JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."] against the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed in S. Tr. No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.)/186 of 2010. The sole appellant by judgment dated: 22.01.2013 was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C."] and by order dated 24.01.2013 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was tried in S. Tr. No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.)/ 186 of 2010 [arising out of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 198 of 2009 , G.R. No. 2918 of 2009 ]. The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge- IV, Gaya [hereinafter referred to as the "trial judge"]. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 13.09.2009 a written report of the informant /Rambarat Parjapat was filed before the Officer in charge, Bodh Gaya Police Station disclosing therein that on the same day i.e. on 13.09.2009 in the day time he was in his house and his wife- Saraswati Devi (deceased) at about 1.00 P.M. came out of house for attending natural call and she proceeded towards [1]. The informant also proceeded following her and suddenly he heard cry of his wife. Then he saw that his co-villager: Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu (appellant) carrying [2] in his hand caught his wife and from back side on her neck he started inflicting [3] blow. Within few seconds his wife after getting injuries fell down and thereafter Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu Choudhary/appellant said that he had killed and fled away. On alarm raised by the informant number of villagers arrived there and they had seen the occurrence. The villagers also chased Jaglal Choudhary but he succeeded in fleeing away. The reason for the occurrence was given by the informant that Jaglal Choudhary was a criminal minded person and earlier on number of occasions he had threatened for killing. On alarm raised by the informant number of villagers arrived there and they had seen the occurrence. The villagers also chased Jaglal Choudhary but he succeeded in fleeing away. The reason for the occurrence was given by the informant that Jaglal Choudhary was a criminal minded person and earlier on number of occasions he had threatened for killing. The informant stated that since they were mostly involved in offering [4] it was not being liked by the appellant and he was levelling allegation that informant side were doing work of [5] and this was the reason that many of the family members of the appellant had earlier died. The informant claimed that Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu due to old dispute with intent to kill his wife had seriously caused injuries on the person of his wife. On the basis of the said written report on the same day i.e. on 13.09.2009 at about 13.45 Hours [1.45 P.M.] a formal F.I.R. vide Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 198 of 2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 of the I.P.C. against the sole appellant however since the injured died in the next evening i.e. on 14.09.2009 at about 8.30 P.M. subsequently on 06.10.2009 in the F.I.R. Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added. The appellant on the next day on 14.09.2009 was arrested. During investigation the accusation was found true and as such on 31.10.2009 charge sheet was submitted against the sole appellant whereupon on 26.11.2009 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya took cognizance of offences. After completion of formalities under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 6.5.2010 and as it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.)/186 of 2010. On 01.09.2010 against the sole appellant charge was framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C. which was denied by him and he claimed to be tried. 3. To establish its case from the prosecution side altogether six witnesses were examined. Out of six witnesses, P.W. 3 / Rambarat Parjapat is the informant of the case and he was examined as eye witness to the occurrence. During his evidence he proved his signature on the written report, which was marked as Ext. 1. 3. To establish its case from the prosecution side altogether six witnesses were examined. Out of six witnesses, P.W. 3 / Rambarat Parjapat is the informant of the case and he was examined as eye witness to the occurrence. During his evidence he proved his signature on the written report, which was marked as Ext. 1. He further proved his own signature on the fardbyan of deceased [Saraswati Devi] which was shown to be recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital just one hour prior to her death. It was marked as Ext. 1/1. He also proved his signature on the second fardbyan which was recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital and it was marked as Ext. A. P.W. 6/Birendra Singh an Advocate Clerk has come forward to prove fardbyan of Saraswati Devi [deceased] which was said to be recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital Police Station and this fardbyan was marked as Ext. 5. He further proved fardbyan of informant/Rambarat Parjapat said to be recorded in Magadh Medical College Police Station which was marked as Ext. 6. P.W. 1 / Pintu Kumar Dubey and P.W. 2 / Birendra Kumar Pandey since did not support the prosecution case they were declared hostile. P.W. 4 / Dr. Arvind Kumar on 15.09.2009 was posted in the Forensic Department, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College & Hospital, Gaya who conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and he proved the post -mortem examination report which was marked as Ext. 2. In this case the Investigating Officer was not examined, however Officer -in-charge of Bodh Gaya Police Station who was posted on 13.09.2009 was examined as P.W. 5 namely Raj Kishore Prasad who proved the written report which was marked as Ext. 3. He also proved endorsement on the written report, which was marked as Ext. 3/1 and also formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext. 4. After completion of prosecution evidence on 28.09.2012 statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he claimed to be innocent and he also stated that he was not knowing as to why the said case was instituted against him, however, no defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. 