Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1986 on the me of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu Division, have preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and also under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and both the sentences are to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THESE appellants along with eight others were tried for seven charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 34, 302 read with Sections 149, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that accused 4 to 6 were members of an unlawful assembly along with accused 1 to 3 on 14. 7. 1985 at about 9. 30 P. M. , in accordance with the common intention of accused 7 to 10 to cause the death of deceased Kuriyachan near the office of the arrack business of the said deceased Kuriyachan and R. N. C. shop, in the junction of Ernavur-Kathivakkam High Road and Bajanai Koil Street at Ernavur, accused 1 to 3 were armed with deadly weapons, Vettu aruvals and in furtherance of common intention, first accused cut the ankle joint on the legs of Kuriyachan with Vettu Aruvai, second accused cut his left side back with Aruval and third accused cut on his right hand with Vettuaruval, accused 5 and 6 hold the legs of the deceased and push him down and as a result of the same, the deceased fell upside down and during the course of the same transaction, accused 1 and 2 voluntarily caused cut injuries to the prosecution witness Santhanam by Vettu arruval and dangerous weapon and 4th accused caused simple hurt to the prosecution witness Santhanam. In support of the above charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 18 and marked Exhibits P1 to P23 and M. Os. Ito 11. In support of the above charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 18 and marked Exhibits P1 to P23 and M. Os. Ito 11. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the oral and documentary evidence and which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows: the deceased Kuriyachan along with accused 7,8,9 and one deceased Radhakrishnan, obtained licence for running the arrack shop and was running the same, prior to the occurrence and there were sub-partners under these five partners. P. W. 5 is one such a partner. The partners contributed various amounts and the total amount contributed by them was Rs. 41,00,000/-After the death of Radhakrishnan, his brother, the 10th accused became as partner. They were running the arrack shop along with the sub-partners and M. O. 6 series are the account books. P. W. 4 is the Cashier in the said partnership business. Accused 1 to 6 were employed in the workshops. The deceased Radhakrishnan and the 9th accused were having joint account in the Indian Overseas Bank at Thiruvotriyur and invested Rs. 10,44,114/ -. After one of the partners Radhakrishnan was murdered, the faction consists of Narayana, developed ill-will and hatred towards the deceased. The deceased apprehended danger to his life and he gave a petition on 22. 6. 1985 praying for protection, to P. W. 16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvotriyur. P. W. 16 entered the same in the general diary and he gave necessary orders for protection to the deceased. On 14. 7. 1985, P. W. 2 who was employed under the deceased came to the deceased at about 8 A. M. and handed over the collection amount from the market shops and he demanded arrears of wages due to him. The deceased asked him to come to the office at Ernavur gate shop where he would be available. Accordingly, P. W. 2 proceeded to that place. At about 7. 30 P. M. , on 14. 7. 1985, P. W. I along with his two brothers sons came from Triplicane to see one Dasaradan of Ennore and on the way he went to the State Bank Colony, Thiruvotriyur and approached the deceased who was known to him and asked him to lend a car for his journey. At about 7. 30 P. M. , on 14. 7. 1985, P. W. I along with his two brothers sons came from Triplicane to see one Dasaradan of Ennore and on the way he went to the State Bank Colony, Thiruvotriyur and approached the deceased who was known to him and asked him to lend a car for his journey. Since his car was in repair and the deceased also had to go to Ennore, he engaged the auto of P. W. 3. The deceased along with P. W. I and his two brotherts sons, went in the auto of P. W. 3 to Ennore through beach road. Since Dasardan was not in the house, the deceased asked the auto driver to park his auto in front of Ennore Police station and went into the police station at about 8. 45 P. M. and made enquiries about the Sub-Inspector from P. W. 14, the Constable and on learning that the Inspector had gone out he returned and thereafter, they all came to the office of the arrack shop at Eranavur gate, which is located at the junction of Kathivakkam High Road and Bajani Koil Street. P. W. 8 is employed in. a Teat Shop which is at the junction and it is marked as D in the plan Exhibit P-is. P. W. I and his two brothers sons were waiting outside. P. W. 2 has arrived already and also was standing there. The deceased, P. W. I and his brothers sons and P. W. 2 all took tea in the tea shop. Near the Tea shop at the junction, Sodium light was burning. P. W. I sent his two brothers sons by train to their native village. The deceased said that he would send P. W. 1 to Triplicane. P. W. I and the deceased were standing near the Auto. P. W. 3 went to the Tea Shop to