JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the four appellants/accused persons under Section 374(2) of CrPC questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 04/07/2012 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 139/2011 whereby they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month. Since appellant No. 2 Mangal Toppo has died, the instant appeal, filed on his behalf, has already been abated by order of this Court passed today separately, as such, we proceed to consider the case of appellants No. 1, 3 and 4. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 11-12/03/2011 in between 8 PM to 6 AM, the appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Leelavati with knife and thereafter caused her death by strangulating her and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. 3. Further case of the prosecution, is that, in the evening of 11/03/2021, Leelavati took off from her house stating that she is going to invite the villagers for the occasion of her son's engagement ceremony. When she did not return to her house after a while, her son Nandu (P.W.-1) went out in her search and he found her mother Leelavati at the house of Samaribai (not examined). After asking Leelavati to return home, Nandu (P.W.-1) went back to his house but Leelavati did not come home at night. Thereafter, in the morning of 12/03/2011, when Urvashi (P.W.-2) went towards the fields to pick mahua, she found the dead body of Leelavati lying in the field of Raghunath pursuant to which, she went and informed about the same to Loharsai (A-3), who further informed Leelavati's son Nandu (P.W.1). Loharsai (A-3) and Nandu (P.W.-1) went to Raghunath's field and found the body of Leelavati lying under the mahua tree and there were cut injuries all over her body, there was a stab wound on her stomach and her head had been crushed by stone. 4. Nandu (P.W.-1) informed the matter at Police Station Lailunga on the basis of which Investigating Officer Shri C.L. Sidar (P.W.-9) lodged first information report against unknown person vide Ex. P/2 and also registered merg intimation vide Ex. 4. Nandu (P.W.-1) informed the matter at Police Station Lailunga on the basis of which Investigating Officer Shri C.L. Sidar (P.W.-9) lodged first information report against unknown person vide Ex. P/2 and also registered merg intimation vide Ex. P/1 and the counter nalasi was sent to the concerned Magistrate vide Ex. P/12. For conducting panchnama, summons were issued to the witnesses vide Ex. P/10 and upon the recommendation of the panchas, the dead body of Leelavati was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (P.W.- 8) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/11), cause of death is said to be multi-faceted i.e. intra-abdominal haemorrhage with injury of visera, intra-cerebral haemorrhage with brain injury and asphyxia as a result of throttling and the nature of the death is said to be homicidal. From the spot, bloodstained stone and soil and one ring made of iron was seized vide Ex. P/14 and the said seized articles were though sent for chemical examination but the FSL report has not been brought on record. After due investigation, the four appellants herein were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and brought on record 21 documents. The statements of the appellants/accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied guilt, however, they examined none in their defence. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Leelavati to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellants/accused persons to be the perpetrators of the crime in question, proceeded to convict them for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. Mr. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Leelavati to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellants/accused persons to be the perpetrators of the crime in question, proceeded to convict them for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants/accused persons, would submit that the conviction of the appellants has been recorded by the trial Court solely on the basis of the testimony of eye-witness Dayaram (P.W.-6) whereas he is an implanted witness who was also a suspect and his interrogation was also conducted by the Police on the complaint made against him by the husband of deceased Leelavati namely Kavitan (P.W.-3) and when the Police did not find any evidence with regard to the perpetrator of the crime in question, they cited Dayaram (P.W.-6) as an eye-witness and recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC on 20/05/2011 with a delay of two and a half months and thereafter, recorded his statement under Section 164 CrPC on 21/06/2011 with a delay of three months and charge-sheeted the appellants herein, which does not seem like a natural course of event and as such, his testimony could not have relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellants in the offence in question in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants deserves to be dismissed and they be acquitted from the aforesaid charge. 8. Per contra, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and in that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration is whether the death of deceased Leelavati was homicidal in nature ? 11. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard holding the death of deceased Leelavati to be homicidal in nature relying upon the statement of Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (P.W.-8) as well as the postmortem report (Ex. P/11). 10. The first question for consideration is whether the death of deceased Leelavati was homicidal in nature ? 11. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard holding the death of deceased Leelavati to be homicidal in nature relying upon the statement of Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (P.W.-8) as well as the postmortem report (Ex. P/11). A careful perusal of the statement of Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (P.W.