4. 4. After completion of prosecution evidence on 28.09.2012 statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he claimed to be innocent and he also stated that he was not knowing as to why the said case was instituted against him, however, no defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. 4. Sri Manish Kumar No. 2, learned counsel for the appellant after placing entire evidence has argued that it was out and out a case of false implication. He submits that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Sri Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a peculiar case in which for the same occurrence three reports (fardbyan) were prepared. One on the basis of the socalled written report of the P.W. 3, which is the basis of formal F.I.R. of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 198 of 2009. Second fardbyan which has been marked as Ext. 5 is purported to be made by the injured only one hour prior to her death and thereafter third fardbyan i.e. Ext. 6 is of Rambarat Parjapat, who is P.W. 3 and informant of the main case. He submits that on examination of the contents of the main F.I.R., contents in the second fardbyan of the informant as well as fardbyan of the deceased there are glaring variances which suggest that none had seen the occurrence and subsequently a case was made out as if appellant was involved in this case. By way of referring to evidence of P.W. 3 / informant he submits that in the examination - in -chief he deposed as if he was ocular witness to the occurrence, however, in cross- examination he admits that in his fardbyan which was subsequently recorded in the Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya he had stated that at the time of occurrence he was in [6]. Meaning thereby, that the informant himself has admitted that he had not seen the occurrence and at the time of occurrence he was in [7] and subsequently after discussion the present case was initiated on the basis of a well planned written report shown to be written by the informant whereas fact remains that even the said written report was not in the writing of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellant by way of referring to the evidence of P.W. 3 / informant vis-a-vis evidence of P.W.5/the Officer -in-charge in whose presence written report was prepared submits that the informant himself has stated that he had not written the report but some Police Officer in the Police Station on his diktat had written the written report which is the basis of the F.I.R. whereas the Officer -in-charge who was posted on 13.09.2009 i.e. P.W. 5/Raj Kishore Prasad has stated in his examination -in- chief that in his presence the informant had prepared the written report and thereafter F.I.R. was lodged however in the cross- examination P.W. 5 admitted that he was not aware as to whether the written report was prepared by the informant or not. Besides this, it has been argued that prosecution case has not been supported by medical evidence. He submits that after examining the evidence of P.W. 4, doctor who conducted post- mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased as well as on examining the post -mortem report i.e. Ext. 2 it is evident that the victim had received multiple injuries which were categorized in three categories. In category (A) it was noticed that the deceased was having nine injuries; in category (B) there were two incised injuries and in category (C) there were injuries by hard and blunt substance on the scalp whereas it was initial case of the prosecution that few blows were given by the appellant by means of [8]. It has also been argued that even if the case of informant is disbelieved and prosecution case proceeds on the basis of fardbyan of the deceased, the prosecution has not established its case due to the reason that scribe of the fardbyan of the victim has not come forward to depose as to what was the condition of the injured at the time of making statement. Fact remains that within an hour after the so- called recording of fardbyan the deceased died. Moreover it has been argued that injuries which were noticed in the post- mortem report does not suggest that injured was in a condition to make such detailed statement before Police that too on the next day and one hour before her death. Fact remains that within an hour after the so- called recording of fardbyan the deceased died. Moreover it has been argued that injuries which were noticed in the post- mortem report does not suggest that injured was in a condition to make such detailed statement before Police that too on the next day and one hour before her death. Besides this it has been argued that since the Investigating Officer was not examined in the case, the case of defence has seriously been prejudiced. Alternatively it has been argued that the appellant comes from a poor background and he was by profession passi (toddy seller) having four children and he has remained in custody for more than nine years and as such considering the facts and circumstances of the case this court may take lenient approach in the matter and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. 5. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the Appeal . He submits that it is true that in the present case there is only one witness who has supported the prosecution case but if the evidence of single witness is credible this court is competent to approve the judgment of conviction and sentence. He submits that P.W. 3/husband of the deceased has categorically stated that in his presence his wife was done to death by inflicting injuries by the appellant by means of [9] and those injuries have been found in the post -mortem report. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties we have minutely examined the entire evidence available on record and after going through the same prima facie we are satisfied that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In the case there is only one witness who has claimed to be ocular witness i.e. P.W. 3/Rambarat Parjapat [husband of the deceased]. In the written report of the informant he depicted as if while his wife had left the house for attending natural call she was followed by the informant and thereafter he heard the cry of his wife and he saw that this appellant was inflicting [10] blow on her. Within few seconds his wife fell down. The informant raised hulla whereupon villagers arrived who chased him (appellant) however the appellant succeeded in fleeing away. Within few seconds his wife fell down. The informant raised hulla whereupon villagers arrived who chased him (appellant) however the appellant succeeded in fleeing away. As per the informant the deceased had left the house at about 1.00 P.M. Thereafter he stated that after seeing occurrence he went to his house for bringing a cot to carry the injured to hospital. It is surprising that once in his presence his wife was inflicted such injury, his returning back to his house for bringing cot appears to be not a natural conduct. In such situation it was expected that he would have firstly reached to his wife and thereafter he would have asked other villagers to bring cot. Instead of doing all those things, he went to his house for bringing cot. Again once the injured was put on cot the first step was to take her to hospital but in his evidence P.W. 3 has stated that he carried the injured to Police Station. He further deposed that Police had also enquired from the victim and then a written report was prepared and thereafter on the basis of the said written report formal F.I.R. was shown to be recorded within 45 minutes. From the time when the victim left her house for attending natural call within 45 minutes a well written report was submitted to the Police. 7. The case of the prosecution further appears to be doubtful due to the reason that informant / P.W. 3 himself in his evidence has stated that in Magadh Medical College & Hospital also Police Officer of Magadh Medical College Police Station had recorded his fardbyan and he accepts that in his fardbyan which was recorded in the hospital he disclosed that at the time of occurrence he was at [11] Of-course it was not required to peruse the so -called fardbyan of the deceased as well as P.W. 3 which was recorded at Magadh Medical College & Hospital but since it was got exhibited by an Advocate's Clerk i.e. P.W. 6 who in his examination -in- chief has claimed that the said fardbyan was in the writing and small signature of Sub Inspector Sri Navin Kumar of Magadh Medical College Police Station and it was fardbyan of Saraswati Devi [deceased] and it was got exhibited as Ext. 5. 5. Similarly P.W. 6 stated that fardbyan of Rambarat Parjapat / P.W. 3 was in the writing and signature of Sri Navin Kumar, Sub Inspector of Magadh Medical College Police Station and it was marked as Ext. 6. However in his cross -examination in paragraph -3 he stated that aforesaid both papers were not prepared in his presence and he further stated that he had never seen Sri Navin Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police while working in Police Station. Even then we have perused those documents and on going through the same it appears that a case was made out subsequently as if at the time of occurrence grand sons of the deceased and informant were being chased by the appellant and while the wife of informant [deceased] tried to save them she was inflicted ilqyh blow by the appellant however in the fardbyan of the deceased nothing has been indicated regarding presence of the appellant. Moreover since the scribe of fardbyan of the deceased has not been produced by the prosecution nor he was examined as prosecution witness certainly it would be difficult for us to place any reliance on such fardbyan. Fact remains that deceased had got multiple injuries on her head , occipital region, neck and other parts which is evident from the evidence of P.W. 4/ Dr. Arvind Kumar. In such situation it was difficult for the injured to make such detailed statement that too on the next day before one hour of her death. There is no certification of the doctor whereas it was alleged that the said fardbyan was recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital. At this juncture it would be necessary to refer to the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination i.e. P.W. 4/Dr. Arvind Kumar. He on 15.09.2009 was posted in the Forensic Department, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College & Hospital, Gaya and on the same day at 11.50 A.M he conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of Saraswati Devi [deceased], W/o Rambarat Parjapat and he found following injuries:- "(A) stitched wound on (1) head from above left ear left parietal to lower occipital extending up to right face below right ear (27 cm in length with 19 stitches). (II) On right occipital (9 cm