can be based on the testimony of a sole witness, the witness must be of a “sterling worth”. However, in the present case, Ammula Anil (P. W. 1) is not a witness of “sterling worth”. For, in order to falsely implicate the appellants, he has fabricated a story, which is belied by the surrounding circumstances. In his testimony, he claims to be an eyewitness to the alleged murder of his father, Laxmaiah. He consistently states that the alleged murder has taken “on his farm land”. However, the site plan (Ex. P. 2) belies this assertion. For, according to the site plan (Ex. P. 2), the dead body of Laxmaiah was discovered lying on the cart way, amongst the farms in the area. The dead body was not discovered lying in the farm of Laxmaiah. Moreover, this witness claims that it is he, who went to the Police Station and lodged the report (Ex. P. 1). However, A. Mahesh (P. W. 16) states that on 25.04.2011 the police was informed that there has been a murder in the village, Rangampet. The police had gone to the village, and had recorded the statement of Ammula Anil (P. W. 1) and others. Therefore, the complaint was registered in the village itself, rather than at the police station. Furthermore and most importantly, according to A. Mahesh (P. W. 16), when the police reached the village, they saw the dead body of Laxmaiah lying in the cart way and prepared the rough sketch and site plan (Ex. P. 2) at the place of occurrence. In case, Ammula Anil (P. W. 1) was really an eyewitness, and as according to the prosecution, the alleged incident had taken place at 6:00 p.m., Ammula Anil (P. W. 1) would not have left his father’s body lying in the cart way till the next morning. Furthermore, even Battu Veeresham (P. W. 3) claims that he had received a telephone call from A. 1, who informed him that Laxmaiah was lying dead.
