JUDGEMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 302 IPC for committing murder of Mulwa Devi. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Sobrati Mian had illicit relationship with Mulwa Devi. In the evening of 27th July, 2008, at about 6:30 PM, Sobrati Mian came to house of the informant. At that time, Mulwa Devi was cooking food. A quarrel started between Sobrati Mian and Mulwa Devi and suddenly Sobrati Mian struck a tangi blow on the head of Mulwa Devi. The informant tried to apprehend him but somehow he managed to escape. On the basis of statement of Doman Ram recorded at 8:30 AM on 28th July, 2008 at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 690 of 2008 was registered against Sobrati Mian and two unknown persons. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 302/34 IPC and he has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Mulwa Devi. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses out of whom PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are related to the deceased and the appellant has examined himself as DW-1. 4. PW-9, Dr. K.K. Verma who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 28th July, 2008 has found fracture of right parietal bone of the head of Mulwa Devi of the size of “3 inches x ¼ inch”, brain deep. He has also observed surgical stitches over the said injury and found that fist of both hand of Mulwa Devi were half clinged. In his estimation the time elapsed since death was 4 to 36 hours and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the head injury. 5. Mulwa Devi has suffered a homicidal death has not been challenged by the appellant, however, the case set up by the defence is that the informant who was suffering humiliation due to illicit relationship between the appellant and his wife has killed her and falsely implicated the appellant in this case. 6. PW-5 and PW-7 are closely related to Mulwa Devi, the deceased. PW-5 is father of Mulwa Devi and PW-7 is her husband. They are the eye-witnesses in this case and their evidence has been challenged on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased. In “Waman Vs. 6. PW-5 and PW-7 are closely related to Mulwa Devi, the deceased. PW-5 is father of Mulwa Devi and PW-7 is her husband. They are the eye-witnesses in this case and their evidence has been challenged on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased. In “Waman Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2011) 7 SCC 295 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased their evidence cannot be thrown out and if their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. A word of caution, however, has been indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgements, one being in “Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab” reported in ( 1976) 4 SCC 369, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. 7. PW-5 has stated in his examination-in-chief that at about 6:00 PM he was sitting in the house of his daughter. The appellant who was carrying a tangi came there and holding Mulwa Devi by her hair started assaulting her and when his daughter protested he assaulted her on her head with tangi. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that in the evening around the time of occurrence he had gone to the shop of Raghuni Yadav for tobacco and when he came back to the house of his daughter he found the informant crying. On such evidence, PW-5 cannot claim to be an eye-witness and, therefore, the case of the prosecution against the appellant would now depend on a solitary witness, PW-7. 8. In “Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat” reported in (2011) 10 SCC 158 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that: “This Court has consistently held that as a general rule 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 a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material.” 9. Since, evidence of PW-7 has been seriously challenged by the defence on the ground of his being an inimical and highly interested witness, we would also examine whether the evidence of PW-7 is corroborated by any other independent evidence. 10. The appellant has set up a defence that PW-7, the informant, is an old man whereas Mulwa Devi was quite young. The informant was not able to satisfy her sexual urges and, therefore, she had turned to Sobrati Mian. The illicit relationship between the appellant and Mulwa Devi had caused great embarrassment to the informant and he was ousted from the village and thereafter he came to village Pipcho. PW-5 has admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter was second wife of the informant and at the time of his marriage the informant was aged about forty years and the informant has admitted that he was married to Mulwa Devi about 25-26 years back. He has also admitted that he had submitted pension forms and in his cross-examination the defence has put a suggestion to him that pension is provided after 62 years of age. The informant has stated in his cross-examination that he could not over power the appellant after the occurrence because he is an old person while the appellant is quite young. In his cross-examination, PW-5 has admitted that there was a panchayati in the village in relation to the questionable relationship between the appellant and his daughter. It has also come in the evidence of PW-5 that to the west of house of the informant there are mixture plant and crusher machine of Nageshwar Gope in which about 50-60 people live and the road passing through the house of the informant is a freeway and there is a hotel. Mr. It has also come in the evidence of PW-5 that to the west of house of the informant there are mixture plant and crusher machine of Nageshwar Gope in which about 50-60 people live and the road passing through the house of the informant is a freeway and there is a hotel. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that it is unbelievable that no one from the vicinity has come forward to depose in the Court that he has seen the occurrence or at least found the appellant running away from house of the informant. 11. While examining the evidence of PW-7, we are reminded of observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Darya Singh v. State of Punjab” reported in AIR 1965 SC 328 : “There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, Criminal Courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim very carefully”. 12. There are other features of the case which also create a serious doubt on involvement of the appellant in the crime. The informant has admitted in the Court that the fardbeyan which was produced in the Court is not the statement which he gave to the police and the statement which was recorded by the Investigating Officer was not read over to him. According to the prosecution, the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, however, during the trial he was not examined as a witness. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, the co-villagers, have turned hostile and PW-6 and PW-8 who are also intimately related to the deceased and according to the informant they came to his house immediately after the occurrence have not seen the appellant running away or around house of the informant. The Investigating Officer has deposed in the Court that PW-5 and PW-7, both, said before him about illicit relationship between the appellant and Mulwa Devi. He has further stated that PW-5 in his statement under section 161 CrPC had stated that he had gone for tobacco in the evening of 27th July, 2008 and after about twenty minutes he came back to the house of the informant. He has further stated that PW-5 in his statement under section 161 CrPC had stated that he had gone for tobacco in the evening of 27th July, 2008 and after about twenty minutes he came back to the house of the informant. 13. From cross-examination of PW-5 and PW-7 and evidence of the Investigating Officer, we find that there are serious omissions and improvements in their evidence in the Court. In “Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.) 33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide State v. Sait.)” 14. On a closure scrutiny of the testimony of PW-7, we are of the opinion that his evidence which suffers from serious contradictions does not inspire confidence of the Court and it would be unsafe to base conviction of the appellant on his testimony. 15. Finally, we came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant. 16. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction under section 302 IPC and the order of sentence of RI for life with fine of Rs.2,000/-, both dated 18.10.2011, passed against the appellant, namely, Sobrati Mian by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2009 are set-aside. 17. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned A.P.P. states that the appellant is in custody. 18. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Sobrati Mian shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 600 of 2011 is allowed. 20. 17. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned A.P.P. states that the appellant is in custody. 18. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Sobrati Mian shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 600 of 2011 is allowed. 20. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 21. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'FAX'.