The court held that the evidence of a single eyewitness, who is found to be unreliable and whose testimony suffers from serious contradictions and inherent improbabilities, is not sufficient to convict a person of murder.

1. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge Dausa in Session Case No. 46 of 1994, whereby the appellant Chauthmal has been convicted Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was awarded six months' further rigorous imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge which is under challenge in this appeal. The facts indicate that Prabhati Lal Koli had four daughters namely, Smt. Lado, Smt. Gyarsi (now deceased) Smt. Lali and Smt. Kamla. Smt. Gyarsi was younger to Smt. Lado, who was eldest one amongst the sisters. That the appellant Chauthmal and deceased Smt. Gyarsi had gone Baswa village to participate in marriage of the cousin of Gyarsi's mother at Todabhim. It is stated that after participating in the marriage they came back at Baswa in the evening of 7.5.1980. That the appellant wanted to take his wife Smt. Gyarsi with him, but Gyarsi's mother did not allow her to go. The prosecution story further goes that Smt. Lado, Lali and Gyarsi had gone to the village well for fetching water and the appellant pushed Smt. Gyarsi in the well causing her death. The report of the incident was made by Keshave Deo, brother of Shit. Gyarsi at Police Station - Bandikui on 8.5.1980 at 8.30 a.m., disclosing the above facts. On this report crime under section 302 IPC was registered. The dead-body of Smt. Gyarsi was taken out from the well and her inquest report Ex. P/1 was prepared on the same day. The post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted by Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma (PW 13) and as per the opinion given by him, the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning within eight hours from the time of examination.

3. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in his absence. It appears that the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Dausa in October, 1994 but the appellant was not arrested by the police, as such the trial has been delayed.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, Dausa, after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The trial Court held that Smt. Gyarsi had died due to drowning in the well. The conviction of the appellant was recorded by it safely on the basis of the statement of PW 6 Smt. Lali so far as the first finding is concerned, after going through the record we are satisfied that it is well founded. There is enough material on record to prove that Smt. Gyarsi had died due to falling in the well.

5. The only question, therefore, remains as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the appellant by cogent and reliable evidence. As per the prosecution case there were two eye-witnesses of the incident namely, Smt. Lado and Smt. Lali. Smt. Lado has not been examined in the trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, has observed that she had died. However, on perusal of the record, we find no material to show that she had died and could not examined due to this fact.

6. Be that as it may, we minutely examined the statement of PW 6 Lali, being aware that if her statement is found believable, the conviction of the appellant can be maintained. Smt. Lali is the real sister of deceased Gyarsi. In her examination-in-chief she has deposed that she had gone to the village well for fetching water along with her sister Gyarsi and Lado and it was early morning before 6 a.m. That her elder sister Lado had left the well before the incident and when she was drawing water from the well, the appellant pushed her sister Smt. Gyarsi in the well. Thereafter on the crying 3-4 villagers came there and took out Smt. Gyarsi from the well. In cross-examination she stated that Smt. Gyarsi was standing on the well and in her presence the appellant Chauthmal did take her by the side of well to talk with her. Then she clarified that she did n