Judgment :- (Appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil passed in S.C.No.97 of 1997, dated 25.9.2001.) S.K. Krishnan, J.) Aggrieved by the judgment passed against the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagarcoil in S.C.No.97 of 1997, in and by which, A1 to A7 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 341 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years and one month respectively, A2 to A5 and A7 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years, A1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause and A2 to A7 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and sentenced each to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause, the appellants have come forward with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows: a. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased Magadevan. She is residing along with her son MuthuKumar at Mela Street, Seedapal. On 8.10.1995 around 11.00 a.m., she came to Keelaperuvilai village to take back her son, who came to his maternal grandmother's house to spend holidays. P.W.1's son was studying VI standard at the time of occurrence. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. b. When P.W.1 informed P.W.3 about the reopening of school to his son on 9.10.1995, P.W.3 informed P.W.1 that she would send her grandson on the next day. Therefore, P.W.1 decided to return to her house at Seedapal. She was proceeding to the bus stand to go to Seedapal along with the deceased, who was walking with the cycle, around 12.45 p.m. While they were proceeding near Christoper colony junction, all the accused 1 to 7 stood in front of Gani beef stall. A1 and A6 were carrying Aruval in their hands. On seeing the deceased Magadevan, A1 and all the accused alarmed and shouted that they should not allow him to leave from that place. While saying so, A1 pulled the cycle of Magadevan. All of a sudden, all the accused prevented Magadevan from proceeding further. They surrounded him. On seeing this, P.W.1 shouted at them. On seeing the deceased Magadevan, A1 and all the accused alarmed and shouted that they should not allow him to leave from that place. While saying so, A1 pulled the cycle of Magadevan. All of a sudden, all the accused prevented Magadevan from proceeding further. They surrounded him. On seeing this, P.W.1 shouted at them. However, Magadevan attempted to escape from the clutches of the accused and ran towards eastern side. When he tried to escape from the accused and ran towards eastern side to the extent of 50 feet all the accused again surrounded him and prevented him from proceeding further. Meanwhile, A1 attacked Magadevan with Aruval on his right side and inflicted several injuries. c. In furtherance of the said attack, A1 caused injuries on his left cheek. Again, he attacked Magadevan with Aruval on his left chest above the stomach and inflicted an injury. Meanwhile, A6 attempted to attack the deceased with Aruval. As the aim of the attack was missed, A1 sustained injury on his head. Immediately after the said attack, Magadevan fell down on the ground. All the seven accused lifted and thrown him on the western side of Gani beef stall. On seeing this, P.W.1 raised alarm. However, all the accused ran fast towards Christoper Colony on the western side with Aruval. The brother of A1 Nagarajan lifted the cycle of Magadevan and thrown into a pit, which was situated on the Southern side of the road. P.W.1, thereafter, saw her brother and found him dead. The said attack was witnessed by one Ramesh. d. P.W.1, thereafter, proceeded to Mayam village, wherein, her brother-in-law one Rajamurthy was living. Since P.W.1 did not know the procedure to lodge a complaint before the Police Station and also did not find any person to assist her, she went to her brother-in-law's house. She narrated the incident and in turn, her brother-in-law Rajamurthy informed the Asaripallam police station over phone. Thereafter, P.W.1 and Rajamurthy proceeded to Asaripallam police Station to lodge a complaint. e. P.W.11 head constable, who was attached to Asaripallam Police Station at the relevant period, recorded the statement given by P.W.1 around 5.30 p.m. Ex.p.1 is the statement given by P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.11 prepared a printed F.I.R., Ex.P.14, and sent Ex.P.1 and F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagercoil. e. P.W.11 head constable, who was attached to Asaripallam Police Station at the relevant period, recorded the statement given by P.W.1 around 5.30 p.m. Ex.p.1 is the statement given by P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.11 prepared a printed F.I.R., Ex.P.14, and sent Ex.P.1 and F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagercoil. f. On receipt of the information from P.W.11 around 18.30 hours, P.W.14 immediately proceeded to the occurrence spot with police personnel. On reaching the place of occurrence, he prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.4 Kaja Mohideen and Gani. He has also drawn a rough sketch Ex.P.15. g. In furtherance of the investigation, P.W.14 sent a message to the photographer P.W.9 to take photos of the dead body and material objects which were available at the occurrence spot. As per the instructions given by P.W.14, P.W.9 photographer took photos at the occurrence spot.M.O.7 series are photos and M.O.8 series are negatives. Then, P.W.14 conducted inquest over the dead body of Magadevan in the presence of the witnesses and prepared an inquest report. