Sole eyewitness testimony rejected where delay in reporting and unnatural conduct created doubt, leading to acquittal.

Conviction based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness was not sustainable where the witness was closely related to the deceased, his conduct after the was unnatural, and he delayed coming forward until the next morning. A delay of about 15 hours in lodging the first information report further weakened the prosecution case and created doubt about his veracity. Although a conviction may rest on a solitary witness if the evidence is wholly reliable, the Court found this testimony clouded with suspicion and not wholly believable. The accused were therefore entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of the sole eyewitness in the face of a delayed first information report and circumstances creating doubt about his veracity.

Analysis: The sole eyewitness was closely related to the deceased and his conduct after the occurrence was found unnatural, as he did not immediately inform the villagers and came forward with the version only on the next morning. The delay of about 15 hours in lodging the report further weakened the prosecution case. While conviction can rest on a solitary witness if the evidence is wholly reliable, the testimony here was regarded as clouded with suspicion and not wholly believable.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the accused were entitled to acquittal.

---