JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Challenging the Judgment of Acquittal, dated 18.02.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.285 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, P.W.6 filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. 2. The substance of the charge against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 is that, on 02.07.2009 at about 7.30 P.M, they caused death of one Boya Arikera Bheemalingappa [‘the Deceased’]. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: (i). All the accused and material witnesses are residents of Musaanapalli Village, Alur Mandal. A.1 to A.3 are the brothers. P.W.2 is the brother of deceased and P.W.5 is the wife of deceased. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the children of deceased and P.W.5. (ii). It is said that the daughter of A1 i.e., P.W.8 fell in love with P.W.7, who is son of deceased, and both of them eloped and got married in a temple at Mantralayam. Since then A.1 and other accused developed grudge against the family of the deceased. While so, on the date of incident, P.W.2 and Boya Arikera Bheemalingappa [‘the Deceased’] were going towards Adoni from Musaanapalli in an auto and they reached Adoni at 4.30 P.M. Both of them went in different directions for shopping. At about 7.15 P.M., himself and Bheema Lingappa (the deceased) again joined at auto stand near Ryoth Bazar. By the time they reached the auto stand, all the three accused were standing at the auto stand. Suddenly A.1 caught hold Bheema Lingappa and Chinna Somanna (A.3) caught hold of another hand of the deceased. Meanwhile Chandrappa (A.2), who was armed with a stick, beat Bheema Ligappa with a stick on his head. In the said attack, Bheema Lingappa sustained an injury on the left eye. A.2 beat Bheema Lingappa with a stick on both the legs, as a result of which, he fell down on the road. Apprehending that the accused may kill him also, he fled away from the scene. He saw accused No.2 from a distance of 15 feet assaulting Bheema Lingappa. He went to Musaanapalli village and informed the wife of the deceased about the incident. Later, he informed about the incident to all his relatives. (iii). Apprehending that the accused may kill him also, he fled away from the scene. He saw accused No.2 from a distance of 15 feet assaulting Bheema Lingappa. He went to Musaanapalli village and informed the wife of the deceased about the incident. Later, he informed about the incident to all his relatives. (iii). Suspecting that the accused are responsible for the death, PW.1, who is Village Revenue Officer, Mandigiri Grama Panchayat, Adoni went to the Police Station and lodged a report with PW.13-Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Adoni under Ex.P-1. Basing on Ex.P-1, he registered a case in Crime No. 121/2009 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and submitted First Information Report –Ex.P.8 to higher authorities. (iv). On 02.07.2009 while P.W.13 was present in the II Town police station, he received an information about the murder of a person near Ryoth Bazaar, main road, Adoni. Immdeiately he rushed to the scene of offence and found a male dead body. He posted a constable to safeguard the dead body and returned back to the police station by 8.00 P.M. By the time he returned to the police station, P.W.1 Satyanath was there in the police station along with a written complaint. Basing on the said complailnt, Crime No.121 of 2009 came to be registered under Section 302 I.P.C. and F.I.R was issued, which was marked as Ex.P.8. He then visited the scene of offence at 9.00 P.M., and seized the blood stained earth, control earth, bamboo stick etc., under a seizure panchanama. Ex.P.2 is scene of offence observation panchanama. Thereafter, he prepared a sketch of scene of offence marked as Ex.P9. On the next day morning i.e., on 03.07.2009 he visited the mortuary room Government Hospital, Adoni and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the body for post mortem examination. (v). PW.12 – the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Adoni, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P-7 postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from antemortem injuries and he appears to have died 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. (vi). (v). PW.12 – the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Adoni, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P-7 postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from antemortem injuries and he appears to have died 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. (vi). After the arrest of accused and collecting all necessary documents, P.W.13 filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.44 of 2011 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. On appearance of the Accused, copies of the documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, under Section 209 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the Accused, charge referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14. After the closure of entire prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which they denied but did not adduce any evidence on their behalf except marking Exs.D.1 and D2 which are the scene of offence observation panchanama and Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 i.e., Boya Arikera Shankarappa. After appreciating evidence available on record and since the evidence of sole eye witness i.e., P.W.2 was found to be doubtful, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case revolves on the solitary testimony of P.W.2 and the same can be made basis to convict the accused, more so, when it gets corroboration from medical evidence. The learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the same stating that no reliance can be placed on evidence of P.W.2 and that his evidence is tainted with number of discrepancies. 6. The point that arises for consideration is “whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the same stating that no reliance can be placed on evidence of P.W.2 and that his evidence is tainted with number of discrepancies. 6. The point that arises for consideration is “whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 7. As stated earlier, the entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.2. It is necessary for us to refer to the evidence of P.W.2, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, in order to appreciate as to whether it establishes the guilt of the accused. 8. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and an eye witness to the incident. He in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident himself and his brother Bheema Lingappa came down to Adoni from Musaanapalli in an auto and they reached Adoni by 4.30 p.m. Both of them went in different directions for shopping. At about 7.15 p.m., himself and Bheema Lingappa again joined at auto stand near Ryoth bazaar. By the time they reached auto stand all the three accused were standing at the auto stand. Suddenly, A.1 caught hold Bheema Lingappa and Chinna Somanna (A3) caught hold of another hand of the deceased. Meanwhile Chandrappa (A2) who was armed with a stick beat Bheema Lingappa with a stick on his head. In the said attack Byeema Lingappa sustained a heavy bleeding injury on his left eye. A.2 beat Bheema Lingappa with stick on both the legs, leading to his fall down on the road. Apprehending that the accused may kill him also, he fled away from the scene. He saw the accused No.2 from a distance of 15 feet assaulting Bheema Lingappa. Thereafter, he went to Musaanapalli and informed the wife of the deceased about the incident. Later, he informed about the incident to all his relatives. 9. When Additional Public Prosecutor questioned P.W.2 about the motive, he narrated that the A.1’s eldest daughter married the eldest son of deceased. Later, the youngest daughter of A.1 Soma Lingamma fell in love with Chandra Sekhar, the youngest son of the deceased. Chandra Sekhar married Soma Lingamma by eloping with her inspite of objection by the accused. In that connection, there was a quarrel in which A.1 beat Bheema Lingappa with chappal on previous occasion. Later, the youngest daughter of A.1 Soma Lingamma fell in love with Chandra Sekhar, the youngest son of the deceased. Chandra Sekhar married Soma Lingamma by eloping with her inspite of objection by the accused. In that connection, there was a quarrel in which A.1 beat Bheema Lingappa with chappal on previous occasion. A complaint was given about that incident in Alur Police Station, but it was settled. Hence, the accused bore grudge against the family of deceased. 10. He stated that he went to Government Hospital, Adoni to see the dead body on the following day. He was very much present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that he can identify the stick which was used by A.2 to beat the deceased but the stick could not be deposited in the court in view of the fact that it was destroyed in the floods. In the cross-examination he stated that there are no disputes with the marriage of eldest son of deceased with eldest daughter of A.1. He further admits that he does not know as to why A.1 did not agree to give his daughter Soma Lingamma in marriage with Chandra Sekhar. He did not give any complaint when his brother was threatened to be killed. 11. He stated that every day autos will ply in between Musaanapalli and Adoni, that there are few autos belonging to Musaanapalli villagers. On the date of incident, he did not travel in the auto belonging to Musaanapalli. After getting down at Adoni auto stand, he went to Jansi Laxmi Bai market for shopping and the deceased went to Municipal Main road for shopping. For about two hours both of them did shopping. He came back in auto to the shopping complex at Rythu Bazar and waiting nearby the flower shop at Sreenivasa hotel. By the time he went to the auto stand, already his brother Bheema Lingappa was there. His brother was carrying a bag with some articles but he did not enquire as to what those articles were. He admitted that near Ryoth bazaar there are several shops, hotels, street hawkers etc., and it is a very busy locality. 12. Immediately after he reached his brother, he saw the accused on the spot. A.2 was armed with stick. His brother was carrying a bag with some articles but he did not enquire as to what those articles were. He admitted that near Ryoth bazaar there are several shops, hotels, street hawkers etc., and it is a very busy locality. 12. Immediately after he reached his brother, he saw the accused on the spot. A.2 was armed with stick. He admitted that he did not go to the rescue of his brother and he did not raise any hue and cry inviting the attention of the persons gathered there. He further admits that at first, he saw the accused coming towards his brother. He tried to caution him but by that time itself accused pounced upon his brother. It is elicited that the galata took place for 10 to 15 minutes. He further admits that through out galata he was watching the scene from a distance of 15 feet. He further admits that through out 10 to 15 minutes, he did not raise any hue and cry and was just watching the incident. 13. He also admits that a traffic constable is posted at flower shop near Sreenivasa hotel and another traffic constable at the beginning of over bridge. He stated that even when his brother fell down with bleeding injuries, he did not go to the spot to see him. Witness volunteers stating that he was afraid as the accused may be standing at some place and may attack him also. Within five minutes of the incident he left the place and went to Musaanapalli village. He did not observe as to in which direction the accused fled away. After the accident, he ran up to Thimma Reddy bus stop and while going up to Timma Reddy bus stop, he saw a traffic police point at the over bridge, but he did not inform about the incident to the traffic constable. 14. It was elicited that he was examined at about 9.30 p.m., on the date of incident itself. He came back to Adoni along with wife of deceased and relatives and went to the place where his brother was beaten. By the time they reached the scene of offence, the dead body was already shifted. So, by 10.00 p.m., he went to area hospital. He came back to Adoni along with wife of deceased and relatives and went to the place where his brother was beaten. By the time they reached the scene of offence, the dead body was already shifted. So, by 10.00 p.m., he went to area hospital. He was examined by the police on the following day at about 9.00 a.m. After seeing the dead body in the mortuary, he went to II town Police Station, informed the police and then his statement was recorded. 