D. P. DESAI, M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) THUS this is a case in which complainant Babulal does not give the names of the assailants immediately after the incident when he is asked about the incident by Chunilal. Maneklal who is an eve witness goes to the village and gives information to his father but does not go to the Police station which is hardly 150 paces from his place and his father Ambalal even after an eye witness account from Maneklal does not ask him to go to the Police station to lodge the complaint and though he does not know more than four of the accused personally and is informed about the names of the other accused by Maneklal as he says reproduces all the seven names from memory including the names of the three accused not known to him when he gives evidence after a few months of the incident. He appears to have crammed the names. Chunilal who claims to arrive on the spot immediately after the incident seems to be a chance witness. The evidence of these witnesses who were examined before the learned trial Judge who had an opportunity to mark their demeanour has not inspired confidence before the learned trial Judge. In these circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. ( 3 ) MR. Mehta cited before us the decision in Badri v. State of U. P. A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1985 in support of his contention that in the instant case though the witnesses were interested or partisan witnesses in view of there being factions bitterly opposed to each other in the village it was not right on the part of the learned Judge to reject their testimony on the ground that they belong to one faction or another; and the learned trial Judge also erred in drawing an adverse inference on the ground that an independent witness namely Somabhai Naranbhai was not examined. Now so far as the ratio laid down in this decision is concerned there cannot be any dispute. Now so far as the ratio laid down in this decision is concerned there cannot be any dispute. But the same as it applies to the facts in the case before the Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of the case with which we are dealing because each case has to be decided on its own facts. The facts in the instant case are distinguishable from the facts of the case with which the Supreme Court was dealing. In the instant case it was because of the infirmities in the evidence of the partisan witnesses as pointed out earlier that the evidence was rejected by the learned Judge and not solely because they were partisan witnesses. We have also assessed the evidence of these witnesses on its own merits and then come to the conclusion that the evidence does not deserve to be accepted. ( 4 ) ANOTHER distinguishing feature so far as the instant case is concerned is that in the instant case the statement of the said independent witness Somabhai Naranbhai was as a matter of fact recorded by the police. Somabhai and Chunilal are witnesses similarly situated so far as their seeing the accused running away immediately after the assault is concerned and yet the prosecution preferred to examine a close relative of the complainant who is an interested witness viz Chunilal while dropping an independent witness viz. Somabhai. In the case before the Supreme Court on going through the judgment we do not find that a witness whose statement was recorded by the police was dropped though he was an independent witness Again when there are infirmities in the evidence of interested or partisan witnesses and when it requires corroboration the prosecution must examine independent witnesses if available. Our attention was drawn to the case in Bir Singh v. State of U. P. 1977 (4) S C. C. 420 where the following important observations are very material in this connection. They appear at page 424 para 8:it would thus appear that all the eye witnesses are interested inimical and belonging to the faction of the deceased and have taken sides with them and against the accused in earlier litigations. The learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore rightly thought that it was not safe to rely on the evidence of these witnesses unless their evidence was corroborated by independent witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore rightly thought that it was not safe to rely on the evidence of these witnesses unless their evidence was corroborated by independent witnesses. In this connection it may be noted that in the F. T. R. it is clearly mentioned that while the altercation between Bans Gopal and the accused was taking place Shambhu Bhujwa and Bhikari apart from Roshansingh had come to the scene of occurrence Both Shambhu Bhujwa and Bhikari were independent witnesses and bore no animus against the accused. Even from the evidence it would appear that these two persons had seen the entire occurrence. Then apppear the following important observations in this connection in para 9 :it would thus appear from the evidence of eye witness that Shambhu and Bhikari were exactly in the same position as the eye witness and yet no reasonable explanation had been given by the prosecution for not examining them. It is true that it was not incumbent on the prosecution to examine each and every witness so as to multiply witnesses and burden the record. This rule however does not apply where the evidence of the eye witnesses suffers from various infirmities and could be relied upon if properly corroborated. The ratio Said down in this decision would properly apply to the facts of the present case and not the one relied upon by Mr. Mehta which is distinguishable on facts. ( 5 ) PRECISELY formulated the correct position in this behalf can be stated in the following terms. When there are factions in a place and when independent witnesses do not come forward to make statement about the incident because of factions or when they are so terrorised that they deem it prudent not to come forward to make such statements then insistence on evidence of independent witnesses is not a must and testimony of interested or partisan witnesses if it inspires confidence and gives a truthful account of what happened can form the basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration from independent witnesses. However the position is different if even when there are factions some independent witnesses do come forward and make statement to the police with regard to the incident When such witnesses are dropped without any reasonable cause or sufficient justification such as non availability of witnesses etc. However the position is different if even when there are factions some independent witnesses do come forward and make statement to the police with regard to the incident When such witnesses are dropped without any reasonable cause or sufficient justification such as non availability of witnesses etc. and the prosecution merely relies on the evidence of interested or partisan witnesses whose evidence suffers from infirmities and requires corroboration then non examination of independent witnesses will be fatal to the prosecution. Again if an interested witness is examined as in the instant case with regard to an incident it cannot supply an excuse to drop an independent witness on the ground that as both the witnesses are equally situated there would be repetition and multiplicity of evidence if another witness on the same topic is examined. If at all the prosecution thinks to drop any of these two witnesses to avoid multiplicity or burdening of the record it would be prudent to drop an interested witness or a partisan witness rather than an independent witness as the prosecution failed to do in the present case. In such a case an independent witness examined in addition to an interested witness not only strengthens the prosecution but saves it from a collapse by bringing on record the evidence of an independent nature which would corroborate the evidence of the interested or a partisan witness. ( 6 ) IN view of our observations earlier set out there is no case made out for interference with the order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused. ( 7 ) IN the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be cancelled. .