JUDGMENT 1. - Appellants Shravan, Brijya alias Brij Mohan, Bedri & Lalya alias Lallu Prasad, have challenged the judgment of the trial Court whereby each of them stood convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. On 6.11.1986, at 2.45 p.m. one Shri Chand Lai informed at the Police Station Lalsot (Dausa) that when he was coming from Rampura to Lalsot, then Kalu Patel informed that Heera was killed by Shravan, Badri etc., by giving beating at the place near Beharipura Water Works. This report is said to have been entered at No. 155 in rojnamcha register. Upon this information, the police was put into motion. Kishan Singh, Incharge Police Station, Lalsot (P.W. 19) reached the spot and recorded statement (Parcha Beyan) of Heera (Ex.P. 19) at 3.25 p.m. in the presence of Kalu Patel & Gokul. It had been stated in the Parcha Beyan of Heera that he was going on foot to bring oil from Lalsot and at about 1 O'clock he reached near Beharipura Water Works where at a tea stall he was sitting to await a bus but he saw Shravan Meena, Badri Meena, Lalya Meena, Brijya s/o Shravan of Rampura village, coming in a tractor duly armed with lathier; that as soon as they reached near him, Brijya landed lathi blow on his head while Shravan was shouting to finish him. It has further been stated therein that in order to kill him, at the tea-stall, injuries were caused on the hands & legs besides other parts of his body which resulted in sustaining fractures of legs and hands. According to the Parcha Beyan, at the time of causing injuries to him, Gulab Chand, tea stall holder & Babu Lal Meena of Beharipura had seen scene of occurrence. After beating him, they fled away in the tractor to Lalsot, inasmuch as, Rs. 950/- were also taken out of his pocket. 3. According to the Parcha Beyan, at the time of causing injuries to him, Gulab Chand, tea stall holder & Babu Lal Meena of Beharipura had seen scene of occurrence. After beating him, they fled away in the tractor to Lalsot, inasmuch as, Rs. 950/- were also taken out of his pocket. 3. This recorded statement of Heera (Ex.P.19) was sent through Ram Karan, FC to the Police Station so as to register the case and chalk out the F.I.R. At 4 p.m. on 6.11.1986, F.I.R. No. 204/86 was chalked out and criminal case was registered at Police Station Lalsot for offences punishable under Sections 307, 379 & 323, I.P.C. Heera was taken to Jaipur but in the way to Jaipur, near Raduvas river, he succumbed to his injuries. The information of death was given through wireless which was received at 5.45 p.m. Upon the death of Heera, Section 302 I.P.C. was also added. The investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 & 34 I.P.C. After committal proceedings, the appellants were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 / 34, 394 / 34 & 379/34 I.P.C. Twenty two witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. but they merely deposed that they have been falsely implicated. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence and other material on record held all the appellants guilty of only the offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. but acquitted each of them of the offences punishable under Section 394/34 & 379/34, I.P.C. 5. Mr. P.K. Sharma, vociferously contending that the impugned judgment under appeal is rendered infirm on several counts, which we will discuss while dealing with evaluation of the evidence - urged that upon a discussion of the evidence and on a consideration of probabilities, this Court, itself, will find that the impugned charge cannot safely be sustained on the evidence. Mr. Mr. P.K. Sharma, vociferously contending that the impugned judgment under appeal is rendered infirm on several counts, which we will discuss while dealing with evaluation of the evidence - urged that upon a discussion of the evidence and on a consideration of probabilities, this Court, itself, will find that the impugned charge cannot safely be sustained on the evidence. Mr. P.K. Sharma took us through the evidence consisting of statement of deceased recorded by police officer on the basis whereof investigation started which can be described as dying declaration, (Ex.P.19), statement of eye witnesses whose names find place in the dying declaration, so also who have been examined by the prosecution as such, namely, Babulal (P.W. 1), Gulab chand (P.W. 2), Kailash (P.W. 13) & Kalu (P.W. 15), and medical evidence consisting of statement of the doctor who carried out post mortem examination of the deceased, and autopsy report, with a view to satisfying us that their version regarding the incident was not free from blemish and it would be highly unsafe to place implicit reliance on their evidence. 