JUDGMENT P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. This appeal by both the accused persons is against their conviction and sentence under S.324 and 302 read with S.34 I. P. C. by the court below. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused who are brothers caused the death of one Pappachan at about 6.30 P. M. on 6-6-1982 at a lane leading from Valakkodu to Kothapara church in Idukki District. Deceased Pappachan was running a tea shop about one kilo metre away from the place of incident. Both the accused, had credit accounts in Pappachan's tea shop. Pappachan had on 30-12-1981 demanded clearance of the arrears by the accused in the presence of several other customers. The accused left the tea shop in an angry mood, against the conduct of Pappachan in making the public demand to clear the arrears due from them. The accused had not thereafter gone to the tea shop. On the day of the incident, deceased Pappachan had gone to a toddy shop of one Kunjan Damodaran at about 5.30 P.M. Pappachan had taken a bottle of toddy. The accused also went to the toddy shop and while they were consuming toddy Pappachan. asked them why they have not cleared the arrears due to him. The accused left the toddy shop after taking toddy. Pappachan also left the toddy shop. At about 6 or 5.10 P. M. on the same day PW 3 Chellappan saw the accused near the scene of occurrence. He overheard the conversation between them that Pappachan for his conduct should be done away with. Apprehending danger he wanted to inform PW 3 the son of Pappachan. He met PW 2 on the way and requested him to inform PW 3 about the intentions of the accused which he happened to over hear. PW 2 ran to the residence of PW 3 who was taking rest at the rear veranda portion of the house. PW 2 went to the front veranda and called out PW 3. PW 3 went to the front veranda and saw PW 2 in an agitated mood. PW 2 gave the information to PW 3 that he had gathered from PW 3 about the intentions of the accused to do away with Pappachan. PW 3 and 2 proceeded towards the scene of occurrence. PW 3 went to the front veranda and saw PW 2 in an agitated mood. PW 2 gave the information to PW 3 that he had gathered from PW 3 about the intentions of the accused to do away with Pappachan. PW 3 and 2 proceeded towards the scene of occurrence. PW 2, however, hid himself in a near by tea plantation and PW 3 proceeded towards the place where the accused were standing. As he approached, he saw the first accused stabbing Pappachan on the left portion of his stomach. Seeing PW 3 the first accused asked the second accused to deal with him. The second accused also had a knife in his hand. He inflicted a stab injury on PW 3 on his left thumb. He gave another stab on PW 3 on his right hand. PW 3 caught hold of the second accused and the knife. His palm was also injured in that process. By this time the first accused inflicted two more stab injuries on Pappachan and both the accused ran away from there. PW 2 who was hiding in the near by tea plantation had seen the entire incident. Immediately, after the accused ran away, he came to the scene of occurrence. PW 3 directed PW 2 to go to Valakodu and get a jeep. Another person was sent to bring a cot. The cot was brought in which Pappachan was taken to Valakodu junction. From there, Pappachan as well as PW 3 were taken to the Government Hospital, Upputhara. They reached the hospital at about 9.45 P. M. The Doctor on duty Thresyamma Joseph examined Pappachan and PW 3. She declared Pappachan dead. Ext. P-12 is the wound certificate relating to PW 3 issued by Dr. Thresyamma Joseph. Doctor Thresyamma Joseph gave Ext. P9 letter of intimation to PW 34 the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki Police Station. Ext. P9 was taken as the First Information Statement PW 34 registered a crime and forwarded Ext. P-10 First Information Report to the Magistrate. 3. PW -16 the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He reached the hospital at about 2-15 P. M. on 7-6-1982 and conducted the inquest on the dead body of Pappachan. Ext. P4 is the inquest report. Ext. P4 shows that the Investigating Officer wanted to fake the statement of PW 3. 3. PW -16 the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He reached the hospital at about 2-15 P. M. on 7-6-1982 and conducted the inquest on the dead body of Pappachan. Ext. P4 is the inquest report. Ext. P4 shows that the Investigating Officer wanted to fake the statement of PW 3. But PW 3 was not in a position to give a statement. PW 36 reached the scene of incident at about 5.15 PM. and prepared Ext. P5 scene mahazar. PW I5 Dr. V.T. Michael conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Pappachan. Ext. P11 is the post mortem certificate issued by him. The accused were arrested on 7-7-1982. On information furnished by them MOs. 1 and 2 knives were recovered as permahazars Exts.P6 and P7. Ext. P8 is the plan of the scene of incident prepared by the Village Officer. Ext. P-14 report of the Chemical Analysts shows that the knives MOs. 1 and 2 had stains of human blood. MO3 bath towel, MO4 a pair of chappals. MO5 a piece of Indian Express Newspaper, MO7 blood stained earth and MO6 blood stained beaten . rice were recovered from the scene of occurrence and the recovery is recorded in the scene mahazar Ext. P5. MO.8 lunki and MO.9 drawer worn by the deceased and MO-10 a ten rupees currency note were recovered at the time of inquest and the recovery is recorded in the inquest report Ext. P4. 4. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and has produced Exts. P1 to P13 to prove its case. Exts. D1 series are portions of the C. D. statement of PW 3 produced to contradict him. Ext. D2 is a portion of the C. D. statement of PW 4 produced to contradict the witness. 