M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE facts of this case are extremely gory as also distressing. The allegation is that on the afternoon of 16-11-1994 at about 3 P. M that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 who alleged to have been carrying a knife and a sickle entered the residential premises of P. W. I Malleshon the pretext to asking for a known relative that they thereafter asked for water and when mallesh's sister Savitha who was aged about 16 years went in to get the water that these persons committed some absolutely horrifying acts. The prosecution allegation is that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had raped Savitha and that because he was trying to defend herself that she was mercilessly stabbed on different parts of her body from time to time that P. W. 1 Mallesh who was the brother was rendered totally helpless because a towel was stuck into his mouth, that he was pushed out of the room for sometime and that he was also threatened. In the course of the incident, it is alleged that the different accused using the knife and the sickle inflicted injuries on savitha as a result of which she went into collapse and died on the spot after which the four accused ran away from that place. The police arrived on the scene pursuant to a telephone call and the investigation was commenced. P. W. 1 Mallesh has registered the complaint only about 10. 30 P. M. that night in which he has implicated the four accused and it was pursuant to this, that they came to be arrested. The prosecution alleges that at the instance of accused No. 1 a knife was recovered from bush near his house and at the instance of accused No. 3 a sickle was recovered from the house of accused No. 3. Nothing very much turns on these recoveries for two reasons, the first being that the witnesses have turned hostile, the more important reason being that the weapons are normally items which would be found with any agriculturist of that type but more importantly, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there were any bloodstains or human blood or blood of the deceased on these weapons. ( 2 ) THIS is essentially a one witness case and it is true that P. W. I Mallesh not only contends that he was an eye witness but because the accused among other things and apart from threatening him, in order to silence him and immobilise him are alleged to have squeezed his testicles and he contends that because of the injuries he was in the hospital for two days. We prefer to dispose of this part of the evidence by pointing out that the doctor P. W. 17 has in terms stated that Mallesh was brought to the hospital on that night, that he complained of an assault at about 3 P. M. and that his complaint was that he was suffering from bleeding of the urethra. He was admitted and kept under observation and the doctor stated that this complaint was found to be unjustified or rather false. No other external injuries of any type were found on his person. This raises a serious doubt as to how truthful Mallesh is when he has put forward this defence as the reason for not having gone to the rescue of his sister who was being raped and murdered and at the same time for not having either run out for assistance since his house is situated in the village and the incident took place in the afternoon and thirdly, as a further reason for his silence for not even having raised an alarm. The injury theory is therefore totally demolished and the inference that the Court would have to draw from this is undoubtedly that Mallesh has fabricated all this for some ulterior reason. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge has done a very detailed analysis of the evidence because this is a case of very distressing dimensions where a young girl is alleged to have been virtually gang raped and stabbed to death because of her resistance and in this background, the Court is required to be very cautious in the matter of examining every head of evidence and in order' to ensure that justice in the true sense is done. After a meticulous consideration of all the material on record, the learned trial Judge held that the charges are unsubstantiated and acquitted the accused. After a meticulous consideration of all the material on record, the learned trial Judge held that the charges are unsubstantiated and acquitted the accused. By virtue of the very despite such a brutal murder that the accused have been acquitted, the State of Karnataka filed the present appeal which was admitted by the High Court and has now come up for hearing before us. ( 4 ) THIS is a hotly contested appeal and the learned Addl. SPP was quiet indignant with regard to the verdict and it was his initial sub mission that not only should the acquittal order be set aside but that the highest punishment prescribed by law be awarded been use this is a case of extreme heinousness and brutality and that it is absolutely essential that a proper example be made by awarding a d e terrent punishment. The learned Counsel has taken us through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6 quite elaborately and it is his contention that Mallesh is the brother the incident took p1ace in the house and his presence is perfectly natural, that he has not only witnessed the incident but has got injured in the course of the same and that there is