JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. In Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2010 the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 302 IPC. 2. Lapung P.S. Case No.28 of 2009 was lodged against Khaira Munda @ Kamal Munda under section 302 IPC and section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act for causing death of Shukro Mundine. In the fardbeyan which was recorded on 29.07.2009 at 17:30 hrs. Bhukha Munda, son of Shukro Mundine has stated that at about 03:30 p.m. he was returning home from the market when he saw the appellant assaulting his mother. When he raised hulla several villagers came there however by that time the appellant had fled away. He has further stated that the appellant was nurturing a grudge against his mother that she was practicing witchcraft. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed and the appellant has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Shukro Mundine. During the trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are relatives of Shukro Mundine. PW-5, the co-villager has turned hostile. 3. Shukro Mundine has suffered homicidal death has been established by the prosecution and this is not under serious challenge by the defence. PW-6, Dr. Chandrashekhar Prasad who has conducted postmortem examination has found the following injuries on Shukro Mundine : \ (a) 9 cm x 1 cm, bone deep on the front of neck, lower part cutting the soft tissue blood vessels, oesophagus, trachea and forth cervical vertebra complete. (b) 5 cm x 1 cm, soft tissue on right lateral neck lower part. (c) 8 cm x 1 cm, bone deep on right clavicular region cutting the soft tissue and clavicle bone completely. (d) 9 cm x 1 cm, bone deep on the back of right neck upper part cutting the soft tissue blood vessels and second cervical vertebra partially. (e) 9 cm x 1 cm, bone deep on the back of neck lower part cutting the soft tissue blood vessels and third cervical vertebra completely. There was presence of blood and blood clot at the sight of wound. 4. In the Opinion of PW-6 the injuries found on Shukro Mundine were ante-mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. There was presence of blood and blood clot at the sight of wound. 4. In the Opinion of PW-6 the injuries found on Shukro Mundine were ante-mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. In his estimation time elapsed since death was 12 to 36 hours from the post-mortem. 5. PW-1, son of the deceased is the sole eye-witness in this case. As a general rule the Court may act on the testimony of a single witness and there is no legal impediment for convicting a person on the basis of sole testimony of an eye-witness. The import of section 134 of the Evidence Act which says that no particular number of witnesses is required in any case for the proof of a fact is that the Court may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. In "Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: "even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent witness". PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are intimately related to the deceased and therefore as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Raju vs. State of T.N." reported in (2012) 12 SCC 701 the Court must be at guard and examine the evidence of related witnesses with great care and caution. 6. PW-1 has deposed in the Court that at 03:00 p.m. on 29.07.2009 he was in the market. When he was returning home he has seen the appellant assaulting his mother and when he raised hulla 30-40 villagers assembled there. He has further stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence he found his mother dead. There is one circumstance which indicates that PW-1 is not an eye-witness. The distance between the market and the place of occurrence has not come on record but it is the prosecution evidence that the village stretches to about half a kilometre and from the evidence tendered by PW-1 it appears that when he entered the village he has seen the appellant assaulting his mother. From a distance of about half a kilometre it is unbelievable that the informant would have seen the appellant assaulting his mother. From a distance of about half a kilometre it is unbelievable that the informant would have seen the appellant assaulting his mother. The evidence of PW-1 is so cryptic and bereft of necessary details that it is difficult to act on his testimony. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 do not claim themselves eye-witnesses. They have deposed in the Court that on hearing shouts of PW-1 they had gone to the place of occurrence and there PW-1 has informed them that the appellant has killed his mother. The distance between the house of the informant and the place of occurrence has not come on record but from the testimony of PW-4 it appears that it was close by, however, none of these prosecution witnesses has stated they have heard cries of Shukro Mundine. The injuries found by PW-6 on Shukro Mundine are many and these injuries would give an idea about the manner of occurrence. Shukro Mundine has suffered two injuries on her neck, one on vertebra region and two on the back of neck. Evidently it would have taken some time to inflict so many injuries on Shukro Mundine both on front of her neck as well as back of her neck. However, no one has heard cries of Shukro Mundine and except PW-1 no one has claimed that he has seen the appellant assaulting Shukro Mundine. PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that they have seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence but strangely enough they do not try to apprehend him. 7. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 all have claimed that they were at home and on hearing hulla they have rushed to the place of occurrence, however, in their evidence they did not say about presence of each other in the house. They have also not stated in the Court that when they arrived at the place of occurrence other inmates of the house had also gone there together, rather PW-4 in his cross-examination has stated that his father came first at the place of occurrence. PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that they have seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence and it is the evidence of PW-1 that 30-40 villagers had rushed to the place of occurrence, however, none from the village has come forward to support PW-2 and PW-4 on this point. PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that they have seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence and it is the evidence of PW-1 that 30-40 villagers had rushed to the place of occurrence, however, none from the village has come forward to support PW-2 and PW-4 on this point. It has also not come in their evidence that they tried to apprehend the appellant. Adjacent to the house of the informant is house of PW-5 on the northern side, house of Jitpahan Munda on southern side, house of Andirash Horo on eastern side and a road on western side. The investigating officer has stated that house of PW-5 is at a distance of 25-30 feet on the northern side and in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any of these persons or other family member of PW-5. He is the next door neighbour of the informant but has turned hostile and the mistakes committed by the investigating officer during investigation, such as, failure to collect blood stained soil, crime article, cloths of Shukro Mundine; absence of FSL report and; non-examination of independent witnesses, have seriously shattered the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to produce sufficient materials to connect the appellant with the crime and in view of wholly unreliable evidence tendered by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, in our opinion, it is unsafe to base conviction of the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of the informant. 8. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant and therefore his conviction for the said offence in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2010 has been rendered unsustainable. 9. The judgement of conviction of the appellant, namely, Khaira Munda @ Kamal Munda dated 27.06.2012 and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.1000/- dated 16.07.2012 under section 302 IPC passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2010, are set-aside. 10. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him under section 302 IPC in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2010. 11. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.P.P. states that the appellant, namely, Khaira Munda @ Kamal Munda is in custody. 12. Accordingly, the appellant above-named shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 13. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him under section 302 IPC in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2010. 11. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.P.P. states that the appellant, namely, Khaira Munda @ Kamal Munda is in custody. 12. Accordingly, the appellant above-named shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 13. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1199 of 2018 stands allowed. 14. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned, forthwith. 15. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX. Appeal allowed.