S.S. BYAS, J.—Since these two appeals-one by the convicts against their conviction and the other by the State against the acquittal-are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated August 31, 1976, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the impugned judgment, accused Bhera and Bhagirath were convicted under section 302/34, I. P. C. and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused Bhagirath was further convicted under section 323. I. P. C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Bhera Ram was, however, acquitted of the offences under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenge their conviction while the State challenges the acquittal of accused Bhera Ram from the offences punishable under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The incident is alleged to have taken place at Sun-rise time on February 15,1974 in the Dhani of Aaduram Jat situate in Rohi of village Lal Garhiya P. S. Suratgarh district SriGanganagar, in which two persons lost their life-one being Aaduram of the complainant party and the other being Jeewan Ram of the accuseds party. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Aaduram Jat resided in village Lal Garhiya nearly twenty years before this incident (February 15,1974). Aaduram and some persons committed the murder of the father of the appellant Bhera Ram. Aaduram and others were prosecuted and were acquitted. Aaduram thereafter apprehended danger to himself and the members of his family He, therefore, left village Lal Garhiya and started living in a Dhani which he raised in his field situate nearly three miles from village Lal Garhtya. Accused Bhera nurtured and nursed ill-will against Aaduram as he took him to be the principal offender for the murder of his father. 4. At about Sun-rise time on February 15,1974, accused Bhagirath came to the Dhani of Aaduram and called him to come out. Aaduram came out. Accused Bhagirath told him that he had come in search of his two missing sheep. Bhagirath, Aaduram, Aadurams sons PW 1 Kesra and P.W. 2 Manaram sat out-side the Dhani, lit the fire to warm themselves and prepared the tea. After taking tea, Bhagirath went away. Nearly fifteen minutes later, accused Bhagirath and Bhera accompanied with Jeewan came to the Dhani of Aaduram. Bhagirath, Aaduram, Aadurams sons PW 1 Kesra and P.W. 2 Manaram sat out-side the Dhani, lit the fire to warm themselves and prepared the tea. After taking tea, Bhagirath went away. Nearly fifteen minutes later, accused Bhagirath and Bhera accompanied with Jeewan came to the Dhani of Aaduram. Jeewan and accused Bhera were having guns. Accused Bhera fired his gun at Aaduram, which hit him on his right belly. Jeewan also trained his gun at Aaduram, but it was fired and did not hit him. Accused Bhagirath cried loud to kill everybody. Aaduram fell down with blood oozing out from his wound. PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram lifted lathis and struck blows to Jeewan to ward off further violence. Jeewan fell down and passed away then and there on the spot. Aaduram also did not survive. Accused Bhagirath and Bhera struck blows to these two brothers Kesra and Manaram with lathis. Due to beating. Jeewan was relieved of his gun. Accused Bhera and Bhagirath took to heels. While fleeing away, accused Bhera threw away his gun at the site. The incident was also seen by Aadurams other son Kishan (PW 3) and his widow Mst. Chunni (PW 5). PW 3 Kishan went to his uncle Nanuram (PW 4) and brought him on the scene of the incident. The incident was narrated to him. Nanuram went to Police Station, Suratgarh and verbally lodged report EX. P. 1 of the occurrence at about 12.30 p. m, on the same day. The Station House Officer Magansingh (PW 7) arrived on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He also prepared the inquest reports of the dead-bodies of Aaduram and Jeewan Ram. He found two S. B. B. L. country-made guns, one spent cartridge, a bag containing ten live cartridges, blood spilled at different places etc. On the spot, which were seized and sealed. One of the guns found there had a cartridge -case in its chamber. One of the guns was found broken at butt and separated in two parts, namely, barrel and butt. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Aaduram was conducted on the afternoon on the same day by PW 6 Dr. Jhanwar the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Suratgarh. One of the guns was found broken at butt and separated in two parts, namely, barrel and butt. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Aaduram was conducted on the afternoon on the same day by PW 6 Dr. Jhanwar the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Suratgarh. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death of Aaduram was shock and haemorrhage due to rapture of liver on account of gun-shot injuries. In all, seven injuries were found on his dead body, all of which were the results of a gun-shot. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P. 9. The injuries of PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram were also examined by Dr. Jhanwar. Simple injuries caused by blunt weapon were found on their person. Their injury reports are Ex. P. 10 and Ex. P. 11. 5. The appellants Bhera and Bhagirath were arrested. The two guns and the cartridges were sent for examination to the Police Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. As per findings recorded in Ex. P. 16, the fired cartridge found on the spot was opined to have been fired from the gun found broken on the spot. On the completion of investigation, the police filed a crime report against accused Bhagirath and Bhera in the Court of the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hanumangarh, who framed charges under section 302, IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against accused Bhera and under sections 302/34 and 323 I. P. C. against accused Bhagirath. Both he accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Both of them denied their presence at the scene of the incident and claimed absolute innocence. It was added by them that PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram were facing trial for causing the murder of Jeewan Ram It was why these two witnesses have falsely implicated them in this case. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the two accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the two accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. As observed earlier, accused Bhera was acquitted of the offences under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The State was not satisfied with his acquittal from the offences under the Arms Act. Hence these two appeals before us. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. Before dealing with the respective contentions raised before us,it would be proper to look into the findings recorded by the trial Court. They are:- (1) the three miscreants Bhera, Bhagirath (appellants) and the deceased Jeewan went together to the Dhani of Aaduram at Sun-rise time on February 15, 1974; (2) the deceased Jeewan had a gun; (3) accused Bhera and Bhagirath had no guns; (4) One of the guns found on the spot, in the barrel of which was found the cartridge, was of the deceased Aaduram. Aaduram fired this gun at Jeewan, but the shot did not hit; (5) it was Jeewan who, then, fired his gun at Aaduram and killed him thereby; (6) accused Bhera and Bhagirath (appellants before us) inflicted injuries to PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram with lathis causing simple injuries; (7) PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram also took up lathis and struck multiple severe blows to Jeewan as a result of which he scummed away instantaneously on the spot; (8) there was deep-rooted enmity between the deceased Aadu Ram the appellant Bhera; and (9) the murder of Aaduram was committed by Jeewan in furtherance of the common intention of all the three, viz., Jeewan and the two appellants. 8. The Sessions Judge further held that the broken gun (Article 2) was with the deceased Jiwan and the other gun (Article 1) was with the deceased Aaduram. The crime cartridge (C-l) was fired from gun (Article 2) by the deceased Jiwan, which hit Aaduram, Aaduram fired his gun (Article 1) at Jiwan but the shot did not hit him. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the three miscreants Jiwan, Bhera and Bhagirath came together at the Dhani of Aaduram. The crime cartridge (C-l) was fired from gun (Article 2) by the deceased Jiwan, which hit Aaduram, Aaduram fired his gun (Article 1) at Jiwan but the shot did not hit him. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the three miscreants Jiwan, Bhera and Bhagirath came together at the Dhani of Aaduram. It was Aaduram who first fired the shot at Jiwan, it was thereafter that Jiwan fired his gun at Aaduram and killed him. The appellants Bhagirath and Bhera struct blows with this to PW 1 Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram. Since the three miscreants had come together, the kearned Sessions Judge inferred that the murder of Aaduram was committed by Jiwan in furtherance of the common intention of all the three. 9. The prosecution examined four witnesses, viz. PW 1 Kesraram, PW 2 Manaram, PW 3 Kishan and PW 5 Smt. Chunni each of whom has claimed to have seen the incident. The first three are the sons and Smt. Chunni is the widow of the deceased Aaduram. In impeaching the conviction of the appellants it, was strenuously contended by Mr. Ganpat Ram learned counsel for the appellants that the four eye witnesses have been disbelieved on the main core of the prosecution version that it was accused Bhera who had fired the shot at Aaduram and killed him. When the main substratum of the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the trial court, it becomes highly doubtful whether the appellants were at all present on the scene of the incident. It was argued that there was bitter enmity between the complainant party and accused Bhera before the incident. Since Jiwan was killed on the spot, the eye witnesses invented a false story about the presence of the appellants on the scene of incident on account of severe enmity. It was argued that if there was a gun with accused Bhera, he must have used it and would have never allowed his companion Jiwan to be killed by PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram. He would have fired the shot and none of them, that is, Kesra Ram and Manaram would have been allowed to remain alive. 