JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The sole appellant, namely, Ratanu @ Ratna Dhanwar has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section ¾ of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. He has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The charge under section ¾ of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 has failed. 3. Initially, five accused persons, namely, Ratnu Dhanwar, Mikhail Khakha @ Mangru Khakha, Kameshwar Dhanwar, Bhikha Dhanwar @ Lamu @ Soma and Ajit Khakha @ Kowa were sent up for trial, however, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the other accused persons except the appellant, namely, Ratanu Dhanwar, primarily on the ground that the informant has not named them as accused in her fardbeyan. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses; the informant Anjela Dhanwar is PW-1, the uncle of the informant Kushal Topno is PW-3 and Nelem Topno- P.W.2 is the wife of PW-3. The witness, namely, Uday Purty-PW-4 has been declared hostile. 5. Dr. Sukanta Sheet-PW-5, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Prabodh Dhanwar: (i) Lacerated wound on right side of skull 2”x1”x skin deep and blood clots present (ii) Multiple bruises over chest and abdomen size varies from 4”x2”x1”x1/2” black in colour. PW-5 has also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Karmella Dhanwar and he has found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound below right clavicle area 4”x2”x4” with blood clots present. (ii) Incised wound on back of neck 3”x2”x4”. (iii) Incised wound on back between Pictorial cadre 3”x2”x4”. 6. According to the doctor, the injuries caused to Prabodh Dhanwar and Karmella Dhanwar were ante-mortem in nature. The injuries on Karmella Dhanwar were caused by tangi and talwar (sword), whereas injuries on Prabodh Dhanwar were caused by hard and blunt object. 7. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, the learned Amicus has submitted that: (i) testimony of PW-1 is not reliable and trustworthy, (ii) there is no independent corroboration to the evidence of PW-1, (iii) the crime weapon and the blood-stained soil collected from the place of occurrence were not produced in the court, and (iv) other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, serious doubt has clouded the prosecution’s case. 8. 8. There is no universal rule that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of sole eye-witness, the court must insist on corroboration rather the law is that if testimony of a solitary witness is found cogent, reliable and trustworthy, conviction can be recorded on such evidence. In “Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and others Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in “ (2006) 11 SCC 323 ”, the Supreme Court has observed that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of a single witness it must be found that testimony of such a witness is of such sterling quality that it leaves no doubt about the complicity and involvement of the accused in the crime. In “Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand” reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: “10. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000] .)” 9. The prosecution has projected Anjela Dhanwar, daughter of the deceased, as an eye witness. In her fardbeyan, she has stated that in the morning of 29.5.2007 her father had gone for ploughing the field and she had accompanied her mother for picking Mahua seeds. At about 7 in the morning, she came back home and after some time her mother had gone to fetch water for painting the house but she did not come back even after about half an hour. While thinking why her mother has still not come back home when she went out in search of her mother, she heard cries of her mother. When she ran there, she saw Ratnu Dhanwar, her cousin, assaulting her mother with kulhari. While thinking why her mother has still not come back home when she went out in search of her mother, she heard cries of her mother. When she ran there, she saw Ratnu Dhanwar, her cousin, assaulting her mother with kulhari. On seeing assault on her mother, she ran towards the field where her father was ploughing the field but there she found her father dead; blood was oozing from his forehead. Thereafter, she ran to village Kenduda to inform her uncle and aunty. Her uncle then send the servant to inform her maternal uncle and after she came back home her fardbeyan was recorded by the police at about 15:00 hrs. in her village. 10. The informant has been examined in the court as PW-1. She has been examined in S.T. case no.253 of 2007 on 11.5.2008. After the trial of this Sessions case was amalgamated with S.T. Case no. 219 of 2008, she was again examined on 18th May, 2009. During her cross-examination, she has narrated a similar story of the incident as has been recorded on 29th May, 2007 in her fardbeyan. 11. The other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case. The evidence of the Investigating Officer in the court would reflect that the material informations about the incident were not collected by him during the course of investigation. It has come on record that there were several adjoining houses near the house of the deceased and near the place of occurrence, however, no independent witness except PW-4, who has turned hostile, was examined during the trial. While examining truthfulness of the informant this has to be kept in mind that it is not the prosecution’s case that when mother of the informant, namely, Karmella Dhanwar was crying, other villagers had assembled there. In the first place, this part of the story of the prosecution’s case that no one even after hearing cries of mother of the informant had gone to the place of occurrence is quite unbelievable. It was early morning of 29th May, 2007; about 7-7:30 a.m. when the incident has taken place. It is common knowledge that may be the male members in a village had gone for work the female members remain in their house for the household work, however, no one from the village except PW-4 has been examined during the trial. It was early morning of 29th May, 2007; about 7-7:30 a.m. when the incident has taken place. It is common knowledge that may be the male members in a village had gone for work the female members remain in their house for the household work, however, no one from the village except PW-4 has been examined during the trial. The story narrated by the informant, that she after seeing the dead body of her parents had gone to village Kenduwa which is about 1 and ½ miles away from her village and, thereafter, she came back home but did not inform anyone in the village about the incident, is quite unnatural. The conduct of the informant in not informing even the police about the incident makes her testimony suspicious. On her own saying she had come back home at about 9:30-10:00 a.m. but her statement was recorded by the police at 15:00 hrs. In “Gopal Singh v. State of M.P.” (2010) 6 SCC 407 , the Supreme Court found the statement of an eyewitness, who had failed to inform anyone about the incident, not reliable. His behavior was found unnatural as he claimed to have rushed to the village but had still not conveyed the information about the incident to his parents and others present there and had chosen to disappear for a couple of hours on the specious and unacceptable plea that he feared for his own safety. In “Alil Mollah v. State of W.B.” (1996) 5 SCC 369 , an eyewitness, who was an employee of the deceased, witnessed the assault on his employer but did not go near him even after the assailants had fled away to see the condition in which the employer was after having suffered the assault. His plea was that he was frightened and so he fled away to his home. He gave the information to the police only after 2-3 days. The plea of being frightened and not picking up courage to inform anyone in the village or elsewhere was not accepted by the Supreme Court and conviction of the accused on the basis of his evidence was set-aside. 12. During her cross-examination, the informant has stated that she has no knowledge whether or not her uncle had gone to the police station to give information about the incident. 12. During her cross-examination, the informant has stated that she has no knowledge whether or not her uncle had gone to the police station to give information about the incident. The prosecution has also not brought on record how information was sent to the police and how the police has arrived at the place of occurrence. There is no eye-witness to the assault on Probodh Dhanwar and the informant has also not claimed that she has seen the appellant assaulting her father. 13. In view of the above facts, we hold that testimony of Anjela Dhanwar-PW-1 is not trustworthy and reliable and, therefore, on the basis of her testimony conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be recorded. The prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the appellant has committed the crime. Therefore, judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 09.02.2011 and order of sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- dated 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V West Singhbhum in Sessions Trial nos. 253 of 2007 and 219 of 2008 are set-aside. 14. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, the learned A.P.P. states that the appellant is in custody. 16. The appellant shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 17. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) no. 238 of 2011 is allowed. 18. Let the lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.