JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J. - Appellant Basista stands convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code while Appellant Prasanna u/s 304, Parton, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life and 8 years respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Boudh. Berhampur on 18-11-1977. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Village Bohira to which both the prosecution and defence belong is a faction-ridden village. On 31.1.1976 at about noon, the deceased Basanta Kumar Patnaik bad gone to the village tank called 'Nua Bubdh' for a bath along with his two nephews Saroj Kumar Patnaik (P.W. 3) and Bhabani Shankar Patnaik (P.W. 4) aged 15 and 11 years respectively. He had also driven a pair of bullocks for a wash. After bath, when returning home, it is alleged, that as the deceased Basanta neared the house of one Babaji, the two Appellants rushed out of the house of Babaji, Appellant Basista being armed with an axe (Tabli). Abruptly Appellant Prasanna caught hold of the left hand of Basanta forcibly while Appellant Basista gave a blow with the sharp side of the axe on his right side belly. As a result through the opening due to the axe blow, the intestine and the liver came out. Immediately after that the two Appellants decamped. Injured Basanta pressed the wound with his napkin and proceeded to his house nearby and fell there. Saroj (P.W. 3) rushed to his father Bipin Bihari Patnaik (P.W. 1)- a peon in Panchayat office, attending to his duties there. Injured Basanta who was in his senses, it is said, being asked by Janhabi (P.W. 9), the wife of P.W. 1, gave out that Appellant Basista inflicted the blow on him being assisted by Appellant Prasanna. Little after P.W. 1 came there and seeing the precarious condition of Basanta Pushed to village Baunsuni fat medical help and to inform the out-post. In the meantime, Basanta was removed to a cot and made to lie there, The prosecution case further is that as Basanta felt that he might died at any moment, he wanted a piece of paper and when Saroj supplied the same and a fountain pen, he wrote: BASISTA SAHU TABLIARE HANILA: PRASANNA PATRA CHHEKILA: HADI BEHERA in the paper. This alleged writing of the inured has he en treated as the written dying declaration, marked Ext. 1. This alleged writing of the inured has he en treated as the written dying declaration, marked Ext. 1. Neither the doctor nor the police officer at the Out-post, Baunsuni was available and so, P.W. 1 proceeded to Boudh. At that time, he (P.W. 1) carried the dying declaration, Ext. 1. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 at Boudh Police Station at 3 p.m. the same day and Ext, 1 was also made over to the I.O. P.W. 12. The injured was brought to Boudh hospital in the ambulance, but died at 5.35 p.m. soon after reaching the hospital. Thus, the case registered u/s 307, Indian Penal Code was converted to one u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. P.W. 12 investigated into the case, arrested the two Appellants as well as Hadia Behera. But finally charge-sheet was submitted only against the two Appellants u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code resulting in their conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 3. The defence of Appellant Basista is that he has been falsely implicated on account of political rivalry as well as personal animosity. He states to be a supporter of Natabar Pradhan and Fakira Mahakud of Janata Patty. As he did not join the rival Congress Party, though pressed by the Sarpanch Prafulla Mahakud to do so he was severely assaulted by Artatrana Naik (P.W. 6), the deceased and others for which a police case was pending against them by the time of this occurrence and that is why he has been falsely implicated. Plea of Appellant Prasanna is that at the time of this incident, he was suffering from T. B. and was bed-ridden but the witnesses have falsely implicated him as he was a farm servant of Fakira Mahakud of the Janata Party who is hostile to the prosecution witnesses. 4. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and the defence none. Out of the P.Ws., informent P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased and P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the two minor sons of P.W. 1 and, as such, the nephews of the deceased and eye witnesses as they had accompanied the deceased while the latter had gone for bath. P.W. 2 is another eye witness who was said to be giving straw to his cattle near the scene of occurrence. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are the post-occurrence witnesses, testifying to the dying declaration both oral and written (Ext. P.W. 2 is another eye witness who was said to be giving straw to his cattle near the scene of occurrence. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are the post-occurrence witnesses, testifying to the dying declaration both oral and written (Ext. 1) along with the three eye witnesses's. P.W. 5 is again a witness to the seizure of bloodstained earth and the Table (M.O.T.). P.W. 7 is the doctor who attended to the injured at Boudh hospital and held post-mortem examination. P.W. 10 is a seizure witness to Ext. I. P.Ws. 8. 