in length with 5 stitches) (III) On posterior upper mandible (9 cm in length with 5 stitches). (II) On right occipital (9 cm in length with 5 stitches) (III) On posterior upper mandible (9 cm in length with 5 stitches). (IV) On left side of head lower part posterior to left ear (2 cm in length with one stitch ) (V) On left shoulder back ( 8 cm in length with 2 stitches) (VI) On left shoulder top back ( 4 cm in length with 2 stitches) (VII) On back of left forearm (5 cm in length with 4 stitches and 4 cm in length with one stitch). (VIII) On right hand back and fingers ( 14 cm in length with 10 stitches) (IX) On right hand anterior up to right ring finger in length ( 11 cm with 9 stitches) (B) Incised wound (1) On left ear 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep (II) On left should back upper part 5 cm x cm x soft tissues (C) On further dissection Head Scalp internally contused underlying the wounds as described above and with fracture of underlying occipital bone fracture. Brain and other soft tissues were contused. Blood and clots were present at places. Neck Respiratory track pale, oesophagus pale, posterior part of upper two curvical vertebra were fractured. Chest - Lungs pale, heart empty. Abdomen- Stomach pale, has scanty mucous, other viscera pale, bladder- empty, uterus small and pale. Right hand up to the finger are cut completely including the bones. Rest nothing abnormal." He deposed regarding his opinion on the injuries in column no. d of his report, which is as follows:- "(d) Opinion No. 1 Injuries were ante mortem. Opinion regarding stitched wounds to be had from the doctor who attended earlier. Injuries in (B) were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Other injuries were caused by hard and blunt forces as a result of impact of the causing positive weapon. Opinion No. 2 Death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of above noted injuries. Opinion No. 3 - Time since death - 08 to 24 hours (approx) since post-mortem examination." He stated that the said post- mortem report was in his pen and signature and it was marked as Ext. 2. On examination of the evidence of P.W. 4 as well as post- mortem report i.e. Ext. 2 we find there is variance of injuries found on the person of the deceased with the deposition of the prosecution witness. 2. On examination of the evidence of P.W. 4 as well as post- mortem report i.e. Ext. 2 we find there is variance of injuries found on the person of the deceased with the deposition of the prosecution witness. 8. In this case only witness who has come forward to support the case is P.W. 3/Rambarat Parjapat [husband of the deceased] and on going through his evidence we feel it difficult to place much reliance on his evidence. His credibility appears to be doubtful. In the examination- in- chief he stated as to what he had stated in the written report that is the basis of the F.I.R. however in paragraph -4 of his cross- examination he himself has stated that the written report was not written by him rather it was written by some other Police Official such as Munshi. In paragraph -3 of his cross -examination he accepted that in the fardbyan which was recorded by the Daroga Ji of Magadh Medical College Police Station he had put his signature and he identified his signature which was marked as Ext. A . In paragraph -6 of his cross-examination though he claimed that he had seen the murder of Saraswati Devi but he further stated that in the fardbyan he had stated that at the time of occurrence he was in [12] and he denied that he had stated before Daroga Ji that he was informed by villagers about the occurrence in the [13] and in the fardbyan he stated that while he was in [14] he saw that appellant was chasing his two grand sons and his wife tried to save them in the meanwhile the appellant reportedly inflicted [15] blow on her, however in the written report he deposed as if while his wife had left his house for attending natural call he also followed her, heard the cry of his wife and he saw that this appellant was inflicting blow on her with [16] . In the written report there is no reference of the story that the appellant was chasing two grand sons of the informant. In the present case save and except the evidence of P.W. 3 there is no other material to come to conclusion that in the present case appellant was involved. In the written report there is no reference of the story that the appellant was chasing two grand sons of the informant. In the present case save and except the evidence of P.W. 3 there is no other material to come to conclusion that in the present case appellant was involved. We are in agreement with the submission of Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public prosecutor that in a case in which if single witness is credible conviction and sentence can be approved but for that very purpose credibility of the witness is required to be tested. In the present case credibility of witness- P.W. 3 itself appears to be doubtful since right from the very beginning he has changed his stand. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such by way of extending benefit of doubt it would be necessary to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence. Accordingly judgment of conviction dated : 22.01.2013 and sentence dated: 24.01.2013 passed in S. Tr. No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.)/186 of 2010 [arising out of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 198 of 2009, G.R. No. 2918 of 2009 ] is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 10. The appellant is inside jail and since judgment of conviction and sentence has been set aside, it is hereby directed to release him forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.