JUDGMENT : 1) The convicts in Sessions Case No.26 of 1986 of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Deoghar arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No. 48 dated 06.07.1984 have assailed their conviction under Sections 147, 323, 379, 411, 302/34 and various sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge on 05.04.1994 and among them, imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) is the highest sentence. 2) Appellant No.1 Pano Mohli and appellant No.6 Bholu Mohli died during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and as such, the appeal stands abated as far as they are concerned. 3) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.07.1984 to the effect that on that day in the morning the informant Sahdeo Soren along with his father deceased Ranjan Soren had gone the paddy field located in Mouza Kumardih. That field belonged to one Kanhai Mohli which the informant had taken on Batai as Bataidar. He had gone there to plough the field with two ploughs and four bullocks. The prosecution further alleged that Durga Mohli and Roshan Mohli are the owners of the field. They were also present in that field and were ploughing the field. The informant Sahdeo Soren along with his father Ranjan Soren was sitting on the ridge of the field. At about 9.00 a.m. Pano Mohli, Chhotu Lal Mohli, Nirmal Mohli, Jitan Mohli, Jhabhu Mohli, Bholu Mohli, Hira Lal Mohli and Jadu @ Chuka Mohli, all of the same village, came there forming an unlawful assembly and armed with lathis. Accused Pano Mohli abused the ploughman and asked to stop ploughing and threatened to kill those persons. On this, Durga Mohli told that the land belonged to him, therefore he would cultivate the field. On this reply, there was altercation between him and Pano Mohli and his companions. Then, Pano Mohli gave two lathi blows on Kanhai Mohli and threw him down in the field. Thereafter, Pano Mohli unyoked the ploughs and started removing the ploughs and the bullocks. All the accused persons also accompanied Pano Mohli. Then, deceased Ranjan Soren went near Pano Mohli and asked him to give back the ploughs and the bullocks because they belonged to him. Thereafter, Pano Mohli unyoked the ploughs and started removing the ploughs and the bullocks. All the accused persons also accompanied Pano Mohli. Then, deceased Ranjan Soren went near Pano Mohli and asked him to give back the ploughs and the bullocks because they belonged to him. He further promised that he will not plough that field and requested the accused to hand over the plough and the bullocks. Even on this promise and request, the accused did not return the bullocks and ploughs. Ranjan Soren followed them repeating the same requests. When they reached near Dagal, accused Pane Mohli uttered, “Sala Nahi Manega”. On this word, he gave one lathi blow on the side of ear of Ranjan Soren, as a result, Ranjan Soren fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter, accused Chhote Lal Mohli, Nirmal Mohli, Jitan Mohli and Pane Mohli gave lathi blows on the stomach, back and chest of Ranjan Soren. Then, Ranjan Soren sustained injuries and died at the spot. Thereafter, Pano Mohli took the bullocks and ploughs and the accused persons fled away from the spot. The informant submitted a report before the Officer-in- Charge, Palajori PS who registered the aforesaid P.S. Case Number under Sections 147, 323, 379, 302 of the IPC and took up the investigation. In the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses. After examining them under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for brevity), he visited the spot, held inquest on the dead body, collected bloodstained marks and samples, prepared spot map, dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination and after completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet for the offences as stated hereinabove. 4) The accused persons have taken the plea of simple denial and false accusation against them. 5) During pendency of the trial, Hira Lal Mohli died and his name has been expunged by the trial Court vide order dated 19.08.1993. 4) The accused persons have taken the plea of simple denial and false accusation against them. 5) During pendency of the trial, Hira Lal Mohli died and his name has been expunged by the trial Court vide order dated 19.08.1993. 6) The accused persons had not only denied the allegations made against them but they examined one defence witness namely DW.1 Kalu Mohli and they have set up a defence plea about the possession of the land by one Jadu Mohli and that Pano Mohli has taken the possession of the land from the said Jadu Mohli in usufructuary mortgage for six years for Rs.2000/- in the year 1985, and that the paddy seedlings standing in the said paddy field was damaged by Ranjan Soren, his sons and other relatives and that Ranjan Soren was patient of tuberculosis. After ploughing the paddy seedlings, he was returning to his house and in course of return, an ox belonging to Sahdeo Soren dashed Ranjan Soren, as a result, Ranjan Soren fell down and died. 7) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses, out of which, PW.8 Sahdeo Soren, who happens to be the informant of this case, is the eyewitness of the case. PW.4 Dr. Kameshwar Prasad is the doctor who has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW.9, Ramanand Harijan is a Police Officer attached to the Court, has proved the handwriting of the Investigating Officer Ramesh Chandra Rabidas. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. PW.1 Roshan Mohli is another witness to the occurrence who has partly supported the case of the prosecution. From the evidence of PW.4, Dr. Kamehswar Prasad who had conducted post mortem examination of the dead body, it is apparent that on 07.07.1984 he conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injuries:- (i) Abrasion on the left side of left face ½” x ¼”. (ii) Swelling on the right side of face along the ear 3” x 2”. (iii) Bruise with ecchymosis on the lateral side of left chest 6” x 4”. (iv) Bruise with ecchymosis on the lateral side of right chest 3½” x 2½”. (v) Bruise on the back of right shoulder 3” x 2”. (ii) Swelling on the right side of face along the ear 3” x 2”. (iii) Bruise with ecchymosis on the lateral side of left chest 6” x 4”. (iv) Bruise with ecchymosis on the lateral side of right chest 3½” x 2½”. (v) Bruise on the back of right shoulder 3” x 2”. (vi) Bruise on the front of upper part of right chest 1” x ½” and ½” x ¼”. (vii) Bruise on the back of lower part of chest in middle 4” x 3”. On opening the chest it was found that 4th and 5th ribs was fractured along anterior excillary line with presence of hemorrhage. The left lung was punctured at one place corresponding to the broken end of 5th rib with presence of about 2 ounce of blood in chest cavity. The plurra on the right side was adhered with right side with presence of a bullae over the left lung. Both lungs were congested at heart chambers and on opening of abdomen, Liver, Spleen and Kidneys were pale. The stomach contained about one ounce of lice fluid. Small and large intestine contained gas and feces with portion of loops of large gut slightly congested. On opening the skull, brain was pale with no fracture. Cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries specially due to injury to the both lungs. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Time of postmortem since death was within 36 hours. He has stated in his cross-examination that the injuries can be caused by multiple falls on rocky soil. The deceased was a disabled person. 8) There is no clear-cut finding either in his statement or in the post mortem examination report that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Though that itself will not entitle the appellant to be acquitted of the offence of murder, but it is necessary for the Trial Court to elucidate the opinion of the doctor whether such death was homicidal in nature. Even if the doctor is unable to state with certainty that such death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, then also the learned Sessions Judge should have come to the finding based on the evidences available on record. Even if the doctor is unable to state with certainty that such death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, then also the learned Sessions Judge should have come to the finding based on the evidences available on record. It is, therefore, found that the learned Sessions Judge has not given a specific finding that the death of the deceased was definitely homicidal in nature. 9) As far as complicity of the appellants in commission of the crime is concerned, we revert to the evidence of PW.8 who happens to be the son of the deceased Ranjan Soren. He has stated on oath that about seven years prior to the examination in the court at about 6-7 a.m. he and his father had gone to the fields in Kumardih for ploughing the land in question. The land belonged to Somra and Durga who had given the same to the deceased on sharing basis. When the witnesses and his father were sitting on the ridge of the land, Somra and Durga were ploughing the land. At that time, Pano Mohli, Chhotalal, Nirmal, Jitan, Heeralal, Jhabu, Bholu, Chukaya came there being armed with lathi. They came to the field and started talking with the deceased and Pano gave two blows on the waist of Durga and directing them to stop the ploughing of the field. There was an altercation. Then Pano Mahali unyoked the animal and started taking them towards their house. When the deceased went after him and requested him to return the bullocks and the plough, but instead of returning, Pano gave a lathi blow on the ear area of the head of the deceased (Kanpati par mara). The other accused persons started giving pushed to the father of the witness. Nirmal, Jitan, Chhotalal assaulted the deceased by means of lathi and then his father died. He has specifically stated that besides himself the incident has been seen by Somra and Durga. He has further stated that he got the F.I.R. recorded and he signed on the same. He has stated in the cross-examination that the incident (maar-pit) took place in the paddy field of Durga Mahali. He further stated that the Daroga (Police Officer) told him that the other accused persons assaulted his father by giving pushes and fist blows. He has further stated that he got the F.I.R. recorded and he signed on the same. He has stated in the cross-examination that the incident (maar-pit) took place in the paddy field of Durga Mahali. He further stated that the Daroga (Police Officer) told him that the other accused persons assaulted his father by giving pushes and fist blows. He further stated that four accused persons assaulted his father by means of lathi but they did not assault him indiscriminately (Anadadhund nahi mara). One lathi blow was given on his ear and rest of the persons gave fists and slaps. He has further stated that there was a land dispute between Somra and Kanhai with Jaggu. Kanhai and Somra were telling that there should be a partition but Jaggu did not want a partition. This witness further stated that he