JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.208 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur. There were two other accused by name, Jeyalakshmi and Murugan. Mr.Murugan was found to be a juvenile and therefore he was dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, by the Juvenile Justice Board. The appellant and his wife faced the trial in the present case. The Trial Court framed a lone charge against the appellant herein under Section 302 I.P.C. and framed a charge under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C. against the second accused. By Judgment, dated 06.08.2010, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused, however convicted the appellant/first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Moorthy. P.W.1 is his wife and P.W.2 is his brother. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. One Mrs.Lakshmi was the mother of the deceased. The appellant/first accused is none else than the yet another brother of the deceased. The second accused is the wife of the first accused and the third accused is their son. (ii) According to the further case of the prosecution, the first accused had a landed property in the occurrence village. The deceased had obtained the said property by way of an oral mortgage from the first accused for a sum of Rs.17,000/-. Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He had raised sugar-cane crop on the same. The first accused was demanding the deceased to hand over the possession of the property. He was disputing the very mortgage itself. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (iii) On 11.12.2002, according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased, his wife (P.W.1) and his mother (now no more) were working. The deceased was removing the dried leaves from the sugar cane crop. At that time, it is alleged that all the three accused came to the spot. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (iii) On 11.12.2002, according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased, his wife (P.W.1) and his mother (now no more) were working. The deceased was removing the dried leaves from the sugar cane crop. At that time, it is alleged that all the three accused came to the spot. The first accused questioned his authority to work in the field and to remove the leaves from the sugar-cane crop. According to the first accused, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and he had only raised the sugar-cane crop. This quarrel went on for about 10 minutes. At the end of the quarrel, it is alleged that the accused 2 and 3 induced the first accused to kill him. The first accused took out an aruval and cut the deceased repeatedly. The deceased fell down sustaining serious injuries and breathed his last. P.W.1 and Mrs.Lakshmi raised alarm. P.W.2 was working in his filed, somewhere near the place of occurrence. On hearing the alarm raised, P.W.2 rushed to the place of occurrence. But, even before he could come, the occurrence had come to an end. He found the deceased lying dead. Thereafter, on hearing the message, P.W.3 came from her house and found the deceased dead. The people working in the neighbouring fields also rushed to the place of occurrence. Then, all of them shifted the dead body of the deceased in a coir cot to the house of P.W.2. (iv) Mrs.Lakshmi, the mother of the deceased, then, went to the Police Station at Kabisthalam. P.W.12 was the then Sub Inspector of Police, at Kabisthalam Police Station. At 04.00 p.m. on 11.12.2002, Mrs.Lakshmi presented a written complaint. P.W.12, registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No.488 of 2002, under Section 302 I.P.C. He forwarded the complaint (Ex.P.8) and the First Information Report (Ex.P.9) to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. These documents were received by the learned Magistrate at 01.45 a.m. on 12.12.2002. (v) P.W.14 took up the case for investigation on 11.12.2002 at 05.00 p.m. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazer between 06.30 p.m. to 09.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 to P.W.7. These documents were received by the learned Magistrate at 01.45 a.m. on 12.12.2002. (v) P.W.14 took up the case for investigation on 11.12.2002 at 05.00 p.m. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazer between 06.30 p.m. to 09.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 to P.W.7. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 06.00 p.m. to 09.30 p.m. and then forwarded the dead body for postmortem. (vi) P.W.13, Dr.Amutha, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 12.12.2002 at 11.05 a.m. She found the following injuries: “Injuries: 1) Incised wound with gaping in the left side of chest extending downward from left shoulder – 14 x 7 x 10 cm. Cut end of blood vessels seen. 2) Incised wound with gaping in the lower part of left side of neck about 8 x 3 x 7 cm exposing severed major blood vessels. 3) Incised wound with gaping over the left knee joing exposing the patella about 7 x 3 x 4 cm. 4) Incised wound with gaping in the right leg below knee – 8 x 3 x 2 cms. 5) Incised wound with gaping over the right gluteal region – 11 x 7 x 9 cm. Internal Examination: Hyoid & ribs intact. Heart congested & empty. Lungs congested intact. Liver congested intact. Stomach congested contains partially digested food material, Intestine distended with gas. Kidney's congested intact. Bladder empty. Skull & brain intact. Spinal column intact. Death appears to have occurred 22-26 hrs prior to autopsy”. Ex.P.10 is the Postmortem Certificate. She preserved the viscera for Chemical Examination. The Chemical Analysis Report reveals that there is no poison or alcohol in the internal organs of the deceased. She gave final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to deep injuries in the neck and chest, 22-26 hours prior to autopsy. (vii) During the course of investigation, on 14.12.2002, at 07.30 a.m., at Papanasam Bus Stand, P.W.14 arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.14 and P.W.8 and another witness to the said place and produced M.O.3 aruval. P.W.14 recovered the same under a mahazer in the presence of witnesses. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.14 and P.W.8 and another witness to the said place and produced M.O.3 aruval. P.W.14 recovered the same under a mahazer in the presence of witnesses. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the first accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over all the material objects to the Court. He made a request to the Court for sending the material objects for Chemical Examination. The Report revealed that there was blood detected on all the material objects including the aruval. Since, he was transferred, he handed over the Case Diary to his successor for further investigation. (viii) P.W.15 took up the case for further investigation, collected the medical records, examined further witnesses and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet on 31.03.2003 against all the three accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 15 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited, besides 3 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the solitary eyewitness to the occurrence. Mrs.Lakshmi, the mother of the deceased died even before the commencement of the trial. P.W.2, Mr.Subramanian, is the brother of the deceased, who has stated that on hearing the alarm raised, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2, who has stated that on hearing the information about the occurrence, she rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead in the field. P.W.4 to P.W.7 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the first accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.3, aruval. P.W.9 has not stated anything incriminating the accused. He has only stated that he heard about the occurrence later on. P.W.10 is the Scientific Assistant, who has spoken about the Chemical Examination conducted on the material objects. He has stated that he found blood stains on all the material objects including the aruval. P.W.9 has not stated anything incriminating the accused. He has only stated that he heard about the occurrence later on. P.W.10 is the Scientific Assistant, who has spoken about the Chemical Examination conducted on the material objects. He has stated that he found blood stains on all the material objects including the aruval. P.W.11 is the Constable, who carried the dead body for postmortem. P.W.12 has spoken about the complaint made by Mrs.Lakshmi and the case registered by him. P.W.13 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.14 and P.W.15 have spoken about the investigation of the case. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document. 6. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused, but convicted the appellant alone, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence, is doubtful. He would further submit that the original First Information Report in this case has been suppressed and in its place, Ex.P.8 has been substituted. He would next contend that in the earliest information passed on to the police, it was informed that the deceased was found lying dead. But, that information was subsequently suppressed. The subsequent complaint was prepared to suit the convenience of the prosecution. He would submit that there is enormous delay in the First Information Report reaching the Court, which also creates very strong doubts in the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the presence of P.W.1 is quite natural and there are no reasons to reject her presence and her evidence against the accused. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the presence of P.W.1 is quite natural and there are no reasons to reject her presence and her evidence against the accused. He would further submit that her evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 as well as the medical evidence. The discrepancies in respect of the First Information Report as projected by the learned counsel for the appellant are immaterial, he submitted. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the above submissions. 11. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the solitary witness to the alleged occurrence. The other alleged eye-witness, Mrs.Lakshmi passed away even before the commencement of the trial. Therefore, the prosecution relies only on the evidence of P.W.1. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that P.W.1 is not reliable. In this regard, we may notice that the alleged occurrence was at 02.00 p.m. The occurrence was not anywhere near the residential locality, as it was in the field. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 and Mrs.Lakshmi were present at the time of occurrence, witnessing the same. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.2 on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead in between two ridges in the field. Thereafter, he took the deceased in a cot to the bus stop. Had it been true that P.W.1 was present and she witnessed the occurrence, the fact that the first accused caused the death of the deceased by cutting him, would have come to the knowledge of P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that immediately after the occurrence, he rushed to Kabisthalam Police Station, which is situated at a distance of about 7 to 8 Kilometres. He has further stated that when he reached the Police Station, it was about 03.45 p.m. He has further stated that at that earliest opportunity, he told the Inspector of Police that the deceased found lying dead. He has further stated that when he reached the Police Station, it was about 03.45 p.m. He has further stated that at that earliest opportunity, he told the Inspector of Police that the deceased found lying dead. He did not inform the police that it was this accused, who committed the murder