Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. These appeals are by the convicted accused in S.C.No.658/1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Altogether seven persons were involved in the occurrence, according to the prosecution. Out of them, the fifth accused passed away and the second accused was absconding. Therefore, the remaining five, viz., A-1, A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-7 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. All of them have been found guilty of the said offences except that punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. On such conviction, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 each under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for various terms ranging from 15 days to six months on other counts of offences. The conviction and sentence are assailed in these appeals. 2. The prosecution case was that the accused persons attacked deceased Babu, P.W. 2 and C.W. 6 Sugathan who were riding a scooter when they reached at Chala in Thiruvananthapuram at about 3 p.m. on 4-12-1998. They were going to take orders for some work relating to rolling shutters. According to the prosecution case, accused 2 and 4 first approached the said three persons followed by the other accused. There were deadly weapons like sword and knife in the hands of the accused persons who stood around the said three persons. They came from the shop owned by accused No.1 Kannan. Accused No.2 stabbed on the left side of the abdomen of Babu and accused No.7 hit on his back. Accused No.2 also inflicted a stab injury on the right side of his chest and accused No.3 inflicted yet another stab injury on the right side of his abdomen. Cut injuries were also inflicted by accused 5 and 6 on various parts of the body of said Babu and finally accused No.1 inflicted a cut injury on his head and back of his neck. The Police Flying Squad, who reached the scene of occurrence, took Babu to Medical College Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Ext. P-1 F.I. Statement was given by P.W.1, brother of deceased Babu. On going through Ext.P-1 it is seen that C.W.6 Sugathan had told P.W.1 about the incident and that in the incident C.W.6 had also sustained injuries. The Police Flying Squad, who reached the scene of occurrence, took Babu to Medical College Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Ext. P-1 F.I. Statement was given by P.W.1, brother of deceased Babu. On going through Ext.P-1 it is seen that C.W.6 Sugathan had told P.W.1 about the incident and that in the incident C.W.6 had also sustained injuries. P.W.1 verified the fact from the Medical College Hospital over telephone and came to know that his brother Babu was no more. He, therefore, went to the Police Station and reported the matter. P.W.14 had taken down the statement and registered Ext.P-1 (a) F.I.R. based on that statement. P.W.15 conducted investigation and after questioning the witnesses, he laid the charges. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 15, Exts.P-1 to P-24 and material objects identified as M.Os.1 to 18 on the side of prosecution. Ext.D-1 a portion of the statement of P.W.2, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked on the side of the defendants. 3. P.W.2 to 9 were cited as occurrence witnesses. Out of them, P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution in toto. The prosecution could not make out anything from out of the testimony of P.Ws.3 to 9. P.W. 11, the Doctor conducted the post- mortem and prepared Ext.P-5 post-mortem certificate. She had stated that injuries Nos.1 to 4 sustained on the abdomen, chest and head were the cause of death and that those injuries should have been inflicted using a knife. Her testimony corroborates the testimony given by P.W.1 before the court below. Recoveries of the weapons of offences were effected on the basis of the disclosure statements made by the respective accused. That includes M.O.1 sword recovered from the upstairs of the shop of accused No.1. Appreciating the evidence on record, the court below found that the appellants/accused were guilty and have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. It is contended by the appellant that even going by the Judgment of the .court below "the only evidence regarding the incident in which Babu sustained injuries to which he succumbed and the complicity of the accused in that incident is the oral testimony of P.W.2". There was nothing on record to corroborate his testimony. It is submitted that Ext.P-1 F.I. Statement could not reveal the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence. There was nothing on record to corroborate his testimony. It is submitted that Ext.P-1 F.I. Statement could not reveal the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence. It is further submitted that if Sugathan had told P.W.1 that accused persons obstructed two persons, necessarily there cannot have the presence of third one, P.W.2. If so Sugathan would have told P.W.1 that all the three were prevented from proceeding by the accused persons. But Ext.P.1 mentions about the obstruction only of two persons. This causes a doubt with reference to the presence of P.W.2 or his accompanying the deceased and C.W.6 Sugathan. It is submitted that the only piece of evidence is the testimony of P.W.2 and the recovery of the weapon from the upstairs of shop owned by accused No.1. Normally that would have been sufficient, but in a case like this, where the presence of P.W.2 is doubtful, it was incumbent upon the trial court to seek further forceful corroboration to the evidence of P.W.2, the counsel for the appellants submits. 