6. Shri R.S. Agrawal learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Biri Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant both endeavour to show that this is not a fit and appropriate case for interference as the conclusions drawn by the trial Court as to the guilt of the accused-appellants cannot be said to be unsupportable on the evidence. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 8. The fate of the prosecution case largely looms on the testimony given out by the deceased Heera in his Parrha 13oyan (Ex.P.19) before his death - on the basis whereof investigation commenced - which can be described as dying declaration. According to the dying declaration (Ex.P.19), Gulab Chand Tea Stall holder & Kalulal Meena of Beharipura had seen the occurrence. They are P.W. 2 and P.W. 1, respectively. The prosecution has also examined Kailash (P.W. 13) and Kalu (P.W. 15) as ocular witnesses. The dying declaration (Ex.P. 19) appears to have been recorded by Kishan Singh (P.W. 19) in the presence of Gokul (P.W. 8) and Kalu Patel (P.W. 4). 9. The incident has taken place at the tea stall of Gulab Chand (PW 2) whose presence is not open to any doubt. The dying declaration (Ex.P. 19) appears to have been recorded by Kishan Singh (P.W. 19) in the presence of Gokul (P.W. 8) and Kalu Patel (P.W. 4). 9. The incident has taken place at the tea stall of Gulab Chand (PW 2) whose presence is not open to any doubt. As per the prosecution case itself, from the very beginning, as is appearing in the dying declaration (Ex. P.19), besides Gulab Chand (PW 2), one Babulal of Beharipura was also present at the time of incident in question. The clinching question, which however, arises for consideration is, whether these eye witnesses have given a true and correct version of the incident. It is trite that the mere presence of the eye witnesses does not afford a guarantee that what they stated is true and correct. Thus, the mere presence of an eye witness on the scene of incident is no guarantee that his depiction of the incident is true. Having carefully gone through the evidence of these two eye witnesses, we are of the opinion that they have not supported the prosecution case. There are over-whelming reasons which have induced us to form such a view. 10. Babulal of Beharipura (PW 1) has totally denied to have seen tractor, or any bearing by Shravan & his companion. He has also totally denied to know Heera (deceased) so also the cause of his death. He has only deposed that in his voltage, there is a tea stall owned by Gulab Chand. Babulal (PW 1) has been declared hostile but he was not further examined by the Public Prosecutor. 11. Now second ocular eye witness, is Gulab Chand (PW 2). His presence is nor doubtful nor has been doubted by any of the parties, as the incident in question is said to have taken place at his tea stall. But, his evidence is totally false and cannot be held wholly or partly reliable one, inasmuch as his evidence does not support participation of the accused-appellants in the incident. 12. His statements cast doubt on the veracity of his version. From his version given out in his police statement (Ex. D. 2) so also Court statement, Gulab Chand did not know personally the deceased, Heera, or even the accused appellants. 12. His statements cast doubt on the veracity of his version. From his version given out in his police statement (Ex. D. 2) so also Court statement, Gulab Chand did not know personally the deceased, Heera, or even the accused appellants. That apart, in Court statement, Gulab Chand does not disclose name of the deceased but he deposed that a bearded old man came to his stall and asked as to his father's name. He stated that after some time, a red coloured tractor came but went on straight and it then came back after some time and parked in front of his stall. Then driver of the tractor is said to have put an order of supplying four-five cups of tea and at that time, the bearded man went inside the boundary and he was followed by the persons who were sitting in the tractor with lathies and he (bearded man) was surrounded by them inside the boundary and when the bearded man jumped over the boundary, Birda inflicted lathi blow on the head of the bearded man who fell down the ground. In the examination-in-chief, Cu lab Chand has not disclosed the name of persons who were allegedly inflicting blows on the bearded man, inasmuch as he has specifically deposed that he did not know the name of those persons and he did know them only by face. He further specifically stated that he did not know as to who inflicted beating and as to who they were. After stating the above, Gulab Chand stated that names of the assailants, Shravan, Badri, Lalya & Birda, were given out to him by Heera. In cross-examination, Gulab Chand admitted that he did not know the accused persons before the incident in question, and that their identification was not got done. He further deposed that as soon as a lathi landed on the head of Heera, he became