JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 20th January, 1984, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 138 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for two separate offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.; one in respect of murder of Dagadu and one in that of Bhagabai, has come up in appeal before us. 2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under : P.W. 6- Tanubai and P.W. 7- Yamunabai are the mother and sister respectively of the deceased Dagadu. It is alleged that since five years prior to the incident, an illicit relationship was subsisting between Dagadu and Bhagabai, the wife of respondent - Dyandeo. It is said that, on account of this , Dyandeo decided to divorce Bhagabai. Accordingly, on 23-2-1983 a meeting of respectable persons was held in Village-Telgaon wherein Dagadu; his wife Mangala, his mother Tanubai, his sister Yamunabai, Bhagabai with whom he was carrying on illicit relationship; the Police Patil Ramrao Patil (P.W. 17); and some others were present. In the meeting it was resolved that Dyandeo was to give divorce to Bhagabai and the latter could live as Dagadu's wife. This was reduced in writing by Pandurang Chabukswar (P.W. 11), who was present in the meeting. He prepared two divorce deeds (Exhibits 44 47) on unstamped papers; one relating to divorce by Dyandeo to Bhagabai and the other relating to divorce by Bhagabai to Dyandeo. According to the prosecution, though Dyandeo had divorced Bhagabai, but he could not stomach the humiliation and was so much upset that, he decided to commit murders of Dagadu and Bhagabai. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that the other three respondents had a score to settle with Dagadu and Bhagabai. It has come in the evidence of Yamunabai (P.W. 7) and Tanubai (P.W. 6) that, respondent Raju is the nephew of Dyandeo; respondent Rohidas was the cousin of Dyandeo; and respondent Chimaraya was the brother of Mangala, the wife of Dagadu. It is alleged that Dagadu used to work as a priest in a temple situated in the proximity of village Telgaon. On 27th February, 1983, he and Bhagabai had stayed in the field situated in Telgaon. In the morning Dagadu came to Tanubai's house; had a bath; and from there went to the temple. It is alleged that Dagadu used to work as a priest in a temple situated in the proximity of village Telgaon. On 27th February, 1983, he and Bhagabai had stayed in the field situated in Telgaon. In the morning Dagadu came to Tanubai's house; had a bath; and from there went to the temple. Tanubai, who had to answer the call of nature, followed him. Sometimes between 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. when Tanubai had reached near the temple, she saw respondent Dyandeo with a knife; respondent Chimaraya with an axe; respondent Raju with an iron bar, and respondent Rohidas with stick assaulting Dagadu. The evidence of Yamunabai (P.W. 7) is that, while Dagadu was being assaulted by the respondents, her mother Tanubai came home weeping and wailing and told her that, the respondents were assaulting Dagadu. Consequently, she alongwith her mother went to the temple and saw that, Dyandeo with a knife; Raju with an iron bar; and Rohidas with stick were assaulting Dagadu. Chimaraya was standing in the verandah of the temple with an axe. In the meantime Sambha Swami, Rukmini Lambutre (P.W. 8), Sandipan (P.W. 9) and some others came there and saw the respondents assaulting Dagadu. It is also alleged that after Dagdu had been killed Shivaji Kotwal came on the place of the incident and Tanubai told him that the respondents had killed Dagdu. Thereafter he went away. The evidence of Subhash Gaikwad (P.W. 10), son of Yamunabai Gaikwad (P.W. 7), is that, at about 9/9.30 a.m. the respondents with blood stained clothes, armed with knife, stick, iron bar and axe came to the vasti land where he and Bhagabai were present. Respondent Dyandeo called Bhagabai and asked her to come out. The latter came out with her daughter Anita. Dyandeo told her that Dagadu had been killed in the temple of Yallamma and he wanted to kill her also. He asked her to accompany him. Bhagabai told him that the frock of her daughter was wet and asked him to wait. Dyandeo insisted that she should put on the wet frock on her daughter and accompany him immediately. Bhagabai relented. The evidence of Tanubai and Yamunabai is that, shortly after murdering Dagdu, the respondents came to the temple alongwith Bhagabai and Anita. Respondent Dyandeo told Bhagabai that, Dagadu had been killed and she should sleep near him. Bhagabai relented and laid next to Dagadu. Bhagabai relented. The evidence of Tanubai and Yamunabai is that, shortly after murdering Dagdu, the respondents came to the temple alongwith Bhagabai and Anita. Respondent Dyandeo told Bhagabai that, Dagadu had been killed and she should sleep near him. Bhagabai relented and laid next to Dagadu. Thereafter, on instigation of Dyandeo, respondent Chimaraya inflicted axe blows on her. Thereafter, the respondents ran away from the place of the incident. 