absolutely nothing brought out in cross examination to establish that he is speaking falsehoods and that consequently, on the basis of this evidence which is totally and fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the recoveries that the accused are liable to be convicted. We refrain from dealing with the supportive evidence because most of it is inconceivable and of a formal nature and the short question we have to address to ourselves is as to whether theevidence of P. W. 1 is good enough to sustain a conviction. ( 5 ) WE would briefly refer to the principles of law that have guided us in this decision, the first of them being the fact that it is perfectly permissible to base a conviction on the basis of the evidence of singly eye witness provided the Court is totally and completely satisfied about not only the truth and credibility but about the reliability with regard to every aspect of that evidence. In other words, if a conviction has to rest on the evidence of a single witness that evidence has to pass the rigorous test of coming out virtually blemishless. In other words, if a conviction has to rest on the evidence of a single witness that evidence has to pass the rigorous test of coming out virtually blemishless. Secondly, we need to bear in mind the fact that inevitable the defence will succeed in pointing out a few flaws or infirmities and the principle would be that if these are minor, trivial and inconsequential and if they do not affect the basic credibility that they will not come in the way of the Court accepting that evidence. Lastly, in the context of the present case we need to bear in mind the old maxim which had been laid down by the Supreme Court of separating the grain from the chaff or in other words, virtually amputating the evidence that is unacceptable or incorrect and gleaning the good and reliable part of it and if that last head of evidence can stand on its own two feet and is rendered unimpeachable, it would still be good enough for a conviction. That the injuries on deceased savitha were inflicted through knives and a sickle is established by the prosecution and the injuries in question cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The medical evidence would totally corroborate P. W. I if his evidence is acceptable and consequently the entire case narrows down to this one issue. ( 6 ) WHILE the learned Addl. The medical evidence would totally corroborate P. W. I if his evidence is acceptable and consequently the entire case narrows down to this one issue. ( 6 ) WHILE the learned Addl. SPP submitted that P. W. I is a rustic villager and that the court should not be too rigorous while assessing his evidence and secondly, he contended that the incident had taken place in the house in broad daylight in the close proximity of this witness, that he has disclosed the name of the assailants in the first Information Report, that he has come through unscatched and that consequently the Court safely rely on his evidence answering the major head of criticism as to why would P. W. I allege that Savitha had been raped if in fact the medical evidence conclusively establishes that there is not even the slightest indication of any sexual assault on her, the learned Counsel submitted that the nature of the assault was so violent and was so brutal that it was obviously directed towards an act of rape, that because of the resistance she paid for it with her life and that her brother who was kept at bay through virtual death threats had obviously concluded, that the accused had in fact sexually assaulted her and that if at all this aspect was a wrong observation on his part that it would not in any way lower the credibility of his evidence. His evidence was that the prosecution has proved the offences one hundred percent and that the accused' ought to be convicted. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS' learned Advocate has brought out some very significant aspects of the case pointing out first all that P. W. 1 on his own admission was not tied up nor was he restrained and that according to him while the incident was taking place he had been pushed out into the verandah for sometime and the immediate submission is that when the young sister was being attacked raped and murdered no brother and that too an adult man of 21 would have remained quietly on the verandah without raising an alarm and running for assistance which was available closely in the village itself. Also, learned counsel points out to us that P. W. 1, is obviously telling lies when he states that he had been gagged with a towel because that item has neither been pointed out nor seized and if he was not tied up and even if a towel was temporarily stuck into his mouth, he could have pulled it out and screamed for help in order to save his sister's life. Also learned Counsel points out to us that from the medical evidence it is established that p. W. 1 has not been injured at all. The strongest ground of attack has come from the fact that P. W. I has repeatedly and in terms alleged that Savitha had been raped before his eyes by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the twofold submission is that irrespective of danger to his own life any brother in these circumstances would have jumped to the defence of his sister. The fact that P. W. 1 did not do this would only establish that