unconscious and was profusely bleeding. According to him as he deposed in cross-examination, the police had reached the place of incident after two or two & half hours; he did not report the matter to the police about the incident that took place at his tea-stall; nor he requested any bus driver going to Lalsot to inform the police; Heera was lying unconscious for about two & half hours at the place of incident. In examination-in-chief Gulab Chand after stating that a bearded man came and was beaten by the persons who came in the tractor, he deposed that upon his inquiry, bearded man had given out his name as Heera. But, in cross-examination he specifically admitted that he asked Heera as to his name only after he was beaten. In next breath, he stated that it is wrong to say that he enquired as to his name prior to the coming of Heera to his stall. He also specifically deposed in his cross-examination that he had told the police that he did not know name & address of the assailants but he might/could identify if they were put to identification before him. 13. We find from his Court statement that he did not know either the deceased or the assailants; he specifically insisted that he had made aware of the fact of his non-awareness of the assailants to the police. But, curiously enough, none of the assailants much less the present accused-appellant had been put to identification during investigation. Therefore, even his subsequent identification before the Court, loses significance in the absence of identification in the circumstances narrated above. Moreover, Gulab Chand in his Court statement never deposed that it were the accused-appellants who came in the tractor and assaulted the deceased by infliction of lathi blow(s). As stated above, he has only deposed that the persons who came in the tractor with lathies surrounded the bearded man and when he (bearded man)over-jumped the boundary, one Birda (who is not the accused) inflicted lathi blow which landed on the head of the bearded man. Admittedly he (Gulab Chand, PW 2) kept himself reticent after happening of the impugned incident and he never informed the police nor had taken any steps to board or shift the deceased (who was seriously injured & fell down on account of profuse bleeding) to the doctor or dispensary or hospital to provide Heera medical aid. Gulab Chand has also never deposed that accused appellants had inflicted lathi blows or that they had come in the tractor. Gulab Chand has also never deposed that accused appellants had inflicted lathi blows or that they had come in the tractor. On the other hand, we find his specific statement not only in his examination-in-chief but also in his cross-examination that he did not know by name the persons who came in the tractor and assaulted the deceased (whose name has also not been stated by him in his statement), and that he did know them only by face if put to identification before him. In this state of evidence, it cannot besaid nor held that his ocular account of the incident does establish the participation of the present accused-appellants in the impugned crime beyond doubt. His only version is that same of the assailants was given out to him by the deceased. But, surprisingly enough, such a version is also totally untrue because of the reason that had the deceased disclosed name of the assailants to him, then why Gulab Chand, as head mitted in his cross-examination, had given out to the police that by name he did not know the assailants but he did know them by face only. Totality of the circumstances and conduct of the witness (PW 2) appearing in his evidence make it established that he bears hostility to the defence, and he did not establish beyond doubt the participation of the present accused appellants much less assault on the person of the deceased by them. It is pertinent to mention here that Gulan Chand does not even state that the police recorded statement of the deceased prior to his death at the place of incident, either in his presence or in the presence of some others. 14. As regards Kalu s/o Lalji (PW 4) resident of Nadi Malvas, he has also given out version which exonerates the accused-appellants. According to his examination-in-chief, Kalu (PW 4) (before whom the alleged dying declaration (Exh.P. 19) was recorded) was called by Gulab Chand through one Babu who had told him that Heera was killed but name of the assailants was not given out to him by Babu. We may state that Gulab Chand did not state that he had called Kalu through Babu, nor Babu stated so. We may state that Gulab Chand did not state that he had called Kalu through Babu, nor Babu stated so. Kalu (PW 4) deposed that he had gone to Heera and he (Heera) talked to him but he did also disclose name of the assailants to him but on the day of recording of his statement, he has forgotten names of the