Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. The appellant, who is the second accused in the case, has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C.No. 258 of 1995 by the judgment dated 19.2.1999, convicted him for the offences under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. There are totally 30 accused in this case. A9, A11, A13, A14, A16 to A30 have been charged under Section 147 I.P.C.. A1 to A8, A15 have been charged under Section 148 I.P.C. A1 to A3 have been charged under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and they have also been charged under Section 324, I.P.C. in respect of causing injury to P.Ws. 3 to 4 and the deceased. A4 has been charged under Section 324 in respect of causing injury to P.W.2. A5 and A6 have been charged under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in respect of attacking P.W.3. A2 has been charged under Section 307 I.P.C. in respect of attacking P.W.3. A3 has been charged under Section 324 I.P.C in respect of attacking P.W.4. A7 has been charged under Section 324 I.P.C. attacking one witness Malarkodi (not examined). A9 and A10 have been charged under Section 427 I.P.C. in respect of causing damage to the shop of P.W.2. A9 and A10 have been charged under Section 427 I.P.C. in respect of causing damage to the house of one Koolaian @ Periasamy (not examined). A9 to A11, A13 and A14 have been charged under Section 427 I.P.C. in respect of causing damage to the house of one Anjaliammal (not examined). A1 to A4, A11 and A16 to A18 have been charged under Section 341 I.P.C. for wrongly restraining the deceased. A1 and A2 have been charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing death of the deceased. A3 to A11 and A13 to A30 have been charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 3. A1 to A4, A11 and A16 to A18 have been charged under Section 341 I.P.C. for wrongly restraining the deceased. A1 and A2 have been charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing death of the deceased. A3 to A11 and A13 to A30 have been charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 3. The learned trial Judge, disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, acquitted all the accused in respect of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The learnedtrial Judge in respect of the charge No. 14 against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. acquitted A1 and convicted the second accused under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. 4. Theprosecution version, as unfolded during the trial, is as follows: (a) The deceased and A1 are residents of the same street at Senthamangalam village. The deceased is the uncle of P.W.1 P.W.6 if the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 is the brothers son of P.W.1. A1 and A2 are brothers. (b) A1 expressed his desire to marry one Dhanam, daughter of P.W.1. P.W.1 refused to give his daughter in marriage to the first accused. Therefore, there were strained feelings between P.W.1 and the accused party. There was a case prior to the occurrence against A3 and 13 (sic) that they have assaulted P.W.1s uncles son one Chelladurai. There was another case pending prior to the occurrence that A3, A8 and A11 attacked P.W.3. Three days prior to the occurrence due to the clash between political parties, police band-o-bast was arranged and police officials were present at the scene even on the date of occurrence, as per the prosecution case. On the same date of occurrence i.e. on 17.9.1990 at 6.30 p.m., P.Ws. 3 and 4 were taking tea at the shop of P.W.2, wife of P.W.1. At that time A19, A22, A26 and A29, all women along with four other ladies came to the shop of P.W.2 and quarrelled with P.W.2 and others. At that time a mob of 100 persons came to that place. The police officials prevented them. But they were not able to control the accused persons and the mob. At that time A19, A22, A26 and A29, all women along with four other ladies came to the shop of P.W.2 and quarrelled with P.W.2 and others. At that time a mob of 100 persons came to that place. The police officials prevented them. But they were not able to control the accused persons and the mob. A1 to A3 came in front of the crowd of 100 persons and each one of them threw country bombs on P.W.2s shop. Due to the throwing of country bomb P.W.3 sustained injury on his left side back. P.W.4 also sustained an injury on his finger on the leg. A2 stabbed P.W.3 with iron crowbar, M.O.1 on his neck. A5 also stabbed P.W.3 with crowbar. A3 cut P.W.4 with Koduval. A4 also cut P.W.2 on his thigh and leg. A8 stabbed P.W.2 on her chest. A6 beat P.W.3 on his right hand with stick. At that time, A3 brought a stick, P.W.1 frightened and ran towards the police station which is nearer to the scene. The deceased also followed P.W.1. At that time one Palanisamy, police constable, was present at the police station. The bus stand is also just nearer to the police station and while P.W.1 came near the bus stand, he was chased by A1 to A11. All the accused surrounded the deceased. A2 stabbed the deceased on his back with crowbar. A1 cut the deceased on his right hand. A2 had taken the Koduval form A4 and cut the deceased on his head. A3 and A6 also beat the deceased with stick. The deceased fell down and swooned. P.W.1 thereafter went inside the Senthamangalam police station and gave a written report, Ex.P.1, to the Inspector of Police, P.W.18, at 