JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the Judgment and Order dated 30-9-96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1996 convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under section 147 I.P.C. to suffer two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to suffer R.I. for 8 days. (ii) Under section 148 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to suffer R.I. for 8 days ; and (iii) Under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer two months R.I. The substantive sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :- On 12-5-1995, the informant Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale, P.W. 5, brother and sister respectively of the deceased Babu Kharat, who along with the deceased were residing in Mumbai come to village Nadan in connection with the marriage of their maternal uncle's son. The marriage was performed that day at about 6 p.m. At about 10.45 p.m. when Babu Kharat was sitting for dinner, adjacent to the bride-groom and taking dinner, the appellants along with the acquitted accused Baban Santosh Kokare came there. The appellant-Babu Kharat was armed with an sickle; appellant Pandurang and the acquitted accused Baban with sticks; appellant-Suresh with a patta; appellant Raghunath with a chair and the appellant-Savitri with stones. All of them launched an assault with their weapons on Babu Kharat. They threatened the informant Dilip Kharat and Sushila Bhosale who were witnessing the incident, that they would murder them. After assaulting Babu Kharat, they dragged him to the house of Babu Bavdhane and locked the door of the said house. In the rear side of that house, they assaulted Babu Kharat with sickle and an axe. After assaulting Babu, the appellants and Baban ran away. 3. Evidence of Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 is to the effect that after the appellants and Babu had run away, ( after assaulting Babu Kharat) he went to the shop of Tanavade from where he telephoned the police. After assaulting Babu, the appellants and Baban ran away. 3. Evidence of Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 is to the effect that after the appellants and Babu had run away, ( after assaulting Babu Kharat) he went to the shop of Tanavade from where he telephoned the police. The Police came and thereafter Dilip Kharat along with it, proceeded to the place where the corpse of Babu Kharat was lying. 4. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the informant, Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and on its basis, Head Constable Bhagwat registered an offence. He informed P.I. Vasant Yadav P.W. 6 who on receiving the information, went to the place of the incident, prepared the inquest of the corpse of the deceased; and a spot panchanama. On 13-5-1995 at about 2 p.m. he arrested the appellants who were putting on blood- stained clothes and seized them under a panchanama. During the course of the interrogation, the appellants showed their willingness to get the weapons recovered. The said willingness was recorded under separate panchanamas and on the pointing out of the appellants, the weapons were recovered under panchanamas. We are not going deeper into the details of recovery of weapons because, for plausible reasons, contained in para 42 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has not placed any reliance on the evidence of the recovery of weapons. The two main reasons furnished by him are:--- (i) the public panch of recovery Rajaram Ghandi P.W. 2 turned hostile. (ii) the recovery panchanamas did not bear the signatures of the appellants. The learned trial Judge also placed reliance on the decision reported in 1995 Cr. L.J. 3992 (Jackarn Singh v. State of Punjab )1. During the course of investigation, P.I. Vasant Yadav P.W. 6 also recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the blood-stained earth, clothes of the appellants and the weapons recovered on their pointing out to the Chemical Analyst. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted. 5. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Babu Kharat was conducted on 13-5-1995 between 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. by Dr. Pandurang Jadhav P.W. 2 who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries :- "1. Sharp cutting wound over occipital region 5 x 1 x 1 cm. 2. Sharp cutting wound over left wrist both bones cut. Only posterior part of skin present. Pandurang Jadhav P.W. 2 who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries :- "1. Sharp cutting wound over occipital region 5 x 1 x 1 cm. 2. Sharp cutting wound over left wrist both bones cut. Only posterior part of skin present. The injury was 10 cm x 4 x 1 cm. 3. Sharp cutting wound over right mandible vertical in nature 4 x 1 x 1 cm. 4. Left leg totally cut 6" above from ankle by sharp object only tag of skin present. 5. Sharp cutting wound over right great toe, posteriorily 4 x 3 x 1 cm. 6. Sharp cutting wound over right feet medially 5 cm. x 1 x 1 cm." In the opinion of Dr. Jadhav the said injuries were possible with a sharp weapon like a sickle produced before the Court. In his cross- examination, Dr. Jadhav stated that these injuries are not possible by the muddemal, except sickle. Dr. Jadhav stated in his deposition that the deceased died on account of cardio-respiratory failure due to haemorrhagic shock, due to injuries. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the appellants were charged for offences for which they were ultimately found guilty by the trial Court. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of denial. During the trial, in all the prosecution examined six witnesses. Two of them namely Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale P.W. 5 were examined as eye-witnesses. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence of the eye-witnesses as also the circumstance that pursuant to the arrest of the appellants blood bearing 'A' group was found on their clothes and consequently, convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated above. He, however acquitted the co-accused Baban who was tried along with them. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. We are implicitly satisfied that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. The main plank of the prosecution evidence on which the conviction of the appellants is founded, is the ocular account rendered by Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale P.W. 5, brother and sister respectively of the deceased Babu Kharat. We are implicitly satisfied that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. The main plank of the prosecution evidence on which the conviction of the appellants is founded, is the ocular account rendered by Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale P.W. 5, brother and sister respectively of the deceased Babu Kharat. We make no bones in observing that on account of their relationship with the deceased, their evidence would have to be scrutinised and evaluated with caution. Bearing this in mind, we propose examining their evidence. They stated that on the date and time of the incident, they along with Babu Kharat had come to attend the marriage of their maternal uncle's son in village Nadan and at about 10.45 p.m. same day, while Babu Kharat was sitting next to the bride-groom and having dinner, the appellant-Babu Kharat armed with a sickle; the appellant-Pandurang and the acquitted accused Baban with sticks; appellant-Suresh with a paita; appellant-Raghunath with a iron chair; and appellant- Savitri with stones came there. Their evidence is that the appellants and the acquitted accused Baban belaboured the deceased with their weapons; thereafter dragged him; took him to the house of Babu Bavdhane; locked its door; and assaulted him there with a sickle and an axe. After assaulting him, they ran away. 9. We are constrained to observe that the ocular account furnished by these eye- witnesses is lamentably belied by the medical evidence. Earlier, we have quoted the ante-mortem injuries of the deceased. Their perusal shows that all of them were sharp cutting wounds. Dr. Pandurang Jadhav P.W. 1 who performed the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased categorically stated in his Examination-in-chief that they were possible by a sharp weapon like a sickle before the Court and in his cross-examination stated that they were not possible by the muddemal except the sickle. The injuries received by the deceased clearly falsify the eye-witnesses when they state that the appellant-Pandurang and the acquitted accused Baban with sticks; appellant-Savitri with stones; appellant Suresh with a paita; the appellant-Raghunath with a iron chair, assaulted the deceased; and the deceased was dragged. It is common knowledge that sticks cause lacerated wounds or contusions or abrasions. It is also common knowledge that if someone is assaulted with an iron chair, there would be a crushed lacerated wound or a massive contusion. It is common knowledge that sticks cause lacerated wounds or contusions or abrasions. It is also common knowledge that if someone is assaulted with an iron chair, there would be a crushed lacerated wound or a massive contusion. It is also common knowledge that if stones are hurled, then either a contusion or a lacerated wound or an abrasion would be caused, and if stones are hurled then abrasions. It would be caused. Apart from the circumstance that these eye-witnesses have falsely implicated a large number of appellants, we also find that there are some glaring omissions in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. For instance, in the statement of Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 recorded under section 161 Cr.C.P., there is no mention of the deceased being carried to the house of Babu Bavdhane and when he was asked to assign the reason for this omission, he failed to do so. In his said statement, there is no mention that Babu Kharat was assaulted with a sickle and an axe. He has failed to assign any reason when confronted with this omission during his cross-examination. Again, in his said statement, there is no mention that the appellant- Raghunath had assaulted the deceased with a chair and when he was confronted with this omission, he could give no satisfactory answer. Similarly, there are some glaring omissions in the statement of Sushila Bhosale P.W. 5 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. In her said statement, she has not mentioned that the appellant- Pandurang had assaulted the deceased with stick and when she was confronted with this omission, she could give no satisfactory explanation. Further, she admitted that in her said statement, she had not stated that after being assaulted, when the deceased tried to run, the appellants caught hold of him, and could give no plausible answer for the omission. 