JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Ranglal son of Kanwar Lal (P.W.1) and brother of Babulal (P.W.4) was murdered on the intervening night of 5th April and 6th April, 2008. Babulal (P.W.4) being brother presented written report (Ex.P.1) before Tara Chand (P.W.25) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Ghatoli. In the written report (Ex.P.1) it was stated that in the night after 12.00 O'clock unknown persons had committed murder of Ranglal by causing injuries with Lathies and Gandasi. On the basis of written report (Ex.P.1) formal FIR (Ex.P.33) bearing FIR No.56/08 was registered at Police Station Ghatoli for offence under Section 302 IPC. In the FIR, it was stated that it is a case of blind murder. 2. During investigation, the investigating agency nominated Phool Chand, Babulal, Chhotulal all three sons of Mangilal and Hemraj S/o. Amrit Lal as accused. All the above said four persons were tried by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Jhalawar. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 5.2.2011 held three brothers Phool Chand, Babulal and Chhotulal to be guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2) (5), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court also came to the conclusion that Phool Chand has committed offence under Section 4/25, Arms Act, 1959. The trial court acquitted Hemraj. Having convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 5.2.2011 by a separate order of even date, appellants were sentenced by the trial court as under:- Accused, Phool Chand, Babulal and Chhotulal: U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default thereof to undergo one year simple imprisonment. U/s. 3(2)(5), SC/ST (PA) Act: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo four months simple imprisonment. Accused, Phool Chand: U/s. 4/25, Arms Act: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo four months simple imprisonment. (All the sentences were to run concurrently) 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of solitary eye-witness Vidya Bai (P.W.11). 5. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo four months simple imprisonment. (All the sentences were to run concurrently) 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of solitary eye-witness Vidya Bai (P.W.11). 5. Shri Sameer Sharma learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently assailed testimony of solitary eye-witness Vidya Bai (P.W.11) and had stated that she had not witnessed the occurrence and she was pressurised to become witness and thus, it is contended that Vidya Bai (P.W.11) has been procured as an eye-witness. Before we advert to the testimony of Vidya Bai (P.W.11), it will be necessary for us to take note of medical evidence. 6. Dr. Ummed Singh (P.W.20) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ranglal on 6.4.2008 at 11.00 AM at Primary Health Center, Ghatoli. He found ten injuries on the person of Ranglal. Injuries No.1, 4 and 9 were incised injuries. Remaining injuries were blunt injuries. The doctor had found fracture of middle and left part of maxilla, nasal bone, frontal bone, right parietal, right temporal bone, and left temporal bone. Doctor also found that membranes and brain were congested. According to opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was excessive bleeding due to injuries and injuries were ante mortem in nature. Doctor has proved post-mortem report as Exhibit- P.25. 7. To introduce Vidya Bai (P.W.11) as eye-witness, prosecution has examined Nazara Bai (P.W.3) wife of Ranglal deceased who has stated in the court that deceased Ranglal was having illicit relation with Vidya Bai. Nazara Bai (P.W.3) stated that harvesting of wheat was going on. Her husband Ranglal, uncle Phool Chand, Dhannalal, Nanuram had gone to the filed for threshing of wheat crop. Her husband had stayed in the fields to guard wheat produce and in the night somebody murdered him. He had suffered injuries on the head and face. The witness further stated that Chhotulal etc. were having inimical relation and therefore, Chotya, Phoolya, Babulal had caused injuries to Ranglal. In cross-examination this witness stated to be correct that Vidya Bai had also gone running to the fields. He had suffered injuries on the head and face. The witness further stated that Chhotulal etc. were having inimical relation and therefore, Chotya, Phoolya, Babulal had caused injuries to Ranglal. In cross-examination this witness stated to be correct that Vidya Bai had also gone running to the fields. It will be apposite here to reproduce exact words of witness as under:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd [kfygku ij Hkkxdj tkus okyksa esa fo/kkckbZ Hkh FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSa rks ns[krs gh jksus yx x;h Fkh vkSj xkao dh vkSjrksa esa fo/kckbZ us eq>s laHkkyk FkkA** 8. The witness further stated that name of husband of Vidya Bai is Dhanroop. House of Dhanroop is near to their house. She further admitted that Vidya Bai was having illicit relation with her husband and her husband normally use to stay with her. 9. Kanwarlal (P.W.1) father of the deceased stated that his sons Ranglal, Babulal (P.W.4) another villagers Phoolchand, another Phoolchand, Dhannalal had brought a threshing machine in the field. After wheat was taken out of the chaff, his son Ranglal had stayed in the field to guard wheat produce and in the night somebody had murdered him. In the morning, his grandson had gone to the fields. He came back and informed that dead body of Ranglal is lying in the fields. Then he had sent his another son to report the matter to the police. 