10. It was argued that if there was a gun with accused Bhera, he must have used it and would have never allowed his companion Jiwan to be killed by PW 1 Kesra and PW 2 Manaram. He would have fired the shot and none of them, that is, Kesra Ram and Manaram would have been allowed to remain alive. 10. Countering these contentions, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the presence of the eye witnesses is not open to any doubt because the incident had taken place at their Dhani and two of them, viz., PW 1 Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram has sustained the injuries. Simply because the eye witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased Aaduram, their evidence should not be under-valued or discounted. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 11. The incident had taken place at the Dhani of Aaduram and as such the presence of the eye witnesses, who are his sons and widow, is not open to any doubt, PW 1 Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram sustained injuries and that further strengthens presence on the scene of incident. The clinching question, which however, arises for consideration is whether these eye witnesses have given a true and correct version of the incident. The mere presence of the eye witnesses does not afford a guarantee that what they stated is true and comet. The mere presence of an eye witness on the scene of incident is no guarantee that his depiction of the incident is true. We have carefully gone through the evidence of all the eye-witnesses and we are of the opinion that they have not given a correct and true account of the incident. There are over-whelming reasons which have induced us to form this opinion. 12. The first and fore-most reason is that the eye witnesses have given a wholly untrue and incorrect version of the incident. According to them, it was accused Bhera who had fired the shot at Aaduram and killed him. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved them on this count. After carefully going through the evidence of the ocular witnesses, we are also of the same opinion that accused Bhera fired not shot at Aaduram and did not kill him. The eye witnesses further stated that accused Bhera had a gun. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved them on this count. After carefully going through the evidence of the ocular witnesses, we are also of the same opinion that accused Bhera fired not shot at Aaduram and did not kill him. The eye witnesses further stated that accused Bhera had a gun. This version has also been disbelieved and in our opinion quite correctly by the trial court. The eye witnesses have denied that the deceased Aaduram had any gun with him. This version, again, has been discarded as untrue by the Sessions Judge and again rightly. The deceased Aaduram had a gun and he trained it at Jeewan though the shot did not hit him. The eye witnesses have further stated that the deceased Jiwan fired his gun at Aaduram but it did not hit him. This version was also disbelieved and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the eye witnesses the shot fired by Jiwan hit the wall, but the investigating officer found no such marks on the wall. The resultant position arising from these infirmities is that the eye-witnesses have perjured on the essential features of the incident. They unsuccessfully tried to foist the murder of Aaduram or Bhera. Who fired at Aaduram constitutes the main substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecution case, according to the eye witnesses, is that it was accused Bhera who fired the shot at Aaduram and killed him. This main substratum stands completely demolished. The eye witnesses are, thus, guilty of fabricating an entirely false version of the incident. When Jiwan was killed by them, they tried to implicate accused Bhera as the author of the murder of Aaduram. 13. The pertinent question is when these eye-witnesses are disbelieved on the main substratum of the prosecution case, would it be safe to accept their testimony about the presence of the appellants at the scene of the incident. We may reiterate that the eye witnesses are the sons and widow of the deceased Aaduram. On page 1519 of the Law of Evidence by Wood reoffend Amivall (1979 Edition) we find the following view, which we quote with approval:- "If the falsehood is on a major point in the case, or if one of the essential circumstances told is clearly unfounded, this is enough to discredit the witness altogether. On page 1519 of the Law of Evidence by Wood reoffend Amivall (1979 Edition) we find the following view, which we quote with approval:- "If the falsehood is on a major point in the case, or if one of the essential circumstances told is clearly unfounded, this is enough to discredit the witness altogether. This, in the felicitous expression of Hailed; is "to pull a stone out of an arch; the whole fabric must fall to the ground". 