take tea. At that time, four persons came from the steps leading to the upstairs of the office of the arrack shop and among the four persons, accused 1 and 2 were having Koduval Kathi, M. Os. 1 to 3, fourth accused was having M. O. 4 Stick, First accused came near the deceased and attempted to cut him. At that time, four persons came from the steps leading to the upstairs of the office of the arrack shop and among the four persons, accused 1 and 2 were having Koduval Kathi, M. Os. 1 to 3, fourth accused was having M. O. 4 Stick, First accused came near the deceased and attempted to cut him. P. W. I warded off the same and it fell on the right fore-arm of P. W. I and he sustained an injury. Second accused cut P. W. I on the right shoulder back side. Third accused aimed a cut on the deceased and when the deceased warded off the blow with his right palm and it caused a cut injury on his right palm. At that time, accused 5 and 6 came from the railway line and they slipped the legs of the deceased and the deceased fell down facing downwards. At that time, first accused cut him with the Koduval on the neck and shoulder and back side of the head. The injuries were bleeding and P. W. I got blood stains. The brain came out from the head of the deceased. P. W. I came to the conclusion that the deceased died. P. W. I raised an alarm. Fourth accused beat him with M. O. 4 stick on the left side of the back. P. W. I got frightened and ran along the kathivakkam road and reached the police station at about 10,00 P. M. P. W. 1 reiterated the matter to P. W. 17, the Sub-Inspector of Police and he recorded the statement Exhibit P-I, read over the same and obtained thumb impression. On the basis of Exhibit P-I, P. W. 17 registered a case in Crime No. 304 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 341,323,324 and 302 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, and prepared the Fast Information Report Exhibit P-6. He sent Exhibits P-I and P-6 to the Judicial II Class Magistrate by express tapal and the copies to the higher officials. P. W. 17 along with P. W. I went to the scene place. P. W. 15 Inspector of Police who was returning to Ennore along the scene place after finishing his bandobusl work at about 10. 15 P. M. saw the deceased lying in the pool of blood. P. W. 17 along with P. W. I went to the scene place. P. W. 15 Inspector of Police who was returning to Ennore along the scene place after finishing his bandobusl work at about 10. 15 P. M. saw the deceased lying in the pool of blood. He got the copy of the express report from the Constable and took investigation at 10. 30 P. M. Meantime, P. W. 17 came along with P. W. 13, the Head Constable. He sent the injured P. W. 1 after examining him, along with P. C. No. 500, to the Stanley Medical Hospital. After inspecting the scene place, P. W. 18 prepared the rough sketch and the observation mahazar,. Exhibits P. 15 and P. 16 respectively, attested by witnesses. Between 11 P. M. and 2 A. M. , he held the inquest over the dead body in the presence of the panchayaldars and during inquest P. Ws. 2 to 4 and others were examined. Exhibit P. 7 is the inquest report prepared by him. He recovered M. O. 7, the blood stained earth and the sample earth, M. O. 8 from the scene place under mahazar Exhibit P-17 attested by witnesses. He called the Photographer P. W. 16 to take photographs M. O. 11 series of the scene place. After completing the inquest, he handed over the dead body to P. W. 13, Constable, for being taken to the Stanley Hospital with the request Exhibit P-12 to the Medical Officer for atopsy. Thereupon, he examined P. W. 8, P. W. 14 and P. W. 16 and made arrangements for securing the accused. P. W. 11, the Medical Officer/civil Assistant. Surgeon, who was on duty in the causality ward in the Stanley Government Hospital and at about 11. 55 P. M: no examined P. W. I who was brought with a memo by P. C. No. 500 for certain injuries said to have been caused by four unknown persons at 9. 30 P. M. on the same day, i. e. , 14. 7. 1985 and he found on him a cut injury on the right fore-arm above the wrist measuring about 5 cm. x 3 cm. and big cut injury on the right shoulder and X-Ray of the right shoulder was taken and he was admitted as inpatient. Exhibit P-b is the Accident Register Extract. 7. 1985 and he found on him a cut injury on the right fore-arm above the wrist measuring about 5 cm. x 3 cm. and big cut injury on the right shoulder and X-Ray of the right shoulder was taken and he was admitted as inpatient. Exhibit P-b is the Accident Register Extract. According to the opinion, of the Word Doctor P. W. 11, the injuries are grievous in nature. Exhibit P. 11 is the opinion of the Doctor. According to him, the injuries could have been caused due to cut with a knife like M. Os. I to 3 at the time alleged. P. W. 12, Dr. Sulochana, Professor of the Stanley Medical College Hospital; in pursuance of requisition Exhibit P. 12 received from the Inspector P. W. 18, conducted atopsy over the dead body of Kuriyackan at about 11. 40 A. M. on 15. 7. 1985 and she found the following external injuries: (1) Chopped wound on the entire head at the level of Posterior occipital bone cutting through the skin and entire skull cap producing multiple fracture of the skull cap. The brain has flowed out of the wound and is completely destroyed. (2) Deep incised wound just below the nape of back horizontal cutting through skin, fascia and muscles. The wound is curved. 