IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.891 of 2010 Md. Masum Alam alias Md. Masum, son of late Masho Alam, resident of village – Lakshminiya, P.S. Salakhua, District – Saharsa. ………. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Md. Insul, son of Late Dukhi, 3. Md. Mahfuz, son of Md. Multan, 4. Md. Mustkim, son of Md. Insul, 5. Md. Majid, son of Md. Insul, all are resident of village – Lakshminiya, P.S. – Salakhua, District – Saharsa …………… Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Smt. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondents : Shri G.P. Jaiswal, APP ------------- 3/ 5.8.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Present appeal has been preferred by the informant of Salakhua P.S. Case No. 148 of 2006 against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Saharsa in S.T. No. 116 of 2007 / 129 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the accused facing trial for the offence under section 302 of the IPC, has been acquitted. As per the prosecution case, Md. Masroor was assaulted by the respondents with bamboo stick. Initially, the case was registered under sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the IPC but, later on, Md. Masroor died in P.M.C.H. and section 302 of the IPC was added in the FIR. Admittedly, during the trial, not a single witness came forward before the trial court to support the charges framed against the accused persons except P.W. 1 Md. Aslam Siddiqui. P.W. 1 deposed as an eye witness but, in paragraph 20 of his 2 deposition he admitted that he reached after half an hour at the place of occurrence. The trial court, considering the evidence of P.W. 1, has recorded a finding that once he has admitted to have reached the place of occurrence after half an hour, he cannot depose as an eye witness and on the basis of solitary evidence of such witness, the accused persons cannot be convicted. Counsel for the appellant submits that P.W. 1, in his examination- in- chief and other paragraphs of the deposition, has stated that he had witnessed the occurrence except his one solitary line in paragraph 20 of his deposition and the trial court has committed error by not relying on other parts of the deposition and only on paragraph 20 thereof. We do not find much substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that paragraph 20 of the deposition is sufficient to demolish the evidence of P.W. 1 as an eye witness. Once he himself has admitted that he has not witnessed the occurrence on account of reaching the place of occurrence after half an hour of the happening, simultaneously, he cannot claim himself as an eye witness. The prosecution case has completely been demolished by this deposition of P.W. 1. It is well settled that even on the evidence of solitary witness, judgment of conviction can be recorded but, the evidence of solitary witness should be completely reliable, which is lacking in the evidence of P.W. 1. 3 We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Anil/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)