assailants. Moreover, according to his examination-in-chief, he had reported the matter to the police. In cross-examination, Kalu (P.W. 4) specifically stressed that he had reported the matter to the police by writing the report which is alleged to have been got written through Kailash of his village. In his next breath, Kalu (P.W. 4) in cross-examination deposed that Heera had disclosed names of the assailants but they are not remembered to him, and that, when he reached the scene of occurrence, he found Heera lying worthyless as the bleeding was being profused out of the head, legs and he was lying as totally unconscious. He then deposed that the police had recorded the statement of Heera at the place of incident, itself and at that statement, signature of the deceased Heera was got affixed and no thumb impression was put of the deceased. Even in cross-examination he has gone to depose that the police has not recorded his statement. Moreover, in cross-examination Kalu (P.W. 4) stressed that the police had come to the place of incident only upon his report. 15. The glaring infirmity which we find is that at the Court statement, Kalu has put thumb impression but, Ex. P. 19 bears his signature. If we believe the version of Kalu (P.W. 4) then the dying declaration should have borne signature of the deceased but it is not so. It bears thumb impression of the deceased, in as much as putting of thumb impression was stated that since the deceased had serious injuries on his hand resulting in amputation, thumb impression is said to have been put thereon. Kalu stressed during corss-examination that signatures were got affixed of the deceased and not the thumb impression. Therefore, in view of the inconsistency as to the thumb impression or the signature of the deceased on the alleged dying declaration, it can safely be presumed that this circumstance casts doubt on the veracity of not only Kalu (P.W. 4)'s evidence but also the alleged dying declaration. Therefore, in view of the inconsistency as to the thumb impression or the signature of the deceased on the alleged dying declaration, it can safely be presumed that this circumstance casts doubt on the veracity of not only Kalu (P.W. 4)'s evidence but also the alleged dying declaration. Two inferences can be drawn. One, either the witnesses (P.W. 4) was not present at the time of recording of the statement, or the dying declaration was fabricated. When two inferences are possible then one favourable to the defence is required to be accepted. Be that as it may, however it is established on record by the version of Kalu (PW 4) he was not having ocular account of the scene of occurrence nor having acceptable or credible version to the scene of occurrence much less actual assault by the accused-appellants. We hold that the version given by the Kalu (P.W. 4) does not establish beyond doubt participation or actual assault by the accused appellants on the person of the deceased, nor does his version prove beyond doubt the recording of the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P. 19). 16. Another glaring feature is that according to the versions of Kalu (P.W. 4) and Ramhet (P.W. 9), Kalya son of Lalji i.e. P.W. 4, of village Nadri Malvas had gone to the police and lodged the report. But the prosecution has not produced in evidence that report alleged to have ben lodged / presented by P.W. 4. It does also cast doubt on the prosecution version. 17. Ramhet (P.W. 9) who is son of the deceased, Heeralal, stated that at about 12 or I O'clock in the noon, Kailash (P.W. 13) came to him and gave out that his father was beaten and lying at Water-Works, then he rushed to the spot and found his father being in state of consciousness. But, Kailash (P.W. 13) in cross-examination totally denied to the fact of going to the village and intimation to the village people as to the beating of Heera. He (P.W. 13) deposed that with regard to the beating on the person of Heera, he never went to intimate village people nor to the police. He further admitted in cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police after 15 days. He (P.W. 13) deposed that with regard to the beating on the person of Heera, he never went to intimate village people nor to the police. He further admitted in cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police after 15 days. In next breath he specifically admitted that he was taken by Gangaram & Ramhet to the police so as to get his statement recorded. He then testified by stating that it is correct to say that Gangaram & Ramhet called him and only upon their request & influence, he went to the police to give his statement. His conduct (P.W. 13's) keeping mum for 15 days and his further admission in the Court statement that he went to the police at the behest of Ramhet & Gangaram, make it proved beyond doubt that he was concocted witness. His