JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - The Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 27-6-92 passed by Shri S.F. Ahmed, Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1991 (S.C. No. 257/90 of the court of Sessions Judge, Jeypore committed by the S.D.J.M., Rayagada in G,R. Case No. 397/90). The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and his brother and mother who were the co-accused persons in the case, have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under: On 2-10-90 at about 350 p. m. the first informant (p w 1) orally reported before the Inspector-in-charge, Rayagada Police Station (p. w. 13) that on the same date at about 3.30 p.m. the Appellant stabbed the deceased, younger brother of the informant by means of knife, while the other two co-accused persons obstructed the deceased who was running away on the street at Rellisahi inside Rayagada town out of fear of life, after the clarion call given by the Appellant to fight vita him while he was in the house of his brother. The deceased fell down on the spot and succumbed to the injuries hereafter the Appellant and his co-accused perms fled away from the spot, threatening the witnesses present there with dire consequences in case the occurrence was reported to the police. P. w. 1 also reported that prior to the occurrence the Appellant had stabbed him and his two other brothers which had been reported to the police, for which the Appellant bore grudge against the informant and his brothers. P. w. 13 reduced the report of the informant to writing and treated the same as First Information Report (Ext. 12), registered the case and directed p. w. 11, Sub-Inspector of the said P.S. to take up investigation. During investigation. p. w. 11 examined p. w. 1. at the Police Station and at 4.00 p.m, left the Police Station with his staff in search of the accused persons and apprehended the Appellant in an open field while he tried to escape seeing the Police party. He was holding an axe (M.O.II) and a knife (M.O.I). P.w. 11 seized the axe and the knife under the seizure list (Ext. 4) and the cafe was found to have been stained with blood. He was holding an axe (M.O.II) and a knife (M.O.I). P.w. 11 seized the axe and the knife under the seizure list (Ext. 4) and the cafe was found to have been stained with blood. The Appellant was brought to the P.S. and arrested at 430 p. m. Since the Appellant had sustained some injuries due to assault by the public, he was sent for medical examination in the sub-divisional Hospital, Rayagada. Since the dead body of the deceased had already been removed to the said hospital, p. w.l1 proceeded to the hospital and at 4.30 p.m. held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post-mortem examination. Thereafter p. w. 11 visited the spot at Rellisahi and seized the blood stained and sample earth from the spot under the seizure list. E-xt. 9 and examined some witnesses. On 3-10-90 he forwarded the Appellant to the court in custody. On the same date at 3.00 pm. he seized the wearing apparels of the deceased. i. e., full pant (M.O. III) and half shirt (M.O. IV) on production by the constable after the post-mortem examination, under the seizure list Ext. 3. On 6-10-90 p.w. 11 received post- mortem examination report from the Medical Officer and on 7-10-90 sent the knife (M.O. I) for examination and report as to whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been possible by the said weapon or not and the Medical Officer submitted his report (Ext. 2) in the affirmative. On 30-10-90 p. w. 11 prayed the S.D.J.M., Rayagada to send the weapon of offence (M.O.I) wearing apparels of the deceased and the blood stained and sample earth for chemical examination and accordingly those articles were sent for chemical examination on 30-10-90. On 14-11-90 the mother of the Appellant who had been hospitalized for her treatment due to injuries on her legs, was arrested after her discharge from the hospital and forwarded to court in custody. After completion of investigation. p.w. 11 submitted the charge-sheet against the Appellant and his co-accused persons who stood their trial. The trial Judge found the Appellant guilty and convicted him u/s 302. I.P.C. while the two accused persons were found not guilty and were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.. 3 The plea of the defense is one of denial and false implication due to previous rivalry. 4. The trial Judge found the Appellant guilty and convicted him u/s 302. I.P.C. while the two accused persons were found not guilty and were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.. 3 The plea of the defense is one of denial and false implication due to previous rivalry. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the Appellant, prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses, out of whom p.w. 1 is the informant. P.w. 3 is the cousin of p.w. 1 and an eye-witness to the occurrence and p.w. 6 is another eye-witness to the occurrence P.w. 2 is the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem, examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.w.4 is the witness to the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.w. 5 is a post-mortem witness who has stated about toe apprehension of the Appellant by the police and about the seizure of the M. Os. I & II.P.w. 7 is a rickshaw pullet who removed the dead body of the deceased in his rickshaw to the hospital. P.w. 8 is the constable who carried the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. P.w.9 is a woman constable and p.w. 12 is an A.S.I. of the P.S. who have stated about the seizure of M. Os. III & IV in the P.S. on production by a constable after the post-mortem examination. P.w 10 is another rickshaw puller who has stated regarding the removal of the dead body of the deceased to the hospital in a rickshaw.P.w. 11 is the S.I. of the P.S. who investigated this case. P.w. 13 was the I.I.C. of the P.S. who registered the case and directed p. w. 11 to take up investigation. Defense has examined one witness in support of its case who is a rickshaw puller. He has stated about the assault on accused No. 3 by means of a sword by Edu Rambha and Edegalla Gouri in the same street, prior to this occurrence. 5. Shri Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri B.K. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, were heard at length. He has stated about the assault on accused No. 3 by means of a sword by Edu Rambha and Edegalla Gouri in the same street, prior to this occurrence. 5. Shri Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri B.K. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, were heard at length. Shri Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgment contending that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellant was the author of the crime which is not sustainable. The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment contending that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions judge is not erroneous and interference is not called for. The rival contentions require careful consideration. 6. The learned trial Judge relied on the statements of p.ws. 1, 3 and 6 who are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the seizure of the weapon of offence, i. e., knife (M,O.I) and held the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him whereas it was held that there were no sufficient evidence on record to implicate the two co-accused persons who were acquitted. 7. The Medical Officer (p.w. 2) conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 3-10-90 between 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and found the following external injuries: 1. One stab wound on the left side chest in 4th inter costal space in the mid clavicle line of the size 2.5 c.m.x 0.5x6 c.m., Edges clean cut gapping and clot found present directed posterior; 2. Stab wound on the left side cheek of the. size 2.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m X 11/2 c. m. gapping and clot found present. Edges were clean cut. On dissection, it was found that the left maxilla fractured corresponding to external injury No. 2. Fracture of left 4th rib corresponding to external injury No. 1. Penetrating injury found on pericardium corresponding to external injury No. 1. Heart was penetrated and shrunken corresponding to external injures No. 1. Left 4th inter costal muscle injured corresponding to external injury No. 1. Muscle of mastication of left side injured corresponding to external injury No. 2. All the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature caused by sharp pointed weapon. Heart was penetrated and shrunken corresponding to external injures No. 1. Left 4th inter costal muscle injured corresponding to external injury No. 1. Muscle of mastication of left side injured corresponding to external injury No. 2. All the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature caused by sharp pointed weapon. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock caused by the injury to vital organ like heart. Ext. 1 is the post-mortem examination report submitted by p. w. 7. On 7-10- 90 the I.O. produced the seized knife (M.O. I.) before the Medical Officer for his examination and opinion as to whether the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the said weapon or not and p. w. 2 gave his opinion (Ext. 2) in the affirmative. 8. From the medical evidence on record, it is evident that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it is to be considered whether the Appellant was the author of the crime and if, so, whether his conviction can be upheld. 9. Admittedly, p. ws 1& 3 and two others faced their trial in the counter case bearing S.C. No. 60/91, which was tried simultaneously with this case, for alleged assault on the accused No. 3 on the same date by means of a sword. Ext. A is the requisition for medical exanimation of accused No. 3 and Ext. B is the F.I. R. in the counter case. Prior to the present occurrence, the Appellant had allegedly stabbed the informant and his brothers who had been reported to the police and a case has been registered against him. Hence there was bad blood between the parties. Therefore, in the above background, statements of p.ws. 1, 3 & 6 (eye-witnesses to the occurrence) and other materials on record, require careful scrutiny. 