-8) would show that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries all over her body and that too, both incised wounds as well as lacerated wounds, which could have been caused by a hard and blunt object as well as a sharp object. He has further stated that there was knife stabbed in her stomach and thereafter, he has stated that in his opinion, the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature looking to the several grievous injuries found all over her body which include multiple fractures in her skull which resulted in severe blood loss, insides of her stomach damaged on account of the knife stabbed therein and asphyxia as a result of strangulation. As per the postmortem report (Ex. P/11) as well, the cause of death recorded by the Doctor is said to be as a result of multiple factors with grievous injuries which caused intra-abdominal haemorrhage with injury of visera, intra-cerebral haemorrhage with brain injury and asphyxia resulting from throttling and furthermore, the nature of death has been recorded as homicidal. As such, after going through the statement of Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (P.W.-8) as well as the postmortem report (Ex. P/11), we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of Leelavati to be homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm the said finding particularly when, it has not been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. 12. The next question that requires consideration is, whether the appellants are the perpetrators of the crime in question ? 13. Learned trial Court has also recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and has convicted the appellants solely on the basis of the testimony of eye-witness Dayaram (P.W.-6). 14. 12. The next question that requires consideration is, whether the appellants are the perpetrators of the crime in question ? 13. Learned trial Court has also recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and has convicted the appellants solely on the basis of the testimony of eye-witness Dayaram (P.W.-6). 14. Husband of deceased Leelavati namely Kavitan has been examined as P.W.-3 who has clearly stated that at the time of the incident, he had gone to his daughter's house to give invitation and when he returned, Samaribai (not examined) informed him that Gyani, Sonsai alias Kuhru and Dayaram (P.W.-6) had called the deceased and took her with them and thereafter, she did not return and her dead body was found in Raghunath's field. He has also admitted the fact there was no dispute between the appellants' and his family, in fact, they had very cordial relations whereas one month prior to the date of the incident, Sonsai alias Kuhru had called Leelavati tonhi (involved in the act of witchcraft) due to which there were involved in a quarrel and Sonsai alias Kuhru had also threatened to assault Kavitan (P.W.-3) and Leelavati (deceased). He has also stated that he suspected that Gyani, Sonsai alias Kuhru and Dayaram had killed her wife on account of which he had also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh as well as Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga along with affidavit and on that basis, Police had even taken the three of them into custody for 3-4 days but thereafter, they were released. Lastly, he has stated that his statement was taken by the Police on the next day of the incident and Police had also enquired Dayaram (P.W.-6) in his presence but he had revealed nothing to the Police. 15. Likewise, Shri C.L. Sidar (P.W.-9), the Investigating Officer, has clearly admitted that on 12/03/2011, Kavitan (P.W.-3) had suspected Sonsai of committing the murder of his wife as he had quarreled with her calling her tonhi and that he had taken the statement of Kavitan (P.W.-6) twice on 12/03/2011 and 01/05/2011. He has further stated that upto 01/05/2011, as per the statements of the witnesses, no offence was made out against the appellants. Thereafter, he has stated that on the basis of suspicion, Gyani, Sonsai and Dayaram were taken into custody. 16. He has further stated that upto 01/05/2011, as per the statements of the witnesses, no offence was made out against the appellants. Thereafter, he has stated that on the basis of suspicion, Gyani, Sonsai and Dayaram were taken into custody. 16. Similarly, Kartik Ram Toppo (P.W.-5), who also resides at the same village, has clearly stated Sonsai, alleging the deceased to be tonhi, used to quarrel with her frequently and he had already told this to the Police. He has further admitted that Sonsai, Dayaram and Gyani used to threaten Leelavati to kill her after calling her tonhi and the said fact has also been told by him to the Police. 17. Dayaram (P.W.-6), who is cited as an eye-witness by the prosecution, in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, has admitted that in the past, on the allegation of murder of Jaabikaam, he had faced trial and had also been detained and thereafter, he has become Police witness. Thereafter, he has also stated that with regard to the offence in hand, Police had also taken him to the Police Station for enquiry and had kept him in custody for 7-8 days. 18. Thus, from the analysis of the aforesaid evidence, following facts have been established :- (i) that, Gyani, Sonsai and Dayaram (P.W.-6) were prime suspects for the murder of deceased Leelavati as they used to call her tonhi and used to quarrel with her and also threatened to kill her. (ii) that, Dayaram (P.W.-6) has criminal antecedents and he was involved in a murder case and he had also faced detention therein and he is a stock witness. (iii) that, pursuant to the complaint made by Kavitan (P.W.- 3), husband of the deceased, against Gyani, Sonsai and Dayaram (P.W.-6) before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and S.H.O, Police Station Lailunga, Police had taken the three of them to the Police Station and interrogated them and kept them in custody for 7-8 days. (iii) that, pursuant to the complaint made by Kavitan (P.W.- 3), husband of the deceased, against Gyani, Sonsai and Dayaram (P.W.-6) before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and S.H.O, Police Station Lailunga, Police had taken the three of them to the Police Station and interrogated them and kept them in custody for 7-8 days. (iv) that, until 01/05/2011, no evidence could be collected against the appellants and thereafter, the statement of Dayaram (P.W.