BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

          BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI AND ORS.                                 A
                                    V.

                       STATE OF KARNATAKA

                         SEPTEMBER 20. 2006

               [B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR. JJ.)                            B

       Penal Code, 1860-,Sections 302 and 34-Accused charged for murder-
Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that PW I is not a truthful eyewitness
and that PW 2 was not an eyewitness-High Court held PWs I and 2 as . C
truthfit! eyewitnesses and convicted the accused-Correctness of-Held. on·
re-appreciation of evidence, PW 2 cannot be said to be an eyewitness c:nd PW
I is not a truthfirl eyeu:itness-Hence, accused are acquitted.

      Appellants were charged of the offence punishable under section 302
 read with section 34 IPC for committing murder of the deceased while he       D
·was sleeping on the katta in the outer portion of his house. • Trial Court
                                                        a
 acquitted the appellants holding that PW I was not truthful witness;
 that PW 2 was not an eye witness; and that PWs. 8 and 9 turned hostile.
 The High Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, held that PWs 1 and
 2 are truthful eye witnesses .and on the basis of thefr evidence, the
 appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302        E.
 read with section 34 IPC.

      In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that· on a. mere
reading of his evidence, it will be for that PW 2 is not an eyewitness; that
he was sleeping inside his house and that when he came out of the house,
he only saw the dead body of the deceased; that PW I is not a truthful
eyewitness; that a false case was concocted and the appellants were named
as the assailants; and that the absence· of blood ·stains on the clothes of
PWs I and 2 ·indicates that they had not witnessed the occurrence as they
were inside the house and later when they came out they saw the dead
body of the deceased with severe injuries.                                     G
      Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: I. I. In PW 2's examination-in-chief, he asserted that he woke
up early in the morning when his father and mother woke up. In his cross-
                                   393                                         H
     394                     ~lJl'REME   COUR r REPORTS 120061 ~[;pp, h S.C.R.

A examination, his version is to the contrary. He has stated dearly that he
     did not even know when his father left since he was sleeping and further
     that when he got up on hearing the cries of his mother, the incident was
    over and on coming out he had seen the dead body of his brother. His
    evidence leads us to suspect his assertion of PW 2 that he was eyewitness.
     Hence it must he held that PW 2 had not witnessed the occurrence and
B his e\·idcnce cannot be relied upon. 1398-E, Fl
          1.2. In order to bring home the guilt of an accused, it is not necessary
    for the prosecution to pro'e the motive. The existence of motive is only
    one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence
C   adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the witnesses appears to
    be truthful and convincing, failure to, prove the motive is not fatal to the
    case of the prosecution. 1399-C, DI

          1.3. On the basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness, a conviction
     may be recorded, but it is cautioned that while doing so the Court must
D   be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of such sterling
    quality that the Court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the
    testimony of that witness. In doing so, the Court must test the credibility
    of the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence
    must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly
    truthful, and must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court
E   has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the
    testimony of a single witness. 1403-A, Bl

          1.4. It is established that in the First Information Report, a false
    statement had been made by PW I as to the existence of the motive. In
F   her cross-examination, she had gone back on her statements made in the
    First Information Report and also in her examination-in-chief. The
    evidence of PW l is not found to be of that quality. The narration of events
    as they took place before the actual murder of her son is also shown to be
    untrue. Her evidence also leaves a lurking suspicion about her being an
    eyewitness. Having discarded the evidence of PW 2 and the other two
G   alleged eyewitnesses having turned hostile, there is no reliable
    corroboration of the testimony of PW I. 1399-F; 403-C-DI

           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 367
    of 2005.

H          From the final Judgment and Ordt!r dated ~6.5.~004 of the High Cou11
          BHIMAPl'ACHANDAPPA JIOSAMANI 1·. ST.·\TE Of K:·\RNAIAl\A I ll.P. SINCil·L .I.]   395

     of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1485/1998.                                 A
          Mohan V. Katarki and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Appellants.