version that he never went to the police or the village people, does also falsify the version of other witnesses, like, Ramhet etc. who stated that they went to the scene of occurrence only upon information given by Kailash. Both Kailash (PW 13) and Kalu (PW 15) s/o Ladu are said to have been going to Lalsot on a bicycle. He (PW 15) himself admitted in cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police after 15 days. He stated that he and Kailash had seen the occurrence of beating of Heera by the accused persons when they (P.Ws. 13 & 15) were standing near Water-Works. If in fact they were standing near Water Works, then it is surprising why Gulab Chand (P.W. 2), Babu (P.W. 1), or even the deceased Heera had not noticed their presence at the place of incident, and why they have not been named as eye witnesses of the scene of occurrence, either in their earliest version before the police or even before the Court, and why they (P.W. 13 & P.W. 15) did not inform the police immediately and why they kept themselves mum for 15 days. On the other hand, Kailash specifically (as stated above) deposed in corns-examination (P.W. 13) that he went to the police to get his statement recorded only at the behest & influence of Ramhet & Gangaram. On the other hand, Kailash specifically (as stated above) deposed in corns-examination (P.W. 13) that he went to the police to get his statement recorded only at the behest & influence of Ramhet & Gangaram. Moreover, their names do not find place in the dying declaration (Ex.P. 19), in police statements of other alleged eye witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 & P.W. 4, as eye witnesses of the scene of occurrence so also in their Court statements. Recording of these witnesses statements belatedly with no explanation, renders their version doubtful inasmuch as it casts boubt on their alleged presence at the scene of occurrence. Thus, P.W. 13 & P.W. 15 both in the circumstances narrated above cannot at all be held as eye witnesses, nor their version is worthy of credence, so as to base the impugned conviction. 18. As regards Ramhet (P.W. 9), in cross-examination he deposed that after his arrival at the place of incident, after 15-20 minutes, the police had reached the spot; that Kalya s/o Lalji (P.W. 4) had gone to lodge report at Police Station Lalsot. But, we find no such report having been lodged by Kalya (P.W. 4) at Police Station Lalsot, on record, inasmuch as prosecution has come with the case that the investigation was commenced on the dying declaration (Ex. P.19). Contrarily, Kishan Singh (P.W. 19) also deposed that one Shrichand (P.W. 18) had come to the police to inform upon the request by Kalu Patel, and that information was entered into rojnamacha at No. 155, but that entered information has not been produced on record. Kalu (P.W. 4) does not name Shrichand as a person to send him to report the matter to the police, rather he deposed that it was Kailash but Kailash has also denied to this fact, whereas Shrichand has also not deposed that he had gone to the police on the request of Kalu Patel (P.W.4) or Kailash. Non-production of the entered information casts doubt on the prosecution version and it is fatal to the prosecution particularly when distorted version has come out in the prosecution evidence as to who informed the police and what was that information. 19. Ramhet (P.W. 9) in examination in chief at one stage, deposed that the police personnel reached the spot and they recorded statement of Heera. 19. Ramhet (P.W. 9) in examination in chief at one stage, deposed that the police personnel reached the spot and they recorded statement of Heera. But in next breath, he deposed that Heera was then taken to the Police Station where statement of Heera was recorded and then he was taken, Jaipur. According to him, as stated above, the police reached the spot after 15-20 minutes of his arrival which is said to have been at 1 O'clock. It means that the police reached the spot at about 1.25 or 1.30 p.m. But, the dying declaration is said to have been recorded at 3.25 p.m. Further according to him, the dying declaration was recorded at the Police Station but as per Ex.P. 19, -1nd other witnesses, it was recorded at the spot. Further according to him, he (P.W. 9) and Gokul (P.W. 8) had reached the spot before the arrival of Jagdish. According to Gokul, Heera had given out that Birda had tractor's blade which was also used to beat him. As per Gokul (P.W. 8), Kailash had informed that Heera was beaten and was lying at the Water Works. But Kaliash has denied to have done so. That apart, Ramhet & other witnesses have not deposed that the deceased had also given out that tractor's blade was also used to beat him, besides the beating by lathies. So, two different versions have come out. Gokul (P.W. 8) has not stated that police recorded statement