5. It is further submitted that P.W.2 was not a stranger to Sugathan C.W.6 or deceased Babu. Going by the versions of P.W.2 before the court below, it is seen that he was a co-worker of the deceased. He was a close relative of the deceased being the brother of his brother-in-law and a close neighbour of the deceased as well P.W.2 had categorically stated before the court below that after seeing the incident, he had fled away from the scene of occurrence. He had never told this fact to the residence of the deceased or to his relatives. It is submitted that this is not a natural conduct of a person who accompanied the deceased to the scene of occurrence and who was working with the deceased and who was a close relative or neighbour to him. Therefore, P.W.2 is not a trustworthy witness. He is wholly unreliable. 6. It is further submitted by the counsel that going by Ext.P-1 F.I. Statement C.W.6 had also sustained injuries in the occurrence in which Babu died. Necessarily, there shall be a charge against the accused for inflicting at least a minor injury on the said Sugathan. This is absent in this case. Added to this, is the non-examination of Sugathan, an injured witness, who claims to be an occurrence witness. Necessarily, there shall be a charge against the accused for inflicting at least a minor injury on the said Sugathan. This is absent in this case. Added to this, is the non-examination of Sugathan, an injured witness, who claims to be an occurrence witness. He could have directly spoken to the occurrence and that would have been an aiding factor. The non-examination of C.W. 6, who had been cited by the prosecution, thus emerges importance, it is submitted by the counsel relying on the decision reported in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1209 and Thulai Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1973 S.C.501. Thus the counsel submits that when the evidence of P.W.2 is thus unbelievable, it cannot be relied on without due corroboration. Necessarily there is no evidence on record to find the accused guilty. So this is a case where there is no evidence with regard to the occurrence, counsel submits. 7. It is also submitted that as the accused are charged with the offences alleged with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C., to form an unlawfully assembly under Section 149 I.P.C., there should have been a common object for them. Going by the case revealed by P.W.2 before the court below, Babu along with Sugathan and P.W.2, were going to visit their customer for getting orders of work. It was not their regular journey for work. They were free-lance workshop owners. In such circumstances, the accused could not have thought of the said three persons coming through dig way. So that also improbabilise the prosecution case, counsel submits. The motive alleged by the prosecution for the occurrence is the incident that was alleged to have happened on 28-11-1998, when one among the accused persons, Kirosh, inflicted an injury on the brother of the deceased. But there is no evidence on record to show that the other accused are, in any way, related to accused No.2 or are his close friends, to wreak vengeance of such an incident. Therefore, the motive alleged by the prosecution is also of no avail, it is submitted. 8. The Public Prosecutor submits that it is not always necessary that the prosecution should examine all the witnesses, when there is sufficient evidence through one among the witnesses cited. The prosecution need not examine all the witnesses wasting the precious time of the court. Therefore, the motive alleged by the prosecution is also of no avail, it is submitted. 8. The Public Prosecutor submits that it is not always necessary that the prosecution should examine all the witnesses, when there is sufficient evidence through one among the witnesses cited. The prosecution need not examine all the witnesses wasting the precious time of the court. Therefore, the non-examination of C.W.6 Sugathan cannot be taken as a ground to attack the evidence of P.W.2. Both P.W.2 and C.W.6 were the occurrence witnesses, out of whom P.W.2 had been examined and there is nothing unbelievable in his evidence. Sufficient corroboration of P.W.2 can be gathered from the recovery of the weapon. Therefore, there is no reason for interference in this case, the Public Prosecutor submits. 9. Admittedly, P.W.1 had not seen the occurrence and the only available evidence is the testimony of P.W.2. P.W.2 speaks about the presence of Sugathan, C.W.6. P.W.1 says that the incident had been informed to him by none other than that C.W.6 Sugathan. It is also revealed from Ext. P-1 that the said Sugathan was also injured in the said incident. Necessarily, Sugathan is a material witness in this case as compared to P.W.2, who had admittedly fled from the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident had started. When Sugathan had sustained injuries, necessarily, Sugathan had been, at the scene of occurrence for more time than P.W. 2. Therefore, C.W.6 is the most material witness in this case. It has been held by the Apex Court in Thulai Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 501 that non-examination of the material witness, in such circumstances, can lead to an inference against the prosecution. Apart from being a material witness, he is an injured witness. Whenever there is an injured witness, necessarily he shall not be kept away from the court as he can speak much about the occurrence. In this regard, the counsel for the appellants is justified in relying on the decision reported in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 2000 S.C.C. 1209 it is held: "It is again in the aforesaid context that we have to evaluate the impact of the non-examination