..       · Anil K. Mishra and Sanjay R. Hedge for the Responde•1t

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                             B
            B.P. SINGH, J. The appellants have appealed to this Court by special
     leave against their conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of
     Karnataka at Bangalore on 26th May, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of
     1998. The appellants were charged of the offence punishable under Section
     302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having com111itted the C
     111urder of Lakshrna1i at about 6.00 a.m. on May 30, 1996 while he was
     sleeping on the 'katta' of his house. The Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur,
     who tried the appellants in Sessions Case No.144 of 1998 acqu ittcd them of
     the charge by his judgment and order of September 14, 1998. The trial Court
     held that out of the four witnesses examined as eye witnesses, two, namely- D
     PW.8 and PW.9 turned hostile and did not suppo11 the case of the prosecution ..
     The remaining two witnesses were PW- I. S1i1t. Nimbavva, mother of the
     deceased and PW-2, Ayyappa. the younger brother of the deceased. aged
     about 12 years. On an appreciation of their evidence the trial court held that.
     PW-2 had not really witnessed the occurrence while PW-I was not atruthful
     witness. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record came E
     to the ccntrary conclusion that PWs. I and 2 were truthful eye~witnesses and
     or. the basis of their evidence the appellants could be safely convicted of the
     offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly
     the appellants were sentenced t.o undergo imprisonment for life.

             The case of the pros.ecution is that on May 30, ·1996 the deceased was F
     sleeping on the ·katta · in the outer portion of the house by the side of the
     road, while the remaining members of the family were sleeping inside.
     According to PW-I on May 30. 1996 lier husband Basappa, PW-3 woke.up
     at about 5.00 a.111. since he had to go to Muddcbihal. PW-I and PW,2 also
     woke up with him. PW-3 wanted the deceased to accompany him to G
     Muddebihal but he insisted on sleeping and stated that he will come to
     Muddebihal with focd by 9 O' clock bus. While PW-3 fen for Muddebihal, .·
     she started washing utensils ai a place which was at a distance of about 2
     meters from the 'katta' where the deceased was sleeping. There is evid.ence
     on record to the effect that at about 5.00 a.m. it was dark but at about 6.00
     a.111. there was soi11e light as the sun was about to rise. At about thm time.she H
     396                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

 A noticed the three accused variously armed coming there. While appellant
      No.2 was armed with an axe the other two were armed with 'Jambiya'. They
     came saying that they will finish the deceased. In spite of her begging of
     them not to do so. they started assaulting the deceased. She saw that appellant
     No.2 gave 1 or 3 blows on the neck of the deceased while the remaining two        ....
B    assaulted him with their weapons on different parts of the body. According
     to her, the occurrence was witnessed by her younger son. PW-2 and PWs. 8
     and 9. the neighbours, who had come on hearing her cries.

         According to her a police havaldar came to her house after about 4-5
  hours and recorded the information given by her. At about 12 noon an Inspector
C came who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and took other
  steps in the course of investigation. The dead body of the deceased was then
  sent for post-mortem examination.

         In the First Information Report lodged by PW- I, it was stated that
   about 3 months before the date of occurrence, her son Lakshman. the deceased.
D who had illicit connection with Renuka (sister of appellant No.2) was seen
   following Renuka while she was going to wash clothes to the village 'nallah'.
   People of village had seen him following Renuka and with a view to protect
   her reputation Renuka complained to her mother and mother-in-law about the
   deceased dragging her. Thereafter the mother and mother-in-law of Renuka
   had come to her house and abused the deceased in filthy language. From that
E day onwards the appellants were moving about in the village saying that the
   deceased had insulted their sister and. therefore, they will not spare him and
  will finish him. In this background the occurrence took place on May 30,
   1996. It is stated that her husband got up at 5.00 a.m. in the morning since
  he had to go to Muddebihal . She tried to wake up her son (deceased) but he
F insisted on sleeping since it was dark and said that he will get up after sun
  rise. She thereafter started sweeping and washing utensils. At about 6.00 a.m.
  the appellants came and finding her son sleeping on the 'katta' said that they
  will not spare Lakshman (deceased). So saying. appellant No.2 assaulted the
  deceased on his neck twice or thrice with an axe while the remaining accused
  assaulted him with 'Jambiyas' on his back and thigh. Her son died on the
G spot. They then ran away saying that they had finished Lakshman. She further
  stated in the FIR that her mother-in-law and her son PW-2 came out and
  witnessed the occurrence. PWs-8 and 9 of the neighborhood also witnessed
  the assault. It was alleged that out of anger and to take revenge for her son
  having illicit connection with Renuka, the appellants had committed the murder
H of her son.
     BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA llOSAMANI 1'. STATE OF KARNATAKA [B.P. SINGH, J.]   397
     The evidence on record discloses that all the three appellants are the       A
neighbours of PW. I.