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. h. To know the cause of the death of the deceased, P.W.14, entrusted the dead body of Magadevan to the police constable P.W.12. While doing so, P.W.14 gave a requisition letter Ex.P.6 to the doctor for conducting post mortem. As per the instructions given by P.W.14, P.W.12 handed over the requisition letter Ex.P.6 to the doctor P.W.7. i. On receipt of the said letter from P.W.12, P.W.7 conducted post mortem on the next day on 9.10.1995 around 12.30 hours. During the course of post mortem examination, he found the following injuries. "External Examination: 1) Incised wound over the left mandibular region extending to the middle of the neck about 7" x 2" x ½" in size exposing the muscles and mandible left side. 2) Incised wound over the base of the neck about 8" x 3" x 3" in size cutting all the muscles of the neck and all the blood vessels of the neck trachea and oesophagus and C6 cervical vertibra hanging with the skin. 3) Incised wound over the chest below the 2nd wound transverse in direction about 6" x ½" x 1" in size exposing the muscles and sternum and cutting the 2nd rib left side. 4) Incised wound over the epigastrium transverse in direction 1 ½" x 1" x ½" in size. 3) Incised wound over the chest below the 2nd wound transverse in direction about 6" x ½" x 1" in size exposing the muscles and sternum and cutting the 2nd rib left side. 4) Incised wound over the epigastrium transverse in direction 1 ½" x 1" x ½" in size. Fracture of the 8th rib both right and left side. Heart – 250 gm. Chamber empty cut section pale. Lungs – Right 400 gms, Left 350 gm cut section pale. Hyoid bone broken. Stomach – 250 gm. contain 100 ml black coloured fluid present. Liver – 1300 gm cut section pale Spleen weight 100 gms cut section pale. Eath kidneys 125 gms cut section pale. Brain 1300 gm cut section pale. Opinion as to cause of death: The deceased would appear to have died of injury neck and other injuries. The Death would have occurred about 18 to 30 hours prior to post-mortem." j. P.W.7 issued a post mortem report Ex.P.7. After the post mortem was over, P.W.12 removed M.O.9 to 15 from the dead body of Magadevan and handed over the same to the Inspector. k. In furtherance of the said investigation, P.W.14 collected bloodstained graze M.O.5 and ordinary earth M.O.6. Further, he also recovered M.Os.2 and 3. The said recovery was effected in the presence of witnesses under the cover of Athatchi Ex.P.4. The cycle M.O.4, which was found inside the tank, was also recovered by P.W.14 under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.5. He enquired the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. l. Meanwhile, P.W.14 came to know about the surrender of A1 before the Court. He took the custody of A1 from the Court for the purpose of enquiry and recovery. He enquired A1 in the presence of witnesses P.W.8 and Pandara Nadar, who were present at the police station at the time of enquiry. In the presence of P.W.8 and Pandara Nadar, A1 gave a confession statement. The admissible portion of the confession statement is Ex.P.8. As per Ex.P.8, P.W.14 and the mahazar witnesses accompanied A1 to Beer Mohamad Coconut Thopu. A1 entered into coconut thopu and took a knife from the place where he hide it and handed over the same to P.W.14. P.W.14 recovered M.O.1 from A1 in the presence of P.W.8 and Pandara Nadar under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.9. As per Ex.P.8, P.W.14 and the mahazar witnesses accompanied A1 to Beer Mohamad Coconut Thopu. A1 entered into coconut thopu and took a knife from the place where he hide it and handed over the same to P.W.14. P.W.14 recovered M.O.1 from A1 in the presence of P.W.8 and Pandara Nadar under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.9. m. P.W.14, thereafter, sent a requisition letter to P.W.10 Head clerk attached to Judicial Magistrate Court and asked him to forward the material objects for finding out the blood group. Ex.P.10 is the requisition letter given by P.W.14. P.W.10 forwarded the material objects, which were recovered by P.W.14 at the time of investigation, to forensic laboratory. After the analysis was over, he received chemical report Ex.P.12 and serological report Ex.P.13. n. Meanwhile P.W.14 retired from service. P.W.15 continued the investigation. He enquired the doctor Ashok, who has given treatment to A1. He also received a wound certificate Ex.P.17. After the completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. 3. On the side of the prosecution fifteen witnesses have been examined, seventeen exhibits were filed and fifteen material objects were marked. 4. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not examine any witness on their side. 5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come forward with this appeal. 6. Based on certain infirmities found in the prosecution case, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would emphasise the following points for consideration. 7. According to the learned counsel, the following infirmities would very much affect the root of the prosecution case and in such circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge against these appellants are not sustainable under law. 8. The learned counsel would contend that P.W.1 could not have present and accompanied with the deceased at the relevant point of time. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel would point out that in the F.I.R. Ex.P.14, it is clearly stated that Asirpallam Police Station is situated 2 kilometres away from the place of occurrence. 8. The learned counsel would contend that P.W.1 could not have present and accompanied with the deceased at the relevant point of time. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel would point out that in the F.I.R. Ex.P.14, it is clearly stated that Asirpallam Police Station is situated 2 kilometres away from the place of occurrence. In such circumstances, P.W.1 who claimed to be present and accompanied with the deceased, could have very much lodged a complaint immediately after the occurrence was over for the reason that the police station is situated very near to the place of occurrence, i.e. two kilometres from the place of occurrence. However, it is stated by P.W.1 that after the occurrence was over, she has gone to Mayam village, wherein, her brother-in-law Rajamurthy was residing. She would state that she got the bus at Nagercoil bus stand from where she proceeded to Mayam village and met Rajamurthy and informed the same to him. 10. One another reason stated by P.W.1 is that after the said occurrence, since she did not know how to lodge a complaint upon the incident before the police station and also did not find any person to assist her for lodging the complaint and in such circumstances, finding no other alternative, she met her brother-in-law, who is residing at Mayam village and that there has been delay in lodging the complaint Ex.P.1. 11. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that even though the said delay as referred in Ex.P.1 by P.W.1 and also she has explained the reason for the delay in lodging the complaint while adducing evidence, the explanation given by her while adducing evidence as well as the reasons referred in Ex.P.1 could not be taken into consideration for the reason that such explanation and reason can be given by any person in an ordinary circumstances. 12. It is further emphasised by the learned counsel that if P.W.1 would have gone to Mayam village and met her brother-in-law Rajamurthy, she could have very well met him even prior to 5.30 p.m. These circumstances would reveal that it is more improbable for P.W.1 to be present and accompanied with the deceased at the relevant time. 13. Further, the learned counsel would contend that P.W.1’s evidence could not be relied on, as it is not a trustworthy one and not corroborated by other witnesses. 14. 13. Further, the learned counsel would contend that P.W.1’s evidence could not be relied on, as it is not a trustworthy one and not corroborated by other witnesses. 14. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would point out that on a overall consideration of the evidence adduced by P.W.1 would reveal that her evidence could not be relied on and moreover her evidence is not a trustworthy one. 15. It is emphasised that P.W.1 happens to be the sister of the deceased Magadevan, she is residing at Seedapal village. On 8.10.1995 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 came to the house of P.W.3 to take her son Muthukumar, who came there to spend holidays. However, since her mother informed that she would send her grandson on the next day, she returned to Seedapal along with the deceased. 16. It is stated that for catching the bus her brother Magadevan accompanied with her and both of them proceeded to bus stand. Even though, P.W.3 also corroborated this reason in her evidence, this reason could have been corroborated by the proper person concerned with this fact. To prove this fact, the son of P.W.1 could have been examined by the investigating officer. The non examination of her son, to prove this fact, is a fatal one and that would pave the way to infer that the reason stated by P.W.1 and P.W.3 is only to fill up the lacunae. When P.W.1's evidence is not corroborated by other witnesses as to the occurrence, it is not proper and desirable on the part of the learned Sessions Judge for arriving at such a conclusion that P.W.1 is a trustworthy witness. 17. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the following three decisions for consideration. 1. Asan Mohideen Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District (Crl.A.No.26 of 2002) 2. Mangilal & Others Vs. State of Madya Pradesh (1990 (3) Crimes 395). 3. Chinniah Servai Vs. The State of Madras ((S) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 (V 44 C 91 Sept.). 