JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—The appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.6.1983 passed by the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 427 of 1981 arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 1980 (State v. Prempal and another), Police Station (in short P.S.) -Islamnagar whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. According to the informant Savitri Devi (P.W-10), her deceased husband Charan Singh was practicing medicine and living at the residence of appellant/accused Prem Pal Singh Thakur, at village Nachni, District Budaun. It is alleged that the deceased Charan Singh developed illegitimate physical relationship with one Susheela, sister of appellant Prem Pal Singh. Prem Pal Singh and his family members got infuriated and kept on looking the opportunity to eliminate deceased Charan Singh. 3. Informant tried to reason with her husband but of no avail. In fact he procured a country made pistol for his protection. Six days prior to the incident both the appellants Prem Pal Singh and Babu Lal got the deceased Charan singh arrested for possession of unlicensed weapon. He was bailed out one day prior to the episode. Next day i.e. on the date of occurrence the deceased Charan Singh alongwith his wife Savitri Devi (informant) went to the village Nachni for realization of remaining dues from patients. Appellants accosted them on their way to Village Nachni. Appellant Prem Pal Singh was holding Double Barrel Gun and appellant Babu Lal was wielding Single Barrel gun. They fired 5-6 shots each upon the deceased Charan Singh who died instantaneously. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Yadram, Gendan Lal (P.W.-9), Chunni (P.W.-1), Bhagirath (P.W.-2), Tinku, Kallu (P.W.-4) and Bheekam Singh (P.W.-3). They reportedly rescued the informant Savitri Devi (P.W.-10) also. The incident is said to have been occurred on 20.7.1980 at about 6.30 a.m. P.W.-10 Savitri Devi lodged the FIR on the same day at about 8.30 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence near village Nachni and police station Islam Nagar is indicated to be 5 Kilometers as per chik report (Ex-Ka-2). 4. The aforesaid story was later on improved upon and it was also added that the deceased Charan Sigh had also developed intimate relationship with Kiran, Sister of second appellant/accused Babu Lal. The police went to the place of occurrence immediately in the aftermath of the incident. 4. The aforesaid story was later on improved upon and it was also added that the deceased Charan Sigh had also developed intimate relationship with Kiran, Sister of second appellant/accused Babu Lal. The police went to the place of occurrence immediately in the aftermath of the incident. It is stated that the police personnel reached the place of occurrence at about 9.30 a.m. Inquest was conducted and investigation ensued. On completion of investigation the Investigating Officer Sri Harimaya Sharma (P.W.-13) submitted a charge-sheet (Ex-Ka15) against both the accused appellants. 5. Trial Court framed charges against both the accused under Section 302 IPC on 27.11.1982. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution adduced testimony of as many as 13 witnesses namely P.W.-1 Chunni (eye-witness), P.W.-2 Bhagirath (eye-witness), P.W-3 Bheekam Singh (eye-witness), P.W-4 Kallu (eye-witness), P.W-5 Dr. N. P. Singh, (who conducted autopsy), P.W.-6 H.C. Radhey Shyam Sharma (who recorded the FIR), P.W-7 H.C. Om Prakash (who prepared inquest), P.W.-8 Tilak Singh (eye-witness), P.W.-9 Gendan Singh (eye-witness), P.W.-10 Savitri Devi (informant/eye-witness), P.W.-11 Constable Kanwar Pal Singh (who registered a case against the deceased Charan Singh under Arms Act on 14.7.1980), P.W.-12 Constable Subhash Chandra who took corpse of deceased to the mortuary and P.W.-13 Harimaya Sharma (Investigating Officer). 6. The appellants denied all the allegations in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and have claimed false implication due to village party bandi. Appellant Prem Pal has not adduced any evidence, oral or documentary in his defence. However, second appellant Babu Lal has raised the plea of alibi and produced two witnesses namely D.W.-1 A.S. Rizvi, the then A.C.O. (Consolidation), Sultanpur and D.W.-2 Malkhan Singh, then Kannungo, Sultanpur who is also father of the appellant Babu Lal. 7. On conclusion of the trial, trial Court held both the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 7.6.1983. It is this judgment which is under challenge before this Court in appeal. 8. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr Mohit Singh for appellant Babu Lal and Mr Brijesh Sahai and Mr Sharad Srivastava advocate on behalf of appellant Prem pal and Mr Syed Ali Murtaza, learned AGA for the State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is virtually no evidence on record to support the allegations against the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is virtually no evidence on record to support the allegations against the appellants. They have submitted that out of seven eye-witnesses, six have not supported the prosecution version. They have argued that presence of sole remaining witness Savitri Devi on spot is highly doubtful in view of her weak testimony. She has not been able to narrate the incident in convincing manner. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Babu Lal has also claimed that appellant Babu Lal was in Sultanpur with his family at the time of incident. His father was posted at Sultanpur as Consolidation (Chakbandi) Kannungo. Senior Officer D.W.-1 A.S. Rizvi and his own father testified on oath that on the date of incident the appellant Babulal was present in district Sultanpur, situated at very long distance from District Budaun. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have also argued that the ocular testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence, thereby creating doubt about the veracity of testimony of sole remaining witness P.W.-10 Savitri Devi. 12. To the contrary, learned AGA has submitted that the incident occurred at 6.20 in the morning and the report was lodged within two hours at Islam Nagar police station at 8.30 a.m. despite the distance of 5 Kilometers. He has argued that there was no occasion and opportunity for the informant to concoct the story and that there was no reason for the wife to lie about the murder of his husband. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the arrest of Charan Singh (deceased) six days prior to the incident at the instigation of both the appellants. Both the appellants have admitted the arrest of deceased Charan Singh under Arms Act in their evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. 13. Learned AGA has further argued that this clearly provides a motive to both the appellants as deceased Charan Singh had been bailed out one day prior to the incident annoying the appellants. He has further submitted that the marriage of Kiran, sister of appellant Babu Lal was admittedly solemnized at village Nachni on 15.7.1980, five days prior to the incident and this was precisely the reason, deceased was arrested at the instigation of appellants. Learned AGA has also submitted that this prior arrest and the subsequent release of Charan Singh had angered both the appellants. Learned AGA has also submitted that this prior arrest and the subsequent release of Charan Singh had angered both the appellants. Both of them were unhappy because of rumours floating around regarding the relationships of deceased with their respective sisters. Learned AGA has denounced the testimony of both the Defence Witnesses saying that the presence of Babu Lal at Village Nachni is admitted till 18.7.1980 even to the appellants and there is no evidence on record to suggest that family of Babu Lal had left village Nachni for Sultanpur on 18.7.1980 as claimed by him. 14. Perusal of evidence on record would reveal that as many as seven eye-witnesses were named by the informant Savitri Devi (P.W-10) in the FIR meaning thereby this incident was seen at least by eight person, if we include Savitri Devi in the list of witnesses. Seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution. Six stated eye-witnesses have refused to support the prosecution version. They have categorically denied the involvement of appellants in the murder of deceased Charan Singh, therefore, that leaves only Savitri Devi (P.W.-10) wife of deceased as sole witness of the incident. 15. Learned trial judge has relied completely upon the testimony of Savitri Devi. Trial Judge has concluded that the testimony of Savitri Devi is sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. 16. As a matter of law, there is no doubt that the testimony of solitary witness can be the basis of conviction provided found to be trustworthy. Where the prosecution has produced a single witness in support of the offence, same can used for conviction of accused provided such evidence is found credible and trustworthy. But where seven eye-witnesses have been produced and as many as six such witnesses have declined to support prosecution case then it is absolutely necessary to undertake a very close and critical scrutiny of remaining solitary witness. There is no law which says that the conviction of the accused cannot be based on evidence of solitary witness but the evidence of solitary witness must be scrutinized with great caution. While appraising such evidence the Court must be satisfied that his testimony is of such sterling quality that the Court finds safe to base conviction solely on that witness. Evidence of such witness must be free from any blemish or suspicion. While appraising such evidence the Court must be satisfied that his testimony is of such sterling quality that the Court finds safe to base conviction solely on that witness. Evidence of such witness must be free from any blemish or suspicion. Evidence of solitary witness must impress the Court as wholly truthful and convincing. (Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 456. It is well established principle of law that evidence is weighed and not counted but it is essential that such appraisal is done with great caution. The evidence must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording the conviction solely on the basis of single witness. 17. In this case too, testimony of sole witness, Savitri Devi (P.W.