       Since PWs. 8 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution, they
were declared hostile. Their evidence was, therefore, of no assistance to the
prosecution. Apart from the mother, PW-I, the other witness PW-2 was the
younger brother of the deceased. The trial'court came to the conclusion that B
he was not an eye witness and, therefore, placed no reliance on his testimony.
The High Court dis-agreed with the trial court and held that PW-2, in clear
tenns, claimed in his examination in-chief that he had witnessed the incident
and had seen all the accused assaulting the deceased with their respective
weapons. The High Court observed that even in his cross-examination no C
material contradiction had been elicited and PW-2 had denied the suggestion
that he had not witnesse the incident. What PW-2 stated was that he came
from inside the house when his mother PW-I shouted and by the time he
came the assault was over. The High Court was of the view that since PW-
1 in her evidence stated that she shouted when the assault was going on and
at that time, hearing her shouts her neighbours PWs. 8 and 9 had come, it was D
but natural that PW-2, who was inside the house would have also come out .
and witnessed the incident. There was thus no reason to doubt the testimony
of PW-2.

       We have carefully examined the evidence of PW-2. Learned counsel
for the appellants submitted that on a mere reading of the evidence it is quite E
clear that PW-2 is not an eye witness. In all likelihood he was sleeping inside
the house and when he came out of the house later, he only saw the dead
body of the deceased. He cannot, therefore, be said to be an eye witness.

      PW-2 stated that on the date of the incident he was sleeping inside the F
house .with his father, mother and grand-mother. There was a 'katta' iii the
front portion of the house where the deceased was sleeping. In his examination-
in-chief he asserted that he woke up early in the morning when his father and
mother woke up. His father had to go to Muddebihal and while leaving for
Muddebihal he (father) tried to awaken the deceased but the deceased insisted
that he will come by 9 O' clock bus and will bring meals. The deceased again G
went to sleep. He was then asked by the deceased to bring 'beedi' which he
brought from inside the house. The deceased smoked the 'beedi' and again
went to sleep. When his father left for Muddebihal it was dark. His mother,
PW-I, was washing utensils inside the house and at that time he was standing
in the front-yard. He saw the appellants coming variously anned and he also H
     398                       SLIPRUv!E COUR I REPORTS [.'.!0061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A \\ itnessed the assault by them on his brother. The appellants after assaulting
     his brother werlt away saying that they had finished Lakshman. When the
     accused had come. his mother PW-I. had begged of them not to assault her
     son. yet the appellants murdered his brother. When the incident took pace
     there was light though the sun was not visible. Thereafter the police lwd
B    come to his house. At about 8.00 a.m. Inspector also came.

            It appears from his deposition that while his mother was washing utensils
     he was standing in the front 1-1 yard of the house and he saw the appell<ints
     coming to his house and assaulting his brother. He also saw the 111other
     pleading with them not to assault his brother. This witness in his cxamination-
C    in-chief asserted that he had seen the entire occurrence from the very begging.
     In his cross-examination, however, he gave a different version altogether. He
     stated that when his father left for Muddebihal he did not wake up. He was
     not even aware as to when his father left, as he was asleep. He stated that on
     hearing the sound of bowling of his mother he woke up and saw the dead
     body of his brother. However. he denied the suggestion that he did not see
D    the appdlants assaulting his brother.

            It also appears from the evidt>nce of PW-11. the Investigating Officer.
     that PW-2 had not stated before him that his father woke up his cider brother
     and asked him to accompany him but his brother did not go. and went to
     sleep. and that the accused came to their house. He also did not state about
E    his mother pleading with the accused not to assault her son.

