JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. Four appellants, who have been convicted by a judgment and order dated 28.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. Mr. Darshan Varandani, learned advocate for the appellants states that, appellant No. 1 Shankarbhai has expired. In view of the statement made by the learned advocate, the appeal so far as appellant No. 1 is concerned, stands abated. 3. According to the charge at Exh.8 framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2009, at 8 at night on 20.05.2009, Ravi Munnuswami Periswami Madrasi-husband of accused No. 3 was at the complainant's Shivani's place. It is the case of the prosecution that, due to the strained matrimonial relations between the accused No. 3 with her husband-deceased Ravi Munnuswami, the accused No. 2 along with the other accused went to Shivani-the complainant's place. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 caught hold of Ravi Munnuswami and the accused Nos. 3 and 4 caused grievous injuries by stabbing Ravi Munnuswami Periswami with a knife. All the four accused were therefore charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Shivani is the sister of deceased Ravi who lodged the First Information Report on 20.05.2009. According to the informant, she was staying with her husband Haresh Bhanushali. Ravi was her younger brother. She has three sisters, namely, Saraswati, Dhanlaxmi and younger to Dhanlaxmi is Vatsala alias Geeta. All of them are married. Ravi was married to the accused No. 1's daughter Vanita-the accused No. 3. Due to the strained matrimonial relationship between the two, Vanita had left her matrimonial home and was residing with her parents. Ravi was staying with his mother. According to the complainant, on 20.05.2009, at around 8 in the evening when she was at home, Ravi was a tea vendor came home and when he was in proximity of the home, his wife Vanita's father Shankar, younger brother Raju and mother Saroj came and caught hold of Ravi and started beating him. When she tried to intervene, Vanita, who was carrying a knife in her hand inflicted two blows on Ravi's chest. Ravi instantly collapsed on the floor. When she tried to intervene, Vanita, who was carrying a knife in her hand inflicted two blows on Ravi's chest. Ravi instantly collapsed on the floor. At that point of time, Ravi's father-in-law Shankar started kicking him. Vanita's brother also followed suit and started kicking him on his face. Saroj- Vanita's mother caught hold of Ravi, while the others were attacking him. Ravi started bleeding. Shivani's husband arrived home. Somebody shifted Ravi to the Rambagh hospital. She went to inform her mother, who was at Bhuj. The sister-the complainant and Saraswati went to the Rambagh Hospital. The doctor informed her that Ravi had died. 5. Shivani was examined at Exh.43 as prosecution witness No. 12. According to her testimony, on 20.05.2009, the incident occurred at Sundarpuri Tower on a way to Gopalpuri at around 07:30 in the evening when she was alone at home. Her mother had gone to Bhuj to her sister's place. Ravi-her brother had come for two days at her home. Vanita along with her brother Raju, father-Shankar and mother-Saroj came home and started abusing her. She further stated in her testimony that they started abusing her asking her as to why was Ravi staying with her at her home. To which she replied that, if she i.e. Vanita goes and stays with Ravi, he would not stay at her place and instead stay with Vanita. This suggestion was denied by Vanita stating that she was not willing to live with Ravi. This witness further stated that at that point of time 10-15 minutes after the four had arrived, her brother came home. On being questioned by his wife, he told that he was staying with his sister as she was alone as the mother was away at Bhuj. He further told his wife that if she comes and stay with her, he would not stay with her sister and come back home. Ravi's wife refused and stated that she wanted to be separated. Vanita, then took out a knife and attacked Ravi on the thigh and on the stomach and also on the back. Vanita's father tried to further aggravate the situation by stamping on the wound with his leg. Vanita's brother Raju started hitting Ravi on the head. When she tried to intervene, she also was hit. Haresh, Shivani's husband arrived and told her that he would take Ravi to the Rambagh Hospital. Vanita's father tried to further aggravate the situation by stamping on the wound with his leg. Vanita's brother Raju started hitting Ravi on the head. When she tried to intervene, she also was hit. Haresh, Shivani's husband arrived and told her that he would take Ravi to the Rambagh Hospital. Ravi died at 9 that night. The police came to record the statement. She confirms to have given the First Information Report, which is at Exh.44. This witness has been cross examined. A suggestion was denied that Ravi, her brother had strenuous relationship with his wife as he was harassing Vanita. She was extensively cross examined. She in cross-examination admitted that anybody who might have carried Ravi to the hospital, she did not accompany him. She denied to the suggestion that she knew that it was Haresh who carried Ravi to the hospital. 6. Shakuntla PW-13 i.e. mother of the deceased Ravi and the complainant, has been examined at Exh.50. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that Ravi had married Vanita and that thereafter Vanita's mother-Saroj was insisting that they separate. Vanita had left home and gone to her parent's place, Ravi was therefore, staying with her daughter at Gandhidham, whereas she was at Bhuj. She is not an eye witness to the incident, and therefore, it is evident from the testimony that the only information which she had was in the nature of hear say evidence. In cross-examination, she denied suggestion that Shivani-the complainant had not informed her of the incident. 