10. Dhanraj (P.W.2) aged 12 years is son of the deceased Ranglal. He stated that about 7-8 months ago, he went to the fields to call his father. There he found his father dead. 11. Babulal (P.W.4) has submitted written report (Ex.P.1). This witness also stated that in the morning they learnt that Ranglal has been murdered in the fields. This witness further stated that Vidya Bai and daughter of Chhotulal accused had illicit relation with the accused. He further stated that accused were having previous enmity with Ranglal. Therefore, they have murdered Ranglal. As we have stated earlier, in the written report (Ex.P.1), no name of the assailant was mentioned. This witness in cross-examination admitted that Ranglal was having illicit relation with Vidya Bai for last 10-12 years. The witness admitted that on the day of occurrence at the spot, Vidya Bai had met him. Therefore, they have murdered Ranglal. As we have stated earlier, in the written report (Ex.P.1), no name of the assailant was mentioned. This witness in cross-examination admitted that Ranglal was having illicit relation with Vidya Bai for last 10-12 years. The witness admitted that on the day of occurrence at the spot, Vidya Bai had met him. To be precise, witness stated as under:- ^^?kVukLFky ij fo/kkckbZ mlh le; eq>s fey x;h Fkh xkao esa Hkh og jkst gh eq>s feyrh FkhA** 12. Phoolchand S/o. Narain (P.W.5) stated that he had gone to the fields with Ranglal. Ranglal stayed in the field and he returned to the house. In cross-examination he stated that from the village he had taken Gudadi (quilt) from the house of Ranglal and had given the same to Ranglal. 13. Phoolchand S/o. Lalu (P.W.6) is the witness of inquest proceedings (Ex.P.2) and site plan (Ex.P.4). In presence of this witness, photographs were also taken and blood stained soil was also taken into possession vide Exhibits-P.5 and P.6 respectively. 14. Jagdish (P.W.7), Nanuram (P.W.8), Dhanna Lal (P.W.9) and Dinesh Kumar (P.W.10) have deposed that they had gone to the fields along with Ranglal. In the night they had returned, but Ranglal stayed in the fields to guard the wheat produce. 15. Vidya Bai (P.W.11) stated in court that she was having illicit relations with Ranglal from last so many years. Meanwhile, Ranglal had also developed illicit relation with Gayatri Devi. Gayatri Devi had informed that in the night Phone of Ranglal will come and the witness Vidya Bai may awake her up. The witness stated that at 12.00 O'clock in night she received phone of Ranglal and she along with Gayatri Bai had gone to the fields. At that time, Ranglal was threshing wheat crop. She stayed on the one side. Ranglal made physical relationship with Gayatri. Meanwhile, Phool Chand, Chhotulal came on a motorcycle. She concealed herself behind the bushes. Gayatri Bai ran away. Phool Chand and Chhotulal had caught hold of Ranglal. At that time, Babulal was also present. She ran away from the spot. On the next date, she learnt that Ranglal had been murdered. Except three accused, no other person was there. Hemraj was not there. Qua Hemraj accused, the learned Public Prosecutor got the witness declared as hostile and she was confronted with her previous statement. At that time, Babulal was also present. She ran away from the spot. On the next date, she learnt that Ranglal had been murdered. Except three accused, no other person was there. Hemraj was not there. Qua Hemraj accused, the learned Public Prosecutor got the witness declared as hostile and she was confronted with her previous statement. The witness denied that she had named Hemraj in police statement (Ex.P.11). In cross-examination the witness stated that she was married with Dhanroop. However, her relation with Ranglal were of husband and wife. She further stated that Ranglal is having three children from his wife and she has also given birth to three children from the loins of Ranglal. She denied that her husband Dhanroop objected to her relationship with Ranglal. She further admitted that she was employed as a labourer to dig pits and Ranglal was working as a mate there. She sated that initially she had objected relationship of Ranglal with Gayatri Bai. She further admitted that Ranglal used to make telephone call to Gayatri Bai and Gayatri used to come to her to attend the phone. The witness admitted that police had taken her statement regarding murder of Ranglal after 8-9 days of the occurrence. She further admitted that for 8 days she had not left her village. In cross-examination she admitted that when she went to meet Ranglal, it was dark night. She further stated that when she saw light of motorcycle, she understood that somebody was coming. She told Ranglal that a motorcycle is coming. She further stated that seeing the motorcycle, Ranglal had slept taking the quilt over him and she had reached to her village within 5-7 minutes. In cross-examination this witness admitted that in morning she learnt that Ranglal has been murdered. She had not narrated the occurrence to anybody. Her husband was with her for 24 hours. She has not disclosed anything regarding murder of Ranglal. She further stated that she had not told about the occurrence to anybody. She admitted that police had called her in the police station and she was detained at the police station for 3-4 days. She had not narrated the occurrence to anybody. Her husband was with her for 24 hours. She has not disclosed anything regarding murder of Ranglal. She further stated that she had not told about the occurrence to anybody. She admitted that police had called her in the police station and she was detained at the police station for 3-4 days. The witness in her cross-examination had stated as under:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd bu 7&8 fnuksa esa Fkkuk ?kkVksyh okyksa us eq>s iwNrkN ds fy, Fkkus ij cqyk;k FkkA eq>s] /ku:i dks] eksgu dks] uoy dks iwNrkN ds fy, Fkkuk ?kkVksyh esa Fkkukf/kdkjh us ,d ckj cqyk;k FkkA gesa ,d fnu ds fy, gh cqyk;k FkkA nwljh ckj eSa iwNrkN ds fy, /ku:i