            In this state of the evidence. we entertain a serious doubt as to whether
     PW-2 is really an eye witness. In his examination-in-chief he claims to have
     woken up with his father when he was leaving for Muddebihal. In his cross-
F    examination, his version is to the contrary. He has stated quite clearly that he
     did not even know when his father left since he was sleeping, and further that
     when he got up on hearing cries of his mother, the incident was over and on
     coming out he had seen the dead body of his brother. The evidence leads us
     to suspect the assertion of PW-2 that he is an eye witness. We are. therefore.
     inclined to accept the finding of the trial court that PW-2 had not witnessed
G    the occurrencc. His evidence cannot be relied upon.

           We are then let! with the evidence of the sole eye witness. namely PW-
     1. the mother of the deceased. As noticed. in the First Information Report it
     was clearly stated by PW. l that there was a moti\e for the commission of the
     offence. namely - that the deceased had illicit relation; with one Renuka and
Ir
      Bl llMAl'PA CHANDAl'l'A HOSAMANI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [B.I'. SINGll. J.]   399

this had come to the knowledge of her family members who had protested                  A
against lhe conduct of the deceased. They had in fact come to the house of
PW- I and abused the deceased in filthy language, and since then the appellants
were heard saying that they will not spare the deceased. From her cross-
exam ination, it appears. that she has gone back on her statements made in the
First Information Report as also in her examination-in-chief. In fact she denied        B
that she knew about her son having any illicit relations with Renuka. On the
other hand she stated that the relationship between the two families was
wrdial till the date of murder. Prior to the murder of her son there had been
no quarrel, complaint or dispute between the accused and her son. The
members of the two families used io visit each other.

       The trial court as well as· the High Court have not accepted the evidence
                                                                                        c
regarding existence of motive as alleged by PW-I in the First Information
Report. In fact she herself in the course of her deposition denied the existence.
of such a motive. The High Court has agreed with the view of the trial court
on this issue. It is well settled that in order to bring home the guilt of an
acC11sd, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive. The D
exi:;tence of motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while
appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the
witnesses appears to be truthful and convincing, failure to prove the motive
is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The law on this aspect is w~ll
seftled.
                                                                                        E
       However, in the instant case we are left with the evidence of a sole eye
witness and it therefore, becomes the duty of the Court to critically scrutinize
her evidence with a view to assure itself that the witness is stating the truth
and that her evidence is so convincing and appears to be so natural and
truthful that it is not necessary to look for other evidence to record a conviction.    F
Viewed from this angle, it is established that in the First Information Report,
a false statement had been made by PW-I as to the existence of motive.

       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence on record
will establish that PW-I is not a truthful witness. In fact after her husband
arrived at the scene, a false case was concocted and the appellants were                G
named as the assailants. In her cross-examination, PW-I stated that after
recording her complaint the police officer did not read out the same to her
but her thumb mark was taken on the complaint. Her thumb mark was taken
five times on five white sheets of paper. After she had lodged the report she
was never questioned by police. She, however, denied the suggestion that the            H
    400                      SUPREME COUR f REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A police had prepared a false complaint at the behest of her husband.
          PW-I admits that she had been made to sign (thumb mark) five blank
    sheets of paper and that she was never questioned by the police. This is only
    one of the suspicious circumstances which appears on record.