he was obviously not there when the incident took place. Lastly, learned Counsel points out that even if the allegation of rape is set aside that P. W. 1 was a young man that even assuming that he was out numbered and he was threatened, that having regard to the fact that his young sister' life was in danger , that the normal conduct would have been that he would have put up some resistance to save her even if he was ultimately attacked or overpowered. Not having done this is unbelievable because even a coward would have been sufficiently provoked into action and the fact that this did not happen would only mean that P. W. 1 was in fact not there. The submission is that even the remaining witnesses who have arrived on the scene have stated that when asked about the assailants. P. W. 1 did not disclose the name of accused Nos. 1 to 4 but he only wrote on a paper that persons from Hosur were responsible and that is not where the accused come from. In totality, learned Counsel submitted that while one is really horrified and distressed by the nature of the incident that would not justify the Court jumping to a conclusion that merely because P. W. 1 alleges that accused Nos. In totality, learned Counsel submitted that while one is really horrified and distressed by the nature of the incident that would not justify the Court jumping to a conclusion that merely because P. W. 1 alleges that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were the assailants that this evidence should be accepted. ( 8 ) WE have very very carefully read and re-read the evidence of P. W. I with the assistance of learned Counsel and we have also scrutinized virtually with a fine tooth comb every line of the record and the Exhibits because in our considered view, if the prosecution is right in its allegation that these accused were the perpetrators of this shameful incident, he would not have allowed any type of technicalities to come in the way of their being brought to justice. At the same time we are conscious of the heavy duty on us that no amount of prejudice should cloud the vision of the Court in doing a fair and correct assessment. We have strictly applied the well settled principals of criminal jurisprudence while arriving at our conclusions. We do find the evidence of P. W. I gets considerably tarnished by the fact that he has in no uncertain terms categorically alleged that Savitha was raped by accused nos. 2 and 3. That allegation is rendered not only baseless but false from the medical evidence. Next, he contends that he was immoblised because of the attack on him by the accused which rendered him injured and required hospitalisation for two days. This is again rendered false because he has not complained of any injury to the testicles. There were no other external injuries on him and his hospitalisation was on a false pretext which the doctor himself has held to be baseless. In addition to all this the respondents learned Counsel is right when he points out that even the weakest and most timid of human beings irrespective of being outnumbered threatened would never ever have remained passive if his own sister was being raped before his very eyes and was being butchered to death. In addition to all this the respondents learned Counsel is right when he points out that even the weakest and most timid of human beings irrespective of being outnumbered threatened would never ever have remained passive if his own sister was being raped before his very eyes and was being butchered to death. This is totally and completely unbelievable and unacceptable and the additional reason for it is because p. W. 1 was supposed to have spent some part of the time on the verandah, if he could not shout earlier because of the towel in his mouth, nothing prevented him from pulling out the towel as it was not even his own case that his hands had been tied up but more importantly run for help which was available around the corner in the village and it is inconceivable that he did not do this. The last aspect of the matter which we have taken cognizance of stems from the fact that if we are to re-create the incident wherein four persons are alleged to have gang raped or virtually butchered to death a young girl and the brother was standing around and has witnessed the entire incident, the sheer motive of self-preservation would have impelled the accused to have finished off p. W. 1. They would not have left a living eye witness and that too a person known to them and who has recognized them alive and in good health to not only complain about them to the police but to given evidence in Court and possibly invite a death sentence in case of this type/ The fact that the accused left p. W. 1 alive and that too totally unharmed speaks volumes of that fact that he could not have been present when the incident took place. ( 9 ) ONCE this finding is recorded, the evidence of P. W. 1 will have to be totally discarded and that evidence closed, there is virtually nothing left in the present case. We have re-analysed, reviewed and reconsidered the whole of the record on fact and in law and we are left with only one conclusion, that in our considered view the finding of the trial court acquitting the accused will have to be confirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. Bail bonds of the accused to stand cancelled. --- *** --- .