-10) has to be subjected to serious scrutiny. The FIR was lodged by the informant Savitri Devi allegedly within two hours of the incident. The contents of the FIR gives impression that she alone went to the police station for lodging the FIR. She has clearly mentioned in the FIR that she left the witnesses by side of corpse of her husband and then went to the police station to file the FIR. Same fact was reiterated by the informant on oath while deposing before the trial Court as P.W.-10. She has stated that she escorted her deceased husband on the day of occurrence at 6 a.m. in the morning while going to Islam Nagar. It is pertinent to point out that it is the case of prosecution that P.W-10 Savitri Devi was living at Islam Nagar at the time of incident and that her slain husband used to live at village Nachni. As soon as the informant and deceased reached the culvert, the appellants Babu Lal and Prem Pal, armed with DBBL and SBL Guns respectively, accosted them and opened fire indiscriminately at her husband who died instantaneously on the spot. Interestingly, this time, she simply named one Yadram only as eye-witness, although, she did mention that few other persons also arrived at the spot but she did not name them. However, it is pertinent to point out that she named at least seven eye-witnesses in her First Information Report (EX-Ka-2) though six of those eye-witnesses have refused to support the prosecution case. 18. However, it is pertinent to point out that she named at least seven eye-witnesses in her First Information Report (EX-Ka-2) though six of those eye-witnesses have refused to support the prosecution case. 18. In paragraph No. 5 of her testimony, she has clearly and emphatically asserted that she alone went to the police station for lodging the FIR and that no other person had accompanied her to the police station. This part of statement was recorded on 19.3.1983 during initial stage of cross-examination. After six days i.e. on 25.3.1983 during last leg of her cross-examination she changed her version in paragraph No. 18 and stated that one Chowkidar also accompanied her to the police station at the time of lodging of the FIR. This is vital contradiction. 19. The FIR gives impression that informant went alone to the police station for lodging the FIR. In her initial testimony also, she categorically reiterated that she alone went to the police station but on the last leg of her cross-examination she resiled from her earlier statement and said that village Chowkidar also accompanied her. But the fact of the matter is, that she was not completely truthful even at this stage. While recording the FIR the relevant entries were made in the General Diary of police station, extract of which is available on record as (Ex-Ka-3) wherein it has been mentioned that the informant Savitri Devi was accompanied by one Chunni Lal, Kallu and her father-in-law Man Singh (father of deceased). Now the question arise why was this solitary witness refusing to acknowledge the presence of these other persons at the police station ? It is pertinent to point out that P.W.-10 Savitri Devi has admitted during her cross-examination that her father-in-law, a healthy person of 68 years, was resident of District Aligarh. She has emphatically denied that Man Singh, her father-in-law lived at Islam Nagar with them. She again reinforced this statement by saying that no other member of family used to live with them. Now the question is if incident occurred at 6.30 a.m. and report was lodged at 8.30 a.m., how the presence of Man Singh could be accounted for ? There is nothing on record to demonstrate when the father of deceased, resident of Aligarh, arrived at Budaun. Now the question is if incident occurred at 6.30 a.m. and report was lodged at 8.30 a.m., how the presence of Man Singh could be accounted for ? There is nothing on record to demonstrate when the father of deceased, resident of Aligarh, arrived at Budaun. There is no way Man Singh could have arrived at Village Nachni in time to accompany Savitri Devi to the P.S. Islam Nagar. The fact that Man Singh was present at the time of lodging of FIR bolster the argument of appellants that the FIR had been ante-timed. It really creates doubt about truthfulness of testimony of P.W.-10 Savitri Devi as well. Why is she denying the presence of Chunni, Kallu and Man Singh at the police station ? Prosecution has failed to provide any answer to this question. 20. The investigating Officer Harimaya Sharma, P.W.-13 has admitted in paragraph No. 3 of his testimony that Chunni Lal (witness) and village Chowkidar Kallu and Man Singh, father of deceased had accompanied Savitri Devi to the police Station. If presence of Man Singh is established then it begs the question why is his presence being disowned by the informant and how could Man Singh arrived at village Nachni or Islam Nagar from District Aligarh within two hours of the incident ? 21. The FIR says the appellant Prem Pal Singh was unhappy on account of alleged illicit relationship between the deceased Charan Singh and his sister Susheela. This is the motive suggested by prosecution for the murder of deceased Charan Singh. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence on record to support the claim of the illicit relationship between Susheela and deceased Charan Singh. All witnesses of facts have denied this claim barring P.W.-10 Susheela but even if we assume for a moment that this story of illicit relationship between Susheela, sister of appellant Prem Pal Singh and deceased Charan Singh is true then the question would arise why was Babu Lal involved in the murder of deceased Charan Singh ? The record reveals that accused Prem Pal belongs to high caste and appellant Babu Lal belongs to lower caste. Appellant Prem Pal alone could have killed Charan Singh. There is no evidence on record to suggest the close affinity between the appellant Prem Pal and appellant Babu Lal. There is no allegation of prior concert or prior meetings of mind. The record reveals that accused Prem Pal belongs to high caste and appellant Babu Lal belongs to lower caste. Appellant Prem Pal alone could have killed Charan Singh. There is no evidence on record to suggest the close affinity between the appellant Prem Pal and appellant Babu Lal. There is no allegation of prior concert or prior meetings of mind. There is no whisper to suggest that both were friends. During course of trial, feeble suggestion was made that the deceased Charan Singh also had close intimacy with Kiran, sister of Babu Lal, but this claim is neither mentioned in the FIR nor supported by any eye-witness including P.W.-10 Savitri Devi. Infact she has denied the knowledge of any relationship between the deceased Charan Singh and sister of appellant Babu Lal. She has clearly stated that she did not even know the name of that girl. 22. The evidence further reveals that the marriage of Kiran was solemnized on 15.7.1980 and she had already left for her matrimonial home on next date i.e. on 16.7.1980; that leaves appellant Babu Lal with no motive and there is no suggestion of any friendship between the appellant Babulal and Prem Pal. Prosecution has not given any suggestion in this regard. 23. Testimony of P.W.-10 Savitri Devi is shaky on several counts. We have noted earlier that in paragraph No. 2 of her testimony, this witness had asserted that they were going towards Islam Nagar. Later on she changed her story and stated both her husband and she were going towards village Nachni from Islam Nagar. This really changes the place of occurrence. The FIR says that they were going to village Nachni. P.W.-10 Savitri Devi in her initial part of statement says that they were going to Islam Nagar but in paragraph No. 6 of her testimony she changed her version and stated that they were going from Islam Nagar to village Nachni for realizing the money dues from village folks. If the narration of P.W.10 Savitri Devi is taken in account then the place of occurrence shown in the site plan (Ex-Ka-11) becomes doubtful. Savitri Devi indicates that incident occurred near culvert of village Nachni. No culvert is shown in the site plan (Ex-Ka-11). It is alleged that the incident occurred near seed warehouse (cht xksnke) and she was merely four steps away from her husband. Savitri Devi indicates that incident occurred near culvert of village Nachni. No culvert is shown in the site plan (Ex-Ka-11). It is alleged that the incident occurred near seed warehouse (cht xksnke) and she was merely four steps away from her husband. The fact of the matter is that the incident did not occur near seed warehouse. The contents of site plan indicate that there is distance of at least 60 yards between the seed warehouse and place of occurrence. This witness could not name the farmers of agricultural fields nearby. The site plan further reveals that the place of occurrence is not a desolate place and yet not a single witness of vicinity has supported the prosecution case. 24. The credibility of P.W-10 (Savitri Devi) has further got hit by her another assertion. She has said in her testimony that the corpse of deceased was sent first to Police Station Islam Nagar on the same date at about 4 p.m. and next day dead body was sent to Budaun. She claims to have spent whole night with the corpse at Police Station but this cannot be true because P.W-12 constable Subhash Chandra has testified on oath that he took the body of deceased Charan Singh from village Nachni directly to District Head Quarter Budaun for post-mortem on the same day. He has deposed that he took the corpse in his possession at about 12 p.m. on 20.7.1980 and deposited the dead body at district Headquarter Budaun at 7 p.m. Then he specifically and categorically denied that the dead body was kept whole night at the police station Islam Nagar. One of two witnesses must be lying. There is no reason for the P.W.-12 to lie about the status of the dead body. But the discrepancy of Savitri Devi can be explained by observing that she was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident and that her testimony has been later on concocted and manufactured to lend weight to prosecution case. Inquest report (Ex-Ka-4) itself says that the proceedings were initiated by 12.15 p.m. on the day. There was no reason for the police to keep the dead body at village Nachni or police station subsequent to the completion of the inquest proceedings. 