B           In her First Information Report she had stated that PW-2 had witnessed
     ch.: occurrence after coming out of the house alongwith her mother-in-law on
     hearing her cries. In her evidence, however. she gave a different version. She
     stated that when the appellants came, her son PW-2 was standing in the front-
     yard of the house. Both she and her son pleaded with the appellants not to
C   assault the deceased but they were both pushed by them and the appellants
     started assaulting the deceased. An improvement has been made by the witness
     in an attempt to project the presence of PW-2 from the very beginning of the
    occurrence which, as we have held earlier, is not true. Another aspect of the
     matter which deserves notice is the fact that neither her clothes nor that of
     PW-2 had any blood stains, though having regard to the nature of injures of
D   the deceased a lot of blood must have come out. She explained by saying that
    she only touched the body of the deceased to find out whether he was alive.
    The conduct, to say the least. appears highly unnatural. Learned counsel for
    the appellant submitted that the absence of blood stains on the clothes of
     PWs. I and 2 suggests that they had not witnessed the occurrence as they
    were perhaps inside the house and later when they came out they saw the
E   dead body of the deceased on the 'katta' with severe injuires. It was submitted
    that according to PW-2 when the occurrence took place at about 6.00 a.m.
    the sun had not risen but there was sufficient light to identify the appellants.
    According to PW-2, his mother PW-I was washing utensils inside the house.
    The speed with which the occurrence took place as described by PW- I is
F   such that she had hardly any time to raise her voice when the accused started
    assaulting her son. By the time she could raise her voice, the accused had
    murdered her son and had run away. In the light of these circumstances it
    was argued before us that while she was inside the house, the murder of her
    son had taken place outside on the 'katta · where he was sleeping and the
    assailants had disappeared after committing the offence. Her claim, therefore.
G   that she was an eye witness cannot be accepted.

        There are several circumstances which give rise to a serious doubt
  about the truthfulness of PW- I. It is the case of the prosecution supported by
  PW-I that her husband PW-3 slept inside the house while her deceased son
H skpt outside on the ·katta'. This assertion of PW- I is again contradicted by
       BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI r. STATE OF KARNATAKA [B.P. SINGH, J.]   40 I
   her husband PW-3 who stated that on that night he had not slept inside the      A
   house. In fact he had slept with his deceased son on the 'katta'. He further
   stated that he left his son sleeping and washed his face and, untied the cow
   tethered in front of his house and took the cow for sale to Muddebihal
   market. There was a pot of water on the 'katta' where they had slept and he
   used that water for washing his face. He did not go inside the house. While
 . leaving, he only awakened his wife. It obviously means that without going       B
   inside the house he may have awakened his wife by calling her and asking
· her to wake up.

       The deposition of PW- I is to the effect that after her husband left for
 Muddebihal she started sweeping and cleaning the utensils; The evidence of C
 PW-2, her son, Ayyappa, is that after his father left, his mother started rinsing
 utensils sitting-inside the house and that he was standing in the front yard.
 The First Information ·Report is silent where she was washing utensils but in
 her deposition she clearly asserted that she was washing utensils just about
 2 meters by the side of the 'katta' on which her son, the deceased, was
 sleeping in the outer portion of the house by the side of the road. The D
 evidence of PW-1. and PW-2 are, therefore, not consistent on this point.

        Apart from these inconsistencies there is one another aspect of the
  matter which creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution
  case. As noticed earlier, PW-10, Havaldar Appanna the Havaldar ofNidagundi
  Police Out Post was the first person to reach the place of occurrence. He E
  deposed that at about 7.00 a.m. he had received a wireless message fmm the
  Circle Police Inspector of Basavan Bagewadi informing him that a murder
  had taken place in village Areshanker and that he should immediately proceed
 to the village. The CPI informed him that he wou Id also be reaching there .
. According to PW- I 0 he reached the Village Areshanker at about 8.00 or 8.30 F
  a.m. CPI Bagewadi had already reached the village. They questioned PW-I
  and recorded the complaint as stated by her.· As per the orders of CPI he took
 the original complaint to Kolhar Police Station and handed overto PSI Kolhar
 to register a crime. He asserted in his examination-in-chief that CPI Bagewadi
 was present when. he wrote the complaint. After a case was registered at
  Police Station Kolhar a copy of the FIR was given to him and he took it and G
 gave it to the CPI in the village. He denied the suggestion that the· information.
  Ext.P~ I was not written in the village and that it was prepared at 2.00 p.m.
 in the police station.

       Shri Saidappa, CPI Bagewadi (PW-11) has a different story to tell. He       H
     -l02                     SUPREME COl'RT RFPUI{ '\ [2006J St;PP. 6 S.C.R.