10. P. w. 1 is the elder brother of the deceased, p. w. 3 is a first cousin of the deceased and p. w. 6 is an independent witness residing in the same locality of the Appellant and the informant. They are the three eye-witnesses to the occurrence in this case. 10. P. w. 1 is the elder brother of the deceased, p. w. 3 is a first cousin of the deceased and p. w. 6 is an independent witness residing in the same locality of the Appellant and the informant. They are the three eye-witnesses to the occurrence in this case. Hence, their statements require careful scrutiny before placing any reliance on them to base a conviction of the Appellant and to exclude all other possibilities, especially when the informant and his brothers were inimically disposed towards the Appellant. According to p. w. 1, his house is situated adjacent to the house of his brother Dhanalu Raju where the deceased had slept and was called by the Appellant to come to the road to fight with him if he had courage, and when the deceased ran towards the Forest Range Office, he was chased by the three accused persons and accused E. Jumboo caught hold of both of his hands from behind when accused E. Santamma caught hold of the testicles of the deceased and the Appellant stabbed the deceased on his chest with the knife (M.O. I.). But. p. w. 1 has not stated before the investigating officer (p, w. 11) or in the F.I.R. (Ext. 12) that accused E. Jamboo caught hold of the hands of the deceased from behind and accused E Santamma caught hold of the testicles of the deceased. p. w. 1 claims to have witnessed the said incident from a distance of 5 to 10 cubits and has stated that when the accused persons threatened him, he ran to die Rayagada Police Station and lodged the oral report. Though p. w. 1 has stated that the Appellant was holding a knife with which he stabbed the deceased, in his statement in cross-examination he stated that the Appellant was holding a knife in his right hand and a Tangi in his left hand at the time of occurrence which does not appear to be credible, inasmuch as in the normal course of conduct the Appellant could not have carried two weapons to assault the deceased. Again p. w. 1 has stated that the Appellant fled away with the knife and he has not stated about the axe. Again p. w. 1 has stated that the Appellant fled away with the knife and he has not stated about the axe. Further he has stated that the Appellant pressed a stone art the right eye of the deceased when the latter fell down after sustaining stab injury, but he has not stated the same before the investigating officer. Thus the interestedness of p. w. 1 to falsely implicate the Appellant is apparent, inasmuch as he has not hesitated to depose falsehood in court to rope in the accused persons. 11. P. w. 3 who has stated that while sitting on the outer verandah of his house he found the three accused persons abusing the deceased who had slept in the house of Dhanalu Raju and threatening him with murder and when seeing the accused persons the deceased ran away towards the Forest Range Office, he was chased by the accused persons. According to p. w. 3, accused E. Jamboo caught hold of the hands of the deceased while accused E. Santamma caught hold of both the legs of the deceased and the Appellant dealt a blow by means of a knife on the chest of the deceased. In his statement in cross-examination p. w. 3 has stated that accused E. Santamma did not catch hold of the testicles of the deceased which falsifies the statement of p. w. 1 on this score. He has not stated if the Appellant had any axe with him or not. 12. P. w. 8 has stated that while he was returning to her house with her sister S. Laxmi, she found that accused E. Jamboo had caught hold of the hands of the deceased and accused E. Santamma had caught hold of the legs of the deceased near the Forest Range Office and the Appellant stabbed on the chest of the deceased by means of a knife (M.O. I.). She has stated that the Appellant was also holding a Tangia (M.O. II) in his left hand while he was stabbing the deceased with the knife. In her statement in cross-examination p. w. 6 admitted that she did not state before the investigating officer that accused E. Jamboo caught hold of the hands and accused E Santamma caught hold of the legs of the deceased before he was stabbed by the Appellant. In her statement in cross-examination p. w. 6 admitted that she did not state before the investigating officer that accused E. Jamboo caught hold of the hands and accused E Santamma caught hold of the legs of the deceased before he was stabbed by the Appellant. She has also not stated before the investigating officer that the Appellant was holding an axe in his left hand. P. w.6 has stated in her cross-examination that accused E. Santamma caught hold of the legs of the deceased sitting in front of him while the Appellant stabbed on the chest of the deceased standing in front of him, which appears to be incredible. She has gone to the extent of stating that the Appellant chased her and Ors. while they were proceeding to the spot, threatening them to stab them with the knife in case they dared come to the spot and hence she rushed to her house. Her sister S. Laxmi who was present at the time of the occurrence has not been examined in the case. 13. P. ws. 1, 3 and 6 have denied their knowledge regarding assault on accused E Santamma for which evidently a counter case, i e. Sessions Case No. 60 of 1991, had been registered and p. ws.1 and 3 along with two others have been charge-sheeted in that case and Ext. A, the requisition of police for medical examination of E. Santamma reveals that accused E. Santamma had sustained an incised wound, one bruise, fracture of both the bones of her right leg above the knee joint and swelling and bruise on his left thigh. The Appellant had also sustained a number of bruises and one abrasion as per the medical report Ext. 5 due to alleged assault by the members of the public. It may also be noted that the medical officer (p. w. 2) has stated that two separate blows were necessary