JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Two persons, namely, Akhileshwar Singh @ Santu Singh and Marwari Bandra and 3 unknown persons were made accused in Sini Railway Chandil P.S. Case No. 11 of 2007 which was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of Shankar Pradhan recorded on 15.10.2007 at about 19:30 hrs. at Railway Hospital, Sini. Charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant; the accused, namely, Marwari Bandra has faced the trial separately in S.T. No. 19 of 2009. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2008, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 302/34 IPC, RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 307/34 IPC and RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of the payment of fine, he has to suffer further sentences under the respective offences. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case out of which PW-1 to PW-5 are the members of the police patrolling party which had visited the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. They are not eye witnesses and they have not spoken anything about the appellant. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 were present in the market and PW-7 is the owner of Kranti hotel where the informant along with Dharmu Mukhi, Jagdish Mahato and Godrej Mahato had Dosa. But, they have not spoken about the appellant firing a pistol shot on Dharmu Mukhi. PW-13 is brother of the deceased and PW-14 is his father, but they have turned hostile. PW-9 has also turned hostile. Jagdish Mahato and Godrej Mahato, who according to the informant were with him in the market, have not been examined during the trial. And, PW-12 has stated an entirely different story about the dead body found in a jungle. 4. The Investigating Officer of this case has been examined as PW-15. He has stated in his cross-examination (para-15) that a pistol and live cartridges were found from the dead body of Dharmu Mukhi. In his cross-examination also he has admitted that one pistol and one cartridge were recovered from Dharmu Mukhi. 4. The Investigating Officer of this case has been examined as PW-15. He has stated in his cross-examination (para-15) that a pistol and live cartridges were found from the dead body of Dharmu Mukhi. In his cross-examination also he has admitted that one pistol and one cartridge were recovered from Dharmu Mukhi. The cartridge was sent for examination but this fact is not written in the case diary and no FSL report on the pistol and cartridge recovered from Dharmu Mukhi has been produced in the court. He has spoken about enmity and rivalry between two groups, one led by the informant and other by Marwari Bandra. He has also stated that Karmu Mukhi had stated before him that when Shankar Pradhan was fleeing away he had lost his pistol (gir gaya tha). 5. The accused-appellant has taken a defence that Dharmu Mukhi was killed by the informant or in the gang war he has suffered firearm injury on account of which he has died. During cross-examination of the informant, a suggestion was given to him that Dharmu Mukhi had fired at him due to which he has suffered firearm injuries and in retaliation he has fired a shot on Dharmu Mukhi which has killed him. 6. On the basis of testimony of a solitary witness conviction of an accused can be recorded and the only requirement in law is that the evidence of the witness should be of such sterling quality that it admits no doubt on the complicity of the accused in the crime. In “Anil Phukan Versus State of Assam” reported in (1993) 3 SCC 282 , the Supreme Court has observed thus: “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. 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. 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. It is in the light of these settled principles that we shall examine the testimony of PW 3 Ajoy.” 7. The informant of this case, namely, Shankar Pradhan was with Dharmu Mukhi in the fish market in the afternoon of 15.10.2007. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that about fifteen days prior to the date of the incident he had a quarrel with the appellant. The appellant had threatened him with dire consequences. In the evening of 15.10.2007 he had gone to railway colony market with Dharmu Mukhi and Jagdish Mahato and sat in Kranti hotel where Godrej Mahato was also present. In the hotel they had Dosa and thereafter he had sent Jagdish Mahato in the market to bring some household articles. When they were gossiping in the fish market, he saw Marwari Bandra, the appellant-Santu Singh and three unknown persons approaching them from the railway school gate side. They were armed with country-made pistol and the moment they came near him a shot was fired at him which hit his left thumb. When he turned around he saw that Santu and three unknown boys who were wearing caps had caught hold of Dharmu and dragging him. In the meantime, Santu fired a shot on Dharmu from a close distance. On seeing this when he started fleeing towards GRP Marwari Bandra fired a second shot on him which hit his right hand. The informant has stated that he was taken to the railway hospital by the police, but Dharmu Mukhi had died on the spot. 8. The informant’s evidence has formed the foundation for conviction of the appellant. He is an eye-witness whose testimony has been found by the learned Sessions Judge reliable and trustworthy. In his examination-in-chief, the informant has narrated a similar story about the incident which is recorded in his fardbeyan. 