A deposed that after receiving wireless rncssa'5e ht: immediately rushed to
     Areshank.:r Village at about 9.30 a.111. He dut:~ not cla;m to have instructed
     PW-10 to n::ach the village of occurrence. When he went there PW-10 the
     llavaldar was not present. lie came to learn that he had already obtained a
     complaint from PIN-1 and had gone to Kolhar P.S. He w.. ited till he got the
B    FIR at about 1.30 p.m. from PW-I 0 who came from the ,1olice station and
     handed over a copy of the First lnforlllation Report.

            According to PW- I. PW- I I came to the village at abo 11 12 noon and
     ht:ld inquest over the dead body of the accused.

C         The defence 's that PW- I did not give any information to the police as
   she was not an eye witness. and only after her husband PW-3 rt turned from
   Muddebihal a false case was conc0cted. That explains why there is so much
   inconsistency between the statements of PW- I0 the Havaldar and . '\V-11. the
   Investigating Officer. While PW- I0 asserts that PW. I was que:.cioned by
   both of them and that on the instruction of PW-11 he left for Kolhar PS with
D the information to get a case registered. PW-I I on the other hand states that
   when he reached the place of occurrence PW-10 was not there at all and that
   he had already left with the report for getting the rnse registered at Kolhar
   P.S. This circumstance docs raise a doubt a> to whether the FIR was recorded
   early in the morning at ahiut 8.00 or 8.30 a.m. or whether it was recorded
   later. PW-I I does not sme that he had sent a wireless message to PW-10 to
E r.:ach the village of occurrence. In fact he went to the village of occurrence
   with another Havaldar and a Police Constable, and there he learnt that PW-
   10 had already recorded the information given by PW-Land had gom w the
   police station to get the case registtred. How PW-10 came to know about the
   occurrence is shrouded in mystery? The inconsistencies in the evidence of
F PWs. I 0 and 11 could not be explained and this gives rise to serious 'uspicion
   about the recording of the FIR at village Areshanker at 8.00 a.m. If PW- I 0
   is to be believed that the information given by PW-1 was recorded in the
   presence of PW-11. then it must follow that it was not recorded at about 8.30
   or 9.00 a.m. as claimed by the prosecution but later at about 10.00 a.m. or
   12 noon when PW-11 as well as PW-3 came to the place of occurrence. Thi'
Ci probahlises the defence ca~.e that PW-I was not an eye witness and therefor".
   only after her husband PW-3 and CPI (PW-I I) came to the village. a false
   report was got scribed in the village or at the police station involving the
   appellants.

            We ha\e undertaken a very close and critical scrutiny of the evidence
II
        Bli!MAl'PA Cl·IANDAPPA HOSAMANI 1·. STATE OF KARNATAKA [B.P. SINGH. JJ   403

 of PW-I and the other evidence on record only with a view to assess whether           A
 the evidence of PW- I is of such quality that a conviction for the offence of
 murder can be safely rested on her sole testimony. This Court has repeatedly
 observed that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction
 may be recorded. but it has also cautioned that while doing so the Court must
 be satisfied that the testi1i1ony of the solitary eye witness is of such sterling     l3
 quality that the Court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony
 of that witness. In doing so the Court must test the credibility of the witness
 by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any
 blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly truthful, must appear
 to be natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording
 a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.                C
        So tested, we do not find the evidence of PW-1 to be of that quality.
 ln the first instance, she began with inventing a false story about existence
 of a motive. The narration of events as they. took place before the· actual
 murder of her son is also shown to be untrue. There is considerable doubt as
 to 11·hether the first information was recorded on her saying at about 8.00 or        D
 8.30 in the morning. Her evidence also leaves a lurking suspicion about her
 being an eye witness. Having. discarded the evidence of PW-2, and the other
 t\\'o alleged eye witnesses having turned hostile, we find no reliable
 corroboraiion ofher testimony. We do not find this case to be one in which
 the judgment of acquittal deserved to be set aside.                                   E
        We, therefore, feel compelled to give to the appellants the benefit of
  doubt while allowing their appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the
  appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them, and they are
· directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case.
                                                                                       F
 B.S.                                                           Appeal dismissed.