11 and 12 are the three police personnel of whom P.W. 12 is the I.O., P.W. 8 is the Circle Inspector, who submitted charge-sheet and P.W. 11 is the constable who brought the injured in the ambulance to Boudh hospital. 5. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the three eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4; the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 as well as P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 speaking to the dying declaration both oral and documentary (Ext. 1) and the medical evidence with regard to the injuries on the deceased in support of its case. 6. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are that: (i) there was a strong party faction in village Bohira on grounds political and personal; (ii) the material prosecution witnesses are interested in the prosecution and hostile to the accused; and (iii) the written dying declaration Ext. 1 is a fabricated bit of evidence, for which he discarded it. 7. Yet relying on the evidence of oral dying declaration and the three eye witnesses, which he says, is "fortified by certain posterior circumstances", namely, that the witnesses found a grave injury on the right side belly immediately after the occurrence; that there was an opening on the right side of the belly and the intestine and the liver were protruding and that the injuries on Basanta as described by the witnesses tallied with the injuries as found by the doctor, to which there was no challenge, he convicted the two Appellants. 8. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that when the learned lower Court has held, as a fact, that all the material prosecution witnesses are partisan and interested witnesses hostile to the defence, he should not have relied on the evidence of the three eye witnesses. Secondly having held that Ext. 8. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that when the learned lower Court has held, as a fact, that all the material prosecution witnesses are partisan and interested witnesses hostile to the defence, he should not have relied on the evidence of the three eye witnesses. Secondly having held that Ext. 1 the dying declaration, to be a fabricated piece of evidence, he should have also held that the other evidence in the case including the evidence of oral dying declaration and that of the I.O., who is a party to the manufacture of that vital piece of evidence, Ext. 1 as cooked up. Thirdly, what the learned lower Court characterises as "posterior circumstances fortifying the testimony of p.ws 2, 3 and 4" is inconsequential. 9. To cut the matter short, we would at this stage refer to some admitted features of the case over which there is no controversy. Village Bohira is sharply politically divided. The two important local members are Fakir Mahakud and his group who are supporters of Shri Himanshu Sekhar Padhi, who is a member of the Congress Party and at present the Deputy Speaker. Prafulla Mahakur and his group are supporters of Sri Natabar Pradhan, who is a member of the Janata Party, the ex-Minister for Works of which judicial notice can be taken. P.W. 1 has stated that Fakir Mahakur was Sarpanch for two terms from 1959 to 1967 and Prafulla Mahakur became the Sarpanch in 1971 and still continuing in' office. When Fakir Mahakur became the Sarpanch for the first time, Sankar Dehuri, the maternal uncle of Prafulla Mahakur contested him and during the second term Prafulla Mahakur himself contested him. The bitterness is to such an extent chat the washerman of village Tatakila is serving Fakir Mahakur and his supporters, but not the washerman of Bohira. Also the barber of village Bohira does not serve Fakir Mahakur and his supporters but one Braja Barik of village Tentulipali Even the village priest is different. P.Ws. 8 and 12 who are Circle Inspector of Boudh and Investigating Officer respectively in this case, have admitted that because of this political rivelry and enmity, there are litigations amongst the villagers. Also the barber of village Bohira does not serve Fakir Mahakur and his supporters but one Braja Barik of village Tentulipali Even the village priest is different. P.Ws. 8 and 12 who are Circle Inspector of Boudh and Investigating Officer respectively in this case, have admitted that because of this political rivelry and enmity, there are litigations amongst the villagers. There is a criminal case (G.R. Case No. 154 of 1975) instituted against the deceased Basanta, Artatrana Naik (P.W. 6), Panchanan Sahu, Trinath Sahu and Dasaratha Sahu on the allegation that they assaulted Appellant Basista by forming an unlawful assembly and caused simple and grievous hurt with a sharp cutting weapon. In that case deceased Basanta and other co-accused persons bad been arrested and released on bail which was pending when the occurrence in this