5. PW -1 is the only eye witness examined in this case. PW 2 even though cited as an eye witness deposed in court that he reached the scene of occurrence only after the incident. PW 3 examined to prove the genesis of the crime turned hostile and he was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. According to PW 3 he never overheard the conversation between accused 1 and 2 to do away with Pappachan nor had he directed PW 2 to inform PW 3 about the alleged conversation between the two accused. PW 3 examined to prove the genesis of the crime turned hostile and he was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. According to PW 3 he never overheard the conversation between accused 1 and 2 to do away with Pappachan nor had he directed PW 2 to inform PW 3 about the alleged conversation between the two accused. PW 4 came to the scene of occurrence only after the incident. He was examined to prove that PW 3 had told him that the accused had caused injuries on Pappachan, and himself. In his CD statement, marked as Ext. D2 he had a different version when questioned by the Police. His earlier version is that he got the information about the incident from PW 2. PW 5 is a neighbour. He had not seen the incident. He came to the scene of occurrence only after the incident. PW 6s examined to prove that immediately after the incident PW 3 had informed him that the accused had inflicted the injuries on himself and Pappachan. PW 6 did not, however, support the prosecution. He denied PW 3 having informed him that the accused had inflicted the injuries. He was accordingly treated as hostile and cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 7 is examined to prove the motive for the offence namely the prior incident in the tea shop of Pappachan on 30-12-1981. This witness also did not support the prosecution. He was also treated as hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. PW 8 another son of Pappachan is examined to prove that Pappachan had on 30-12-1981 demanded the accused to clear the arrears due from them. PW 9 is an attestor to the inquest report Ex P4. PW 10 is the attestor to the scene mahazar Ext. P5. PW 11 attested Ext. P6 mahazar under which MO-1 is knife said to have been recovered from a place pointed put by the first accused. PW 31 denies the first accused having pointed out the place from where the knife had been recovered According to him he was merely asked by the police to affix his signature in the scene mahazar Ext. P6. He has not seen the recovery nor had he seen the first accused pointing out the place where MO-1 knife had been concealed. PW 32 attested Ext. P6. He has not seen the recovery nor had he seen the first accused pointing out the place where MO-1 knife had been concealed. PW 32 attested Ext. P7 mahazar for recovery of MO-2 knife from the place pointed out by the second accused He has also deposed that he has only attested the mahazar at the request of the police officers concerned and that he has not seen the second accused pointing out the place of concealment of the weapon nor has he seen the recovery of the same. Both these witnesses were treated as hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. PW 33 is the Village Officer, who prepared Ext. P8 plan of the scene of incident. PW 34 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki Police Station who registered the crime and forwarded Ext. P10 First Information Report to the Magistrate's Court. PW 35 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Pappachan and issued Ext. P11 post mortem certificate. PW 36 is the Circle Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation. PW 37 is the successor Circle Inspector of Police who concluded the investigation and filed a final report charge sheeting the accused. 6. Both the accused were convicted under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under S.324 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 7. The conviction of the accused is based on the evidence of PW 3 said to have been corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 2 and 4 and also by the evidence of recoveries effected on information furnished by the accused. The lower court itself in Para.9 of its judgment finds that the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 cannot be accepted being contradictory to their earlier statements. PW 3 is the son of the deceased and is also injured in the incident. He is certainly an interested witness. There is nothing precluding the court from accepting the evidence of an interested witness and entering a conviction based solely on such evidence. But the evidence should be subjected to careful scrutiny and should be found to be reliable. In Hari Obule Reddi v. State of A.P. ( AIR 1981 SC 82 ) it is stated at page 87: "12................................................................................... There is nothing precluding the court from accepting the evidence of an interested witness and entering a conviction based solely on such evidence. But the evidence should be subjected to careful scrutiny and should be found to be reliable. In Hari Obule Reddi v. State of A.P. ( AIR 1981 SC 82 ) it is stated at page 87: "12................................................................................... But it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet, in most cases, in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question, whether the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime at the material time was probable. If so, whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness, being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case, is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answer to these questions be in. the affirmative, and the evidence of the witness appears to the court to be almost flawless, and free from suspicion, it may accept it without seeking corroboration from any other source. Since perfection in this imperfect world is seldom to be found, and the evidence of a witness, more so of an interested witness, is generally fringed with embellishment and exaggerations, however true in the main, the court may look for some assurance, the nature and extent of which will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case, from independent evidence, circumstantial or direct before finding the accused guilty on the basis of his interested testimony. We may again emphasise that these are only broad guidelines which may often be useful in assessing interested testimony, and are not iron cased rules uniformly applicable in all situations". 