ds lkFk Fkkus esa x;h Fkh] rc eq>s 3&4 fnu iwNrkN ds fy, Fkkus ij j[kk FkkA tc rq>s iwNrkN ds fy, eq>s o esjs ifr uoy] eksgu] vkfn dks Fkkus esa 3&4 fnu ds fy, j[kk mlds vafre fnu iqfyl okys Qwypan] NksVsyky dks yk, FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd Qwypan o NksVsyky dks Fkkus esa ykus ds ckn gh ge ifjokj okyksa dks iqfyl okyksa us NksM+k FkkA** 16. Having noted the evidence of solitary eye-witness and deposition of the relatives of the deceased, we need not burden the judgment with the evidence of remaining witnesses who had participated in investigation, had attested the inquest proceedings or witnessed recovery of weapon from the accused and had affected arrest and had sent weapon and clothes of the deceased to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Suffice it to say, as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P.47), shirts, Safi, Lathi, Kulhadi and Chaku all were found to be stained with human blood of ‘A’ group. Prosecution has also placed on record call detail record of telephone of deceased to say that he had made a call on the phone of Gayatri Bai. 17. After prosecution closed its evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. 18. Gayatri appeared as D.W.1. She stated that battery of mobile of her father was not working. SIM of the phone was with Vidya Bai. She further stated that Vidya Bai was apprehended by the police along with her husband, Dewar (younger brother of husband) and Jeth (elder brother of husband). 18. Gayatri appeared as D.W.1. She stated that battery of mobile of her father was not working. SIM of the phone was with Vidya Bai. She further stated that Vidya Bai was apprehended by the police along with her husband, Dewar (younger brother of husband) and Jeth (elder brother of husband). She further stated that Mohan, Sugan, Dhanroop and Nawal were apprehended by the police. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 20. Shri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that Vidya Bai (P.W.11) was having illicit relations with the deceased Ranglal. Learned counsel has contended that police has apprehended Dhanroop, husband of Vidya Bai, along with his brothers. Learned counsel submits that eight days before murder, needle of suspicion was towards Dhanroop, husband of Vidya Bai, and relations of Dhanroop. Learned counsel has submitted that Vidya Bai was detained at the police station and only after she agreed to name the accused with whom as per statement made by Babulal (P.W.4) deceased was having inimical relations, Vidya Bai, her husband and brothers of Vidya Bai were released by the police authorities. 21. Shri Virendra Godara learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since Vidya Bai was having illicit relations with Ranglal, she had gone to the fields in the night to meet him and thus, she is a natural witness. 22. In the present case, conviction of the appellants rest on the testimony of solitary eyewitness. The witness has only stated that when she had gone to the field, three accused had apprehended Ranglal deceased. It is to be noted that in the statement made to the police, she had also named Hemraj. In the court, the witness has not named Hemraj and has quietly absolved him of the offence. Thus, this court shall be on guard to examine the testimony of the solitary witness who very conveniently had dropped Hemraj as an accused. The learned Public Prosecutor while declaring her hostile qua Hemraj had given a suggestion that due to compromise with Hemraj she has not named Hemraj as an accused. Be that as it may, a serious question and doubt has been raised regarding the credibility of the witness. 23. Vidya Bai (P.W.11) solitary eye-witness whose credibility is under cloud immediately after the occurrence has not named the accused to anybody. Be that as it may, a serious question and doubt has been raised regarding the credibility of the witness. 23. Vidya Bai (P.W.11) solitary eye-witness whose credibility is under cloud immediately after the occurrence has not named the accused to anybody. Immediately on learning that Ranglal has been murdered, she along with co-villagers went to the place of occurrence. She had not disclosed names of the assailants to Nazara Bai (P.W.3). Nazara Bai (P.W.3) wife of the deceased Ranglal has stated Vidya Bai (P.W.11) had also reached at the spot hearing Ranglal has been murdered. Even Nazara Devi (P.W.3) knew that Vidya Bai was having illicit relation with her husband. Vidya Bai was taken to the police station. She was detained there. It is to be noted that in the present case, occurrence has taken place on 6.4.2008, statement of Vidya Bai (P.W.11) was recorded by the police on 14.4.2008 after eight days of the occurrence. Thus, Vidya Bai has surfaced as an eye-witness of the crime after eight days of the occurrence. The witness has further stated that when motorcycle came, she ran away towards the village and it was a dark night. In these circumstances, we cannot rule out that to save her husband Dhanroop and his brothers to whom police was suspecting as the one who had murdered Ranglal, Vidya Bai (P.W.11) has named the present appellants with whom deceased was having inimical relation as is apparent from the statement of Babulal (P.W.4). Equally possibility cannot be ruled out that Dhanroop having learnt that his wife Vidya Devi (P.W.11) was having illicit relations with deceased may have committed the offence. 24. Taking totality of the circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of solitary eyewitness Vidya Bai (P.W.11). Therefore, we have no other option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. 25. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellants by the trial court is set aside. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appeal allowed.