14. In Nandiya v. Emperor(l) the aforesaid view was endorsed and accepted. In the instant case, the main core of the prosecution case that accused Bhera shot Aaduram, stands disbelieved. This pulls the stone out of the arch and the whole fabric of the prosecution case, therefore, falls to the ground. We are quite conscious that if the false portions of the evidence are merely a fringe of embroidery in the "witnesses story and if they can be reasonably attributed to the mistake or carelessness on the part of the witnesses, it is possible to really on other portions of the evidence even without independent corroboration. But, here in the instant case, the inventing of a false story attributing the murder to accused Bhera cannot be accepted as a mere fringe of embroidery and cannot be attributed to any mistake or carelessness on the part of the eye witnesses. As such, the very presence of the appellants on the scene of incident becomes highly doubtful. 15. Otherwise too, there are some salient and striking features which are sufficient to show that the appellants were not present on the scene of the incident. Had they be present on the spot, they would have never allowed PW 1 Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram to make an assault on their companion Jiwan. They would have never allowed Jiwan to be beaten to death by these two eye witnesses. If accused Bhera had a gun, it was normally expected that he would have wielded and trained it at these two eye witnesses. 1 he learned Sessions Judge was much impressed by the presence of some simple injuries on the person of Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram. He held that the presence of the injuries on the person of there two witnesses is sufficient to show that they were inflicted by the appellants. We are unable to agree with him on this count. He held that the presence of the injuries on the person of there two witnesses is sufficient to show that they were inflicted by the appellants. We are unable to agree with him on this count. According to eye witnesses, accused Bhagirath had no weapon of any sort with him. The version of the eye witnesses that accused Bhera had a gun, has been disbelieved. It is highly surprising that when none of them had any weapon with him, how could they cause simply injury to the eye witnesses. It can be inferred from the sequence of the events that when the deceased Aaduram unsuccessfully turned his gun at Jiwan, Jiwan, in retaliation, fired his gun at Aaduram and thereby killed him. It was thereafter that PW 1 Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram made an assault on Jiwan. It was Jiwan who used his gun as a blunt weapon and caused some simple injuries to these two eye witnesses in order to protect himself. It was in this process that his gun (Article 2) got broken and he was thereafter beaten to death The allegation of the prosecution witnesses that PW 1 Kesra Ram and PW 2 Manaram were struck blows by the appellants is wholly unfounded. 16. We need not stress that fouler the crime, inviolable and impregnable evidence should be there to connect the accused with that crime. We will not be well advised if we maintain and sustain the conviction of the appellants on the tainted and uncanny evidence of the eye witnesses who have given a distorted depiction of the incident. The presence of the appellants on the scene of incident does not stand proved. As such, there is no scope for the applicability of section 34, I.P.C. for connecting them with the murder of Aaduram. They were wrongly convicted. 17. The State has come-up in appeal against the acquittal of accused Bhera Ram from the offences containable under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The appeal of the State must fail as a necessary corollary arising from the acquittal of accused Bhera from the offence under section 302/34, I.P.C. was not present on the scene and had no gun with him. 18. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused Bhagirath and Bhera Ram. The appeal of the State must fail as a necessary corollary arising from the acquittal of accused Bhera from the offence under section 302/34, I.P.C. was not present on the scene and had no gun with him. 18. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused Bhagirath and Bhera Ram. Their conviction under section 302/34, I.P.C. and the further conviction of accused Bhagirath under section 323, I.P.C. and the sentence passed there under are set aside. They are acquitted of the aforesaid offences. They are already on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 19. The appeal of the State against acquittal is dismissed. 20. The appeals shall stand accordingly disposed of.