case took place, i. e., 31-1-1976. Thus there was personal enmity between deceased Basanta and Appellant Basista in particular and the prosecution party and the Appellants in general. The four material witnesses are clearly related to each other. P.W. 1 is the father of P.Ws. 3 and 4 while P.W. 9 is the wife of P.W. 1. Deceased is a full brother of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 had taken the deceased and other co-accused in G.R. Case No. 154 of 1975 on bail and thus interested in P.W. 1 and the deceased. Besides, P.W. 2 was a receiver in a 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding in which Basista, the Appellant' was helping one Soudamini who claims to be the daughter of Kusha which fact P.Ws. initially attempted to suppress. Artatrana Naik P.W. 6 is the co-accused with deceased Basant in G.R. Case No 154 of 1975. P.W. 5 Chaturbhuja, the Naib Sarpanch of village Bohira is also the Purohit and thus very close to Prafulla Mahakud the Sarpanch, the leader of one faction. Nilamber Mehara (P.W. 10) is a witness tu the seizure of written dying declaration Ext. 1. who is a contractor under Bohira Panchayat and thus obliged to the Sarpanch Prafulla Mahakud. P.W. 5 Chaturbhuja, the Naib Sarpanch of village Bohira is also the Purohit and thus very close to Prafulla Mahakud the Sarpanch, the leader of one faction. Nilamber Mehara (P.W. 10) is a witness tu the seizure of written dying declaration Ext. 1. who is a contractor under Bohira Panchayat and thus obliged to the Sarpanch Prafulla Mahakud. Therefore the observation of the learned lower Court that: ...having regard to the party-faction in the village and the previous criminal case between accused, Basista on the one hand and deceased Basanta, Artatrana Naik (P.W. 6) and others on the other and having regard to the relationship amongst the witnesses and their status in the village there is nothing to doubt that all the material witnesses of this case are interested witnesses and they had inimical disposition towards the accused Basista in particular and the group of Basista in general is very correct. Furthermore the learned lower Court in an elaborate discussion in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of his judgment has held- ...Ext. 1 is not at all a reliable document. It appears to me that Ext. 1 is a later creation probably with a view to fortify the oral statement of Basanta regarding the cause of his death, and other evidence in the case. As it appears Ext 1 is an outcome due to the anxiety of the prosecution party to prove the case in the best possible way. (See paragraph No. 33) The learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State, in view of the suspicious features around Ext. 1 fairly conceded that no reliance can be placed on the same. Thus the two significant features in the case are: (i) all the material witnesses in the case-are interested in the prosecution and hostile to the Appellants; and (ii) that Ext. L the trump-card of the prosection to establish the case against the Appellants is a manufactured piece of document. 10. In this backdrop, It is for consideration if (i) the evidence regarding oral dying declaration and (ii) the evidence of three eye witnesses (P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4) are acceptable to sustain the conviction. The oral dying declaration is deposed to by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. P.W. 9, the wife of P.W. 1. stated in her evidence. 2, 3 and 4) are acceptable to sustain the conviction. The oral dying declaration is deposed to by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. P.W. 9, the wife of P.W. 1. stated in her evidence. ...While I was purchasing chillies by standing in front of our house, I found that Basanta came on the Danda towards our house by pressing his belly with his Gamchha, and there was bleeding from near his belly and blood was falling on the ground. Basanta went inside our house and I followed him. Subsequently Saroj (P.W. 2) and Bhabani (P.W.4) also came to our house. Basanta remained lying on the varendah of our Daaba, I found that there was an opening on the right side of his belly and his liver and intestine had come out and there was profuse bleeding. On seeing the condition of Basanta, I asked Saroj to call his father, i.e., my husband as somebody had caused the injury with the sharp cutting weapon. I cried aloud saying "KIE HANIDELA" (some one gave the cut injury). On hearing my cries, Arta Naik, (P.W. 6), Soumitri, Ganda Naik, Chaturbhuja Purohit (P.W. 5) and Makardhwaja Barik and many others came to our house. Sometime after my husband came to our house, he proceeded to Baunsuni. Before the arrival of my husband and after arrival of the villagers, I asked Basanta as to who caused the injuries on his person and Basanta said 'PRASANNA PATRA CHHEKILA: BASISTA SAHU HANILA. After my husband left for Baunsuni, Saroj. Makardhwaja. Arta took Basanta to a cot and made him to lie there. The cot was on the varendah of the Dhenki Sala, whereto