of the deceased (Ex.P. 19) at the spot. He merely deposed in examination in chief that he has given information to Kalu Patel; that Lalsot police came and Heera was brought to Dausa and from there, to Jaipur. In cross-examination, he admitted that Kailash had come to inform them but they had not enquired from him as to whether he (Kailash) had seen the beating of Heera. He (Gokul) admitted that Rarnhet was his newphew; that, Ramhet & Kailash both had come, and Ramhet had also given out the talk of Kailash with Heera, and upon inquiry by the police, the same was given out to it, but in Ex.P. 3 such a statement does not find place. According to him (P.W. 8), when he had talks with Heera, then Ramhet, Jagdish Gangaram were also there. But, these three persons have not stated so. According to him (P.W. 8), when he had talks with Heera, then Ramhet, Jagdish Gangaram were also there. But, these three persons have not stated so. In cross-examination he (P.W. 8) has merely denied the suggestion put by the defence Counsel as to the fact of consciousness. 20. All the prosecution witnesses, Jagdish, Ramhet, Kalu Patel (P.W. 4), & Gangaram stated that after their arrival at the spot, the police had come, but non of them consistently stated that the police had recorded the dying declaration in their presence. That apart, the witnesses in whose presence, the dying declaration (Ex.P. 19) was allegedly recorded, have not proved the dying declaration being recorded in their presence. Gokul (P.W. 8) & Kalu (P.W. 9) never deposed in this examination-in-chief that the dying declaration was recorded in their presence. Though in cross-examination Kalu (P.W. 4) stated that the dying declaration was recorded at the spot but, in next breath he stressed that signatureof Heera was affixed at the dying declaration, whereas, as stated above, the dying declaration (Ex.P. 19) bears thumb impression. In this view of material inconsistency, his version as to the recording of the dying declaration at the spot, cannot be believed. Ramhet (P.W. 9) deposed that the dying declaration was recorded at the Police Station. In view of the evidence of Gokul (P.W. 8), it cannot be said that the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P. 19) was recorded in his presence. Once we find the recording of the alleged dying declaration in the presence of the alleged witness (P.W. 4 & P.W. 8), as doubtful, and as not proved beyond doubt, then in our considered opinion, credibility of such a dying declaration looses its significance and it must be discarded from the evidence on record. 21. Similarly, the dying declaration does not bear thumb impression or signature of Gulab Chand (P.W. 2) who is said to have seen the scene of occurrence and whose presence at the place of incident was not open to doubt because he was tea-stall keeper at the place of incident had taken place. Thus, had the dying declaration been reocrded at the place of incident, it is surprising, what prevented the police to record the statement of Heera in his presnce also. Thus, had the dying declaration been reocrded at the place of incident, it is surprising, what prevented the police to record the statement of Heera in his presnce also. But, the witnesses in whose presence the alleged dying declaration was recorded, have failed to prove recording of such statement of Heera not only in their presence but also at the spot. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, dying delcaration is doubtful. 22. The evidence of Ramhet, Gokul, Jagdish, Gangaram, Kalu (P.W. 4) largely looms on the dying declaration of the deceased, Heera. But the dying declaration if scanned carefully, together with the evidence of the afore named prosecution witnesses, then it comes out that though the recorded statement of the deceased (Ex. P. 19) discloses the name of eye witnesses, Babulal (P.W. 1) and Gulab Chand (P.W. 2) in whose presence, the impugned beating had taken palce, but, none of the aforesaid witnesses in their statements deposed that the deceased had also stated so or given out to them that the beating was seen by Gulab Chand (P.W. 2) and Babulal (P.W. 1). As discussed above, the evidence of Babulal (P.W. 1) who was declared hostile, and Gulab Chand (P.W. 2) does not prove the participation much less actual assault in the beating by the accused appellants of the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt. Ramhet (P.W. 9), Gokul (P.W. 8), Kailash (P.W. 13), Kalu (P.W. 15) & Kalu Patel (P.W. 4), all of them gave only an omnibus account of the incident and their evidence largely looms on the dying declaration. Similarly is the situation of other alleged eye witnesses. The omnibus statement of Kailash (P.W. 13) and Kalu (P.W. 15) besides by virtue of their conduct, referred to above, creates an impression that they had not really seen the incident. We find not only similar mistakes, exaggerations, but also changed & distorted versions with many a jerks & jolts to the prosecution story, in the testimony of not only eye witnesses, but also other prosecution witnesses, referred to above. Major contradictions found by us in their evidence lead to the irresistible conclusion that they had acted in a concert in pursuance of a well-knit pre-planned design. 