The conviction of an accused person cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness whose testimony is unreliable and lacks corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Patra, J. - The three Appellants were tried on a charge u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code for having in furtherance of their common intention committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Trilochan alias Ghasi Sahu on the 26th of October 1971 at Kermeli. Along with them, the first Appellant's father Bali (who has been acquitted) was tried on a charge u/s 114/302, Indian Penal Code for having abetted the commission of the offence of murder.

2. The prosecution case may now be briefly stated. One Sahadeb Sahu had three sons, namely, Dhubal, Sapna and Bali. Dhubal had three sons, namely, Bishnu, Barju '(father of p.w. 2) and Tirtha (p.w. 10). Tirtha's two sons are the deceased Trilochan and one Ladu alias Lokanath. Sapna had no sons but only two daughters. Bali's three sons are Satia Appellant No. 1, Nitia and Paramananda. Satia's two sons are Arakhita Appellant No. 2 and Jita Appellant No. 3. There was a partition amongst the three branches. After the partition, Bali sold his share to Dhubal and members of the latter's branch have since then in possession of the lands purchased from Bali. It is in connection with these lands that there are litigations both civil and criminal between Bali's branch and Dhubal's branch. The family has lands both in mouzas Karmeli and Madmada which are a mile apart from each other. Bishnu and his brother Barju reside in mouza Madmada. Consequently, Barju's son Joydeb p.w. 2 also lives there. Tirtha (p.w. 10) with his two sons was living in Kermeli mouza. Bali also resides in that village. Out of Bali's three sons, Nitia and Paramananda had left the village but Bali's another son Satia (Appellant No. 1) had shifted to his father-in-law's. house in mouza Gyan where he was residing with his two sons Appellants 2 and 3.

3. On the morning of 26-10-1971, which was a Tuesday, in the month of Kartika, p.w. 10 Tirtha's son Ladu and his Halia had gone to the lands in village Madmada. At about noon, Tirtha asked his other son the deceased Trilochan to carry food for Ladu and the Halia. On his way near Kermeli Att, Trilochan was fatally assaulted by the three Appellants. It was alleged that Appellant Satia cut the throat of the deceased while his two sons Jita and Arakhita caught hold of the head and legs of the deceased. It was further alleged that at that time Satia's father Bali was standing.

4. The occurrence was witnessed by Arjun Bagh p.w. 6 a resident of Madmada mouza who at that time was tending his goats in the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence. Shortly afterwards, he went back to the village. That evening Bishnu and p.w. 2 learnt about the occurrence from p.w. 6 and informed p.w. 10 the father of the deceased about it. The occurrence was reported at the Police Station early next morning. Police came to the spot, held an inquest over the dead body, sent it for postmortem examination and after completion investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the three Appellants and Bali. In due course, these four persons were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Session.

5. The defence plea was one of complete denial of the occurrence. According to the accused persons, the case had been falsely foisted on them on account of previous enmity. Eleven witnesses were examined at the trial for the prosecution and none for the defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence on the prosecution side and convicted the Appellants u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Although he believed that the other accused Bali was present at the place of occurrence, there was no evidence that either he was instigating or abetting the other accused persons to commit the offence. He, therefore, acquitted him. The three accused persons who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge have filed this appeal.

6. The substantial contention of Mr. P.K. Dhal, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants is that the evidence of the sole