13 x 6 x 10 cms. (3) Deep incised wound back of right shoulder 2 cms. away from the external injury No. II cutting through skin, Fascia and muscle; 51/2 x 2 x 41/2 cms. (4) Deep incised would on the left side of back just below the left scapula cutting through skin, fascia and muscles 15 x 4 x 11 cms. (5) Incised would left gluteal region cutting through the skin and fasica 3 x 1 x 3 cms. (6) Incised wound over the region of 11th rib and axillary and posterior axillary line right side cutting through the skin and fascia 10 x 3 cm. (7) Deep incised wound right palm cutting through skin fascia and metacarpal bones 7 x 3 x 4 cms. (8) Deep incised wound back of right foot at ankle joints cutting through the skin and bone 7 x 4 x 4 cms. (9) Deep incised wound back of left foot at ankle joints cutting through the skin and bone 7 x 4 x 4 cms. (8) Deep incised wound back of right foot at ankle joints cutting through the skin and bone 7 x 4 x 4 cms. (9) Deep incised wound back of left foot at ankle joints cutting through the skin and bone 7 x 4 x 4 cms. She was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the head injury sustained by him corresponding to external injury No. 1 and the said injury could have been caused due to assault with anyone of the M. Os. 1 to 3 She was of further opinion that the other injuries found by her could have been caused due to assault with any one weapons like M. Os. 1 to 3 She was of the further opinion that injury No. 7 could have been caused due to defending by the victim when the assault went on with knife. The external injury No. 1 resulting in the loss of brain itself is necessarily fatal, and the death would have been instantaneous. About 14 to 16 hours prior to post mortem, death would have occulted. Exhibit P. 14 is the post mortem certificate issued by her. P. W. 18 continued further investigation and examined P. W. 13 and sent the seized articles with a requisition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate. He examined the Photographer on 17. 7. 1985. ON 24. 7. 1985 he arrested the four the accused at about 9. 15 A. M. at Thiruvotriyur Tab Gate and examined him and he voluntarily gave a confession statement in the presence of witnesses, the admissible portion of which are Exhibits P. 18 and P 19 and in pursuance of the same, he took them to a pond and from there he produced M. Os. I and 2 under the cover of Mahazar Exhibit P. 20 attested by witnesses at about. 1. 00 P. M. Thereupon, he brought the 4th accused to the station to send him for remand. He arrested the 0th accused on the same night at 8 A. M. at R. S. Moily Street, Thandayarpet. He arrested the 1st accused at about 5. 30 A. M. opposite to Sayani Theatre, Ayanavaram on 29. 7. 1985. The 3rd accused surrendered before the Court of the Judicial magistrate, Ponneri and thereafter, he was taken to police custody on 16. 9. He arrested the 1st accused at about 5. 30 A. M. opposite to Sayani Theatre, Ayanavaram on 29. 7. 1985. The 3rd accused surrendered before the Court of the Judicial magistrate, Ponneri and thereafter, he was taken to police custody on 16. 9. 1985 and he gave a confession statement and in pursuance of the same, he took P. W. 18 to a well and from there he produced M. O. 3 Vettu Kathy under the cover of mahazar Exhibit P. 23 arid the admissible portions of the confession statement are Exhibits P. 21 and 22. He gave a requisition to the Magistrate to send the seized articles through P. W. 9, who is the Head Clerk and in pursuance of the requisition, the material objects were sent for Chemical Analysis and Exhibits P. 4 and P. 5 were the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist respectively. The 2nd accused surrendered before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, and he was also taken to police custody. He arrested the 5th accused on 23. 5. 1985 at 5030 P. M. near Thandayarpet tower. The 6th accused surrendered before the Judicial II Class Magistrate; Ponneri. P. W. 18 requested for holding an identification parade in respect of accused 3, 4 and 5 and 6 under Exhibit P. 8. He examined P. W. 5 on 16. 8. 1985 and on 17. 8. 1985, he examined P. W. 17, the professor of Stanley Government Hospital who conducted atopsy, after showing be knife M. O. 3. P. W. 10 is the Magistrate who held identification parade with regard to accused 3 to 6. P. W. 18 further continued the investigation and examined Dr. Ayyavu, P. W. 11, on 28. 10. 1985 and P. W. 6 on 29. 1. 1986 and also P. W. 7 on 6. 2. 1986. Accused 7, 8 and 9 obtained anticipatory bail After completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against accused 1 to 10 on 28. 2. 1986 before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur, under Sections 147, 145,323, 324 and 302 read with Sections 149 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) WHEN the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they totally denied the prosecution evidence. ( 4 ) WHEN the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they totally denied the prosecution evidence. However they would admit that accused 7 to 10 as partners along with the deceased were conducting and running the arrack shop and that P. W. 5 was sub-partner. No witness was examined on their side. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and for the reasons assigned in his judgment, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants 1 and 2 and consequently convicted them as stated in the opening paragraph of the judgment while acquitting the rest of the accused giving them the benefit of doubt. The convicted accused have preferred the appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants Mr. Sankara Subbu took us through the recorded evidence and has made his submission. According to the learned counsel that the entire conviction was based on the uncorroborated sole testimony of P. W. I who is the interested witness. Admittedly, he is a friend of the deceased. He would submit that as per the entry made in the Accident Register Exhibit P-b wherein it is stated that he has stated before P. W. 11 that he was assaulted with knife, and stick by four unknown persons. Hence no reliance can be placed not his evidence and also the subsequent report Exhibit P. 1 which is the First Information Report said to have been given by him implicating these appellants as well as the other accused as assailants. He would submit that P. W. I did not know the accused previously and he had identified them for the first time before the Court and no identification parade has been held and identification parade was held in respect of other accused and the failure to hold identification parade is fatal and on that ground alone, the appellants also are entitled to acquittal. He would submit that though the postmortem certificate reveals as many as nine injuries P. W. I accounted for only five injuries and that shows that he could not have witnesses the occurrence as spoken to by him and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his evidence and the non-explanation of the other injuries are also fatal to the case and in any event to reliance can be placed on the evidence of P. W. 1. He would submit that in the instant case, when once it is proved that the First Information Report is a fabricated document, then the entire foundation will be collapsed and no conviction can be sustained, According to him, there is absolutely no motive for the accused to murder the deceased. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all these aspects convicted these appellants and no interference is called for. ( 8 ) THE point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are sustainable for the reasons stated in the grounds of appeal as well as the version put forward before this Court. ( 9 ) WE have elaborately dealt with the facts which involved in this case while narrating the case in the first part We feel that it is necessary now to consider the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants and deal with the same, considering the relevant facts which are necessary for the same. According to the learned counsel, P. W. I is the only eye witness in this case as the other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and that P. W. 1 is the interested witness and he is admittedly a friend and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. He would submit that the earliest version of this witness to the Doctor Ayyavu P. W. 11 was that he sustained injuries due to assault with knife and stick by four unknown persons and to the same effect, he has made entries in Exhibit P. 10 Accident Register. If Exhibit P. 10 entry was made at about 11. He would submit that the earliest version of this witness to the Doctor Ayyavu P. W. 11 was that he sustained injuries due to assault with knife and stick by four unknown persons and to the same effect, he has made entries in Exhibit P. 10 Accident Register. If Exhibit P. 10 entry was made at about 11. 55 P. M. , and if that be the case, his alleged version in Exhibit P-i that these appellants and other unknown persons attacked him as well as the deceased could not be true and further he should not be the author of Exhibit P. 1. In this connection, he drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of P. W. 1 as well as the evidence of the Doctor P. W. li, the Accident Register Exhibit P. 11 and also the First Information Report Exhibit P-i. In Exhibit P. 10, the Accident Register, P. W. 11 has recorded to the effect that P. W. 1 stated to her that the sustained injuries due to assault with knife and stick at 9. 30 P. M. by four unknown persons and at that time he was fully conscious and he sustained the injuries. It is the evidence of P. W. 11 also that it has been so entered in Exhibit P-b Accident Register. P. W. 11 has stated that P. W. 1 had stated that he was assaulted with knife and stick by four unknown persons and that the patient was fully conscious at that time. According to P. W. 1, it was P. W. 11 who has examined him and he made the statement at 11. 55 P. M. , whereas Exhibit P-I, the First Information Report which is said to have been given by him was at 10. 15 P. M. Just hours prior to the examination to the Doctor. In Exhibit P-i he was alleged to have made a statement to the effect that he mentioned the names of accused 1 and 2. 55 P. M. , whereas Exhibit P-I, the First Information Report which is said to have been given by him was at 10. 