gkykafd [k.Mwjke dks ekeys esa vfHk;qDr ugha cuk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr Hkh c;ku izn'kZ Mh&2 esa xokg us xkao ckU/kksyh ls rstflag dks lTtu] jes'k o lriky }kjk ekjrs gq;s ykus dh tkudkjh gksuk crykrs gq, rstflag dh e`R;q mijksDr lriky] jes'k] lTtu] Hkhe] vtqZu] /keZohj o galw ds }kjk dq,sa esa Qsadus dh tkudkjh feyuk dgk gS rFkk iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ&3 esa xokg us Hkheflag ds edku ds lkeus Hkh rstflag ds lkFk ekjihV dk Hkh izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh jguk crykrs gq;s ogka gfj vkSj n'kZu }kjk ykBh ls rstflag ds lkFk ekjihV 'kq: dj nsuk rFkk bl dze esa rstflag ds ej tkus ij pkS[kkus ds pknj esa iksV cka/kdj ykBh esa my>kk dj gfj vkSj n'kZu ds yM+dksa }kjk yk'k dks taxy dh rjQ ys tkrs gq;s ns[kuk dgk gSA " 25- mijksDr ds gh dze esa xokg ih0MCY;w0&1 cyohj flag ds dFkuksa dk vokysdu fd;s tkus ij xokg us lTtu flag }kjk rstflag dks fnukad 10-12-2004 dks vius lkFk ys tkuk rFkk blds mijkar vxys fnu rd rstflag ds u ykSVus ij viuh HkkHkh izdk'k nsoh }kjk nh x;h lwpuk ds dze esa jes'k] lTtu o lriky ds lkFk rstflag dks ns[kk tkuk rFkk fnukad 12-12-2004 dks xtukjke ls izkIr gq;h lwpuk ij vfHk;qDrx.k lriky] jes'k] Hkheflag] vtqZu] gfj] n'kZu o Ng&lkr O;fDr;ksa }kjk j?kq Qdhj ds [ksr esa ekjihV djus rFkk rstflag dks x<+h /kusVk taxy igkM+ dh oky okys lw[ks dq,a esa ekj dj Qsad nsus dh lwpuk feyuk dgk gSA 37- vU; vfHk;ksftr djok;s x;s vfHk;qDrx.k /keZohj mQZ lqjsUnz ,oa galjkt mQZ fotsUnz ds uke izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ esa vafdr ugha jgs gSa rFkk ,dek= izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&5 xtukjke }kjk Hkh mDr vfHk;qDrx.k dh uketn :i ls ?kVuk ls lEc)rk dks n'kkZrs gq, dksbZ Li"V ckr ugha vk ldh gSA blh izdkj vfHk;qDr jes'k dh lEiw.kZ ?kVukdze esa mifLFkfr vFkok lEc)rk ls xokg xtukjke us Li"V :i ls bUdkj fd;k gS ,oa vfHk;qDr Hkheflag mQZ Hkhelsu rFkk vtqZunkl mQZ vtqZu dh ?kVuk ds le; mifLFkfr ,oa muds }kjk fdlh d`R; fo'ks"k dks fd;s tkus ls lEcU/k esa xtukjke }kjk 'kiFk ij fn;s x;s dFku] vUos"k.k ds nkSjku iqfyl }kjk ys[kc) fd;s x;s dFkuksa ls xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl j[krs gq;s jgus ds dze esa vfHk;qDrx.k Hkheflag mQZ HkhelSu] vtqZunkl mQZ vtqZu] /keZohj mQZ lqjsUnz] galjkt mQZ fotsUnz rFkk jes'k dh vkjksfir ?kVukdze ls lEc)rk Li"V ,oa fu'pk;dLo:i esa U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha jgrs gq;s mDr vfHk;qDrx.k ds lEcU/k esa mRiUu lUnsg dk ykHk U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)karkuq:i vfHk;qDr Hkheflag mQZ HkhelSu] vtqZunkl mQZ vtqZu] /keZohj mQZ lqjsUnz] galjkt mQZ fotsUnz ,oa jes'k dks fn;k tkuk fof/k lEer jgrk gS] ftlds vuq:i mDr vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k U;k;ky; ds le{k lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gks lds gSaA 16. Thus, we have the witness Gajana Ram (P.W.5) whose conduct being a close relation is not only unnatural and improbable, but he has also inflated the number of accused. In his initial version, he had named only Sajjan, Satpal and Ramesh, whereas in court he absolved Ramesh as accused and had named six other persons as accused. Out of those persons, Khandu, Hari and Darshan were not sent for trial. Names of Bheem Singh, Arjun Das, Hanasraj and Dharamveer were not noted in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has been duly confronted on this count. Thus, a witness who has been doubted by the investigating agency and the trial court qua eight persons named during investigation and in the court, cannot be relied against the two accused namely Sajjan and Satpal who have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court. 17. It has also come in the testimony of Khandu (D.W.2) that mother of Sajjan Singh had instituted a civil suit against Gajana Ram (P.W.5) regarding the land situated in village Naswari. Defence has brought on record Exhibit-D.6, revenue appeal filed by Ram Bai mother of Sajjan Singh against Shyama Bai wife of Gajana Ram (P.W.5). The trial court had discounted this fact by saying that litigation over the land was initiated against Gajana Ram (P.W.5) after the occurrence. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that a dispute over the land was pending between mother of accused Sajjan Singh and wife of Gajana Ram (P.W.5). Therefore, we can also assume that Gajana Ram (P.W.5) has interest to falsely implicate Sajjan Singh appellant. We cannot become oblivious of the fact that Gajana Ram (P.W.5) is a solitary eye-witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 (V 44 C 91 Sept.), qua solitary eye-witness has observed as under:- "Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. 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. 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. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict,if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution." 18. Taking parameters and standards as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to appreciate the evidence of solitary eye-witness, we are firmly of the view that Gajana Ram (P.W.5) is wholly unreliable witness and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. Thus, we disbelieve Gajana Ram (P.W.5) as eye-witness of the occurrence.19. Having excluded the evidence of solitary eyewitness, we are left with the evidence of last seen. The last seen evidence is against only Sajjan Singh. We cannot ignore that Balveer Singh (P.W.1) in court has stated that later he was informed by Ruda Ram (P.W.6) that he had seen deceased on 11.12.2004 at 3.00 PM alongwith Ramesh, Sajjan and Satpal at Tiraha (Tri-Junction) of Bagad. We may notice that Ruda Ram while appearing in court as P.W.6 has not supported the prosecution case regarding last seen. Furthermore, deceased Tej Singh @ Teju had left with Sajjan Singh on 10.12.2004 in the day time. We may notice that Ruda Ram while appearing in court as P.W.6 has not supported the prosecution case regarding last seen. Furthermore, deceased Tej Singh @ Teju had left with Sajjan Singh on 10.12.2004 in the day time. Gajana Ram (P.W.5) had seen accused causing injuries on the late night of 11.12.2004. Therefore, it is apparent that from the day time of 10.12.2004 till the night of 11.12.2004 Tej Singh @ Teju was alive. Therefore, testimony of Balveer Singh (P.W.1), Sohan Lal (P.W.8) and Prakash Devi (P.W.10) regarding last seen cannot be stretched and extended for a period of two days. Even last seen is a weak type of evidence. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , has held as under:- "31. .... It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court has applied the above mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodhraj v. State of J & as under : (SCC p.63, para 31) "31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases..." [See also : State of U.P. v. Satish (SCC para 22) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (SCC para 27)]. 32. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases..." [See also : State of U.P. v. Satish (SCC para 22) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (SCC para 27)]. 32. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy, this Court further opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the courts should look for some corroboration. 33. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab , it was observed that (SCC p.441, para 5) "5. ..... In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the 'last seen' evidence, even if the version of PW 14 in this regard is believed..." 34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case". 20. Having disbelieved the eye-witness and ruled out evidence of last seen from the consideration, we are of the view that recovery of weapon alone is not sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellants Satpal and Sajjan Singh.21. Furthermore, the trial court has given very cogent reasons to acquit Bheem Singh @ Bheem Sen, Arjundas @ Arjun, Dharmveer @ Surendra, Hansraj @ Vijendra and Ramesh. The view formulated by the trial court is possible on the facts of the present case. The view of the trial court cannot be condemned as perverse or untenable. In appeal and revision petition against acquittal, we cannot cause inference merely because other view is possible. The view formulated by the trial court is possible on the facts of the present case. The view of the trial court cannot be condemned as perverse or untenable. In appeal and revision petition against acquittal, we cannot cause inference merely because other view is possible. In the present case, we have totally discarded testimony of Gajana Ram (P.W.5) upon which the trial court has heavily relied to convict Satpal and Sajjan Singh out of nine persons.22. For the reasons stated above, the State appeal bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1540/2007 and the revision petition preferred by the complainant bearing D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1163/2006 are dismissed and the appeal preferred by accused-appellants Satpal and Sajjan Singh i.e. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.134/2006 is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellants Satpal and Sajjan Singh by the trial court is set aside. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them.23. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C, the appellants, namely Satpal and Sajjan Singh, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.Appeal No. 134/2006 allowed, Appeal No. 1540/2007 dismissed and Revision No. 1163 of 2006 dismissed. *******