JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.81 of 2004, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C. and the second accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 and 506(ii) I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 22.04.2009, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The Trial Court convicted the second accused under Sections 302 read with 34 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. They were acquitted from the other charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are 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. Vijay Singh @ Sudhar. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are his brothers. The accused 1 and 2 are the neighbours of the deceased. The deceased was doing money lending business. It is alleged that the first accused had borrowed money from the deceased and failed to return the same. The deceased was demanding repayment of the said amount. But the first accused was evasive. While so, on 27.05.2003, the deceased and P.W.2 had gone to the house of the first accused and threatened him of dire consequences, if he did not return the money to the deceased. The mother of the first accused gave a complaint to the police in respect of the said occurrence, alleging that the deceased and P.W.2 had caused extensive damage to the house of the first accused. In respect of the said complaint, an enquiry was held at the Police Station at 05.00 p.m. on the same day, in which P.W.2 participated. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. In respect of the said complaint, an enquiry was held at the Police Station at 05.00 p.m. on the same day, in which P.W.2 participated. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii) Then, at about 07.45 p.m. on 27.05.2003, P.W.1 and the deceased were returning from Thingalsanthai to their house. When they were nearing a place known as 'New Mavu Mill', suddenly these two accused emerged. Both were armed with each one aruval. On seeing the accused coming in front of him with aruvals in their hands, the deceased started running with a view to escape. But, both the accused gave a chase and reached him at a distance. On so reaching him, the first accused started mounting attack on the deceased with aruval. The second accused did not cause any injury on the deceased at all. P.W.1 tried to intervene. At the end, the second accused threatened him of dire consequences. Therefore, he did not intervene. Then, both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 and one Mr. Nagarajan, who accompanied him, found that the deceased was dead. Then, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and made a complaint under Ex.P.1. (iii) P.W.9, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, received the complaint of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 at 08.30 p.m. on 27.05.2003 and registered a case in Crime No.327 of 2003, under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C. against both the accused. Ex.P.11 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over investigation to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (iv) P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, took up the case for investigation at 09.15 p.m. on 27.05.2003. On reaching the place of occurrence, he prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem. (v) P.W.6, Dr. Ramachandran, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 28.05.2003 at 11.30 p.m. at the Government Hospital at Colachel. He found the following injuries: “1.Cut injury over right parietal area, laterally placed size 12cm x 3cm x bone deep. Brain matter protruded through the wound. 2. (v) P.W.6, Dr. Ramachandran, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 28.05.2003 at 11.30 p.m. at the Government Hospital at Colachel. He found the following injuries: “1.Cut injury over right parietal area, laterally placed size 12cm x 3cm x bone deep. Brain matter protruded through the wound. 2. Cut injury extending from left angle of mouth to the left occipital area passing through the middle of left ear size 20cm x 10cm x bone deep. 3. Cut injury over the left supra scapular area, horizontally placed size 12 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep. 4. Cut injury over the left side of the neck extending to post aspect of neck, horizontally placed, size 12 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep. 5. Cut injury over the left shoulder, oblique direction size 10 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep. 6. Cut injury over the lateral aspect of left elbow joint size 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep, oblique direction underlying bone found fracture. 7. Cut injury joint above the right eyebrow, horizontally placed size 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. On deep dissection: Injury No.1: Fracture of right parietal bone, laterally of about 7 cm length. Injury extended to brain about 3 cm medially. Injury No.2: Underlying facial muscle, vessels, injured. Mandibular bone exposed, VII CN injured left ear cut in the two. Injury to mastoid bone, present left lateral part of occipital bone exposed. Injury No. 4: Underlying left sterno mastoid muscle and left carotid vessels found cut upper cervical bone exposed. Injury No.6: Underlying muscle, vessels and both bones of left forearm found cut left elbow joint exposed”. Ex.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries. (vi) P.W.11, during the course of investigation, came to know that on 30.05.2003, both the accused had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Nanguneri. On 05.06.2003, he took police custody of both the accused on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. On 06.06.2003, at 09.00 a.m., while in police custody, in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness, the first accused gave a voluntary confession. In the said confession, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden two aruvals and the bloodstained dress materials. On 06.06.2003, at 09.00 a.m., while in police custody, in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness, the first accused gave a voluntary confession. In the said confession, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden two aruvals and the bloodstained dress materials. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.1 and M.O.2, aruvals and the dress materials. He recovered the same under a mahazer. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the materials objects to the Court. He made a request to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical examination. As per the Report, human blood was found on all the material objects including both the aruvals. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 11 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited, besides 13 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the entire occurrence vividly. He has stated that at the time of occurrence, he accompanied the deceased and while they were reaching the place, he witnessed the occurrence. P.W.2, though examined not as an eye-witness, he developed a story, as though, he witnessed the occurrence. Thus, he has stated that he saw the deceased being cut by the first accused and he has also spoken about the participation of the second accused. P.W.3, the brother-in-law of the deceased, who was examined to speak about the occurrence as an eye-witness, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.4 has spoken about the confession made by the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1, M.O.2 and dress materials. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch at the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.7, the Wireman working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has stated that at the place of occurrence, there was enough light and there was no electricity failure on the day. P.W.8 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence. P.W.7, the Wireman working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has stated that at the place of occurrence, there was enough light and there was no electricity failure on the day. P.W.8 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence. P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case, on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.10 is the Head Constable, who carried the First Information Report to the Court and he has stated that he handed over the First Information Report to the learned Magistrate at 10.30 p.m. on 28.05.2003. P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On the side of the accused, the First Information Report in Crime No.284 of 2003 was marked as Ex.D.1. This First Information Report relates to the case against somebody else in respect of the attack made on the deceased. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced them accordingly. That is how, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. In this case, the prosecution relies on the eye-witness account of P.W.1 and P.W.2 mainly. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that P.W.2 during investigation had stated that he did not see the occurrence at all and he came to know about the occurrence later on. But, during his examination before the Trial Court, he had stated as though he witnessed the entire occurrence. We have perused the evidence of P.W.2. He has been duly contradicted by the defence, during which, it was brought to his notice that during investigation he told the Investigating Officer that he only heard about the occurrence and he did not see the occurrence at all. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, has also stated that during cross-examination, P.W.2 told him that he came to know about the occurrence only later on. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, has also stated that during cross-examination, P.W.2 told him that he came to know about the occurrence only later on. Thus, P.W.2 is only a witness, who heard about the occurrence and he would not have seen the occurrence at all. But, curiously, during examination before the Trial Court, he had developed a story, as though, he witnessed the entire occurrence. Therefore, we find every force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2 is not an eye-witness and therefore his evidence is rejected. P.W.3 though happened to be the brother-in-law of the deceased, has also turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, the prosecution is now left only with the evidence of P.W.1. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was no delay in registering the case as well as in forwarding the same to the Court. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the same would, to some extent, vouch for the truth of the contents of Ex.P.1. In our considered view, simply on the ground that there was no delay in registering the case and in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court, this Court cannot rush to the conclusion that everything spoken in the complaint is a gospel truth. Here, in this case, the crucial question is whether P.W.1 is a credible witness, upon whose solitary evidence alone the conviction can be sustained. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in Ex.P.1 as well as in the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that one independent witness, by name, Mr. Nagarajan, accompanied the deceased, but that Nagarajan, who accompanied the deceased, has not been examined at all, for which, absolutely there is explanation. Similarly, it is in evidence that the occurrence had takenplace in a busy locality, where there were shops and houses. But, no independent witness has been examined. For which also, there is no explanation. P.W.8, the photographer, has stated that there was no light at all at the place of occurrence. Though, it is stated that there was enough light at the place of occurrence, the evidence of P.W.8 creates some doubt about the same also. Then, the presence of P.W.1 is also doubtful. For which also, there is no explanation. P.W.8, the photographer, has stated that there was no light at all at the place of occurrence. Though, it is stated that there was enough light at the place of occurrence, the evidence of P.W.8 creates some doubt about the same also. Then, the presence of P.W.1 is also doubtful. P.W.1 states that he was then working as a Conductor in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On the day, he was on leave. But, he has not stated as to why he had gone to the place of occurrence. The occurrence also had not been takenplace anywhere near his house. His presence at the place of occurrence, even according to the case of the prosecution, is by chance. It is too well settled that if a witness claims to have been present at the place of occurrence by chance, the reasons for his being present at the place of occurrence, should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Here, in this case, we find no such explanation at all offered by P.W.1 to probabilise his presence at the place of occurrence. That apart, the narration of the facts by P.W.1 also creates doubt in his veracity. He has stated that suddenly the accused 1 and 2 emerged and both of them were armed with one aruval each. On seeing the accused, the deceased attempted to escape. He started running. It is his further evidence that both the accused gave a chase and reached him at a distance. After that, it is his evidence that the second accused did not cause any injury at all on the deceased. The first accused alone repeatedly cut the deceased and caused his death. This is highly unnatural. Had it been true that both the accused had come there with a preconcert to commit the murder of the deceased, that too both armed with aruvals, after having given such a long chase, it is highly unnatural that the second accused would not have caused any injury on the deceased. This creates enormous doubt in the evidence of P.W.1, as to whether he would have been present at the place of occurrence or not. 10. It is not the law that the evidence of a solitary evidence should be outright rejected. This creates enormous doubt in the evidence of P.W.1, as to whether he would have been present at the place of occurrence or not. 10. It is not the law that the evidence of a solitary evidence should be outright rejected. Here, in this case, P.W.1 is not only a solitary witness, but he happens to be an interested witness as well as inimical witness. The evidence of such a witness is to be very closely scrutinised. On such scrutiny, if the evidence of the solitary witness, who also incidentally happens to be interested and inimical witness, inspires the confidence of the Court, then there may not be any impediment either factual or legal, to rely upon the said solitary evidence and to convict the accused. But, here in this case, for the doubts, which we have raised herein above, which are very reasonable, the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of this Court at all. Assuming that he could be believed to some extent, in the absence of any corroboration from any independent source, it will not be prudent to act upon his evidence alone. In this case, we may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1957 SC 614 (Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the evidence of a solitary witness is partly believable, then rule of prudence requires that the Court would look for corroboration from independent source. Here, in this case, absolutely there is no other evidence from independent source to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2, which is partly believable, at the most. As we have already pointed out, it is not the case of the prosecution that there would have been no witness present at all. The occurrence had taken place in the busy locality. Even, according to the prosecution one Mr. Nagarajan, was present at the place of occurrence. It is not explained as to why, neither Mr. Nagarajan, nor any other independent witness examined. For these reasons, we hold that it will not be safe to sustain the conviction solely on the testimony of P.W.1 alone. In such view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 11. Nagarajan, nor any other independent witness examined. For these reasons, we hold that it will not be safe to sustain the conviction solely on the testimony of P.W.1 alone. In such view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, made in S.C.No.81 of 2004, dated 22.04.2009, is set aside and the appellants/ accused are acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds executed by the appellants and the sureties shall stand terminated.