3.The evidence is that, Shivaji Kotwal and Police Patil Ramrao Bhimrao Patil (P.W. 17) at about 11.45 a.m. the same day reached Taluka Police Station, Solapur. There Shivaji lodged an F.I.R. It is at Exhibit 66. On the basis of the F.I.R., P.S.I. Sahebrao Labade (P.W. 21) registered an offence vide C.R. No. 30/1983. After registering the offence, at about 12.30 noon, he proceeded for the place of incident. 4.The evidence is that, at about 1.30 noon the same day, respondents - Dyandeo, Raju and Rohidas, with blood stained clothes and respondent Dyandeo also carrying a knife, came to Taluka Police Station, Solapur and there under separate panchnamas, the blood stained clothes of those respondents were seized. The knife from respondent Dyandeo was also seized. 4A.The investigation was carried out in the usual manner by P.S.I. Sahebrao Labde (P.W. 21). On 28-2-83 the recoveries of weapons were made on the pointing out of the respondents Chimraya, Raju and Rohidas from under a heap of fodder having ears of corn in the land of Laxman Mane, situated to the east of village Telgaon. They were made in the presence of public panchas and their panchnamas were also prepared. On the pointing out of Chimarya an axe was recovered; on that of Raju an iron-bar; and on that of Rohidas a stick. The evidence of P.S.I. Labde is that, he sent the weapons and clothes recovered from the respondents, to the Chemical Analyst. After completing the investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted. 5.Going backwards, the autopsy on the dead bodies of Dagadu and Bhagabai was conducted by Dr. Satyanarayan Goli (P.W. 12). On the person of Dagadu, the Doctor found 23 Incised wounds which in his opinion, were possible by the knife - Article 8, shown to him. After completing the investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted. 5.Going backwards, the autopsy on the dead bodies of Dagadu and Bhagabai was conducted by Dr. Satyanarayan Goli (P.W. 12). On the person of Dagadu, the Doctor found 23 Incised wounds which in his opinion, were possible by the knife - Article 8, shown to him. On the person of Bhagabai, the Doctor found the following injuries: "i) Incised wound over neck anterior aspect, below thyroid cartilage, bit left side, horizontal 2" long, 1/2" broad, elliptical, trachea deep, margins regular and blood stained. ii) Incised wound over submental region, 2" x 2½", distal aspect, upto thyroid cartilage, margins regular and blood stained. iii) Penetrating wound over right clavicular region at the junction of medial 1/3 and lateral 2/3, Fracture of right clavical, 2" deep margins irregular and blood stained. iv) Lacerated wound over the right shoulder, 1/2" x 1/2" anterior aspect, x 1/2" deep (Muscle deep), margins-----irregular and blood stained." He opined that, injury No. 1 was possible by a sharp weapon like axe (Art. No. 17); injury No. 2 by a sharp weapon like axe or knife (Articles 17 8 respectively); and injuries No. 3 and 4 were possible due to weapon like iron bar (Article No. 18). In the opinion of the Doctor, both the deceased died on account of the ante-mortem injuries which they had suffered. 6.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, the respondents were charged in the manner stated in paragraph 1. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. Four of them viz. Tanubai, Yamunabai, Rukminibai and Sandipan, P.Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, were examined as eye witnesses. In defence no witness was examined. After recording:- the evidence adduced by the prosecution; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of the respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents vide the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 7.We have heard Mrs. Poornima Kantharia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. I.R. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents. Hence this appeal. 7.We have heard Mrs. Poornima Kantharia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. I.R. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of the respondents recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and the impugned judgment. After thoughtfully reflecting over the matter, we are squarely satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 8.At the very outset, we have cautioned ourselves that, we are seized of the matter in an appeal against the acquittal wherein, the settled law is that, the Appellate Court only interferes if, either the appreciation of evidence is grossly unreasonable or acquittal has been occasioned on account of a manifest illegality, resulting in failure of justice. It is bearing in mind these norms that, we have to test the impugned judgment. 9.The first question is, whether the ocular account adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence or not? If it does and has been unreasonably rejected by the trial Court, this acquittal would have to be reversed by us irrespective of the fact whether the circumstancial evidence against the respondents leads unerringly to the inference of their guilt or not. On the other hand, if we find the ocular account to be unworthy of being believed, the question would be (a) whether the circumstancial evidence inspires confidence or not? and (b) if it does, whether it unerringly leads to the inference of the guilt of the respondents or not ? 10.We would first like to begin with the ocular evidence. As we have said earlier that, in respect of both the murders there is the evidence of Tanubai and Yamunabai, P.Ws. 6 7, the mother and sister of the deceased Dagadu respectively and also that of Rukminibai (P.W. 8) and Sandipan (P.W. 9); but the latter two witnesses turned hostile. In paragraph 2, we have set-out the circumstances in which these eye witnesses saw the incident. To recapitulate in brief, on 27-2-1983 at about 6.00 a.m., after taking his bath Dagadu proceeded to the temple of Yellamma, which was situated near village Telgaon, wherein he was employed as a priest. Tanubai, who had to answer call of nature, followed him. In paragraph 2, we have set-out the circumstances in which these eye witnesses saw the incident. To recapitulate in brief, on 27-2-1983 at about 6.00 a.m., after taking his bath Dagadu proceeded to the temple of Yellamma, which was situated near village Telgaon, wherein he was employed as a priest. Tanubai, who had to answer call of nature, followed him. When Tanubai reached near the temple, she saw respondent Dyandeo with a knife; respondent Raju with an iron bar; respondent Chimraya with an axe; and respondent Rohidas with a wooden stick assaulting Dagadu. She thereafter, went to her house in Telgaon; informed her daughter Yamunabai; and the two of them came together to the temple. Yamunabai also stated that when she reached the place of incident, she found Dyandeo with a knife; Chimaraya with an axe; Raju with an iron bar; and Rohidas with a wooden stick, assaulting Dagadu. Both Tanubai and Yamunabai stated that, after assaulting Dagadu, the respondents went away. They further stated that Rukmini, Sandipan and some others came there and saw Dagadu being assaulted by respondents. After sometime the respondents alongwith Bhagabai and her daughter Anita, came to the temple. Dyandeo told Bhaghabai that Dagadu had been killed and she should lie next to him. Bhagabai relented. Thereafter at the instigation of Dyandeo, Chimaraya inflicted axe blows on Bhagubai. As a consequence of the assault, Bhagubai succumbed to her injuries on the spot. Thereafter, the respondents ran away. 11.We have gone through the evidence of the said eye witnesses and we are constrained to observe that, we do not find that it inspires confidence. We would first take up the evidence of Tanubai (P.W. 6) and Yamunabai (P.W. 7), the mother and sister respectively, of deceased Dagadu. At the very outset, we would like to point out that, on account of the very close relationship with Dagadu, they are highly interested witnesses and that being so, we have to evaluate their evidence with caution. We would also like to point out that, the medical evidence patently falsifies their claim of having seen the incident. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that, they saw all the four respondents viz. Dyandeo with a knife; Chimaraya with an axe; Raju with an iron bar; and Rohidas with a wooden stick, assaulting the deceased Dagadu. We would also like to point out that, the medical evidence patently falsifies their claim of having seen the incident. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that, they saw all the four respondents viz. Dyandeo with a knife; Chimaraya with an axe; Raju with an iron bar; and Rohidas with a wooden stick, assaulting the deceased Dagadu. This claim of theirs is belied by the ante-mortem injuries found on the person of deceased Dagadu. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Goli, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased Dagadu found on his person 23 incised wounds which, in his opinion, (given in response to the suggestion given to him by the prosecution) could be caused by knife (Article 8). Even if it is assumed that they could also be caused by axe there is no denying the fact that no injuries attributable to iron-bar and wooden stick were found on the person of Dagadu. Had these witnesses seen the incident then, this dichotomy between their ocular account and the medical evidence would not have crept in. Again we find that the evidence of these witnesses is in conflict with the medical evidence vis-a-vis the assault on Bhagabai. Both these witnesses have stated that, on the instigation of Dyandeo, Chimaraya assaulted Bhagabai with an axe. In paragraph 5 of our judgment, we have extensively set-out the injuries suffered by Bhagabai and the manner in which they were caused, as per the opinion of autopsy surgeon, Dr. Goli. A perusal of the said paragraph would show that, he stated that injury Nos. 3 and 4 were attributable to iron bar. It is significant to point out that, both these witnesses categorically stated that Bhagabai was only assaulted by an axe. Had they seen the incident, then in their evidence they would have explained how injuries No. 3 and 4 of Bhagabai-the penetrating and lacerated wounds respectively, were caused. 12.We wish to emphasise that, where the ocular account is of interested witnesses, the safe rule; a rule based on prudence, is to only accept the said account if it is corroborated by the medical evidence. Here, the account of both Tanubai and Yamunabai is substantially falsified by the medical evidence. This, in our judgment, alone is sufficient to throw out their testimony. Here, the account of both Tanubai and Yamunabai is substantially falsified by the medical evidence. This, in our judgment, alone is sufficient to throw out their testimony. Again we would like to emphasise that if an integral part of the testimony of a witness is false, it is always prudent, save for some in-built guarantees in the prosecution case like the spot arrest of the accused persons, to reject the statement of such a witness. 12A. We would also like to mention that, we find it extremely difficult to believe that, Tanubai, who was in her 60's, at the time of incident, would have gone to answer the call of nature towards the temple which was situated at some distance from her house. In our judgment, she would have gone for the said purpose to a nearby place. In this connection, it would be necessary to refer to her cross-examination wherein, she admitted that near her house there is a ditch where people go to answer the call of nature. In the normal course, she should have gone there. Our feeling is that, inasmuch as, she had to be made an eye-witness of this incident, this story of her following Dagadu, for she had to answer call of nature, has been invented by the investigating agency. If, for the said reason, Tanubai was not present, then it follows as a logical imperative that, Yamunabai could not have seen the incident. We would do well to remember that, the evidence of Yamunabai is that her mother Tanubai came and informed her that, Dagadu was being assaulted by the respondents and thereafter she went with her to the place of the incident. 13.We now take up the evidence of Rukmini (P.W. 8) and Sandipan (P.W. 9). It is significant to point out that during trial, these witnesses turned hostile. They were confronted with those portions of their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein, they gave ocular account; Rukmini stated that she gave the said statement out of fear and Sandipan denied having given the said statement. Even if we believe those portions of their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they gave ocular account it becomes crystal clear that they had not seen the incident. In their said statements they stated that, Raju with an iron bar and Rohidas with wooden stick were assaulting Dagadu. Even if we believe those portions of their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they gave ocular account it becomes crystal clear that they had not seen the incident. In their said statements they stated that, Raju with an iron bar and Rohidas with wooden stick were assaulting Dagadu. As we have mentioned earlier, the ante-mortem injuries suffered by Dagadu belie the factum of his being assaulted by iron bar and stick. In these circumstances, their evidence is wholly useless. 14.For the said reasons, we are satisfied that the ocular account in the instant case is unworthy of belief. After perusing the ocular account our hunch is that, none of the eye-witnesses saw the incident and they have been introduced as eye-witnesses during the course of investigation. In our view the trial Judge acted correctly in rejecting the ocular account. 