7. Harishbhai, Shivani's husband has been examined as PW-14 at Exh.51. He denied having seen the incident. However, he admits that on 20.05.2009, he had taken Ravi to the Rambagh Hospital. He says that he had taken Ravi to the hospital at about 09:30 at night in an auto-rickshaw. After carrying out the admission procedure and seeing that Ravi was being treated, he left for home to change his clothes. He in his examination-in-chief states that, when he carried Ravi to the Rambagh Hospital, he had sustained two injuries due to the knife. Nothing substantial turns out on examination of this witness. 8. Prosecution witness No. 20 at Exh.65 is Shivani's sister Vatsala alias Geeta. He in his examination-in-chief states that, when he carried Ravi to the Rambagh Hospital, he had sustained two injuries due to the knife. Nothing substantial turns out on examination of this witness. 8. Prosecution witness No. 20 at Exh.65 is Shivani's sister Vatsala alias Geeta. According to her version in the testimony, it was on 20.05.2009 that when her elder sister Saraswati called over the telephone to inform her that Shivani had come over and told her that the brother Ravi had been attacked with a knife, she came to know the fact that Ravi had sustained injuries as a result of being so attacked at the hands of Vanita and her family. On receiving such a call, Adipur and went immediately to the Rambagh Hospital, where she found that her brother had died. In her cross-examination, she has stated that police had recorded her statement on the next day. She admitted that she reached the Rambagh Hospital on the mid-night of the 20th. 9. Saraswati, who called Geeta has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 21 at Exh.67. According to her, on 20th May, the incident had happened at around 8 in the night. Her sister Shivani came home running and told her that their brother had been attacked with knife by Vanita, Shankar, Raju and Saroj and that Haresh had carried Ravi to the hospital. She further stated that, Shivani informed her that Ravi had sustained injuries, as a result of three blows with a knife, two in the stomach and one in the back. This according to her was the information that Shivani gave to her. She along with Shivani, therefore, left for the Rambagh Hospital, where she found that Ravi had died. She further stated in her examination-in-chief that, she had called up Geeta informing her of her brother's death and told her to reach Rambagh Hospital. In cross-examination she stated that, she informed her mother on the next day, and therefore, mother arrived on the next day morning at the Rambagh Hospital. When suggestion was made to her, she admits that Vanita together with her parents was present at the hospital. Kandhaswami Peraswami has been examined as PW-23 at Exh.75. He is also not an eye witness to the incident, but only knew the incident, on account of being so informed by Shivani. When suggestion was made to her, she admits that Vanita together with her parents was present at the hospital. Kandhaswami Peraswami has been examined as PW-23 at Exh.75. He is also not an eye witness to the incident, but only knew the incident, on account of being so informed by Shivani. Doctor Meethubhai Zola is the Medical Officer at Government Hospital at Rambagh at Adipur. He is examined as Prosecution Witness No. 15 at Exh.53. The doctor in his testimony testifies that Ravi was brought to the hospital at 9:15 at night by Haresh Bhanushali in an auto-rickshaw. The doctor in his testimony has stated that Ravi had sustained six injuries, which is a result of stab wounds. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that these injuries were possible to have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument. Ravi was critical and was unconscious and was profusely bleeding. In his cross-examination, he admits that after being brought to the hospital, Ravi died in an hour thereafter. No history was recorded in the Injury Certificate. He did not stated to the police as to how the injuries the injured has sustained. 10. Dr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Medical Officer at Rambagh Hospital, who carried the Post-Mortem of the deceased Ravi has been examined as PW-16 at Exh.55. The doctor confirms that all the injuries that the deceased sustained were ante mortem. The Post-Mortem Report is at Exh.56. He also stated out the external injuries that the deceased sustained, which were six in number, which are 1) Incised wound (2.5 x 1 x 2) cms on the back in the right side near right scapula. 2) Incised wound (2.5 x 1 x 2) cms 1 cm below 3) Incised wound (2.5 x 1 x 2) cms 4.5 cms below injury No. 2. 4) Incised wound (2.5 x 1) cms situated 9cms laterally to injury No. 1. 5) Incised would (2.5 x 1 x 2) cms on right hypochondrium and 6) Incised wound (2.5 x 1 x 2) cms situated 12 cms downwards and laterally to injury No. 5. The injuries were ante mortem. The cause of death according to the doctor was hemorrhagic shock due to the injuries and the wounds sustained. In the opinion of the doctor, it is possible that the death occurred due to the injuries that were caused. The injuries were ante mortem. The cause of death according to the doctor was hemorrhagic shock due to the injuries and the wounds sustained. In the opinion of the doctor, it is possible that the death occurred due to the injuries that were caused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the police had not recorded his statement and that it was for the first time in the Court that he was stating the cause of death. That there was variation in the nature of injury that was stated in the Post-Mortem Report and the Inquest Report. Prosecution has tried to take support by corroborative evidence through a discovery panchnama at Exh13. The knife used to carry out the offence was discovered at the instance of accused No. 4. Serological Report is also on record at Exh.91. 11. Based on this evidence, the legality of the conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be tested. 