18. With regard to common object, the prosecution has not established the case against the appellants. 19. Mangilal & Others Vs. State of Madya Pradesh (1990 (3) Crimes 395). 3. Chinniah Servai Vs. The State of Madras ((S) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 (V 44 C 91 Sept.). 18. With regard to common object, the prosecution has not established the case against the appellants. 19. In this regard, the learned counsel would state that it is a case of the prosecution that on seeing the deceased on Parvathipuram road near the junction of Christopher colony, all the accused stood in front of Gani beef stall and A1 shouted and cried that they should not leave him today. By saying so, all the persons obstructed Magadevan from proceeding further towards eastern direction. However, Magadevan attempted to escape from the clutches of the accused. When he tried to ran to the extent of 50 feet on the eastern side, all the persons again surrounded him and prevented him from proceeding further. Meanwhile, A1 attacked Magadevan with Aruval and inflicted several injuries. When A6 attempted to attack Magadevan and due to the missing of such attack, A1 sustained injury on his head. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is that all the accused have got the common object of killing Magadevan. 20. In this connection, the learned counsel would emphasise that though A6 was carrying Aruval in his hand, he has not committed any overt act on the deceased. Apart from that the other accused excepting to encircle Magadevan from proceeding further they have not assaulted Magadevan either by hand or by any weapons. 21. Further, even though the prosecution has stated that A6 was carrying Aruval in his hand at the time of occurrence, the investigating officer P.W.14 has not recovered any weapon from him. Further, the weapon, which was alleged to have been recovered from A1 by P.W.14 in the coconut thopu of Beer Mohamed in the presence of the witnesses, is not a blood stained weapon. 22. In such circumstances, unless the common object to attack Magadevan by all the accused is proved, or the same is corroborated by other witnesses, it is not correct and fair on the part of the learned Sessions Judge for arriving a conclusion that the charge under Section 149 against all the accused, excluding A1, has been proved. 23. 22. In such circumstances, unless the common object to attack Magadevan by all the accused is proved, or the same is corroborated by other witnesses, it is not correct and fair on the part of the learned Sessions Judge for arriving a conclusion that the charge under Section 149 against all the accused, excluding A1, has been proved. 23. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that except A5 all other accused, namely, A1 and A2,A3 and A4, A6 and A7 are brothers. Because of all the accused are brothers, as stated above, without any materials, they have been implicated in this case. Unless the common object of murdering Magadevan by all the accused is proved and the same fact has been corroborated by other witnesses, A2 to A7 cannot be convicted under Section 149 I.P.C. and therefore, the conviction under Section 149 I.P.C against A2 to A7 is not sustainable under law. 24. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the following decision for consideration. a. A Division Bench of this Court in ANDI and Others Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station (Crl.A.No.708 of 1995), has held as follows: "It is the prosecution case that all the accused went to the scene of occurrence and having seen the deceased there, A2 instigated others to attack and thereby, A3 stabbed the deceased on his back and flank while A4 and A7 held him. Since even according to the prosecution, before the fatal attack may be A3, there was a quarrel between the prosecution party including the deceased and the accused party and subsequently, the accused, who went away, came back. Therefore, in such circumstances, we do not feel that it has really necessitated for one to instigate another to attack and it is only because of that instigation, the other person has attacked the deceased. Consequently, we feel that the words uttered by A2, may not be, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case, given much importance. Likewise, we also feel that when the deceased was totally unarmed and A3, all of a sudden armed with a knife and attacks, the evidence is not clear as to how or which part of the body, A4 and A7 held the deceased. Merely stating that they held the deceased, in our opinion, would not indicate that they had really participated in the incident. Merely stating that they held the deceased, in our opinion, would not indicate that they had really participated in the incident. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that A1, A2, A4 and A4 would not have shared the common object of attacking the deceased and consequently, we give the benefit of doubt to those accused and acquit them." 25. Further, the case of the prosecution is that before proceeding to catch the bus by P.W.1 and Magadevan, both of them took meals in their home around 12.30 hours. If the evidence adduced by P.W.1 is a trustworthy one and if really P.W.1 and Magadevan could have taken lunch as stated by P.W.1 in the house of P.W.3 around 12.30 hours, then undigested food particles could have been found in the stomach of the Magadevan. However, P.W.7 doctor, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Magadevan did not find any undigested food particles in the stomach portion, whereas he found some black fluid inside the stomach. Therefore, it can be ruled out that she had taken meals along with her brother Magadevan at the relevant point of time. 26. Moreover, there are so many contradictions in the evidences of prosecution case. With regard to the place where the dead body was found, P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.14 have stated different versions. In fact, with regard to the recovery of cycle M.O.4, what was stated by P.W.1 is also not supporting the prosecution case. 27. It is pointed out that P.W.1’s evidence differs from observation mahazar and rough sketch with regard to spreading of blood. According to P.W.1, as soon as the attack on Magadevan was over, all the accused lifted the dead body of Magadevan and thrown it into the down portion of the road side and the blood was spreading from the place of occurrence and to the place to which the dead body was thrown. However, P.W.14 has not furnished any information in the sketch drawn by him as well as no version has been stated by P.W.14 in the observation mahazar. 28. It is further stated by the learned counsel that no direct evidence has been adduced by the prosecution witnesses to prove the motive. It is pointed out that, with regard to illegal intimacy with one Rajam by the deceased, P.W.1 has stated this fact. 28. It is further stated by the learned counsel that no direct evidence has been adduced by the prosecution witnesses to prove the motive. It is pointed out that, with regard to illegal intimacy with one Rajam by the deceased, P.W.1 has stated this fact. According to P.W.1, after knowing the illegal affair of Magadevan with Rajam, A1 and his associates were attempted to have the affair with Rajam. Since the said Rajam refused to have such affair with A1 and his associates and the matter was brought to the knowledge of Magadevan by Rajam, Magadevan questioned A1 and thereby enmity was developed between Magadevan and A1 and his associates. With regard to motive, P.W.1 has also stated in Ex.P.1. However, this fact has not been corroborated by examining the person directly concerned with that affair. 29. Emphasising the above stated infirmities found in the prosecution case, the learned counsel would submit that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge against these appellants are not sustainable under law and are liable to be set aside. 30. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the delay in lodging F.I.R. by P.W.1 is properly explained by P.W.1 herself in Ex.P.1. This fact has been discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would emphasise that P.W.1 is a woman, who did not know the procedure as to how a complaint could be lodged before the police and also she did not find any person to assist her for lodging the complaint before the police. In such circumstances, P.W.1 happens to be an ordinary woman and did not posses sufficient knowledge, she thought that it would be better to meet her brother-in-law, who is residing at Mayam village and accordingly, she proceeded to meet him at Mayam village, where she narrated the incident to her brother-in-law Rajamurthy and thereafter, both of them went to the Asaripallam police station, where she gave a statement before P.W.11. Therefore, the reasons for causing such delay are properly explained by the prosecution witnesses. In such circumstances, such delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. 31. With regard to motive, the evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.Ws.5 and 6. Therefore, the reasons for causing such delay are properly explained by the prosecution witnesses. In such circumstances, such delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. 31. With regard to motive, the evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.Ws.5 and 6. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that no motive has been proved. 32. With regard to the medical evidence adduced by P.W.7, it is pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.W.1 has not stated that they have taken a particular kind of food. If P.W.1 would have stated that both her brother Magadevan and she have taken rice and other food items, then definitely undigested food particles would be found in the stomach of the deceased. Unless it is stated by P.W.1, that a particular kind of food item has been taken by both of them, such contention could not be raised by stating that the medical evidence is not supported the prosecution case. 33. In support of his contention that P.W.1 is a reliable witness, he relied on the decision in UNION OF INDIA VS. PAUL MANICKAM AND ANOTHER (2004 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRL)239). 