15.We now turn to the circumstancial evidence. We find that the same has also been rejected by the learned trial Judge for very cogent reasons. We first begin with the circumstance that, at about 1.30 a.m. on the date of incident itself, respondents Dyandeo, Raju and Rohidas with blood-stained clothes; and Dyandeo carrying a knife also, presented themselves at the Taluka Police Station, Solapur and their blood stained clothes and the knife from Dyandeo, were seized under panchnamas. In respect of this circumstance there is the evidence of two public panchas Gajanan Jadhav (P.W. 4) and Bapurao Ingole (P.W. 5) and Police Jamadar, Gulab Attar (P.W. 18). It is significant to point out that Gajanan Jadhav (P.W. 4) turned hostile. However, the learned trial Judge believing the evidence of Bapurao Ingole (P.W. 5) and Police Jamadar, Gulab Attar (P.W. 18) accepted the circumstance to be true. We regret that we cannot subscribe to this conclusion of the learned trial Judge. In our view, it was not safe for the trial Judge to have placed reliance on the testimony of Bapurao Ingole (P.W. 5). A perusal of the statement of the said witness shows that, he is not an independent witness and was under the clutches of the police of Taluka Police Station. We say this because in his cross-examination, in paragraphs 4 and 5, he stated that he had gone to Police Station in connection with a complaint filed against his son Anil. He had also stated therein that, he had filed a cross complaint. We say this because in his cross-examination, in paragraphs 4 and 5, he stated that he had gone to Police Station in connection with a complaint filed against his son Anil. He had also stated therein that, he had filed a cross complaint. In our view, placed as he was at that moment of time, he could not have turned down the dictates of Police Jamadar, Gulab Attar (P.W. 18) to become an alleged witness. The learned trial Judge has ignored this aspect in the evidence of this witness. If the evidence of Bapurao Ingole is excluded, there remains the sole evidence of Police Jamadar, Gulab Attar (P.W. 18) which, in our judgment, would not be safe to act upon. 16.We wish to emphasize that, we find it improbable to believe that, having committed the murder of Dagadu and Bhagabai, respondents Dyandeo, Chimaraya and Rohidas with blood-stained clothes; and Dyandeo carrying a knife also, would have gone to the Police Station. This is not the normal human conduct and courts when they decide cases go by the normal human conduct. The said respondents have denied that they had gone to the Police Station with blood stained clothes etc. 17.The learned trial Judge, in paragraphs 59 to 64, has given valid reasons for not placing reliance on the evidence of recovery of blood-stained clothes from Dyandeo, Chimaraya and Rohidas and recovery of knife from Dyandeo. In short, he has stated that the report of the Chemical Analyst only mentions that, human blood was found on the knife. It does not specify the blood group of the blood found on the knife. In connection with the recovery of blood-stained clothes from Dyandeo, the trial Judge says that, although the report of Chemical Analyst is that blood of A-group was found, which was incidentally the blood group of Dagadu, but since it had not been established as to what was the blood group of Dyandeo, not much can be read in this circumstance; more so because the evidence of Dr. Suryakant Chavandke (P.W. 20) is that, Dyandeo had an incised injury on his fore-arm. The trial Judge felt that blood on the clothes of Dyandeo may be the consequence of the said injury. The trial Judge also did not place reliance on the circumstance that, clothes of Chimaraya were blood stained. Suryakant Chavandke (P.W. 20) is that, Dyandeo had an incised injury on his fore-arm. The trial Judge felt that blood on the clothes of Dyandeo may be the consequence of the said injury. The trial Judge also did not place reliance on the circumstance that, clothes of Chimaraya were blood stained. This was for the reason that, like Dagadu the blood group of Chimaraya was also "A". Hence on clothes of Chimaraya the blood may have been his own. Regarding Rohidas, the trial Judge felt that, since his blood was of "B" group and the blood found on Rohidas's Nehru Shirt was of "A" group, it was certainly a circumstance, but the trial Court felt and rightly, in our judgment, that this circumstance would not unerringly lead to the inference of guilt of the said respondent. 