did not know whether Pano was in possession of the land in question. Somra told his father that Jaggu was insisting on Pano that he should take the land on sharing basis. His father became ready to cultivate the paddy in that field. He has further stated that before the altercation and quarrel, Pano did not tell that his father will be killed. Pano told to stop quarreling and when his father did not agree, it led to altercation and quarrel, but this witness denied the suggestion that they forcibly cultivated the land being armed with lathi and the paddy seedlings were damaged by them. 10) As stated earlier, only PW.1 has supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. PW.1 Raushan Mahali stated that Pano, Jitan, Nirmal, Chhotel Lal, Jadu, Hiralal, Jhabu, Bholu came there being armed with lathi, they started objecting ploughing of the land and took away the ploughs and the bullocks. When Ranjan went and asked to return the bullocks and plough, the accused Pano Mahali gave a push by means of a lathi, as a result of which, Ranjan fell down and died. Other witnesses like PW.2 Somra Mahali, who is said to be an eyewitness to the incident, and PW.3 Durga Mohli, whose names also figures in the F.I.R., have not stated anything regarding the assault on the deceased by all the accused persons and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution after obtaining permission of the Court under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 11) It is true that even in a case where a solitary witness is coming forth to state about the incident, the Court can base his finding and convict the accused for the offences alleged. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides no particular number of the witnesses shall be necessarily required for proving an act. In fact, it is a settled principle of law that a truthful solitary witness can outweigh the evidence of a thousand unreliable witnesses. 12) The Hon’ble Supreme Court as early as in the year 1957 in the case of Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, [ AIR 1957 SC 614 ], first time considered the reliability of the solitary eyewitness and held that the witnesses can be categorized into three types. They are – (i) wholly reliable witness, (ii) wholly unreliable witnesses, and; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness. In cases of the first two categories, the duty of the court becomes easier if it comes to the conclusion that the witness is wholly reliable and the facts stated by the solitary witness can be accepted and a finding can be recorded solely on the basis of evidence of such witness. On the other hand, if the court comes to the conclusion that the witness is wholly unreliable, then also the court may come to a finding about the non-existence of the facts stated by the said witness. But, the work of the court in giving a judgment becomes more difficult when the witness is of the 3rd category. 13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in the aforesaid case that generally the witnesses in our country come in the 3rd category and in this case also, the witness being a relation of the deceased who was having inimical relation with the accused persons cannot be termed as a wholly reliable witness and his evidence if relied upon to record a conviction needs to be supported by independent-circumstantial or other evidences available on the records. 14) It is always appropriate for a criminal court to consider the evidence of a solitary eyewitness who is supporting the case of the prosecution on the anveils of objective circumstances. 14) It is always appropriate for a criminal court to consider the evidence of a solitary eyewitness who is supporting the case of the prosecution on the anveils of objective circumstances. In this case, PW.1 has not been declared hostile, but he is not supporting PW.8 (the informant) in the sense that he has stated that only Pano gave a hard push by means of a lathi for which the deceased fell down and subsequently he died, whereas, PW.8 stated, in his examination-inchief, all the accused persons to have given lathi blows on the body of the deceased when he was lying on the ground after being assaulted by Pano, but in the cross-examination he has stated that the other accused persons did not assaulted him indiscriminately and that they gave slaps and fist blows to his father. Thus, apparently, the evidence of PW.8 is not of a very strong piece of evidence to record a conviction and remand somebody to the prison for rest of his life. 15) In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is enough and reasonable doubt in complicity of the surviving appellants in commission of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. As far as the offences of theft and rioting are concerned, once the main offence is disbelieved, there is no point in convicting the surviving appellants on further analysis of evidences, especially when they have already spent a considerable time in prison during the course of investigation and trial. 16) In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. The conviction of the surviving appellants, named above, and their sentences passed under Sections 302/34, 147, 323, 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.26 of 1986 arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No. 48 of 1984 are set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, they are set at liberty by cancelling the bonds executed by them in this case. 17) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 18) Urgent copies as per Rules.