of the deceased and the same was witnessed by P.W.1. This important circumstance, which creates doubts in the case of the prosecution, has not been explained away by the prosecution at all. 12. P.W.1, on her part, has stated that immediately after the occurrence, the dead body was taken to the nearby bus stop, from where, P.W.2 informed the police over phone and the police reached the place of occurrence within half-an-hour. She has further stated that on reaching the place of occurrence, the police noted down all the injuries found on the body and recorded her statement, in which, she signed. That statement, which is the earliest information, has also been suppressed by the prosecution. P.W.2 has further stated that when he returned from the Police Station, along with the police, the dead body had already been brought to his house. After the arrival of the police to his house, he took his mother Mrs.Lakshmi to the Police Station again. At his house, a complaint was drafted in which his mother, Mrs.Lakshmi signed and along with the complaint, he took her to the Police Station and preferred the second complaint. Probably, this is Ex.P.8. 13. The case of the prosecution, as we have already pointed out, is that the occurrence was at 02.00 p.m. This is disputed by the defence. P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, has stated that he received information about this occurrence at 11.00 a.m. on 11.12.2002. Had it been true that the occurrence was at 02.00 p.m. and the same was witnessed by P.W.1, there would have been no occasion at all for P.W.14 to receive information about this occurrence at 11.00 a.m. itself. From this, it is inferable that the dead body would have been found in the field even before 11.00 a.m. and thereafter intimation was given to the police at 11.00 a.m. P.W.14 has further stated that immediately after receiving information at 11 O'Clock, he took up the case for investigation. But, he did not go to the place of occurrence on the same day. But, he did not go to the place of occurrence on the same day. He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence on 12.12.2002 only. But, in the chief examination, he has stated that on 11.12.2002, between 05.30 p.m. to 06.30 p.m., he prepared the Observation Mahazer and he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 06.30 p.m. to 09.30 p.m. This is quite contrary to his admission during cross-examination that he went to the place of occurrence only on 12.12.2002. This material contradiction also, has not been explained away by the prosecution. 14. Above all, the First Information Report, according to the prosecution, was registered at 04.00 p.m. The distance between Kabisthalam Police Station and the house of the learned Magistrate is hardly 8 Kilometres. It is admitted by both sides. Had it been true that Ex.P.8 had come into being at 04.00 p.m., the same would have reached the hands of the learned Magistrate within, at the most, one hour. But, it had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 01.45 a.m. on 12.12.2002. Absolutely, there is no explanation for this enormous delay. The Constable, who carried the First Information Report from the Police Station and handed over to the learned Magistrate, has not been examined. Even the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case has got no explanation. This unexplained delay would probabilise the theory of the accused that the First Information Report would have come into being only around 10.00 p.m. Though the dead body was found at 11.00 a.m. itself and the information regarding the same was received by the Inspector of Police at 11.00 a.m. itself, strangely, it is stated by the prosecution that the occurrence was only at 02.00 p.m. In the light of the fact that the police arrived at the scene of occurrence within half-an-hour of the occurrence as stated by P.W.1 and in the light of the above facts, the delay in the First Information Report in reaching the hands of the learned Magistrate, assumes much importance. Absolutely there is no explanation for these material contradictions, improbabilities and the delay in First Information Report. The defence has suggested that the dead body was found in the field and nobody had seen the occurrence. This possibility cannot be ruled out. 15. Above all, credibility of P.W.1 has been doubted by the Trial Court. Absolutely there is no explanation for these material contradictions, improbabilities and the delay in First Information Report. The defence has suggested that the dead body was found in the field and nobody had seen the occurrence. This possibility cannot be ruled out. 15. Above all, credibility of P.W.1 has been doubted by the Trial Court. According to P.W.1, all the three accused came to the spot and they participated in the crime. But, the Trial Court has acquitted the second accused, disbelieving P.W.1. Thus, even according to the Trial Court, P.W.1 is only partly believable. It is too well settled that if there is only the evidence of a solitary witness, prudence requires that the same requires corroboration. Even in the absence of such corroboration, there can be no legal or factual impediment to rely on the evidence of solitary witness, provided the said evidence inspires the confidence of the Court. If the evidence of solitary witness does not inspire the confidence of this Court, then as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1957 SC 614 (Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras), it is not safe to rely on the said solitary evidence. In this case, P.W.1 is not fully believable, her presence is doubtful and there is no corroboration for her evidence from any independent source. For these reasons, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, made in S.C.No.208 of 2009, dated 06.08.2010, is set aside and the appellant/first accused is acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant/first accused and the sureties shall stand terminated.