23. According to autopsy report (Ex.P. 30) and the statement of Dr. Shittal Prasad Jain, there was only one injury on head and others were on legs & hands. Major contradictions found by us in their evidence lead to the irresistible conclusion that they had acted in a concert in pursuance of a well-knit pre-planned design. 23. According to autopsy report (Ex.P. 30) and the statement of Dr. Shittal Prasad Jain, there was only one injury on head and others were on legs & hands. Head injury was described as lacerated wound. The cause of death was assigned as shock brought about as a result of injuries to the body their cumulative effect. Injury Nos. 2 & 8 being multiple injuries were assigned as superficial in nature. In his statement during cross-examination Dr. Jain (P.W. 22) deposed that there is no single injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further deposed specifically that injury Nos. 10, 11 & 12 which were stab wounds & could have been caused only by sharp edged weapon, were also not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that, injury No. 7 was caused by sharp weapon. He further specifically deposed that the injuries which were stabbed wounds could only have been caused by pointed sharp object. A bare perusal of the external injuries stated in the autopsy report Ex.P.30) and statement of Dr. Jain (P.W. 22) would show that out of total 12 injuries, injury Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 were stab wounds either on fore-arm, finger, legs etc. and injury Nos. 10 & 12 were lacerated wound on leg & finger, whereas injury No. 1 was lacerated would on the head. In view of the injuries referred to above, found of the person of the deceased, sharp edged weapons were also used in the beating of the deceased. But, all the prosecution witnesses deposed that the deceased had given out that he was beaten by lathies only. In these circumstances medical evidence belies the prosecution case of the infiction of the lathi blows on the person of the deceased and it creates an impression that the prosecution has not come with true version and origin of the case and it has withheld the origin and genesis of the crime. 24. It has also been the prosecution case at the very beginning that currency notes of Rs. 24. It has also been the prosecution case at the very beginning that currency notes of Rs. 950/- were also taken away by the accused appellants but the trial Court, itself, found no evidence to connect the appellants with the crime of robbery and theft, thereby they have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 394/34 & 379 / 34, IPC. 25. It is trite that the Court can disbelieve one part of the evidence of a witness and accept the rest of his testimony. But, before doing so, such residue of the testimony must inspire complete confidence. The residue is generally accepted when it is corroborated from independent sources. Here in the case at hand, when the eye witnesses so also the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved on the main substratum of the prosecution case, then we will be doing injustice in holding their evidence creditworthy. That apart, in the case at hand, neither there is extra positive motive nor is there any corroboration to arrive at the finding that the prosecution witnesses have established beyond doubt the beating of the deceased by the present accused appellants or that the cited eye witnesses had seen the incident or that the dying declaration (Ex.P. 19) was recorded before the death of the deceased or that the deceased in the presence of number of injuries resulting in profused bleeding was in a fit state of consciousness or health to give the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P.19). Thus, once the main core of the prosecution stands disbelieved, then this pulls the stone out of the arch and the whole fabric of the prosecution, therefore, falls to the ground. We may reiterate 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 prosecution witnesses who have given a distorted depiction of the incident. The accused-appellants were wrongly convicted and sentenced. 26. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction & sentences of all the four appellants, named in first para of this judgment, are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences they were charged with. They are in jail and shall be forthwith set at leberty if not wanted in any other case. AUGUST8 Appeal allowed. *******