25. There is something wrong about the stated knowledge of the incident of P.W-10 Savitri Devi. Inquest report (Ex-Ka-4) itself says that the proceedings were initiated by 12.15 p.m. on the day. There was no reason for the police to keep the dead body at village Nachni or police station subsequent to the completion of the inquest proceedings. 25. There is something wrong about the stated knowledge of the incident of P.W-10 Savitri Devi. Her attempt to conceal the presence of Man Singh, her father in law and other witnesses at Police Station also creates doubt about her veracity. It is pertinent to point out that the story of residing at Islam Nagar too has been disclosed for the first time during her testimony in the Court. 26. There is another strange phenomenon. If we consider the contents of the FIR as well as the testimony of P.W.-10 (Savitri Devi), it would reveal that both the husband and wife were traveling on foot despite the availability of bicycle. Obviously they were traveling together. Savitri Devi has admitted in her testimony that she was closely walking with her husband. She has admitted that she was four paces aside from her husband. She has also conceded that it was not her practice to accompany her husband in ordinary course. She merely accompanied her husband for the first time due to safety concerns. It has also come in evidence that each accused fired more than 5-6 shots. Medical report and the testimony of P.W.-5 Dr. N. P. Singh discloses that several pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased Charan Singh. The doctor has testified that as many as 126 pellets, one cork piece, 4 “Tiklee” and several pieces of corks were taken out from the body of deceased. The nature of injuries and description of weapon including presence of blackening and tattooing would indicate that shots were fired from close range. P.W.-10 Savitri Devi has also stated that accused persons first came and shook hands with the husband, searched him and then opened fired from a few steps away. The deceased was holding his bicycle at the time. Informant was standing by his side. More than dozen shots were fired upon him and yet not a single pellet even touched the wife of deceased who was allegedly standing by his side. Not even a scratch resulted on her person with this kind of indiscriminate use of two guns. 27. The deceased was holding his bicycle at the time. Informant was standing by his side. More than dozen shots were fired upon him and yet not a single pellet even touched the wife of deceased who was allegedly standing by his side. Not even a scratch resulted on her person with this kind of indiscriminate use of two guns. 27. The effect produced by the shot gun vary according to the distance of weapon from the body and choking device. Three injuries indicate blackening and two injuries indicate tattooing but the deceased sustained as many as nine gun shot injuries. Injury No. 4 disclose multiple gun shot wound of entry each 0.25 cm X 0.25 cm and dispersal of pellets must in ordinarily course result in some injuries to a person standing nearby. The doctor has opined that he had recovered several pieces of corks indicating disintegration of cork at the time or prior to the impact of shot upon the body. The medical evidence and injuries sustained would reveal that at least some pellets would have touched the person standing nearby due to dispersal. Evidence reveal that appellant Babu Lal allegedly refilled his gun several times, indicating discharge of guns more than once. In such a scenario absence of even the scratch on the person of the informant is surprising. Cumulatively, these circumstances give rise to serious doubt about the presence and truthfulness of P.W.-10 Savitri Devi. 28. In addition to that, there is inconsistency between the ocular testimony and medical report. The testimony of Savitri Devi, solitary witness would indicate that accused persons came from opposite side and then shot her husband after shaking hands with him and searching him, prior to killing. She has categorically stated in paragraph no 9 of her testimony that at the time of discharge of guns accused and deceased were standing face to face and they kept firing upon him. This story does not explain the medical report which says that several fire-arm shots were found on the back of body of the deceased. This inconsistency between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence is also fatal to the prosecution case. Infact, it clearly belies the claim of presence of Savitri Devi on the spot at the time of incident. 29. P.W.-10 Savitri Devi further says that she showed the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer. This inconsistency between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence is also fatal to the prosecution case. Infact, it clearly belies the claim of presence of Savitri Devi on the spot at the time of incident. 29. P.W.-10 Savitri Devi further says that she showed the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer. But P.W.-13 Hari Maya Sharma (Investigating Officer) disputes this assertion. He says that the site plan was prepared at the instance of Chunni Lal. He did not even refer to any assistance from Savitri Devi (informant). 