10 It is significant to point out that the evidence shows that there were a large number of independent eye-witnesses but they have not been examined. In our view, since independent evidence was available and was not led by the prosecution, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the highly interested testimony of Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale P.W. 5 the brother and sister respectively of the deceased. 11. Ms. In our view, since independent evidence was available and was not led by the prosecution, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the highly interested testimony of Dilip Kharat P.W. 3 and Sushila Bhosale P.W. 5 the brother and sister respectively of the deceased. 11. Ms. Kejriwal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent strenuously urged that so far as participation of the appellant -Babu Kharat is concerned, the same is established because, use of a sickle has been assigned to him by the eye-witnesses Dilip Kharat and Sushila Bhosale and the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Pandurang Jadhav found sickle injuries on the corpse of deceased. She pointed out that the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Pandurang Jadhav P.W. 1 candidly stated that the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to a sickle. On the first blush, we found her submission to be attractive but, on a deeper scrutiny, we realised that it would not be safe to accede to it, and the reason for this realisation is that we have reached the conclusion that both these witnesses, excepting Babu Kharat have prima facie falsely implicated the other appellants in - as- much as the injuries of the weapons assigned to them are not demonstrated by the medical evidence. 12. It is true that the principle 'Falsus uno falsus omnibus' does not apply to our country but, at the same time, it should be borne in mind that where an intergral part of the evidence of eye-witnesses is unreliable, as is the case here, it would not be safe to accept the residual part. In this connection, it would be pertinent to bear in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the oft-referred case of (Balaka Singh and others... Appellants v. The State of Punjab, Respondent)2 reported in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1962 where the Supreme Court has held in para 8 that as far as possible an endeavour to separate the grain from the chaff should be made but, this can only be done within certain permissible limits and where the grain and chaff are so inextricably mixed that they are incapable of separation, the whole case would fall. In our view, the ratio laid down in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1962 supra would squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view, the ratio laid down in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1962 supra would squarely apply to the facts of this case. If the eye-witnesses could be unscrupulous enough to falsely implicate the appellants-Pandurang, Suresh Raghunath and Savitri and falsely depose about the deceased being dragged out, there is no guarantee that they are correctly stating that the appellant-Babu assaulted the deceased with a sickle. Here, we would like to extract some observations contained in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1962 supra, they being:- "................... If all the witnesses could in one breath implicate the four in accused who appear to be innocent, then one cannot vouchsafe for the fact that even the acts attributed to Balaka Singh, Joginder Singh, Pritam Singh, Darbara Singh and Jarnail Singh may have been conveniently made to suit the needs of the prosecution case having regard to the animus which the witnesses as also Banta Singh bore against the appellants." 13. Ms. Kejriwal also urged that since the appellants were found to have been putting on blood-stained clothes, at the time of their arrest on 13-5-1995, and the Chemical Analyst found the said blood to be human, the appellants' participation in the incident was established. We make no bones in observing that we find it extremely improbable that the appellants would have been parading themselves putting on blood-stained clothes. At any rate, we would like to observe that this circumstance at the highest would only create a strong suspicion or show the prosecution case against the appellants may be true. But, as the Supreme Court observed in paras 9 and 11 of the off quoted case of (Sarwan Singh Ratan Singh, Appellant v. State of Punjab, Respondent)3 reported in A.I.R. 1957 Supreme Court 637. "But suspicions, however, strong cannot take the place of proof "and" 'between' may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence." 14. In the result, we allow this appeal; set aside the convictions and sentences on each of the five appellants on all the counts, and acquit them thereunder. In case the appellants have paid the fine, it shall stand refunded to them. The appellants are in jail and shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Appeal allowed. *****