Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 586 (GUJ)

Kunjanbhai Kesurbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat

2019-05-10

A.C.RAO, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.C. RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal No. 1409 of 2018 is preferred by the appellant-original accused under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2016 dated 31.07.2018, by which the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein-original accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326, respectively, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 1000/- and default of payment of the fine, directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Sessions Judge ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The Sessions Judge was pleased to grant benefit of set off as per section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period during which the accused remained in jail as an under-trial prisoner. 2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018 has been preferred by the applicant-original appellant-accused under section 389 of the Code of Criminal procedure for suspension of the sentence and to release him on bail during the pendency and final hearing of the main Criminal Appeal. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court has heard the appeal itself. 4. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is as under:- The complainant-Nitinbhai Ratilal Vasava lodged a First Information Report being CR No. I-91 of 2015 with the Zaghadiya Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 302, 326, 323, 504 of IPC and under section 135 of Gujarat Police Act, inter-alia stating that on 6.9.2015 one of his guests viz. Rameshbhai Chimanbhai Vasava had come to his house on his motorcycle. The complainant and the deceased viz. Sureshbhai Savjibhai Vasava thereafter saw the guest off by dropping him at the road of the village. Rameshbhai Chimanbhai Vasava had come to his house on his motorcycle. The complainant and the deceased viz. Sureshbhai Savjibhai Vasava thereafter saw the guest off by dropping him at the road of the village. When they were walking back to their home at about 20.00 to 21.00 hours, they met the accsued near a Pipal tree on the road of Majalipura village Navinagari. The accused was having an axe in his hands. He told the complainant that we wanted to rob his guest and why he and his friend allowed the guest to leave. It is alleged that the accused started giving abuses to their mother and sister. He also accused them of having illicit relations with his aunty and saying so, the accused hit a blow with his axe on the face of the complainant. As a result of the blow, four to five teeth of the complainant broke. It is alleged that the accused hit another blow of axe on the left side of the cheek, as a result, the complainant fell down. It is alleged that at that time, the deceased Sureshbhai intervened to save the complainant but the accused laid an assault on Sureshbhai. He threw Sureshbhai on the ground and tried to throttle him. Sureshbhai thereafter was assaulted on his abdomen and chest with full force as a result of which Sureshbhai Valjibhai Vasava died. 4.1. After registration of the FIR, the investigation had commenced. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The muddamal weapon was discovered and sent to the FSL, made arrangement for preparation of the Map of place of the offence etc. 4.2. On completion of the investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, the investigating officer filed Chargesheet against the accused under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Zaghadiya and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 2393 of 2015. 4.3. Since case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, , the Judicial Magistrate, after providing copies of the Chargesheet papers to the accused free of costs, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under section 209 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was re-registered as Sessions Case No. 19 of 2016 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar. 4.4. 4.4. Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed Charge against the accused under section 228(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. at Ex.4 and Plea of the accused was recorded under section 228(2) of the Cr.P.C. at Ex.5. The accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. Therefore, the trial court conducted the trial in accordance with law. 4.5. The prosecution produced the following oral as well as documentary evidence: ORAL EVIDENCE: PW No. Ex. No. Particulars Remarks 1 7 Madhusing Ramanbhai Vasava Panch Witness 2 11 Chhaganbhai Puniyabhai Vasava Panch Witness 3 16 Nanubhai Devchand Varde Panch Witness 4 21 Nitinbhai Ratilal Vasava Complainant 5 25 Pushpaben Sureshbhai Vasava Witness 6 26 Bajuben Savjibhai Vasava Witness 7 27 Ramilaben Ratilal Vasava Witness 8 28 Rameshbhai Chimanbhai Vasava Witness 9 29 Jashodaben Ramsingbhai Vasava Witness 10 31 Dr. Ashvinbhai Khemabhai Katariya Medical Officer 11 33 Narsinhbhai Talshibhai Vasava P.S.O. 12 35 Dr. Rupeshbhai Jayrambhai Divakar Medical Officer 13 38 Dr. Bhavesh Manubhai Nayak Medical Officer 14 45 Jigneshkumar Amarshibhai Rathva I.O. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: S. No. Ex. No. Particulars 1 8 Panchnama of the Place of Offence 2 9 Panchnama of Samshan and recovery of ash and burnt bones 3 17 Panchnama of the arrest of the accused 4 18 Panchnama of the recovery of the clothes of the accused and axe 5 22 Complaint 6 23 Statement before the Magistrate 7 32 Medical Certificate of CHC, Valiya 8 34 Extract of Station Diary 9 36 X-ray 10 37 Medical Certificate of Civil Hospital, Bharuch 11 39 Medical Certificate of SSG Hospital 12 40 Extract of EPR Register 13 46 Report of the FSL for visit to the place of the offence 14 47 Muddamal Dispatch Note 15 48 Receipt of the FSL acknowledging the muddamal 16 49 Yadi sent for preparing map of the place of offence 17 50 FSL Report 18 51 Transfer form 19 52 Receipt of the SSG Hospital with respect to treatment 4.6. After conclusion of the trial, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar convicted the accused-appellant herein for the offences punishable under section 302 read with 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years with fine, as aforesaid. Hence, the appellant accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 5. Mr. Hence, the appellant accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 5. Mr. Budhbhatti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original accused has made the following submissions:- (1) The trial court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 326 of IPC and imposing the sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court failed to appreciate that the case against the appellants is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent, convincing, reliable and sufficient evidence to convict the appellant. However, the trial court has convicted the accused misinterpreting the evidence on record. He submitted that the conviction is against the evidence on record, against the provision of law and against settled legal position and hence cannot sustain. (2) The trial court failed to consider the fact that initially when the complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment, it was reported to the Doctor that the deceased had fallen from the tree and he sustained injuries on account of fall from the tree. (3) The incident alleged to have happened on 6.9.2015, however, FIR has been lodged on 12.9.2015 alleging that the appellant has committed. There is inordinate delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR. The delay has not been explained. The FIR is filed after about 7 days though he was conscious all throughout. (4) Before registration of the FIR, the deceased was cremated and no postmortem was performed, nor inquest report was prepared nor any panchnama was drawn and thus, there is no legal evidence on record to show that the deceased had died homicidal death. (5) The complainant was conscious throughout the story of falling from the tree. (6) The defence of the appellant accused is of denial and that he is innocent and is falsely implicated in the offence. (7) There is no direct evidence or there is no eye witness to the incident. The evidence of the complainant is not reliable. The evidence of the complainant is in conflict with the evidence of the evidence of the two medical officers, according to whom the complainant was conscious all throughout. However, the appellant is falsely implicated in the serious offence. The evidence of the complainant is not reliable. The evidence of the complainant is in conflict with the evidence of the evidence of the two medical officers, according to whom the complainant was conscious all throughout. However, the appellant is falsely implicated in the serious offence. (8) The trial court has relied upon the statement of the complainant recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is quite contrary to the version initially disclosed before the Medical Officer who treated the injured. (9) The deceased was last seen alive with the complainant and he was cremated unceremoniously before registration of the FIR and there is no explanation of such grave conduct. (10) The learned Judge in his judgment recorded Point No. 2 that the accused had also committed murder of one Jashwantbhai. That is neither the case of the prosecution nor there is any evidence that any Jashwantbhai was killed during the incident. This fact shows that the learned Judge has convicted the appellant mechanically and without proper application of mind. (11) The trial court has failed to consider the defence of the accused in its true perspective and erred in convicting the appellant. Submitting accordingly, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 6. This Appeal is opposed by Mr. Himanshu Patel, the learned APP appearing for the State. He submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. He submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is on appreciation of evidence and same is according to the weight of the evidence on record. He submitted that offence under section 302 read with section 326 of IPC is proved by the prosecution against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He submitted that no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 r.w.s. 326 of IPC and imposing sentence of life imprisonment upon the appellant. He submitted that, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not required to be interfered with. He prayed that the Appeal be dismissed. 7. He submitted that, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not required to be interfered with. He prayed that the Appeal be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length so far as the main Criminal Appeal is concerned and perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and considered the evidence on record. 8. On consideration of the evidence on record, the following facts emerge. 8.1. The complainant-Nitinbghai Ratilal Vasava-PW-4 is examined at Ex.21. He has deposed in his Examination-in-chief that the incident occurred on 6.9.2015. He deposed that on that day, father-in-law of his sister named Rameshbhai Chimanbhai Vasava had visited his house and when he left the house at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. he accompanied him upto the outskirt of the village on his motorcycle along with Sureshbhai Vasava (deceased). He has deposed that thereafter when they were returning back to home, the accused was sitting on the road and an altercation took place between them and the accused told the complainant that he wanted to rob his guest but because of them, he could not execute his plan and thereafter, he inflicted the blunt side of the axe on the face of the complainant, as a result of which, 3 to 4 teeth were broken. He has further deposed that when the deceased tried to intervene, he was also assaulted by the accused and he was caught hold and beaten by fist blows and he fell down on the ground. He further deposed that the accused threw him down on the road and also threw Sureshbhai on the side of the road and thereafter, the accused ran away into the sugarcane field. He further deposed that thereafter he managed to return to his home, however, he fell down near the house. He further deposed that his aunty called 108 ambulance and took him to the Government Hospital, Valiya, from where he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Bharuch and from there, he was referred to the Government Hospital at Vadodara for further treatment, where he was treated and stitches were applied. He has further deposed that when he regained consciousness, he realised that he was in the Hospital at Vadodara and his aunty Ramilaben and his uncle Raghubhai were present in the hospital. He has further deposed that when he regained consciousness, he realised that he was in the Hospital at Vadodara and his aunty Ramilaben and his uncle Raghubhai were present in the hospital. He further deposed that after being discharged from the hospital at Vadodara, he approached Zaghadiya police station for registration of the complaint. He identified the accused who was present in the court and the muddamal axe shown to him in the court. The complainant was cross examined. In his cross examination he has admitted that he does not know the number of the motorcycle. He admitted that he does not remember when he reached at home after the incident. He has stated that he regained consciousness after seven days. He stated that his mother Ramilaben had given history before the Doctor in Civil Hospital, Bharuch. He admitted that he was conscious in the Hospital at Bharuch. He admitted that he had not stated in his FIR that the accused had throttled Sureshbhai and Sureshbhai fell down and thereafter the accused gave 2-3 kicks to check whether he was alive or not and his blood was applied on Suresh. He stated that he has stated in the complaint that accused had thrown Suresh on the side of the road and rest of the facts he had not disclosed in his complaint. He admitted that he had not disclosed in the complaint that the accused ran away in the sugarcane field. He admitted that he came to know about the death of Sureshbhai when he was in the Civil Hospital at Bharuch. He admitted that axe is a common tool for the agriculturist. He admitted that before he lodged the complaint, Sureshbhai had died and his cremation was also completed. 8.2. PW-10 Ashwinbhai Khemabhai Katariya has been examined at Ex.31. He was Medical Officer in CHC Hospital at Valiya. The said witness treated the complainant in the CHC Hospital at Valiya. He has deposed that the complainant was taken to the hospital by his mother Ramilaben and other relatives and it was disclosed that he had fallen down yesterday evening and sustained injuries on face and throat. He further deposed that however, subsequently, his mother Ramilaben and other relatives disclosed that the complainant herein had fallen down from the tree yesterday evening. He further deposed that however, subsequently, his mother Ramilaben and other relatives disclosed that the complainant herein had fallen down from the tree yesterday evening. He further deposed that he asked the patient about the injuries but he was facing some difficulty in speaking and did not disclose how he sustained the injuries. He disclosed that the relatives of the patient disclosed that yesterday evening the patient had consumed alcohol. He further disclosed that the patient was referred to Jayaben Modi Hospital at Ankleshwar at the request of his relatives. The said witness in his cross examination has stated that the patient had not given history about the incident and as to when and how he sustained the injuries. He admitted that relatives of the patient had given history that the patient had fallen down from the tree. He admitted that the injuries were possible if anybody falls from the tree. He further stated that the relatives of the patient had stated that since the patient had fallen from the tree, they do not want to lodge any police complaint. 8.3. PW-12 Rupeshbhai Jayrambhai Divakar has been examined at Ex.35. He was Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Bharuch at the relevant time. He has deposed in his Examination-in-chief that he had treated the patient named Nitinbhai Ratilal Vasava who was taken by his mother Ramilaben in 108 Ambulance to the Civil Hospital, Bharuch with refer note from CHC Hospital, Valiya. He has further deposed that at the time of examination, the patient was completely conscious and his BP was 126/90 and his temperature, breathing and plus were normal. He deposed that the patient was admitted as indoor patient and as per the xray, there was fracture on the right joe. He further deposed that as per the dental surgeon, the patient was referred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for further treatment. He opined that by the muddamal axe, three injuries sustained to the patients are possible. As per the said witness, the following three injuries were found on the complainant:- (1) swelling on the right side of the head and joe with pain. (2) wound in the internal side of the upper lip admeasuring 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. and welling on the upper lip with pain. As per the said witness, the following three injuries were found on the complainant:- (1) swelling on the right side of the head and joe with pain. (2) wound in the internal side of the upper lip admeasuring 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. and welling on the upper lip with pain. (3) wound on the lower side of the joe admeasuring 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. As per the Doctor, all the three injuries were sustained within 24 hours and the injuries are possible by hard and blunt substance. As per the said Doctor, the patient was admitted in the hospital as indoor patient. The said witness in his cross examination has stated that it is true that before he treated the patient, the patient was treated in Valiya Hospital. He admitted and stated that it is true that in the history the patient has not disclosed that he was beaten by any body and no name of the assailant was disclosed by the patient. He further stated that it is true that at the time of treatment, the patient was completely conscious and was able to speak. He admitted that if the injury is caused with front portion of the axe, sharp cutting injury would be caused and if the injury is caused with the back side of the axe, injury other than sharp cutting would be possible. He admitted that in the certificate issued by him, the sharp cutting injury is not mentioned. 