18.The trial Judge has also given reasons for rejecting the circumstance of recovery of weapons of assault on the pointing out of respondents Chimaraya, Raju and Rohidas. Those reasons are incorporated in paragraphs 65 to 67 of the impugned judgment. In paragraph 67, the trial Judge has said that the recovery of these weapons was from an open place. He has also given some other tenable reasons for rejecting the said evidence with which we are in agreement. We do not want to reproduce them, because unnecessarily, the size of this judgment would swell up. 18A. We may also mention that the trial Judge has also dealt with the circumstance of motive. In our view, had the ocular account been reliable or the circumstancial evidence had unerringly led to the inference of guilt of the respondents the said circumstance definitely would have tightened the noose around the neck of the respondents. But that regretfully is not the case here. In the case in hand, we feel that, on account of the circumstance of motive, respondent Dyandeo has been falsely implicated, and the other respondents, who were also his relations have also been falsely implicated. 19.Finally, we may mention that, there is the circumstance deposed to by P.W. 10 Subhash Gaikwad namely that, on the date of incident, at about 9/9.30 a.m. the respondents armed with weapons -knife, axe, stick and iron bar came at the farm house of his grand-father situated in Kandalgaon and respondent Dyandeo called Bhagabai. 19.Finally, we may mention that, there is the circumstance deposed to by P.W. 10 Subhash Gaikwad namely that, on the date of incident, at about 9/9.30 a.m. the respondents armed with weapons -knife, axe, stick and iron bar came at the farm house of his grand-father situated in Kandalgaon and respondent Dyandeo called Bhagabai. When she came out, he told her that Dagadu had been killed in the temple and he also wanted to kill her and asked her to accompany him. The evidence of Subhash Gaikwad is that, Bhagabai replied that the frock of her daughter was wet and she would change the same and then accompany him but Dyandeo asked her to put on the wet frock on her daughter and to proceed with him. Subhash stated that, thereafter Bhagabai with her daughter went alongwith respondents. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting this circumstance and the evidence of Subhash, who deposed about it. He has stated that although deceased Dagadu was the real maternal uncle of this witness and this witness was very much attached to him, but his conduct of not going to the temple even after learning that Dagadu was dead, was extremely unnatural. The learned trial Judge also felt that, his conduct in not disclosing this fact to his grand-father and others, although he was at the farm-house till 6 p.m., was also unnatural. We find no flaw in the said reasons. 20.As mentioned earlier, we are seized of the matter in an appeal against acquittal wherein, we would only be justified in interfering if the appreciation of evidence is grossly unreasonable or the view of acquittal has been occasioned by a manifest illegality, resulting in failure of justice. Neither of these grounds are attracted to the instant case. In our view, the view of acquittal was a legitimately plausible view; in fact the only view which was rationally possible; and any other view, would have been a highly irrational one. 21.It is regretful that, a brutal double murder wherein two persons have been butchered to death in a most gruesome manner is going unpunished. But we are not to be swayed by the brutality or the revolting nature of crime. We cannot allow sentimentality to cloud our judgment. Judges have to be guided by their heads and not by heart. 21.It is regretful that, a brutal double murder wherein two persons have been butchered to death in a most gruesome manner is going unpunished. But we are not to be swayed by the brutality or the revolting nature of crime. We cannot allow sentimentality to cloud our judgment. Judges have to be guided by their heads and not by heart. We have to be only concerned, whether the prosecution has succeeded in adducing cogent, reliable and dependable evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents? For the reasons mentioned above, it has lamentably failed to do so. The result is regrettable; for not only the respondents have gone unpunished by the trial Court, but the said judgment of acquittal is being confirmed by us. 22.In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order acquitting the respondents under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. for the murders of Dagadu and Bhagabai is confirmed. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal dismissed.