-6) was taken by the Police under Section 161 CrPC on 20/05/2011 i.e. with a delay of two and a half months wherein he stated that he has seen the appellants commit the crime in question and pursuant thereof, his statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on 21/06/2011 i.e. with a delay of three months and on that basis, the appellants herein have been convicted. 19. The finding of guilt of the four appellants/accused persons recorded by the trial Court is based on the sole testimony of Dayaram (P.W.-6), who is cited as an eye-witness by the prosecution, but he is only a stock witness and there is no other incriminating piece of evidence in the entire record, much less, corroborating piece of evidence. 20. With regard to evidentiary value the sole testimony of a single witness in order to rest conviction, the Supreme Court in the matter of Hiralal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 356 has held that evidence of police witness does not carry any value. Similarly, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 613 strongly deprecated the practice of use of stock witness and held as under :- “In justice, justices and Justicing and likewise in the Police and Policing, the peril to the judicial process is best left to imagination if professional perjurers like the self-confessed Paniwala are kept captive by the Police, to be pressed into service for providing “cases”. Courts, trusting the Police may act on apparently veracious testimony and sentence people into prison. The community, satisfied with such convictions, may well believe that all is well with law and order. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the systematic pollution of the judicial process and the consequent threat to human rights of innocent persons. Courts, trusting the Police may act on apparently veracious testimony and sentence people into prison. The community, satisfied with such convictions, may well believe that all is well with law and order. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the systematic pollution of the judicial process and the consequent threat to human rights of innocent persons. We hope that the higher authorities in the Department who, apparently, are not aware of the nefarious goingson at the lesser levels will immediately take measures to stamp out this unscrupulous menace.” 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Amar Singh and others v. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4894 has placed reliance upon its earlier decision rendered in the matter of Sunil Kumar v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367 and held that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of single witness, if the same is credible and trustworthy and observed as under :- “16. Thus the finding of guilt of the two Accused Appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general Rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye 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. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. ” 22. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. ” 22. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid parameter laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that Dayaram (P.W.-6), on whose sole testimony, the appellants have been convicted for the offence in question, is one of the three accused persons against whom Kavitan (P.W.-3), husband of the deceased, had made a report to the S.P. as well as the S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station stating that they suspected the deceased to be involved in the act of witchcraft and often abused and threatened her. After the death of the deceased, when Kavitan (P.W.-3) made the said report, Police took these three accused persons including Dayaram (P.W.-6) into custody and interrogated them but they released them after 7-8 days. It is also pertinent to notice that alleged sole eye-witness Dayaram (P.W.-6) also has criminal antecedents and he had remained in jail with regard to a murder case. During the course of the investigation, until 01/05/2011, when nothing was available against the appellants, all of a sudden on 20/05/2011, statement of Dayaram (P.W.-6) was taken by the Police under Section 161 CrPC with a delay of two and a half months and he was cited as an eye-witness, though he was a stock witness. Thereafter, his statement under Section 164 CrPC was also recorded on 21/06/2011 i.e. with a delay of three months and the appellants were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and thereafter, convicted by the trial Court for the said offence on the basis of the sole testimony of Dayaram (P.W.-6) in absence of any other corroborating piece of evidence. 23. 23. In our considered opinion, Dayaram (P.W.-6) is not an eyewitness being a stock witness and he has clearly been implanted by the Police as they could not collect any evidence against the appellants with regard to the commission of the offence and in view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hiralal (supra) and Prem Chand (supra), his testimony has no evidentiary value and it cannot be relied upon to base conviction and there is no other corroborating piece of evidence available on record to convict the appellants. Moreover, the delay of two and half months in taking the statement of Dayaram (P.W.-6) under Section 161 CrPC and thereafter, the delay of three months in taking his statement under Section 164 CrPC has also not been sufficiently explained by the prosecution and it also creates doubt in the mind of the Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded against the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and the sentenced awarded as aforesaid is hereby set aside. The appellants are convicted of the charge levelled against them. Since they are already on bail, they need not surrender, however, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of Section 437A of CrPC. 24. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands allowed.