JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - In this appeal under the provision of Sec.383 Cr.P.C. the sole appellant has assailed his conviction U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the I.P.C.?) and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.), Keonjhar in his judgment dtd.21.12.2004 passed in S.T. Case No.23/35 of 2003-04. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that accused had illicit relationship with the deceased Dheda Mundani. On 11.10.2002 in the night Informant, the brother of the deceased slept in one room while deceased along with her other two sisters, including P.W.2 was sleeping in another room. As per informant, at about 9 P.M. the accused came and dealt axe blows and murdered the deceased. The informant raised alarm but he was threatened. Out of fear he could not inform the matter in the night. In the next day morning, he orally reported to police which was registered as Nayakote P.S. Case No.22 of 2002. The investigation was ensued. Inquest and post mortem was conducted. On 13.10.2002, accused was arrested and a blood stained axe was seized vide Ext. 4. The seized weapon of offence and other articles were sent for chemical examinations vide Ext.11. The opinion (Ext.12) was received to the effect that the iron axe had contained human blood, but no blood grouping was made. Similarly the Lungi and nail clipping of the accused were found to have not contained any blood. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accused faced trial for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The plea of defence was denial simplicitor. 3. In support of its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all and exhibited 20 documents. The seized axe and saya were marked as M.O.I and M.O.II. Out of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased who is the informant of the case and the sole eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the sister of deceased who was sleeping with the deceased in the same room. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.4, a co-villager, is a post occurrence witness. P.W.5 is a witness to inquest. P.W.6 and 7 are the scientific officer and photographer respectively. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted post mortem. P.W.2 is the sister of deceased who was sleeping with the deceased in the same room. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.4, a co-villager, is a post occurrence witness. P.W.5 is a witness to inquest. P.W.6 and 7 are the scientific officer and photographer respectively. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted post mortem. P.W.9 is the I.O. who has submitted charge-sheet and P.W.10 is the main investigating officer. Defence examined none. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and believing the testimony of the sole eye witness (P.W.1) informant, convicted and sentenced the accused in the above manner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Sanjukta bala Das submitted that the sole eye witness P.W.1 is not reliable because the sister of the deceased (P.W.2) who was sleeping with the deceased in the same room on the occurrence night has not implicated the accused to have committed murder. The said witness being not declared hostile, there is no reason to disbelieve her. Learned counsel further submitted that as illicit relationship is alleged which has implication of social ostracization, the brother informant in such a circumstance, might have falsely roped the accused and in absence of corroboration his evidence should not be believed as wholly reliable and accused should be given benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. Zafarullah fairly admits that presence of P.W.2 in the room is not doubtful and even if she is not declared hostile, she can be ignored as murder is committed and P.W.1 has named the author of such crime. 6. Keeping the above contentions in view, we have carefully perused the materials on record. F.I.R. (Ext.1) was received on 12.10.2002 at 1 P.M. from P.W.1 for the alleged murder occurred in the previous night at 9 P.M. On 13.10.2002 the post mortem was conducted and doctor (P.W.8) found three cut injuries and one abrasion which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 23.10.2002 P.W.8 gave opinion that the seized Axe (M.O.I) produced before him could be the weapon to cause such injuries. From these evidence, we have no hesitation to confirm that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 7. On 23.10.2002 P.W.8 gave opinion that the seized Axe (M.O.I) produced before him could be the weapon to cause such injuries. From these evidence, we have no hesitation to confirm that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 7. As the prosecution has advanced and trial court has based the conviction upon the sole testimony of P.W.1, it is the obligatory on the part of the appellate court to analyze the evidence independently. P.W.1 testified that accused had an affair with the deceased. She used to stay in his (P.W.1?s) house in a separate room. On the occurrence night, he was sleeping in a room while deceased along with his two sisters Mandoi Munda (P.W.2) and Kepidi Munda (not examined) was sleeping in another room. At about 6 P.M. accused visited their house and went to the room of the deceased. In the night hearing crying sound of deceased, he went that room and found accused inflicting blows with an axe. He admitted to have intervened but accused threatened for which he returned to his room out of fear. On the next day he informed the matter to his mother and villagers and also at police station. Later he has stated that by the time he reached the room of deceased, she was lying on the ground and by that time she was dead and two other sisters ( Mandoi and Kepidi) were inside the room but he had not talked with them. Taking a pause here, it is noteworthy that P.W.2 the sister of deceased who was inside the room in that night, as per P.W.1, has testified clearly that she along with Kepidi and deceased Deda were sleeping in that room and in the morning she found Deda was dead. She has also deposed that she was sleeping with the deceased since her childhood and usually they did not lock the room from inside. The mother of the deceased (P.W.3) has stated that she had not enquired from P.W.2 and other daughter as to the cause of death of the deceased though informant told her that accused had killed the deceased. 7-A. The above testimonies of three witnesses demonstrate that on the occurrence night the deceased was sleeping with her two sisters including P.W.2 in a room. P.W.2 had not seen the person who caused homicidal death of the deceased in the night. 7-A. The above testimonies of three witnesses demonstrate that on the occurrence night the deceased was sleeping with her two sisters including P.W.2 in a room. P.W.2 had not seen the person who caused homicidal death of the deceased in the night. She is not declared hostile. The mother of the deceased who came to know about the incident on the next morning also had not ascertained anything from her daughters. The brother informant who claims to have entered inside the room hearing shout of the deceased did not chose to ascertain anything from P.W.2 and other sister. In such a backdrop the illicit relationship of deceased with the accused which P.W.1 was apprehending to culminate into social ostracization, assumes significance. Reliance on the sole testimony of P.W.1, in such circumstances, would be a negation of prudence. The sole testimony of P.W.1, in our considered opinion, requires corroboration. P.W.2 does not corroborate P.W.1. His unusual conduct in not asking anybody available inside the room, leaves enough room to suspect his motive. He is a wholly unreliable witness. In the decision reported in, Kartik Malhar Vrs. State of Bihar, 1996 1 SCC 614 their Lordships have categorically stated as follows:- "On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes out that there has been no departure from the principles laid down in Vadivelyu Thevar's case (supra) and, therefore, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstances appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same lime, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at the time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye witness being present indeed, the Courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence." In the above decision Hon?ble Supreme Court while referring the decision of Vadivelu Thevar Vrs. The State of Madras, 1957 AIR(SC) 614 has quoted that "even as the guilt of an accused may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of the accused person may be established on the testimony of the single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forth coming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution." 8. Bestowing our anxious thoughts to the evidence on record, we do not find any reason to disbelieve P.W.2, the sister of the deceased who was all along present in the room where deceased was sleeping and the said testimony is sufficient enough to create a doubt on the prosecution case and for that the conviction of the appellant U/s.302 I.P.C. and sentence there to is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant vide judgment dtd.21.12.2004 passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar in S.T. No.23/35 of 2003-04 is hereby set aside. The appellant Bana Munda be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case / cases. L.C.Rs. be returned forthwith.