30. Learned counsel for appellants have also raised another question. They have argued that deceased Charan Singh was bailed out on Saturday and later on murdered on Sunday. The testimony of Savitri Devi (informant) reveals that they were going to realize remaining dues from the people of village Nachni and some other place. They deliberately left early with the intention of returning back early. They did not share this information with any body, then how come accused became knowledgeable about the whereabouts of deceased and time of his arrival? There is nothing on record to show that such information was publicly available. 31. Surprisingly, learned Trial Judge did not question accused persons regarding alleged relationship between Kiran and deceased during examination of accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This was very pertinent question as far as appellant Babu Lal was concerned. There was no motive for appellant Babu Lal to join any body for murder of deceased Charan Singh. Even Savitri Devi has not made any reference regarding Kiran, sister of Babu Lal, who had already gone to her matrimonial home four to five days prior to the incident. An opportunity should have been given to appellant Babu Lal for explaining the alleged relationship of deceased Charan Singh with Kiran, sister of Babu Lal under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 32. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned judgment of trial Court that the defence evidence has not been carefully considered by it. We do not understand why the statements of the D.W.-1 A.S. Rizvi, ACO (Consolidation) and D.W.-2 Malkhan Singh, father of appellant Babu Lal have been brushed aside in the manner as done by the Trial Judge. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned judgment of trial Court that the defence evidence has not been carefully considered by it. We do not understand why the statements of the D.W.-1 A.S. Rizvi, ACO (Consolidation) and D.W.-2 Malkhan Singh, father of appellant Babu Lal have been brushed aside in the manner as done by the Trial Judge. There is no reason why their evidence should not be accepted when they have asserted before the trial Court on oath that appellants Babulal was present in Sultanpur on the date of incident. The Courts below have held that the two witnesses produced by the defence are unreliable. But the Trial Judge has not given any satisfactory reason for the same. It is necessary to point out that as far as Courts are concerned, witnesses of both sides, prosecution and defence, sail in the same boat. Both have to appraised on the touchstone of credibility and truthfulness. Courts cannot say that she will not trust some witnesses merely because they have been produced by defence. Testimony of defence witnesses has to be evaluated in same manner as that of prosecution. Same yardstick has to be applied. Testimony of D.W.-1 A.S. Rizvi is cogent and credible. There was no reason for him to lie. D.W-2 Man Singh was his subordinate. There was no pressure upon him to favour Babu Lal. We have carefully examined the testimony of D.W.-1 A.S. Rizvi. He has established the presence of appellant Babu Lal on the date of incident in District Sultanpur, situated at long distance away. We feel that there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence especially in the light of shaky, weak and untrustworthy evidence of P.W-10 Savitri Devi who alone tried to support the prosecution story, out of seven eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution. 33. As discussed above, P.W. 10 (informant) is not reliable and there is no other evidence on record to support the conviction of appellants. There are very serious and significant inconsistencies in the prosecution. Six stated witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Presence of remaining witness P.W.-10 Savitri Devi is highly doubtful. We have carefully scrutinized her evidence. We believe the evidence of P.W.-10 Savitri Devi is not of such sterling quality so as to make it safe to base conviction solely on her testimony. Her evidence is not free from blemish or suspicion. Presence of remaining witness P.W.-10 Savitri Devi is highly doubtful. We have carefully scrutinized her evidence. We believe the evidence of P.W.-10 Savitri Devi is not of such sterling quality so as to make it safe to base conviction solely on her testimony. Her evidence is not free from blemish or suspicion. We do not find her evidence trustworthy. We have a lurking suspicion about her presence on the spot at the time of incident. We therefore, find it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of PW-10 Savitri Devi. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled of benefit of doubt. 34. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and direct that they shall be released forthwith, if in jail, unless required in any other case. In case the appellants are on bail, the bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 35. Let this judgment be certified to the concerned Court within 15 days. The concerned Court shall report a compliance within one month thereafter. ——————