12. The First Information Report was lodged by Shivani, Ravi's sister stating that at 8:30 in the evening on 20.05.2009, Vanita together with her father-Shankar, mother-Saroj and brother-Raju came to their house, caught hold of her brother-Ravi and started beating him. When she tried to intervene, Vanita, who had a knife in her hand inflicted two blows on the chest with knife on Ravi. Ravi fell down on the floor, at which point of time Vanita's father-Shankar started kicking Ravi on his legs and Raju followed suit by kicking Ravi on his face. This was made possible as Saroj-the mother of Vanita, had caught hold of Ravi, who was lying on the floor. The complaint further states that Ravi who was profusely bleeding, was carried by somebody to the Rambagh Hospital. She, thereafter, went to call her mother and went to her sister Saraswati. 13. From the discussion and reproduction of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the case rests on the testimony of sole eye witness, the complainant PW-12 Shivani, who happens to be the sister of the deceased Ravi. Here the evidence that she had given at Exh.43, therefore, needs to be tested with the narrative that she has given in her complaint at Exh.44. Here the evidence that she had given at Exh.43, therefore, needs to be tested with the narrative that she has given in her complaint at Exh.44. In her evidence before the Court, Shivani stated that when she was alone at home and when her brother had come to stay for two days, Vanita, together with her brother Raju, father-Shankar and mother Sarojben had come home and started abusing her. Apparently they were upset by the fact that the brother was staying with sister and not with Vanita. While the arguments were on, this witness in her examination-in-chief stated that, it was 10-15 minutes after this that Ravi arrived home. Ravi arrived 10-15 minutes after the accused arrived with her parents, which was at that time, that the deceased tried to pacify them. It is a version of the complainant in her testimony that it was at that point of time that Vanita-accused No. 3 took out the knife and inflicted three blows, one on the thigh, one on the stomach and one on the back. She further testified that, the accused No. 1-Shankar tried to aggravate the wound on the thigh by rubbing the wound with his leg. 14. In her examination-in-chief, she comes out with the case that it was Haresh who took the deceased to the hospital. When the testimony of the complainant-Shivani is compared to her complaint, it is apparent that there is a major variation in the story that unfolded in her narrative in the evidence that she has given before the Court. As per her testimony which is given at Exh.43, she has stated that the accused-Vanita together with her parents came into the house when she was alone and while Vanita was arguing with her, her brother arrived 10-15 minutes thereafter and tried to pacify them, at which point of time the accused took out a knife. As compared to this, it is in the complaint that the complainant states that Vanita-the accused together with her parents caught hold of the deceased Ravi and then attacked him with knife. Contrary to what is stated in her statement that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter kicked him on the leg and head is also at variance from what is stated in the complaint. Contrary to what is stated in her statement that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter kicked him on the leg and head is also at variance from what is stated in the complaint. Nowhere in the complaint does the complainant states that the father and the brother of the accused attacked and tried to rub his legs against the wound, which Vanita had inflicted on thigh of the deceased with knife. 15. Further variation is apparent on reading the contents of the complaint together with that of the deposition of Shivani-the complainant. In her First Information Report, she states that somebody carried Ravi-the deceased to the hospital, whereas, in her evidence before the Court she stated that it was Haresh who carried the deceased to the hospital. Even prosecution witness No. 14 Haresh has in his testimony stated that it was he who carried Ravi to the hospital. Doctor Meethubhai Zola, who treated the deceased at the first point of time also in his testimony states that it was Haresh who had brought Ravi to the hospital. The FIR is bereft of such details and therefore, apparently it is a shift in the version of the complainant as comes in the evidence as recorded before the Court. 16. On the question of nature of injuries also when the FIR is seen, version of the complainant is that Vanita attacked the deceased and inflicted three blows, one on the chest and two on the back. The version in her testimony also states that Vanita had inflicted three blows with the knife on the back, one on the stomach and one on the thigh. When the nature of injuries so elicited by the complainant in the FIR and in her testimony is compared to the medical evidence which is on record, the testimony of Doctor Zola PW-15 and that of Doctor Arvind Kumar Sinha PW-16-the doctor who carried out the Post-Mortem, shows that the injuries that the deceased sustained were six in number. Looking to the number of injuries together with the testimony of the complainant, reveal as to how the number of injuries goes up to six as is evident from the Injury Certificate produced through the testimony of PW-15 Dr. Zola and the P.M Report at Exh.56 by doctor Arvindkumar Sinha. Looking to the number of injuries together with the testimony of the complainant, reveal as to how the number of injuries goes up to six as is evident from the Injury Certificate produced through the testimony of PW-15 Dr. Zola and the P.M Report at Exh.56 by doctor Arvindkumar Sinha. This also is at variance, which leads us to believe that the testimony of the sole eye witness to the incident is not above the board. 