The testimony of a single witness, even if corroborated by medical evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction when the witness has been found to be unreliable on a crucial aspect of the case.

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, dated 4.3.82 whereby he has convicted accused Chhutan, Subba, Surjit and Nazboo of offence under section 379 IPC and has sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/r and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three days. Accused Surjit has been further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- for offence under section 323 IPC and in default to undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment. It may here be stated that the accused-appellants were also tried for offence under section 436 IPC but by the judgment under appeal, all of them have been acquitted of the said charge.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Smt. Imarati PW 1 is resident of Deokheda. Her husband Chunnilal had certain fields on the outskirts of village Deokheda. On one of the fields, they had a hut meant for residential purposes. Consequently, a cot, mattresses, utensils and various provisions used to be kept in the hut. On the night intervening 24.9.81 and 25.9.81, Smt. Imarati was sleeping in the said hut along with her husband Chunnilal. In the early hours of the day, Chunnilal went away and she kept on sleeping. While she was asleep, she was aroused by rustle of cutting standing crop of fodder in her field. Upon this, she went to the field where the fodder was being but. She saw all the four accused persons, namely. Surjit, Subba, Nazboo and Chhutan cutting her fodder crop. She protested, upon which they insisted that they would cut the crop. According to her fodder crop had been cut in an area of H-2 biswas. Thereafter Subba and Nazboo went away with some of the bundles of fodder crop. Surjit gave a blow with a wrong side of the sickle on her forehead. Chhutan set her hut to fire with the result that her cot, mattresses. quilts and provisions were burnt. She raised an alaim on which her son Surajbhan came there. Later on PW 4 Santu and PW 5 Ikbal Singh also came there. On 25-9-81, she went to Alwar along with her son Surajbhan and got herself medically examined. This examination was made by Dr. Raj Kamar Mishra PW 3, who found superficial abrasion on her forehead 1" x 1". The injury was simple in nature and has been caused by a blunt object after 24 hours. Dr. Mishra prepared an injury report Ex P 3 in this regard. Thereafter the same day, a complaint was filed by Surajbhan in the court of learned Special Judl. Magistrate, First Class, Alwar (Ex P 1). Learned Magistrate sent this complaint for investigation to police station Sadar, Alwar, whereupon a case under sections 436, 379, 323, 427 & 504 I P C. was registered. Shri Badri Narain. S H.O., police station, Sadar proceeded to the scene of occurrence and inspected the site and prepared a site inspection memo Ex. P 2. He thereafter recorded the statements of the various witnesses and eventually challaned the accused persons to stand trial for offences under sections 436, 379 and 323 I.P.C. in the court of learned Special Judl. Magistrate, First Class, Alwar. Learned Judl. Magistrate committed the accused persons to stand trial to the court of Sessions with the result that the case was eventually made over to learned Addl Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, for tria1 Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges for offences under section 379 I. P. C. against all the accused-appellants. He also framed a charge under section 323 against accused Surjit. He framed charge under section 436 I.P.C. against accused Chhutan. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined PW 1 Smt. Imarati, PW 2 Surajbhan, PW 3 Dr. Raj Kumar Mishra, PW 4 Santu, PW 5 Ikbal Singh and PW 6 Badri Narain.

3. In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the prosecution story and claimed that they had been falsely implicated because of factionalism "partibaji". They exa