8. The witness cannot, however, be believed if he makes improvements in the prosecution story propounded by him at the investigation stage in material particulars vide Badruddin v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1981 SC 1223 ). 9. When the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the court differs substantially from that set out in his statement to the police, it will be unsafe to rely on the testimony of such a witness vide N. D. Dhayagude v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1977 SC 381 ). 10. The Supreme Court in a later decision in Shurad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SC 1622) has also emphasised the care and caution required to be exercised before the evidence of an interested witness is accepted. 11. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 4 is discarded by the court below for the reason of the variations in their earlier versions. PW 2 has, deposed that he has not seen the incident, but came to the scene of occurrence shortly after the incident. According to the Investigating Officer PW 36 his earlier version was that he bad actually seen the incident. In court, however, he has taken a different stand that he came to the scene only after the incident. The court below was. therefore, perfectly justified in discarding the evidence as not sufficient to corroborate the testimony of PW 3. The evidence of PW 4 was also rightly discarded as contradictory to his earlier version. In court he deposed that he went to the scene of occurrence after the incident when PW 3 informed him that the accused had inflicted injuries on Pappachan and himself. He was cross examined with reference to his earlier version to the police and that portion of the C. D statement was marked as Ext. D2. In his earlier statement he had stated that he got the information about the incident from PW 2, and had gone to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. 12. We find the evidence of PW 1 is also contradictory to his earlier version. D2. In his earlier statement he had stated that he got the information about the incident from PW 2, and had gone to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. 12. We find the evidence of PW 1 is also contradictory to his earlier version. According to his evidence in court he saw both the accused and his father Pappachan at the scene of occurrence exchanging hot words. When he reached the scene of occurrence, the second accused came to him with a knife in hand and asked him to go home. PW 3 enquired as to the reason for the quarrel between the accused and his father Pappachan. The second accused then took out the knife and stabbed him. He gave a second stab to PW 3 on his palm. It is, while a scuffle was going on between himself and the second accused that the first accused inflicted stab injuries on Pappachan. His earlier version to the Investigating Officer is totally different and the contradictions are marked as Exts. D1 to D1(f). According to his earlier version, he was resting in his house after his work. PW 2 Raju called him twice. He recognized the voice of Raju calling from the front veranda and going there he saw Raju in an agitated mood. He asked Raju what the matter was and Raju told him that he had information from PW 3 that the accused are laying in wait for Pappachan to do away with him. Both PWs. 1 and 2 proceeded to the place where the accused were waiting. PW 2 hid himself in a near by tea plantation and PW 3 went to the place where the accused were standing. He saw the first accused stabbing Pappachan and he was stabbed by the second accused. PW 3 has thus given two different versions of the same incident. His evidence cannot therefore be accepted unless fully corroborated by other evidence in the case. 13. The only other corroboration relied on by the prosecution is the evidence relating to the recovery of MOs. 1 and 2 from the place pointed out by accused 1 and 2. PW 36 the Investigating Officer does not speak about the information furnished by the accused which led to the recovery of the knives MOs. 1 and 2. The mahazars Exts. 1 and 2 from the place pointed out by accused 1 and 2. PW 36 the Investigating Officer does not speak about the information furnished by the accused which led to the recovery of the knives MOs. 1 and 2. The mahazars Exts. P6 and P7 relating to the recovery contain incriminating statements said to have been made by the accused. Such statements are not admissible in evidence. 14. A Division Bench of this court in Gabriel v. State of Kerala ( 1982 KLT 772 ) has deprecated the practice of producing long statements said to have been made by the accused marking only those portions leading to the discovery. In the present case the recoveries are based on the incriminating statements recorded in the mahazars Exts. P6 and P7. The evidence of PW 36 does not show what were the statements of the accused that led to the discovery. 15. PWs. 11 and 12 who are attestors of the recovery mahazars Exts. P6 and P7 have deposed that they have not seen the accused making any statement nor have they seen the recovery of the knives According to them they have merely affixed their signatures to the recovery mahazars as instructed by the Investigating Officer. Under these circumstances, the recovery of MOs. 1 and 2 in the present case is highly suspicious and cannot be accepted to corroborate the evidence of PW 1. 16. We have found that the evidence of PW1 differs in material particulars from his earlier version in Exts. D1 series. PWs. 2 and 4 do not corroborate his version. The recovery of MOs. 1 and 2 pursuant to the information said to have been furnished by accused 1 and 2 is highly suspicious. The prosecution has therefore failed to prove the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of accused 1 and 2 acquit them of the charges framed against them. The accused persons will be set at liberty forthwith, The appeal is allowed.