8.4. PW-14 Jigneshkumar Amrishbhai Rathva-Investigating officer is examined at Ex.45. He has disclosed the at the relevant time he was serving as Police Inspector in Zaghadiya Police Station. He deposed the facts from filing of the complaint till filing of the chargesheet. He deposed that complaint was filed on 12.9.2015. He deposed that statement of Ramilaben was recorded by him and she in her statement disclosed that the complainant was lying outside her home in bleeding condition and the complainant was taken to the hospital, and he was thereafter referred to Vadodara Hospital. He deposed that complaint was filed on 12.9.2015. He deposed that statement of Ramilaben was recorded by him and she in her statement disclosed that the complainant was lying outside her home in bleeding condition and the complainant was taken to the hospital, and he was thereafter referred to Vadodara Hospital. She in her statement stated that the complainant in the hospital at Vadodara started speaking and informed that the accused assaulted on him and the deceased saying that he wanted to loot their guest but as they accompanied the guest, he could not execute his plan and the accused said that they have illicit relation with aunty of the accused and by saying so, he caused injuries by axe to the complainant and also beaten the deceased by fist blows. The said witness in his cross examination has stated that during the investigation it was found that there was illicit relation of the deceased with the aunty of the accused. He admitted that the complaint was filed after seven days from the date of the incident. He admitted that in the history before the doctor of Valiya Hospital, relative of the complainant disclosed that the complainant had fallen down from the tree and they do not want to lodge police complaint. He admitted that the relative of the complainant in the history before the doctor of Bharuch disclosed that the complainant himself fallen down. He admitted that he himself has obtained both the certificates. He stated that divorce of the deceased had taken place before about eight years. He admitted that no statement of the eye witness have been recorded. He admitted that before registration of the complaint, cremation of the deceased was performed. He admitted that no blood stains were found on the body of the deceased as per the FSL report. 9. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on the evidence of a solitary eye witness. It is a settled legal position of law that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance. It is also not necessary to examine a large number of witnesses if the prosecution can Bering home the guilt of the accused even with a limited number of witnesses. It is a settled legal position of law that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance. It is also not necessary to examine a large number of witnesses if the prosecution can Bering home the guilt of the accused even with a limited number of witnesses. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Another vs. State of Jharkhand, (2003) 2 SCC 401 , Apex Court has classified the oral testimony of the witnesses into three categories namely: [a] wholly reliable [b] wholly unreliable and [c] neither wholly reliable nor wholly un-realiable. As held by the Apex Court, in the third category of witnesses, the Court has to be cautious and see if the statement of such witness is corroborated, either by the other witnesses or by other documentary or expert evidence. Equally well settled is proposition of law that where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence otherwise recorded. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. When the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eye witness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently with certainty, as held by Apex Court in the case of Joseph vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465 and Tika Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760. Thus, as per the settled legal position, conviction can be imposed even on the basis of the evidence of sole witness and number of witnesses are not required, provided the evidence of the sole witness is reliable and trustworthy and if the evidence of sole witness is in conflict with other witnesses, corroborative evidence in support of the evidence of the complainant is required. In the case on hand, there is only one eye witness-complainant. In the case on hand, there is only one eye witness-complainant. However, the evidence of the complainant is contrary to his own evidence and to the evidence of the two medical officers. 9.1. It is an admitted position and even as per the evidence of the complainant and the investigating officer, the complainant had lodged the complaint after a period of seven days and prior to registration of the complaint, even cremation of the deceased Sureshbhai was also performed. In his deposition, the complainant has stated that he became conscious in the hospital at Vadodara. However, from the deposition of PW-10 Ashwinbhai Khemabhai katariya, Medical officer of CHC Hospital, Valiya, the complainant did not gave history before the Doctor as to how he sustained injuries and who caused injuries, because he had difficulty in speaking but his relatives initially disclosed that the complainant had fallen down and thereafter disclosed that he had fallen down from the tree. It is not the case of the Medical Officer PW-10 that the complainant was unconscious or he was not in a position to give history. From the deposition of the Medical Officer of CHC Hospital, Valiya it is clear that the complainant was conscious when he was treated by the doctor. Thus, though the complainant was conscious, he did not gave history regarding incident and did not disclose the name of the assailant and did not lodge the complaint before the police at Valiya. From the deposition of the PW-10 Medical Officer it is evident that the complainant has not disclosed the true facts and has put a false case of having become conscious in the hospital at Vadodara. 