Judgment : Raghubir Dash, J. This Criminal Appeal is in challenge of the order of conviction of the Appellants for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. sentencing each of the Appellants to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months vide judgment dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela, Camp at Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.199/95 of 2009. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Appellants and the deceased are agnates. But they had no cordial relation. On 04.07.2009 there was a quarrel between the two sides over partition of their ancestral property. The Appellants had borne grudge. On 11/12.07.2009 night while the deceased was sleeping on the verandah of his house the Appellants came and slit the deceased’s neck as a result of which he died. In the following morning the deceased’s wife told about this fact before the villagers. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged in Mohulpada P.S. which was registered as P.S. Case No.11 of 2009. On the said F.I.R. G.R. Case No.372 of 2009 was registered in the court of S.D.J.M., Bonaigarh. In the absence of the O.I.C. one A.S.I. of police, who was in-charge of the P.S. registered the case and took up investigation. He conducted inquest over the dead body and then sent the dead body for post mortem. He recorded the statements of the informant and some witnesses to the seizure of different articles. On 18.07.2009 he obtained post mortem report. It was on 21.07.2009 the O.I.C. of the Police Station took over investigation, re-examined the informant and then examined deceased’s wife, who is claimed to be the sole eye witness to the incident. Other witnesses who have claimed to have heard about the incident from the deceased’s wife were also examined. On the same day the police arrested the accused. On 12.11.2009 charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses including the sole eye witness as P.W.2. Amongst the witnesses so examined, P.W.13 is the informant, P.W.1 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, P.W.7 is another doctor, who collected nail clippings and blood sample of the accused persons, P.W.12 is the A.S.I. of police, who conducted preliminary investigation, and P.W.11, the then O.I.C. of the Police Station, is the main I.O. 4. Amongst the witnesses so examined, P.W.13 is the informant, P.W.1 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, P.W.7 is another doctor, who collected nail clippings and blood sample of the accused persons, P.W.12 is the A.S.I. of police, who conducted preliminary investigation, and P.W.11, the then O.I.C. of the Police Station, is the main I.O. 4. Relying on the testimony of the sole eye witness, the learned trial court has held the prosecution case to have been proved to the hilt. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that P.W.2, who claims to have seen the Appellants kill her husband in the dead hour of the night is totally unworthy of credence whose testimony has been totally demolished in course of cross-examination. It is argued that the learned trial court has accepted her testimony without making any effort to make a critical analysis of her testimony. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has taken efforts to justify the findings of the learned trial court. 5. The prosecution case rests on the reliability of P.W.2, the only witness who has been projected as an ocular witness. In her testimony she has stated that the incident took place on a Saturday at midnight. It was a rainy day. On the occurrence night her husband was sleeping on the outer verandah of their house whereas she with her children was sleeping inside the only room of their house. She claims that accused Datu gagged her husband’s mouth by his hands and the other accused, namely, Ganga cut the throat of her husband with a knife. During her cross-examination she has stated that before going to sleep in her house she had closed the door of the room from inside. She claims that she got up when the assault on her husband took place. She further states that after hearing hue and cry in that night she slept inside the room and in the morning, when she got up, she found the dead body of her husband lying on the verandah. She has further stated that she and her children got up from bed at one point of time and then came outside from their room. 6. She has further stated that she and her children got up from bed at one point of time and then came outside from their room. 6. From the doctor’s evidence based on the post-mortem it transpires that there was an incised wound of the size 7.5 c.m. (length) x 5 c.m. (breadth) x 5 c.m. (depth) extending form the middle of the neck towards the left side which could have been caused by the knife which was seized in connection with this case and was sent to the doctor for his observation and opinion. Ext.9 is the seizure list in respect of the knife which reflects that it was seized from the field of one Baneswar Munda. The serological report marked Ext.12 reflects that no blood stain on the seized knife was detected. 7. While appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 the learned trial court has observed that P.W.2 who is a rustic villager must have become dumb-founded seeing the ghastly act committed by the accused persons for which she did not dare to raise any hullah. He has further observed that P.W.2 gets sufficient corroboration from medical evidence adduced by the Doctor, P.W.1. It is further observed that P.W.2 had no reason to speak falsehood against the accused persons thereby allowing the real culprit to escape. With this observation learned trial court has held the sole eye-witness to be reliable and trustworthy. 8. If P.W.2 is found to be trustworthy then the order of conviction will not be liable to be disturbed. But in order to test the veracity of the sole eye-witness, her evidence has to be analysed carefully, particularly, keeping in mind the attending facts and circumstances. Admittedly, it was a dark night and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the mid-night. There is no evidence as to whether there was any source of light sufficiently illuminating the spot making it humanly possible to see the assault as well as the assailant(s) from a distance. There is no evidence as to from what distance P.W.2 happened to see the alleged assault. Admittedly, the deceased was sleeping outside the house and P.W.2 with her children was sleeping inside the house bolting the door from inside. P.W.2 has not stated as to what made her wake up just at the time the murderous assault took place. There is no evidence as to from what distance P.W.2 happened to see the alleged assault. Admittedly, the deceased was sleeping outside the house and P.W.2 with her children was sleeping inside the house bolting the door from inside. P.W.2 has not stated as to what made her wake up just at the time the murderous assault took place. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had heard hue and cry in the night. But she slept inside the room. It gives some indication that hearing some hue and cry she woke up and then, despite of hearing the hue and cry, she preferred to sleep rather than come out of the house to see what was the reason for such hue and cry. This fact finds corroboration from her statements made during her cross-examination that she opened the door of her house only in the following morning and that her children and she herself got up from the bed at a time in the morning and came outside to see the dead body of her husband lying on the verandah and there was none else at the spot. She does not claim to have told any person that in the occurrence night she had seen both the accused persons committing the crime. Even in the F.I.R. there is no such assertion. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the deceased’s son through his first wife. P.W.2 is deceased’s second wife. The informant, who is examined as P.W.13, does not claim that P.W.2 had stated before him that she had seen the incident. A number of co-villagers have been examined by the prosecution. But none of them has claimed that P.W.2 had asserted before them that she had seen the accused persons committing the crime. P.W.2 does not claim that out of fear she did not venture to come out of the room and for that she could not even raise alarm while her husband was being assaulted by the accused persons. She has stated that the incident took place just at the mid night. The duration of the entire incident must have been very short. The assailants must have left the spot immediately after committing the crime. P.W.2 claims that she had heard hue and cry in that night but thereafter she slept and it was only in the following morning she came out of her room. The duration of the entire incident must have been very short. The assailants must have left the spot immediately after committing the crime. P.W.2 claims that she had heard hue and cry in that night but thereafter she slept and it was only in the following morning she came out of her room. She has narrated the incident as if the spot was illuminated and she was able to see everything clearly. She has narrated the entire incident in few words saying that while accused Datu gagged the mouth of her husband by his hands, the other accused Ganga Munda assaulted her husband by a knife. She has not stated as to on which part of the deceased’s body the knife blow(s) was/were given. She does not say as to how many blows were given. She also does not say what happened to her husband consequent upon the assault. She has not stated as to whether she had opened the door which was bolted from inside. She does not explain as to how she could come to see the assault even without opening the door. Under such circumstances, it is highly doubtful that she woke up just at the time of the alleged assault and happened to see the alleged assault on her husband. 9. Her conduct soon after the incident is also quite unnatural. Having seen the assault on her husband she could not have fallen asleep only to wake up in the following morning. After departure of the assailants, whom she claims to have seen at the spot, she could have opened the door to come out and see her husband’s condition. Instead of doing so, she had a sound sleep and it was only in the following morning that she opened her door to see the dead body of her husband lying. Her testimony rather makes it quite probable that she had no cue as to what had happened outside her room in the occurrence night and it was only in the following morning when she came out of her home that she found the dead body of her husband with injury on his neck and since the accused persons were in dispute with the deceased over their ancestral property, they have been roped in as the assailants merely on the basis of suspicion. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the assailants has rightly pointed out that there is no explanation from the prosecution side as to why P.W.2 was interrogated about eight days after lodging of the F.I.R. Normally, in a case where the commission of the crime is claimed to have been seen by some witnesses who are easily available for their interrogation, there is no reason why the investigating officer would not examine such witnesses immediately after the commencement of investigation. Therefore, the delayed interrogation of P.W.2 reflects on the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. 11. In Satia Sahu & others v. State of Orissa: 1973 C.L.R. 515 referring to Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras: A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614, this Court observed the following:- Witnesses can be classified into three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should not have any difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way. It may, on the basis of the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, convict or may acquit the accused. There is also no difficulty in the second category of proof and the statement of a witness wholly unreliable must be rejected for all purposes. It is only in the third category where the witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the difficulty arises. In such cases, the Court seeks corroboration from some independent evidence or from some circumstances. If P.W.2 is found to be neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, her testimony would need corroboration from some independent evidence or from some circumstances. Learned trial court opines that the medical evidence corroborated the testimony of P.W.2. But in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the corroboration from the postmortem report is not sufficient. From discussion made earlier, there appears no circumstance which supports the testimony of P.W.2. So far witnesses are concerned, none of them corroborates P.W.2 by saying that soon after the incident or even on the day following the incident, she had claimed before him/her that she had seen the accused persons committing the crime. P.W.2 does not fall in the first category of witnesses. So far witnesses are concerned, none of them corroborates P.W.2 by saying that soon after the incident or even on the day following the incident, she had claimed before him/her that she had seen the accused persons committing the crime. P.W.2 does not fall in the first category of witnesses. So, even if she is found to be falling within the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, in the absence of independent corroboration, her testimony cannot be relied upon. 12. The finding of the learned lower court is not sustainable. The impugned judgment suffers from proper appreciation of evidence of the solitary eye-witness. The prosecution is found to have failed to bring home the charge against the Appellants. With the evidences available on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 13. The prosecution is found to have failed to prove its case as against the Appellants. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are set aside. The Appellants/accused persons are found not guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 235, Cr.P.C. They be set at liberty at once. The bail bonds of A-1 stands discharged. A-2 who is in jail custody shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in custody in connection with any other case.