15 P. M. Just hours prior to the examination to the Doctor. In Exhibit P-i he was alleged to have made a statement to the effect that he mentioned the names of accused 1 and 2. P. W. I has stated that accused 1 and 2 along with four other persons got down from the stair-case of the office of the arrack shop and the first person who came with the knife was the first accused, namely, Mathy of Anna Nagar of Ennore and the second who came with Vettu Kathy is Malar, namely, the second accused and the two other persons whose identity are known, but names are not known and among them one was armed with Vettu Kathy and another was with stick and among the assailant, first accused cut the deceased, second accused also attacked the deceased and caused the fatal injuries while the other assailants cut the deceased with Vettu Kathy and aruval. When he intervened he was attacked by both accused 1 and 2. learned counsel would vehemently argue that in view of the version of these witness and the statement of the sole eye witness before the Doctor at 11. 55 P. M. it is clear that P. W. 1 could not have given the report at 10. 15 P. M. which has been recorded as the First Information Report in this case, and further his version before the Court thin accused 1 and 2 had attacked him and the deceased should not be accepted. ( 10 ) IN this connection, the learned counsel drew -the attention of this Court to the decision reported in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra. That was a case where the eye witness did not know the assailant before the occurrence and when he was taken to the hospital and produced before the Doctor P. W. 11, he gave the name of the assailant as one Tiny or Tony and the said statement was made at about 1. 15 A. M. and it is supported by the documents in Exhibit-22. The Doctor has also examined the witness and she had also deposed about the fact that Shetty has mentioned the name of the assailant as one Tiny. 15 A. M. and it is supported by the documents in Exhibit-22. The Doctor has also examined the witness and she had also deposed about the fact that Shetty has mentioned the name of the assailant as one Tiny. Ultimately, it was held by their Lordships that the reason given by the High Court in this case for distrusting the evidence of the Doctor is wholly sustainable from the statement of Dr. Heena. Moreover, the statement of the injured to Dr. Heena being the first statement in point of time must be preferred to any subsequent statement that Shetty may have made. In fact, the admitted position is that Shetty did not know the appellant before the occurrence nor did he know his name which was disclosed to him by one Salim. Therefore, Salim who is now dead, being the source of information of Shetty would be of doubtful admissibility as it is not covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act. And once we believe the evidence of P. W. 11, as we must, then the entire bottom of the prosecution case is knocked out Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in similar circumstance held that the version of the assailant before the Doctor with regard to the assailant has to be taken into consideration in preference to his subsequent statement and on the basis of the evidence of the doctor nothing can be said and in such circumstances no reliance could be placed on such evidence and the said witness support the case of the appellant in all respects. If the ratio of the above decision is applied to the facts of this case, it is seen that P. W. 1 when he was produced before the Doctor, in this case also had only stated that he was assaulted by four unknown persons at about 9. 30 P. M. and the said fact had been entered in the Accident Register Exhibit P-b by P. W. 11 and that has not been challenged and rebutted anywhere by the prosecution. Further, one another circumstance is very much placed by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sankarasubbu, that this witness P. W. I is admittedly a native of Sambareddypalayam Cuddalore Taluk, South Arcot District, while the occurrence took place in Ennore, Madras, and he has nothing to do with the scene place. Further, one another circumstance is very much placed by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sankarasubbu, that this witness P. W. I is admittedly a native of Sambareddypalayam Cuddalore Taluk, South Arcot District, while the occurrence took place in Ennore, Madras, and he has nothing to do with the scene place. Further, though he would state in the chief-examination that he knew accused 1 and 2 and their names, in the cross-examination, it was elicited that he came to know the names of accused 1 and 2 only from the deceased and that too about 10 or 15 days prior to this occurrence and he saw the accused once at the work shop and thereafter only on the date of occurrence P. W. I was originally employed in police department and dismissed from service and he is admittedly a friend of the deceased, and he came to the deceased in order to join in the business run by the deceased. It is clear when he was confronted with regard to the statement before the Doctor he would state that he did not remember whether he has stated to the Doctor that he was attacked by four unknown persons. In the cross-examination, it is clear that he had no acquaintance with any of the accused and there is no necessity for him to know the names of these accused or their fathers names. But strangely it is stated that he has given the names of accused 1 and 2 when he is unable to know the names of the other accused 3 to 6 and in respect of them an identification parade has been conducted. No identification parade was held in respect of these accused 1 and 2 and only in the Court P. W. I has identified them. Admittedly the occurrence took place in the night and he had not given any physical features of any of these accused. No identification parade was held in respect of these accused 1 and 2 and only in the Court P. W. I has identified them. Admittedly the occurrence took place in the night and he had not given any physical features of any of these accused. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the very same decision reported in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein also it observed as follows: in these circumstances, therefore, if the appellant was not known to him before the incident and was identified for the first time in the court, in the absence of a test identification parade the evidence of P. W,3 was valueless and could not be relied upon as held by this Court in V. C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1980) 3 S. C. R. 500; (1980) 2 S. C. C. 665; 1980 S. C. C. (Cr1.) 561 where this Court made the following observations: moreover, the identification of Tripathi by the witness for the first time in the court without being tested by a prior test identification parade was valueless. Same view was taken in a Federal Court decision in Sahdeo Gosain v. King-Emperor (1944 F. C. R. 223; A. I. R. 1944 F. C. 38; 213 I. C. 47 ). ( 11 ) THE learned counsel also drew out attention to the other decision reported in Sajjan Singh sb Dayal Singh v. Emperor, in support of his contention that if identification parade was held in respect of all the six accused including accused 1 and 2, then the witness would not have identified these accused and the benefit of doubt which was given to other accused A3 to A6 could have been extended to these accused also and the failure to hold an identification parade is now fatal. He also drew the attention of this Court to the decision in Sajjan Singhts case above quoted, wherein a Division bench of this Court held as follows: in short, it seems very doubtful whether these Mahtam witnesses knew Balbir Singh before, although they claim to do so and if there is a doubt with regard to Balbir Singh, precisely the same doubt must attach to their claim regarding Sajjan Singh in the absence of any identification parade. In the above quoted case, the witness failed to identify the said Balbir Singh, but no identification parade was held with regard to the other accused. Ultimately on that ground, it was held that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and the accused were acquitted. The learned counsel relied upon the other decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and an other, wherein it is observed as follows: from the facts discussed above it becomes clear that the direct evidence, if at all, regarding the identity of the person who moved about in different assumed names is either wholly wanting or is of such a weak nature that it would be hazardous to place reliance thereon without proper corroboration. As pointed out earlier the direct evidence regarding identity of the culprits comprises of (i) identification for the first time after a lapse of considerable time in Court, or (ii) identification at a test identification parade. In the case of total strangers, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of witnesses who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or would no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court. In the present case it was all the more difficult as indisputably the accused person had since changed their appearance. Test identification parade, if held promptly and after taking the necessary precautions to ensure its credibility, would lend the required assurance which the Court ordinarily seeks to act on it. In the absence of such test identification parade it would be extremely risky to place implicit reliance of identification made for the first time in Court after a long lapse of time and that too of persons who had changed their appearance. We, therefore, think that the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in looking for corroborated. In Kanan v. State of Kerala of, this Court speaking through Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. observed: it is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I: parade to test his powers of observations. In Kanan v. State of Kerala of, this Court speaking through Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. observed: it is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I: parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T. I. parade under S. 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time In Court. We are in respectful agreement with the afore quoted observations. The learned counsel relied on the other decision in Sundersan and others v. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Red Hills5, wherein it is held as follows: if no Test identification parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on the testimony of witness regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. T ( 12 ) FROM the evidence of this P. W. 1, it is clear that he is a stranger to this place of scene and he has no acquaintance with any of the accused and that he came to know the names of the accused only about 10 or 15 days prior to the occurrence, and subsequently on the day of occurrence and thereafter only before the Court. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in the night and in view of his vision before the Doctor that he was attacked by some unknown persons certainly the identification parade is a must in this case and in the absence of identification parade, it cannot be said that P. W. 1 was able to identify these accused properly and on the basis of their evidence the accused can be convicted. The above decision will apply to this case and on that ground also the accused is entitled to the acquittal. The learned counsel also submitted that in this case, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem has found number of injuries. But P. W. 1 did not speak about those injuries. He was able to speak merely five injuries. The above decision will apply to this case and on that ground also the accused is entitled to the acquittal. The learned counsel also submitted that in this case, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem has found number of injuries. But P. W. 1 did not speak about those injuries. He was able to speak merely five injuries. He is unable to say anything about the other injuries. If really he was present in the scene, certainly he would be in a position to say about the other injuries. This is also most doubtful. He would submit that even for the desired attack on accused 1 and 2, there is no corresponding version in his evidence before the Court as well as before the Investigating Officer when he was questioned as to whether he has stated to the police during inquest that the second accused cut the deceased on the shoulder as well as the back of the head. Both in Exhibit P1, the First Information Report and in the statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code he did not say so before the Investigating Officer. When he was further questioned whether he has stated about the cut on the neck of the deceased in Exhibit P-i, the Fl, the First Information Report, he has answered that he did not remember. Again when he was questioned as to whether he has stated about the cut on the back of the deceased in Exhibit P-i for which also no replied that he did not remember. Thus, for each and every question, he replied that he did not remember. Regarding the occurrence, there is no acceptable and consistent versions. With regard to the actual occurrence, he has given discrepant and contradictory version. In this connection, the learned counsel also admitted that it is a case of a single eye - witness and once it is found that he is an interested witness and his evidence is tainted, it requires independent corroboration. In the absence of independent corroboration, no conviction can be given. In this connection, the learned counsel also admitted that it is a case of a single eye - witness and once it is found that he is an interested witness and his evidence is tainted, it requires independent corroboration. In the absence of independent corroboration, no conviction can be given. In this case, in view of the evidence of the Doctor as well as the absence of the identification parade and various infirmities pointed out no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P. W. 1, Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses can be broadly characterised into three categories, namely, the wholly reliable witnesses, the wholly unreliable witnesses and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witnesses. He also submitted that in the case of the third category, namely, the witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, their evidence cannot be accepted in the absence of corroboration. He submitted that the case of P. W. 1 comes under the third category. ( 13 ) IN the decision in Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that having regard to the deliberate improvement made by P. W. 1 as regards the seat of injuries caused by the appellant to make his version consistent with medical opinion, both the courts below erred in concluding that it was safe to place implicit trust on his testimony. According to the presence of other witnesses as well as with regard to the disposal of the dead body is found to be thoroughly unacceptable. In the circumstances, it was held that it would be unsafe to convict the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code accepting the evidence of the only eye - witness in the absence of any corroboration. ( 14 ) IN State of UP. v. Salish Chandra and others, it was held that it is not necessary in law that more than one witness should be examined to prove a fact but unless the witness is very reliable, the court would ordinarily took for corroboration, more so where he is a close relation of the deceased and a stranger so far as the accused are concerned. ( 15 ) IN Mangilar and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held as follows: testimony of sole eye witness should be wholly reliable-where the evidence of such witness is not supported by medical evidence as contrary to natural conduct of any similar person, no reliance can be placed on it. T ( 16 ) IN view of the evidence of the sole eye -witness who is also an interested witness and whose evidence is being wholly unreliable and in view of the infirmities pointed out, we have no hesitation to hold that no conviction can be passed on such evidence. On a careful consideration, we are of the view that the prosecution has net established the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled to acquittal. ( 17 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.