8. The informant’s evidence has formed the foundation for conviction of the appellant. He is an eye-witness whose testimony has been found by the learned Sessions Judge reliable and trustworthy. In his examination-in-chief, the informant has narrated a similar story about the incident which is recorded in his fardbeyan. He has spoken about presence of Jagdish Mahato and Godrej Mahato along with Dharmu Mukhi in the market, Marwari Bandra and Santu Singh along with three unknown persons coming towards them, shots fired at him by Marwari Bandra and Santu Singh firing a pistol shot from close range on Dharmu Mukhi. For assault on him a charge under section 307/34 IPC has been framed against the appellant. The injury report of the informant has been tendered in evidence but it is not proved through any prosecution witness; the Doctor who has examined the informant has not been produced during the trial. 9. It is by now well accepted that testimony of a witness can be impeached through his cross-examination, his conduct and character. Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as under: “the credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:- (1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit; (2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence; (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;” 10. The informant in his cross-examination has admitted that a case under section 307 IPC was registered against him. The prosecution witnesses including PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have stated that a live cartridge was recovered from possession of the informant. PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that the informant is a man of criminal antecedent. During his cross-examination, the informant has admitted in para 22 & 23 that he is made accused in several cases including three cases in Saraikella court and one in the Railway Court at Chaibasa. He has stated that when the first shot was fired at him and, that too, from a close distance he did not move. During his cross-examination, the informant has admitted in para 22 & 23 that he is made accused in several cases including three cases in Saraikella court and one in the Railway Court at Chaibasa. He has stated that when the first shot was fired at him and, that too, from a close distance he did not move. He admits that he has seen Marwari Bandra taking out pistol still he did not flee away and only after a shot was fired on Dharmu Mukhi he started fleeing away. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the informant and Marwari Bandra were leading two rival groups and in the fardbeyan the informant has alleged that about fifteen days prior to the incident Santu Singh had threatened him with dire consequences. In the above background, the conduct of the informant that even after seeing Marwari Bandra whipping out a pistol and a shot was fired at him he did not try to flee away from the place of occurrence, is highly unnatural and unbelievable. The stand taken by him during the cross-examination creates serious doubt on his credibility. In “Sat Paul versus Delhi Administration” reported in AIR 1976 SC 294 , the Supreme Court has observed that where the witnesses have poor moral fibre and have to their discredit a load of bad antecedents which indicates their having a possible motive to harm the accused who was an obstacle in their immoral activities, it would be hazardous to accept the testimonies of such witnesses without corroboration on crucial points from independent sources. 11. When we examine the evidence of the informant in the context of the aforesaid circumstances which are appearing from the prosecution’s own evidence, we find that it would not be safe to convict the appellant for an offence like murder on the basis of testimony of the informant. The defence set up by the accused-appellant in the light of the aforesaid facts cannot be brushed aside altogether rather these materials should be given due consideration while testing veracity of the evidence of the informant. 12. It is trite law that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas all that an accused is required to demonstrate is that there is a doubt on his complicity in the crime or that two views are possible. 12. It is trite law that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas all that an accused is required to demonstrate is that there is a doubt on his complicity in the crime or that two views are possible. In “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Supreme Court has observed thus: “218. ……in view of the fact that two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. In that view of the matter I agree with my learned Brothers that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.” 13. In the above scenario, particularly, when the deceased as well as the informant were found possessing fire-arm, we are of the opinion that there is a reasonable doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime and, therefore, his conviction under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act is unsustainable. For the same reason, on the basis of the evidence of the informant, the appellant can also not be convicted under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Therefore, conviction of the appellant, namely, Akhileshwar Singh @ Santu Singh under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act dated 19.08.2010 and the order of sentence dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2008 are set-aside. 15. The appellant, namely, Akhileshwar Singh @ Santu Singh is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 16. Sri Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Akhileshwar Singh @ Santu Singh is in custody. 17. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Akhileshwar Singh @ Santu Singh shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection to any other case. 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 783 of 2010 is allowed. 19. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 20. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court through FAX.