9.2. From the evidence of the PW-12 Rupeshbhai Jayrambhai Divakar Ex.35 it is clear that the complainant was referred from CHC Hospital, Valiya to Civil Hospital, Bharuch. The said PW-12 who is medical officer and who treated the complainant in the Civil Hospital, Bharuch has clearly setated in his deposition that when he treated the complainant on 7.9.2015, the complainant was completely conscious. He has further deposed that since there was fracture on joe, the complainant was referred to Hospital at Vadodara. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has given false deposition that he became conscious in the hospital at Vadodara and after discharge from the Civil Hospital, Vadodara he lodged the complaint. 9.3. He has further deposed that since there was fracture on joe, the complainant was referred to Hospital at Vadodara. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has given false deposition that he became conscious in the hospital at Vadodara and after discharge from the Civil Hospital, Vadodara he lodged the complaint. 9.3. The aforesaid two witnesses are independent witnesses and medical officers. From the evidence of the said two medical officer, it is clear that the complainant has falsely stated that he became conscious in the hospital at Vadodara and after his discharge he lodged the complaint. Hence, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused. Even otherwise, there is no other corroborative evidence in corroboration of the evidence of the complainant. When the evidence of the complainant is not reliable and there is no other corroborative evidence, accused cannot be convicted and is entitled to benefit of doubt. 9.4. Even the complainant Nitinbhai PW-4 Ex.21 has stated in his deposition that he came to know about the death of deceased Sureshbhai in the hospital at Bharuch. However, he did not lodge the complaint before the police at Bharuch. 9.5. Furthermore, it has come on record that the complainant is habitual drunkard and it has come on record that on the day and time when he was found in injured condition, he had consumed liquor. 9.6. The Apex Court in the case of Panda Nana Kare vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 697 , wherein it is observed that the conviction based on the testimony of solitary eye witness disclosing assailants name not immediately after occurrence, was not sustainable. In that case, the solitary eye witness stated about the identity of the accused at a belated stage and, therefore, it was found that on the testimony of the eye witness nor of those witnesses, who asserted that the eye witness told the name of the accused to them immediately after the occurrence, conviction could not be based. 9.7. The Apex Court in the case of Boadri vs. State of Rajasthan, 1976 Cr. 9.7. The Apex Court in the case of Boadri vs. State of Rajasthan, 1976 Cr. L.J. 496 (Paragraph 18) has observed and held as under:- “If a witness, who is the only witness against the accused to prove a serious charges of murder, can modulate his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing a conviction, such a witness cannot be considered as a reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony.” 9.8. It is well-settled that where the major part of the statement of a witness is false, the dictates of prudence require that the residue should not be accepted, where truth and falsehood in the statement of a witness are so inextricably mixed that they are incapable of being separated, the whole prosecution case falls, as held by Apex Court in the case of Balaka Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962 . 9.9. The Apex Court in the case of Ramnaresh vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 , summed up the principles as under: “27. The principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime. The same principle has been reiterated in State of U.P. vs. Satveer, (2015) 9 SCC 44 .” 9.10. The evidence of the sole witness thus needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material and further, such evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion. 9.11. Applying the above stated principals to the facts of the case on hand, we are unable to place such reliance as is requisite on the testimony of this uncorroborated solitary witness- complainant for convicting the accused facing a murder charge. 9.11. Applying the above stated principals to the facts of the case on hand, we are unable to place such reliance as is requisite on the testimony of this uncorroborated solitary witness- complainant for convicting the accused facing a murder charge. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment are, therefore, required to be set aside and the appeal is required to be allowed and the accused is required to be released by giving benefit of doubt from detention forthwith. 10. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2016 dated 31.07.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 302 and section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by giving benefit of doubt. The appellant-original accused-Kunjanbhai Kesurbhai Vasava is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellant to furnish Bail Bond of Rs. 10,000/- afresh before the trial court as prescribed under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 11. In view of disposal of the main Appeal, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018 stands disposed of.