15. He admitted that normally during evening hours there will be heavy traffic and public movement at the scene of offence. According to him, A.2 gave first blow on the head, second blow on the face near nose and third blow on the legs. He further admitted that after the marriage of Chandra Sekhar and Soma Lingamma, both of them settled down in Hyderabad. 16. A new story which is suggested to this witness is denied by him which is as follows : Ucheeramma, who is staying at Adoni is kept mistress of deceased Bheemalingappa. Another person by name Veerasaina Reddy also developed intimacy with Ucheeramma. So, there were personal disputes in between Veerasaina Reddy and deceased Bheemalingappa and the said Veerasaina Reddy hatched a plan and with the help of professional killers, he would have killed Bheemalingappa. This witness admitted that son of Ucheeramma is working as farm servant under control of Veerasaina Reddy. 17. In order to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of P.W.2, we have to go through the evidence of other witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence of P.W.2, it can be seen that P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. According to P.W.2, the incident took place at about 7.30 p.m, which lasted for about 15 minutes. Five minutes after the accident, he ran up to Thimma Reddy bus stop and from there, straight away went to his village. It is borne by record that by vehicle the village Musaanapalli is at a distance of half an hour drive. So, even if it is presumed that he got the bus or any other vehicle at 7.50 or 8.00 p.m., he should have reached Musaanapalli village by 8.30 p.m. 18. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5. So, even if it is presumed that he got the bus or any other vehicle at 7.50 or 8.00 p.m., he should have reached Musaanapalli village by 8.30 p.m. 18. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5. P.W.3 is the person, who accompanied P.W.5 and other villagers to Adoni in the auto. According to him, P.W.2 came to his house at about 7.30 p.m., and asked him to come down to Adoni. P.W.4 is the auto owner-cum-driver, who took P.W.5 and others to Adoni in his auto. He also stated that P.W.2 came to his house and hired the auto at about 7.30 p.m. When the same villagers depose that P.W.2 asked them to come down to Adoni at 7.30 p.m., the presence of P.W.2 at Adoni at 7.30 p.m., becomes doubtful. 19. Further, P.W.5 is no other than the wife of the deceased. In her cross examination, she revealed a different story. According to her, on the date of accident, her husband and P.W.2 left the village in the morning itself. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that they left the village around 4.30 p.m. She further said that at about 8.00 p.m., she received a telephone call from P.W.2 informing about the incident. P.W.2 in his statement did not say this fact. His version is that out of fear, he ran up to bus stop, boarded the bus and went to the village at about 9.30 p.m. and later informed everybody. Therefore, there is any amount of doubt as to P.W.2 witnessing the incident. 20. Further, P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that himself and deceased started from Musaanapalli in an auto at about 4.30 p.m. and came down to Adoni at 6.00 p.m. and after getting down at Adoni, P.W.2 and the deceased went in different directions for shopping. But P.W.5, who is the wife of deceased deposed that P.W.2 and the deceased left the village in the morning itself. If that is so, the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 have to be believed about the presence of P.W.2 in the village at 7.30 p.m. rather than at scene of offence. Hence, the version of P.W.2 becomes suspicious. 21. It is also to be noted that the place where the incident took place consists of several shops, auto stands and bus stops. Hence, the version of P.W.2 becomes suspicious. 21. It is also to be noted that the place where the incident took place consists of several shops, auto stands and bus stops. A traffic police was also posted at a distance of 200 mts from the scene of offence. When the incident took place at 7.30 p.m., P.W.2 neither informed the police constable or came to the rescue of the deceased. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.2 also appears to be highly unnatural. While relying upon the testimony of eye witness, the Apex Court time and again held that evidence of such witness must be truthful and impose confidence in the Court to accept the same. In Govindaraju @ Govinda vs. State of Srirampuram P.S and another, 2012(2) ALD (Crl.) 580 (SC) the Apex Court has laid down as follows: “Though the place of occurrence was thickly populated area and eye witness statement is shaken non examination of material witnessed does not inspire confidence and the statement of police officer becomes not reliable”. 22. In Kunju Alias Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008(1) SCC (Crl) 331, it was held as under : “In criminal trial it is not quantity of the evidence that counts but it is quality of the evidence that has to be appreciated. The general rule is that the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting the person on sole testimony of a single witness”. 23. Further, in Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, 2002(8) Supreme 589 , and Govindaraju @ Govindu vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S, 2012(2) ALD (Crl) 580, it has been held as follows: “When the prosecution rests mainly on the sole testimony of eye witness it should be wholly reliable. Evidence of a sole witness to incident, however, should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into chain of events that have been stated by prosecution. Evidence of sole witness, if in conflict with other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of conviction of accused”. 24. Evidence of a sole witness to incident, however, should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into chain of events that have been stated by prosecution. Evidence of sole witness, if in conflict with other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of conviction of accused”. 24. Having regard to the above circumstances and since the oral evidence of P.W.2 is not only contradictory to the medical evidence but also not reliable; and this being an appeal against acquittal, we feel that the order of acquittal by the trial Court warrants no interference. 25. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment dated 18.02.2013 in Sessions Case No.285 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.