IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction based solely on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is insufficient to uphold a murder conviction, especially when significant doubts about the witness's credibility arise.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.5.1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Budaun by which the appellant-Murari was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.1982 when Phool Singh was allegedly murdered, a first information report was lodged on the same day by his brother Sheodan Singh alleging that Murari Lal, accused, son of Shankar who was serving in the Military and who was inimical to the deceased and the first informant and who had on earlier occasions also attempted to pick up fights with them, had killed Phool Singh when the latter was going from his village to Wazeerganj. Sheodan Singh has further stated in the first information report that he had got the first information report lodged when information was given to him by Ram Autar Singh and Dhanpal Singh at around 04:30 PM that Murari Lal with his licensed gun had fired upon the brother of Sheodan Singh namely the deceased Phool Singh and that the dead-body of Phool Singh was lying in the field of Dheemar. Upon hearing this, the first informant Sheodan Singh had gone to the spot and thereafter had gone to get the first information report lodged. Upon the first information report being lodged, investigation commenced and the Investigating Officer had prepared a recovery memo of the bloodstained soil and the plain soil and had marked it as Exhibit Ka-6. Thereafter, the five empty cartridges of 12 bore were also recovered from the spot and the memo was numbered as Exhibit Ka-7. Exhibit Ka-14 was a list of the articles which were recovered when the accused-Murari was being searched for. A Panchayatnama was prepared which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-8 and the other documents were exhibited as Exhibits Ka-9; Ka-10 and Ka-11 and they accompanied the dead-body to the postmortem house. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the police report was sent and the charges were framed against the accused-Murari under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter when he had denied the charges, the trial had commenced and when the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 03.05.1983 had found the accused-Murari guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the instant Criminal Appeal was filed.

3. The prosecution from its side had produced as many as six prosecution witnesses.

4. Sheodan Singh, brother of the deceased and the first informant, was produced as PW-1. He had stated in his statement before the Court that because of certain enmity with regard to keeping of pigs, the accused-Murari on 06.07.1982 at 04:00 PM had killed Phool Singh and this information was given to the PW-1 by Dhanpal Singh and Ram Autar Singh. He had proved the first information report. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he had not stated in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that at 04:00 PM the deceased had started for Wazeerganj from his village. He had stated that when he had reached the spot, he had found the five empty cartridges lying on the spot and that the place of incident was around one kilometer from the place of his residence. He had thereafter stated that after getting the first information report lodged, he had gone back to the place of incident. The Investigating Officer had come on his jeep. The dead-body thereafter was sealed and taken to the police station and the dead-body was thereafter lying on a dunlop outside the police station during the night. In the morning, the dead-body was taken to Budaun. Upon a question being asked that the report was ante timed, he denied. He had also denied the fact that the names of Ram Autar and Dhanpal were mentioned subsequently as an afterthought and he had specifically stated that Dhanpal and Ram Autar alone had come to give the information to him.

5. PW-2 Ram Autar Singh is the person who, it has been stated, had seen the incident and in his statement-in-chief he had stated that on the fateful