Basanta was taken. After Basanta was taken to the cot he said that he might not survive and as such he wanted to write a statement on a piece of paper. My son Saroj gave piece of paper, one fountain pen and a brass plate to Basanta. Basanta wrote in the paper and gave the same to Saroj. Saroj kept the paper with him, and gave the same when my husband came from Baunsuni. Her evidence shows, as though, she was the first person to see the injured coming to their house and not her two sons, Saroj and Bhabani or Gadadhar Naik (P.W. 2). Basanta wrote in the paper and gave the same to Saroj. Saroj kept the paper with him, and gave the same when my husband came from Baunsuni. Her evidence shows, as though, she was the first person to see the injured coming to their house and not her two sons, Saroj and Bhabani or Gadadhar Naik (P.W. 2). Her statement that "I asked Saroj to call his father, i.e., my husband as somebody had caused the injury with the sharp cutting weapon" reveals neither Saroj nor Bhabani told her that the Appellants had done the mischief although they were said to be in the company of the injured and set up as an eye-witness. The statement of P.W. 9 that At the time when I sent Saroj to call his father I did not know as to how Basanta Sustained the injury." is very significant. This unmistakably shows that neither the three alleged eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 nor the injured revealed to her the author of the injury. That fits in with the F.I.R. story when P.W. 1 states that while he was working in the Panchayat office, at noon his son Saroj came and said "BASANTA KAKAKU HANIDELE". The further story in the F.I.R. that when P.W. 1 asked Basanta as to who had cut him, and the reply given, namely, "Basanta shakingly said, near the house of Babaji, Prasanna and Hadi obstructed him and Basista gave cut injuries with his Tablia. I have given it in writing. I cannot say anything more. Take me immediately to the hospital" is not the statement of other witnesses to the oral dying declaration. None says that P.W. 1 made such a querry to the injured and the injured replied like that. This also indicates as though before P.W. 1 proceeded to village Baunsuni to inform the A. S. I. and the Doctor, Ext. 1 had been written. But that is inconsistent with other evidence which is to the effect that after P.W. 1 left for Baunsuni, the injured was removed to a cot and there he wrote Ext. 1. P.W. 9 is categorical on this point. Her evidence, therefore, does not fit into other evidence in the case. P.W. 5 is the Naib Sarpanch of Bohira Gram Panchayat and a witness to the seizure of the bloodstained earth and seizure of the Tablia (M.O. I). 1. P.W. 9 is categorical on this point. Her evidence, therefore, does not fit into other evidence in the case. P.W. 5 is the Naib Sarpanch of Bohira Gram Panchayat and a witness to the seizure of the bloodstained earth and seizure of the Tablia (M.O. I). His statement that while he was near he Lord Jagannath temple of his village, he heard the cry of P.W. 9 from her house saying Basista Basantaku Hanidela Tabliare" is not the statement of P.W. 9, as already quoted. P.W. 6 stated " On 31-1-76 at noon while I was going to shave myself, I heard the shout from the house of Basanta Patnaik and wen t there, and I found that Basanta Patnaik was lying on the verandah with his intestines and lever coming out from the right side of his belly where there was profuee bleeding. Janhabi, wife of P.W. 1 Bhavani and the daughter of P.W. 1 named Rajeswari, were present there. By the time of my arrival, there was none others except these persons. Subsequently Gandadhar Naik (P.W. 2) Chaturbhuja Purohit (P.W. 5), Soumitri Naik, and Makardhwaja Batik came to the house of Basanta. Jahnabi asked Basanta Patnaik as to how the injury was caused to him and Basanta stated that "BASISTA GAVE a blow with the sharp side of an axe and accused Prasanna assisted him. Some time after Saroj (P.W. 3) and Bipin (P.W. 1) reached the house. Bipin (P.W. 1) immediately after his arrival went away to Baunsuni. 11. The evidence of the post occurrence witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9, as discussed above is that they met the injured earlier than the three eye witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and that before them the injured made the oral dying declaration. But that is completely in variance with the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the admitted features of the case. It is nobody's case that the injured made several oral dying declarations at different times and stages. In short, the evidence of oral dying declaration instead of corroborating each other, cancels each other. Further that evidence is also incompatible with the admitted sequence of events and as such unacceptable. 12. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 - the three alleged eye-witnesses, - they are widely discrepant on material points. In short, the evidence of oral dying declaration instead of corroborating each other, cancels each other. Further that evidence is also incompatible with the admitted sequence of events and as such unacceptable. 12. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 - the three alleged eye-witnesses, - they are widely discrepant on material points. P.W. 4 says that "myself and my brother followed my uncle to our house" but that of his brother (P.W. 3) is not so. Further both the brothers admit that they have not stated the incident to others. In this regard. P.W. 3 says- I did not state to anybody in the village regarding the incident except my father and the I.O. and p.w. 4 says- Before I made my statement before the I.O. I had not stated anything regarding the occurrence to any body else. After my examination by the I.O., I had not stated anything regarding the occurrence to anybody else: When I was examined by the I.O., none else was present near me. I did not tell anything regarding the occurrence to my mother. Admittedly, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the nephews of the deceased, aged 15 and 11 years respectively. They are said to have accompanied the deceased while he went to take his bath and was returning. It is quite natural, therefore, that they would be witnesses to the occurrence when it happened in the broad day light on the open village street: But that is not the trend of evidence, nor the subsequent developments of the case support it. The evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 & 9, as quoted earlier, is otherwise. When Saroj (P.W. 3) called P.W. 1, he did not know who was the assailant. Thus, the story given out that the two boys had seen the occurrence as they were accompanying the deceased when the injury was inflicted on him falls through. This gains support when there is no inkling about it in the F.I.R. Besides, were it so, P.W. 1 would not have stated in the F.I.R. that Saroj could not name the assailant and he learnt it after he (P.W. 1) asked the injured about it. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 9 is incompatible with the fact that the two P.Ws. namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were accompanying the deceased when the injury was inflicted on him. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 9 is incompatible with the fact that the two P.Ws. namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were accompanying the deceased when the injury was inflicted on him. Putting it differently, if they were in fact accompanying the deceased, the trend of evidence would have been otherwise in that they would have announced how and who inflicted the injuries on their uncle instead of the injured giving that out later when asked for. Evidence of the other eye witness P.W. 2 is thus: ...On the date of the incident at about 12 a.m., while I was going to my bad for bringing straw, I found accused Basista and accused Prasanna in the house of Babaji Dehuri, which is just near my Bari. While I was going to extract straw from the straw heap, I heard a shout of Basanta Patnalk like "MORIGALI HO BUA". I came and found that accused Prasanna was catching hold of the left hand of Basanta and at that time accused Basista gave a blow with the sharp side of an axe on the right side of the belly of Basanta and went away, and at that time Bhavani Pattnaik and Saroj Patnaik also P.W. 1 Were also present. On account of the blow with the sharp side of the axe, there was bleeding from the right side of the belly, and also there was an opening on the right side of the -belly, as a result of which the intestine came out. Basanta Patnaik pressed the right side of his belly to protect the intestine. After inflicting the blow, accused Prasanna and Basista ran away through' Chintamani Bagh's house. Accused Basista took away the axe with him. I can identify the axe which was the weapon of the offence. 2. Basanta Patnaik went towards his house by pressing the intestine and some time after, I also went to his house. When I went to the house of Basanta Patnaik. I found that Basanta was lying on the varendah inside the house and his intestine and liver had come out. Basanta Patnaik had, how ever, consciousness and he was able to talk Arta, Chaturbhuja, Soumitri and many others were present inside the honse of Basanta. Janhabi is the wife of P.W. 1 and she was present at the time when Basanta was lying on the varendah. Basanta Patnaik had, how ever, consciousness and he was able to talk Arta, Chaturbhuja, Soumitri and many others were present inside the honse of Basanta. Janhabi is the wife of P.W. 1 and she was present at the time when Basanta was lying on the varendah. Janhabi asked Basanta as to how he received the injuries and Basanta told that the injury was inflcted on him by Basista with the sharp side of an axe and Prasanna Parta aided Basista. Some time after Saroj, Arta and Makaradhwaja took Basanta to a bed and made him to lie there. Basanta told that he was expecting his death at any time and as such he would write something in a piece of paper. Saroj gave a piece of white paper to Basanta. Basanta wrote his statement in the paper and after the statement was written I also read the statement and found that Basanta had written that the injury was inflicted on him by Basista with the sharp side of an axe with the active assistance of accused Prasanna Patra. Basanta also gave his signature in the writing after writing the words "HADI BEHERA". Ext. 1 is the writing of Basanta and Ext. III is his signature.... If really this P.W. 2 had seen the occurrence, he would have proclaimed the names of the assailants and would not have waited till P.W. 9 would ask the injured about: it. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 being inter Be inconsistent and further incompatible with the broad probabilities' of the case does not inspire confidence. Besides, they are interested and partisan witnesses out to help the prosecution and had gone to the length of associating themselves in creating an invulnerable piece of evidence like Ext. 1 to ensure the conviction of the Appellants. Taking an over all picture of the situation as emerges from the evidence, we have a hunch, as though the deceased did not receive the injury in the setting put up by the prosecution though there can be no denying the fact that he did receive a homicidal injury. The question for consideration is did the deceased meet his end in consequence of the injury received as put up by the prosecution? If that is not acceptable, the Court cannot surmise and introduce a probable different theory of its own. The question for consideration is did the deceased meet his end in consequence of the injury received as put up by the prosecution? If that is not acceptable, the Court cannot surmise and introduce a probable different theory of its own. The well recognised salutary principle is that The plain duty of the Court when it finds the prosecution case false and manufactured in material and vital particulars and supported by perjured evidence, is to throw the whole case out without delay. And the practice of the Court to search laboriously and anxiously with a microscope for some truth which might be buried in the evidence, is wrong, a waste of valuable time, and a danger to the public, which frequently results in innocent persons being convicted. See Asmatullah and Others Vs. Emperor . It might be that the deceased received the injuries in a different context at a different place which has been given a twist by the interested partisan witnesses picked up to bolster up a case woven by the prosecution to register a conviction. Regarding the antecedents of the deceased, the answer given by P.W. 9 that "I cannot either, affirm or deny to the fact that Basanta had eloped with a Dhai" is pregnant in that it suggests romance - a prolific source of trouble. 13. Initially, there was an attempt to rope in three persons, including Hadia who could not be charge-sheeted. Then the case was that Hadia and Prasanna Patra obstructed (Chekile), consistent with Ext. 1, but that was given up. Later it developed to be that Prasanna caught hold of the left hand of the deceased tightly. When we have jettisoned the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses and the oral dying declaration, nothing need be said about what the learned lower Court says "posterior circumstances fortifying the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4", in that the deceased had in fact a fatal injury on the belly deposed to by so many witnesses which tallied with the medical evidence. Existence of the injury becomes otiose when that cannot be clearly and unambiguously attributed to be the action of the Appellants. When that link is shaky, nay, got up, nothing turns out on the existence of the injury. 14. On the above analysis, we find that the evidence in the case IS not only interested and hostile but discrepant, inter se. When that link is shaky, nay, got up, nothing turns out on the existence of the injury. 14. On the above analysis, we find that the evidence in the case IS not only interested and hostile but discrepant, inter se. Further it is motivated to register a conviction of the Appellants by all means - fair and foul - for which there was no hesitancy in fabricating an infallible piece of evidence like the written dying declaration Ext. 1. Creation of a formidable piece of documentary evidence not only calls for rejection of the same, but it has its due impact on the evidence of other witnesses who are privies to this fabrication. In the instant case all the material witnesses are not only interested, hostile and partisan; but they are also parties to the forging of a vital document like Ext. 1 and as such forfeit - all claims to credence. That being the nature of evidence, it would be hazardous to sustain the conviction based on such precarious evidence. 15. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and the conviction and sentences of the Appellants are set aside. They be set at liberty forthwith. R.N. Misra, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Allowed