34. It is further pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there was no enmity between P.W.1 and A1 and his associates. Therefore, based on the strong motive, all the accused persons joined together with the common object and attacked the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. This fact has been clearly established. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the case. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge, found them guilty under the charges framed against them and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. 35. On a careful analysis of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to non corroboration of the evidence adduced by P.W.1 by other witnesses and the delay in lodging the complaint by P.W.1 before P.W.11 after causing inordinate delay which would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case that P.W.1 could not have present in the house of P.W.3 at the relevant time and she accompanied with the deceased around 1.00 p.m. 36. Further, the reason for causing such delay in lodging the complaint before P.W.11 is also not satisfactory. 37. Further, the reason for causing such delay in lodging the complaint before P.W.11 is also not satisfactory. 37. As already discussed above, after the occurrence was over, even if P.W.1 intended to meet her brother-in-law and wanted to lodge a complaint after informing the same to him, such delay could have not been caused. If the reason stated by P.W.1 is a reliable one and the same is based on sound reasoning, she would have very well returned to the police station along with her brother-in-law even prior to 5.30 hours as stated by her when considering the distance. Therefore, the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 before P.W.11 creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. 38. In this case, above all, P.W.1 is the sole and interested witness, who is said to have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased. When there are infirmities in the prosecution case, in lodging the complaint with inordinate delay and in proving the motive and common object, relying on the sole evidence of P.W.1, when whose credence also debunked by the defence and when the same was not refuted by corroborating evidence of P.W.1 by the prosecution, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be said to be a reliable one. As already discussed above, the prosecution should have examined P.W.1's son Muthukumar and the said Rajam and an independent eye witness to the occurrence. The non-examination of such witnesses is really fatal to the prosecution case and therefore, we are of the view that it is unsafe to rely on the sole and unreliable evidence of P.W.1 for confirming the judgment of the Court below. Further, this Court is of the view that when convicting the accused for the offence committed punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., or like any other offence, such conviction should be based on reliable, corroborated oral and documentary evidence coupled with circumstantial evidence. Any cut in the above linking would only be a fatal to the prosecution case. 39. In this regard, the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Mangilal & Others Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1990(3) Crimes 395) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 40. Any cut in the above linking would only be a fatal to the prosecution case. 39. In this regard, the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Mangilal & Others Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1990(3) Crimes 395) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 40. In the above decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "In this case except the evidence of P.W.1 an interested witness, we do not find any other evidence which atleast gives some assurance. On this kind of evidence, we think, it is highly dangerous to convict as many as nine persons when there are strong circumstances to show that so many of them would not have participated. In this case there is no way of separating the grain from the chaff in as much as even the overt act attributed to appellant No.1 Mangilal also becomes doubtful in the light of the medical evidence." 41. On a careful analysis of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and also considering the submissions advanced by either side and following the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the view that it is not safe, proper and correct to convict the accused under the charges framed against them solely relying on the unreliable and interested witness, especially when the same is coupled with infirmities. 42. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge are not sustainable under law and are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated above. 43. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.97 of 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil and thereby A1 to A7 are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds executed by A2 to A7 shall stand discharged.