7.30 p.m. on 17.9.1990. (c) P.W.18 received the written report, Ex.P.1, and registered the case in Crime No. 634 of 1990 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 286, 427 and 307 I.P.C. He prepared Express F.I.R., Ex.P.23, and sent the same to the higher officials and to the Court. (d) The Doctor, P.W.14, attached to the Government Hospital, Namakkal, examined the deceased on 17.9.1990 at 8.50 p.m. brought by his wife, P.W.6. He found the following injuries on the deceased: (1) A stab injury 2 cm × 1 cm opening into the thorax right side back below scapula. (d) The Doctor, P.W.14, attached to the Government Hospital, Namakkal, examined the deceased on 17.9.1990 at 8.50 p.m. brought by his wife, P.W.6. He found the following injuries on the deceased: (1) A stab injury 2 cm × 1 cm opening into the thorax right side back below scapula. (2) A lacerated wound 4 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm right upper arm middle third. (3) A lacerated wound 3 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm over vertex. (4) A lacerated wound 3 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm middle third of right upper arm posterior aspect. Ex.P.12 is the Accident Register. On the same day at 9.05 a.m. the Doctor, P.W.14, examined P.W.3 andfound the following injuries: (1) A diffused swelling 2 cm × 1 cm over which abrasion left side neck. (2) Abrasion 1 cm × 1 cm left side back over scapula upper border. (3) A lacerated wound 1 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm over diffused swelling left side back below scapula. (4) A lacerated wound 2 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm left forearm 3 cm below elbow. Ex.P.13 is the Accident Register. P.W.14 also issued Ex.P.14 wound certificate in respect of P.W.3. On the same day at 10.00 p.m. he examined one Malarkodi and found the following injuries on her: (1) A lacerated wound 5 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm left side parietal region of the scalp. (2) Complaint of pain over the lower back. Ex.P.15 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.16 is the wound certificate in respect of the said Malarkodi. On the same day at 10.15 p.m. the Doctor, P.W.14 examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries on P.W.2: An incised wound 5 cm × 2 cm × 1 cm on lower half of left thigh anteriorly. Ex.P.17 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.18 is the wound certificate in respect of P.W.2. On the same day i.e. on 17.9.1990 at 10.50 p.m. the Doctor, P.W.14, examined P.W.4 and found the following injuries on him: (1) A lacerated wound 2 cm × 1 cm × 0.3 cm over right foot base of big toe dorsum. (2) Multiple minor abrasion all over the right and left knee joints anteriorly. Ex.P.19 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.20 is the wound certificate in respect of P.W.4. (e) P.W.23, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation in this case. (2) Multiple minor abrasion all over the right and left knee joints anteriorly. Ex.P.19 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.20 is the wound certificate in respect of P.W.4. (e) P.W.23, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation in this case. On 17.9.1990 at 11.30 p.m., he received F.I.R. copy and made bandobust arrangements at the scene. Thereafter he has examined P.W.1 and other witnesses. On information, he has arrested A1 to A23 on the same day. Thereafter, P.W.12 has remanded the accused for judicial custody. (f) The Doctor, P.W.21, examined the deceased on 18.9.1990 at 6.20 a.m. He found that the deceased was in fit condition to give the dying declaration. Therefore, he has sent intimation to the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Salem, has recorded the dying declaration. The Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration died during investigation of this case. (g) On18.9.1990, P.W. 23 went to the scene of occurrence along with the Sub-Inspector of police and prepared rough sketch, Ex.P.29. At 7.15 a.m. he prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.7. He also recovered the damaged articles from the house of P.W.2, and her shop. P.W.23 also recovered the weapons crowbar and sticks and prepared the rough sketch Ex.P.30. Thereafter he went to Namakkal Government Hospital and examined P.Ws. 2 and 7 and one Malarkodi and recorded their statements. At 8.00 p.m., he examined the deceased and P.W.3 at the Salem Government Hospital and recovered blood stained clothes produced by the deceased. On 19.9.1990, P.W.23 received the intimation from the Government Hospital, Salem, about the death of the deceased and thereafter he altered the case under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared Express F.I.R., Ex.P.31. At 2.30 p.m., he held inquest on the body of the deceased. Ex.P.32 is the inquest report. Thereafter he sent the body for post-mortem through the constable. (h) The Doctor, P.W.15, attached to Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, conducted post-mortem on 19.9.1990 at 4.15 p.m. He found the following injuries on the deceased: External Injuries: (1) An incisedwound over the axilla (ICD Tube) 1“x1/2” opening into thoracic cavity. (2) A sutured wound of 1/2“with two sutures over the right side of back below scapula. (3) A sutured wound with 3 sutures over head right with parietal near 1 1/2” size. (4) A sutured wound over right upper arm 2“with 3 sutures. (2) A sutured wound of 1/2“with two sutures over the right side of back below scapula. (3) A sutured wound with 3 sutures over head right with parietal near 1 1/2” size. (4) A sutured wound over right upper arm 2“with 3 sutures. (5) Abrasion irregular in shape 2” × 2“with left lumbar region (charred edges). (6) A sutured wound 1/2” over right ankle (cut torn). Internal Injuries: Injury No. 2 was explored, extending into thoracic cavity, puncturing pleura and extending into lung- direction anterior and downwards, (right) lung collapses. Clotted blood about 1500 gms found in right pleural cavity. Right - 450 gms (torn) C/S. Congested. Left - 400 gms stab wound: right lung 1“x 1” depth. Fracture 7th rib (torn). Heart - 150 gms. Chambers empty. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach with contents of 900 gms, 700 gms of partially digested food particles (rice) greenish yellow colour. Liver 1200 gms, C/S. -Pale gall bladder distended with bile. Spleen 100 gms. C/S. - Pale. Kidney - right 150 gms left 150 gms C/S. - Pale. (N.C.) intact. Bladder empty. Brain 1150 gms. C/S. -Pale. Skull - No fracture. The Doctor, P.W.15 found six external injuries and the sixth injury is the surgical injury. Injuries 2 to 4 are the sutured wounds. He further stated that he is not able to give opinion about the nature of the injuries in respect of sutured wound. The Doctor, P.W.15, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury sustained to vital organ lung about 4 to 5 hours prior to the post-mortem. Ex.P.22 is the post-mortem certificate. (i) P.W.23, in continuation of his investigation examined all the other witnesses and arrested the remaining accused and also further stated that some of the accused also surrendered before the Court. On 27.10.1990, P.W.23 sent the seized articles for chemical examination with a requisition Ex.P.35. Exs.P.37 and P.38 are the reports of the chemical examiner as well as the serologist. (j) P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in this case and he has examined the post-mortem of Doctor, P.W.15 on 11.12.1992 and examined the constable P.W.16 and after completion of the investigation he filed chargesheet against the accused on 15.12.1992. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, filed Exs. (j) P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in this case and he has examined the post-mortem of Doctor, P.W.15 on 11.12.1992 and examined the constable P.W.16 and after completion of the investigation he filed chargesheet against the accused on 15.12.1992. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, filed Exs. P.1 to P.39 and marked M.Os.1 to 34 to bring home the charges against the accused. 6. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them they denied their complicity to the crime and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. Mr.T. Sudandiram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has contended that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant by adducing clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence of the eye-witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 in respect of the accused viz., A1, A3, A6 and A7 but convicted A2, the appellant herein, by placing reliance on the very same evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 6 and 17. The learned counsel for the appellant also further contended that the learned trial Judge has not placed reliance on the dying declaration, Ex.P.28, in respect of the overt acts alleged against A1, A3, A6 and A7. But having held so when the deceased in his dying declaration, Ex.P.28, has not stated about A2 stabbing him on his back with crowbar, on the ground that P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 have categorically stated that the second accused stabbed the deceased with crowbar on his back, the trial Judge has convicted A2 and thereby committed serious error of law. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Prem Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 673 : 1976 (1) SCC 805 has held that the conviction of the accused, on the basis of the testimony of two eye-witnesses, who were disbelieved with respect to the other four co-accused, is improper. 8. Per contra, Mr.V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case in respect of A2, appellant, as the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 have categorically stated about the specific overt act viz., A2 stabbing the deceased on his back with crowbar. 8. Per contra, Mr.V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case in respect of A2, appellant, as the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 have categorically stated about the specific overt act viz., A2 stabbing the deceased on his back with crowbar. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) further contended that the above said specific overt act alleged against A2 is also corroborated by the medical evidence as per Ex.P.12, Accident Register, showing that the deceased suffered a stab injury on right side back. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), therefore, contended that the trial Judge has rightly found A2 guilty. 9. I have given my anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side. 10. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against A2 only and has not proved the case against the other accused viz., A1 and A3 to A30 and acquitted all the other accused except A2 for all the charges tried against them. 11. The entire perusal of the records in this case show that P.Ws.1 to 8, 12, 13 and 17 are the eyewitnesses. Among them P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 only stated about the attack on the deceased. The other witnesses turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. Among the eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 6 and 17, P.W.17 is a police constable, who claimed to have been present at the time of occurrence at Senthamangalam police station and he came out of the police station and witnessed the occurrence. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the version of the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 in respect of A1, A3, A6 and A7 on the ground that they have stated that A1 cut the deceased with Koduval. But there is no corresponding cut injury on the deceased as per the medical evidence. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the dying declaration, Ex.P.28, to the effect that it is stated in the dying declaration that A1 cut the deceased on his right chest but there is absolutely no cut injury on the chest of the deceased. But there is no corresponding cut injury on the deceased as per the medical evidence. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the dying declaration, Ex.P.28, to the effect that it is stated in the dying declaration that A1 cut the deceased on his right chest but there is absolutely no cut injury on the chest of the deceased. The learned trial Judge also disbelieved the version of P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 in respect of the other accused A3, A6 and A7 as there are no corresponding injuries in respect of the overt acts alleged against them as per the medical evidence. It is also relevant to be noted that the learned trial Judge has given a specific finding in respect of A2 that P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 categorically stated that A2 took the Koduval from A4 and thereafter cut the deceased on his hand. But there is no corresponding cut injury and the Doctor found only a lacerated injury. It is also further stated by the learned trial Judge that the deceased stated in the dying declaration, Ex.P.28, that A2 also cut on his right hand with aruval. But there is no corresponding cut injury in the right hand. The learned trial Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 in respect of A2 that all the three witnesses have categorically stated that A2 stabbed the deceased on his back with M.O.2., crowbar. The learned Judge also observed that the deceased has not stated in his dying declaration, Ex.P.28, in respect of this specific overt act alleged against A2. But the learned trial Judge has simply brushed aside that important factor and placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 and Ex.P.12, accident register and convicted A2 for attacking the deceased. It is relevant to be noted that P.W.1, the so-called eyewitness, has not stated in his earliest document viz., in his report, Ex.P.1 about the above said overt act against A2 viz., stabbing the deceased on his back with crowbar, M.O.2. The learned trial Judge has simply brushed aside this material and vital omission in Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 merely stated that A1, A2, A3, A4 and one Periasamy attacked the deceased with weapons. P.W.1 has deliberately improved his version from stage to stage. The learned trial Judge has simply brushed aside this material and vital omission in Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 merely stated that A1, A2, A3, A4 and one Periasamy attacked the deceased with weapons. P.W.1 has deliberately improved his version from stage to stage. As far as P.W.17 another eye-witness is concerned, he has stated that A2 stabbed the deceased on his right side back with crowbar, M.O.2. This witness, P.W.17 is none else than the constable and according to him he is the only officer present at the time of the occurrence at the police station. But on the other hand, P.W.1 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that only one Palaniswamy, constable, alone was present in the police station. P.W.1, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from the police station has not whispered a word about the presence of P.W.17. The learned trial Judge has committed an error by placing reliance on such a witness, P.W.17. It is also relevant to be noted in respect of P.W.17 that he himself being a police official has not bothered to give a report at the earliest point of time. The act of P.W.17 is also most unnatural as he has stated that he has not prevented the attack on the deceased. It is also relevant to note that though P.W.1 claimed that he has witnessed the occurrence from standing in the police station and further he gave a report at 7.30 p.m. tothe Inspector of the very same police station. But neither P.W.1 stated about the presence of P.W.17 nor P.W.17 stated about P.W.1 giving a report to P.W.18. It is also curious and strange to note that P.W.17 has claimed to have remained as a silent spectator and he has not rendered any help for the deceased to be taken to the hospital and he has merely stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital by P.W.6, wife of the deceased. It is also curious to note that P.W.17 inspite of his claim that he has witnessed the actual occurrence has not enquired the deceased. Admittedly, he has also not whispered a word to P.W.6, wife of the deceased. Therefore, P.W.17 witnessing the occurrence itself is highly doubtful and unbelievable. 12. It is also curious to note that P.W.17 inspite of his claim that he has witnessed the actual occurrence has not enquired the deceased. Admittedly, he has also not whispered a word to P.W.6, wife of the deceased. Therefore, P.W.17 witnessing the occurrence itself is highly doubtful and unbelievable. 12. One more aspect to be borne in mind is that P.W.23, the Investigating Officer in this case, also categorically stated in his cross-examination that P.W.1 has not stated that he has actually witnessed the attack of the deceased but he stated that he heard the attack on the deceased from one Perianan. 13. P.W.6, wife of the deceased stated that her husband was attacked by A1, A2, A3, A4 and A7. P.W.6 apart from stating A2 stabbing on the deceased on his back with crowbar, M.O.2, has also stated that A2 took the koduval from A4 and attempted to cut the deceased on his neck and while the deceased warded of the same, sustained injury on his right hand. But P.W.6 has not whispered a word about the overt acts against A2 during her examination by the police. It is also relevant to note in respect of P.W.6 though she has claimed that she only took the deceased to the hospital, her clothes are not stained with any blood as she has not produced any blood stained clothes to the police. Further, the Doctor P.W.14 stated that the deceased was brought by P.W.6 only at 8.50 p.m. on the date of occurrence viz., 17.9.1990. It is also relevant to note that number of persons assembled at the scene of occurrence after the attack on the deceased and P.Ws.3 and 4 were also present in the place while the deceased was taken to the hospital. But none of the eye-witnesses stated that P.W.6 was present at the time of the occurrence. P.W.1, who gave the report Ex.P.1 in this case and who claimed to be present throughout the occurrence and witnessed the occurrence from standing at police station, has not whispered a word about the presence of P.W.6 at the time of occurrence. It is also relevant to note that P.W.1 has claimed that he was in that police station throughout the night after the occurrence and only on the next day at 12 noon he went to Namakkal Hospital. It is also relevant to note that P.W.1 has claimed that he was in that police station throughout the night after the occurrence and only on the next day at 12 noon he went to Namakkal Hospital. But he has not whispered a word about the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.6 taking the deceased to the hospital. This infirmity is very serious since the deceased is none else than the uncle of P.W.1. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 is also highly unbelievable and unacceptable and their evidence suffers from serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities. 14. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the doctrine of “ Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India in respect of the criminal jurisprudence. It is also equally well settled that it is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff, truth from falsehood by scanning through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 2002 SC 3633 : 2002(8)SCC 381 that, “15.…Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto….”. 16. Inthe instant case there is contradiction between the dying declaration and the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 in respect of A2 stabbing the deceased on his back with crowbar, M.O.2. 17. The learned Judge has overlooked and brushed aside this serious infirmity on the ground that the deceased might not have noticed as to who stabbed from his back. But the fact remains that the deceased had stated in his dying declaration, Ex.P.28, apart from the overt act in respect of A1 and A3 that A2 cut him on his right hand with aruval and this overt act is falsified by the medical evidence as per Ex.P.12 that there is no cut injury on the right hand. But the fact remains that the deceased had stated in his dying declaration, Ex.P.28, apart from the overt act in respect of A1 and A3 that A2 cut him on his right hand with aruval and this overt act is falsified by the medical evidence as per Ex.P.12 that there is no cut injury on the right hand. If really A2 stabbed the deceased on his back, the deceased could have very well seen him. The learned trial Judge also committed serious error of law by placing reliance in respect of the specific overt act alleged against A2 on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 as their evidence suffered serious infirmities, as stated above. 18. It is also needless to state that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 17 are inextricably mixed with truth and falsehood and it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff as their evidence is wholly unreliable. In view of the serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities as stated above, their evidence should be discarded in toto as unreliable and untrustworthy. 19. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court is left with no other alternative except to reject the entire prosecution case as false and to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid, if any, is ordered to be refunded to him.