of Ram Lakhan Yadav. When four witnesses were examined to speak to the occurrence normally non-examination of one more witness is not a serious flaw. When four witnesses were examined to speak to the occurrence normally non-examination of one more witness is not a serious flaw. But in this case non-examination of Ram Lakhan Yadav cannot be sidelined with such a reasoning. This is because it was Ram Lakhan Yadav who set fire to the hay-stack, in the light of which flames the culprits were identified; and it was Ram Lakhan Yadav who was first attacked by the dacoits, and it was Ram Lakhan Yadav who had seen the dacoits earlier than any other person connected with victims house. What he would have said about the identity of the dacoits cannot now be left in surmise. If he also had said that all the dacoits were unknown persons it would have had a very deleterious impact on the veracity of the four witnesses who pointed to the three appellants as the dacoits." Non-examination of C.W.6 is, thus, exactly like the non-examination of Ramlaken Yadav who was attacked by dacoits in Kolvant's case. Necessarily, the non-examination of C.W.6 causes much doubt in this case. 10. It is, in this background, we have to view the evidence of P.W.2, who claims to be an occurrence witness. As already mentioned above, he was a co-worker, a relative and a close neighbour of the deceased. Apart from that, he was also traveling along with deceased and C.W.6. A person like P.W.2, with such close relation to the deceased, would necessarily inform the kith and kins of the deceased or at least in his residence about the incident. If not, he would have rushed to the police station to inform about the occurrence. He had specifically deposed that he had not done it. This causes a very serious doubt about the details spoken to by P.W.2. Therefore, the evidence given by P.W.2 does not repose confidence in the court that he is a wholly reliable witness. 11. When the only occurrence witness is thus not wholly trustworthy, necessarily reliance placed on such sole evidence to convict the five accused persons with a sentence of life imprisonment has to be very cautious. Any court has therefore, to seek corroboration in material particulars in respect of the aspects spoken to by such witnesses. The only corroboration that the court below had found is the recovery of M.O.1 weapon from the upstairs of the shop of accused No.1. Any court has therefore, to seek corroboration in material particulars in respect of the aspects spoken to by such witnesses. The only corroboration that the court below had found is the recovery of M.O.1 weapon from the upstairs of the shop of accused No.1. That weapon did contain bloodstains which has been identified as belonging to 'O' group. Of course, the version given by P.W.11 is that the blood of the deceased was also of the same group. It has also come out in evidence that accused No.1 also got injured. The prosecution had not taken care to identify the blood group of accused No.1. There is no evidence on record to show that the blood group of accused No.1 is not of 'O' group. So the presence of blood of 'O' group on the weapon said to have been recovered allegedly based on the disclosure of accused No.1 cannot be taken as a strong piece of evidence. It is in this regard, the non-examination of C.W.6 emerges much importance. 12. Added to this, is the doubt about the identity of accused No.2, who is styled as Kannan. But his name is Chandra Prasad. P.W.2 had identified Chandra Prasad as Kannan in the court below. Ext.P-7 site plan specifically shows that there is a flower shop of Chandra Prasad and there is another shop owned by Kannan. Even though one is behind the other, in the wake of doubt cast on the version spoken to by P.W.2 and of non-examination of C.W.6, this aspect also creates some doubt. 13. It is in this back ground, the evidence of P.W.2 has to be re-appreciated. He said that Malayalam (there was altercation involving several persons at the place of occurrence) Malayalam also (Several persons assembled there). It is in this respect the injury sustained by accused No.1 and injury said to be sustained by C.W.6 have to be considered. So the evidence of P.W.2, about the occurrence without due corroboration, has to be viewed with much suspicion. It cannot by itself alone form the basis of conviction. 14. Ext.P-1 discloses that P.W.1 got information about the incident from C.W.6 who said about the accused persons preventing two persons and that he also got injured. Necessarily, the said two persons prevented shall be the deceased and C.W.6. It cannot by itself alone form the basis of conviction. 14. Ext.P-1 discloses that P.W.1 got information about the incident from C.W.6 who said about the accused persons preventing two persons and that he also got injured. Necessarily, the said two persons prevented shall be the deceased and C.W.6. Had there been P.W.2 also along with them, C.W.6 would have told P.W.1 about three persons being prevented by the accused. Thus the presence of P.W.2 of the scene of occurrence is also doubtful. 15. In the wake of this analysis, we are of the view that them is-no cogent, evidence in this cm to bring home the guilt of the accused. So we cannot find them guilty, based solely, on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.2, whose presence itself is also doubtful. Accordingly the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants, who are accused in S.C.No.658/1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad hoc) No.II, Thiruvananthapuram, are set aside. They are found not guilty. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not wanted in connection with any other case. Appeals are allowed.