17. Variation is also apparent on reading the complaint and the testimony of the complainant-Shivani that the exact nature of the role played by each of the accused is unexplained by the sole eye witness. Variation is found in the role played by each of them when compared with the evidence of the complainant as given in her testimony. In fact, even on examining the testimony of the Investigating Officer-PW-25 at Exh.44 Mahendrasingh, he has in his cross-examination admitted that when the further statement of Shivani was recorded, there was a variation in the statement, because at that point of time, Shivani had stated that it was Vanita's mother who had inflicted the injury on the deceased with the knife in hand. He has further stated that, the complainant was either giving correct information in the FIR or was stating incorrect facts in her further statement. 18. The evidence on record, therefore, on which the conviction is based is only on the basis of a sole eye witness. Where a conviction is on the basis of a sole witness, court has to be careful and cautious. The Supreme Court in the Case of Joseph vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465 held as under: "12. In a case of this nature when there is a sole witness to the incident his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. What is urged before the Court is that FIR Exhibit P-1 contained signature of a doubtful character which PW-1 himself admitted as having been different from the one given by him on the acknowledgement of having received the summons. How far reliance can be placed upon his evidence when PW-1 stated that he had rushed to the junction to inform PWs. How far reliance can be placed upon his evidence when PW-1 stated that he had rushed to the junction to inform PWs. 2 to 4 and thereafter rushed back to the place of the incident, while the deceased also ran to the western side of the place of incident though he was profusely bleeding and he got hold of his wound by his hand and ran. If that is so, there would have been blood all over the place and not at one particular point. The abrasion on the neck of PW-1 could have been caused by a nail scratch and not by a weapon and was not a bleeding injury will clearly belie the statement made by him that he was profusely bleeding. If really the witness (PW-1) was wearing bloodstained clothes the same would have been certainly seized by the police for appropriate investigation of the same. Particularly, when the trial court had given cogent reasons to acquit the accused, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same merely because another opinion is possible and not that the finding concluded by the trial court was impossible." Even in the case when the testimony is based on a sole eye witness, who is a relative, the Supreme Court in the case of Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 , held as under: "23. In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given the sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs." (SCC p.807, para 19) 24. In Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam the Court observed: (SCC p.285, para 3) "Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the Courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the Courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect." 25. In Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar referring to several cases, this Court stated: (SCC pp. 619-20, para 7) "7. On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes out that there has been no departure from the principles laid down in Vaadivelu Thevar case and, therefore, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eyewitness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eyewitness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eyewitness being present. Indeed, the courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence." 26. In Chittar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan this Court had an occasion to consider a similar question. In that case, the sole testimony of a young boy of 15 years was relied upon for recording an order of conviction. Following Mohd. Sugal and reiterating the law laid down therein, this Court stated (SCC p. 400, para 7) "The legislative recognition of the fact that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes the offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact." (Emphasis supplied) 27. Recently, in Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani vs. State of Karnataka this Court held that testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of this witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. 28. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived." In the case of Raju alias Balachandran and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SCC 983, the principle is reiterated that the conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness or a relative witness or an interested witness. However, when the conviction is so based on the testimony of such a sole eye witness who is otherwise related, the evidence must be very carefully examined and all the infirmities must be taken into account. 19. In view of the facts of the case on hand, while discussing the evidence as so discussed herein above, there have been major shifts in the complaint of the complainant and variations have unfolded in complaint as compared to that in her testimony. She is the sister of the deceased and a sole eye witness. Having carefully examined her evidence on record, variations and improvements are noticed in her testimony as related to the one narrated in the complaint. Having discussed the evidence and found that the credibility of the sole eye witness is not above board, it will be unsafe to convict the accused solely on the basis of such testimony of a sole eye witness a relative who is the complainant. 20. Accordingly, the conviction dated 28.03.2014, ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch to the appellants, in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2009, is set aside. In view of death of appellant No. 1, the appeal qua appellant No. 1 stands abated. The appeal is allowed qua appellants Nos. 2 to 4. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. 21. The appellant No. 3 is on temporary bail till 01.04.2017. In view of the acquittal ordered today, she will not have to surrender before the jail authorities, if she is not required in any other offence.