to cause injury No. 1 and injury No. 2, but p. w. 1 has not stated the number of blows dealt by the Appellant on the chest of the deceased. P. w. 3 has stated that only one blow was dealt on the chest of the deceased by means of a knife and p. w. 6 has not stated the number of blows dealt on the chest, of the deceased. P. w. 3 has stated that only one blow was dealt on the chest of the deceased by means of a knife and p. w. 6 has not stated the number of blows dealt on the chest, of the deceased. Again p.w. 2 has stated that a sharp pointed stone could cause the injury No. 2 as mentioned in his report and that the injury No. 1 could be self- inflicted or caused accidentally. Though the investigating officer (p. w. 11) stated that the knife (M.O.I )was stained with blood and it was seized from the Appellant, p. w. 2 has stated that there was no blood-stain on M.O. I when he examined the same. The chemical examination report (Ext. 13) and the serologist's report (Ext. 14) reveal that though blood-stains were found on the knife, no opinion could be given regarding the origin and group of the blood due to deterioration.. 14. From the discussions made above, it is found that the statements of p.ws. 1 and 3 are tainted with interestedness and are not consistent with the medical evidence on record and the statement of the independent witness p. w. 6 is also not consistent with the medical evidence on record. Hence, it would be quite unsafe to place any reliance on the statements of these three witnesses (p. ws. 1, 3 and 6) to base a conviction of the Appellant.The seizure of the weapon of offence (M.O. I) and the axe (M.O. II) appears to be doubtful, inasmuch as the Appellant could not have held the axe in his left hand and the knife in his right have till the evening when he was apprehended in an open field. Had he wielded the knife in stabbing the deceased, in normal course of conduct, he would have thrown the same or concealed the same and would have also fled away to some other place instead of loitering in the nearby field and it is alleged by the prosecution that the Appellant sustained several injuries due to assault by the members of the public after the occurrence. If the members of public, in fact, assaulted the Appellant after the occurrence, they could have easily snatched a way the weapons from his hand and produced him along with the weapons at the police station, instead of allowing him to move freely in the field with the weapons till the arrival of police. 15. In the case of Selveraj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu it has been held that when the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded as sufficient to found the conviction of the.appellant for the murder of the deceased, the Appellant was entitled to an acquittal. In the case of State of Punjab v. Such a Singh and Ors. reported in 1973 CAR (S.C.) 393 it has been held that when there are infirmities in the prosecution evidence and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested and their evidence was such upon which implicit reliance could not be placed, interference was not called for in the acquittal of the accused. In the case of Madan N Aik v. State reported in 1983 C.L.R 189 it has been held by this Court that in order to base a conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness, his evidence must be clear, cogent and consistent and should be of unimpeachable character. It has been further held that the doctrine 'falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus' is not followed by the courts in India and if a part of the evidence of a witness is found to be false, court may accept the residue of the evidence if it is found to be true and reliable. But in that case, since the witness had made deliberately false statements to rope in a person and to make his evidence of identification acceptable, it was held that such conduct of the witness would affect the entire evidence and hence it would not be safe or prudent to accept any part of his testimony. In a murder case, the court has to be satisfied not of the probabilities, but of the certainty beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. 16. In a murder case, the court has to be satisfied not of the probabilities, but of the certainty beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. 16. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to above and on an analysis of the evidence on record, it is found that the prosecution has not been able to establish by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the Appellant and Appellant alone was the author of the crime. Hence, the conclusion of guilt of the Appellant arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge basing on evidence which cannot be said to be unimpeachable, cannot be sustained. The Appellant cannot be held guilty of the charge and his conviction is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned judgment is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction of the Appellant u/s 302, I.P. C. and the sentence inflicted hereunder in the impugned judgment dated 27-6-92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1991 (S.C. No. 257/90 of the court of Sessions Judge, Jeypore) are set aside. The Appellant is found not guilty and is acquitted of the charge. He is set at liberty forth with if his detention is not required in any other case. R.K. Patra J. I agree. Crl. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed