Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 and they have preferred two appeals, viz., Crl.A.Nos.887 and 888 of 2005 respectively, challenging their conviction and sentence passed in the Judgment dated 10.08.2005 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal District made in SC.No.134/2003 convicting them for the offence under section 364 IPC and sentencing them to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment and convicting them for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 5 months simple imprisonment. The learned Trial Judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The charge against the accused, A-1 and A-2 is that on 11.03.2000 at 3.00 p.m. near Kuchukalpudur in the Namakkal-Chenthamangalam Road, A-1 was driving the van bearing registration No.TN 51 X 5697 and hit against a goat owned by one Palanivel and without stopping the van, A-1 continued to drive the van and the deceased Balaji @ Asaithambi along with one Kumar chased the van in TVS 50 two wheeler and intercepted the van at Namakkal and demanded money from the accused for hitting against the goat, for that A-1 refused and the deceased Balaji @ Asaithambi also got into the van as the accused called him to come to the Police Station and without stopping the van at the Police Station, they proceeded further and at 4.15 p.m. at Namakkal-Trichy Road near Nala Hotel, A-1 and A-2 pushed down the deceased Balaji @ Asaithambi from the van with the intention to cause his death and thereby said to have committed the offence under Sections 364 IPC and under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 19, filed Exs.P.1 to 29 and marked M.Os.1 to 6. 4. The brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are as follows:- [a] P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. Both the deceased and P.W.2 were the residents of Vetambadi Village, Namakkal Taluk. On 11.03.2000 at 3.15 p.m., P.W.2 heard a noise and came out of his house. 4. The brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are as follows:- [a] P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. Both the deceased and P.W.2 were the residents of Vetambadi Village, Namakkal Taluk. On 11.03.2000 at 3.15 p.m., P.W.2 heard a noise and came out of his house. At that time, he saw P.Ws.3 and 4 standing in the garden opposite to his house and they were seeing a goat with injuries. They informed P.W.2 that a Van bearing Registration No.TN-51-X-5697 proceeding towards Namakkal-Senthamangalam Road, dashed against the goat and it did not stop. The Van number was noted and given by P.W.4 to P.W.2. At that time, the deceased came along with one Kumar in TVS-50 two wheeler. P.W.2 informed the deceased and the said Kumar about the occurrence in which van hit against the goat and proceeded further without stopping. Immediately, the deceased with the said Kumar went in search of the van in TVS-50. [b] P.W.1 was a resident of Chellappa Colony in the same village and he was working as an Electrician. On 13. 2000 he was taking tea at Sendamangalam Road. At that time, P.W.1 saw the van bearing registration No.TN-51-X-5697 and also A-1 and A-2. The deceased and the said kumar demanded the accused to pay the money for hitting the goat. Thereafter, the accused called the deceased to come along with them to the Police Station and the deceased got into the van and the van left from that place. P.W.1 along with the said Kumar followed the van in TVS-50 two wheeler which was driven by the said Kumar. The van proceeded to Trichy Road but did not stop in the Police Station and it crossed the Police Station with speed. P.W.1 and the said Kumar continued to follow the van. At 4.15 p.m., the said van crossed Nala Hotel and at that time, P.W.1 and the said Kumar found the deceased lying on the eastern side of the road with an injury on the head with bleeding. They also found abrasions on the hands and legs. They took the injured to the Government Hospital, Namakkal in an auto. [c] The doctor, P.W.9, attached to the Government Hospital, Namakkal, examined the deceased on 13. 2000 at 4.40 p.m. He found that the deceased was unconscious. They also found abrasions on the hands and legs. They took the injured to the Government Hospital, Namakkal in an auto. [c] The doctor, P.W.9, attached to the Government Hospital, Namakkal, examined the deceased on 13. 2000 at 4.40 p.m. He found that the deceased was unconscious. Ex.P.5 is the Accident Register wherein he also found the following injuries:- "INJURIES:- 1] A laceration of 7cmx3cmx2cm over the occipital region. 2] A litten abrasion over the right side of the neck. 3] A litten abrasion over the right side of forehead. 4] A litten abrasion over left pinna of the ear. 5] A litten abrasion over right knee. 6] A litten abrasion over left knee." The doctor P.W.9 referred the injured for further treatment to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. The said Kumar stated to the doctor that the injured sustained injury due to road accident. He took the injured deceased to the Government Hospital, Salem. [d] The doctor P.W.10 attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam hospital, Salem, examined the deceased at 6.30 p.m. brought by the said Kumar. He found that the deceased was already dead. He has sent the Death Intimation-Ex.P.8 to the police. He issued the Accident Register-Ex.P.7. [e] P.W.1 informed the relatives of the deceased and brought them to the hospital. The above said Kumar went to Namakkal Police Station on the same day at 10.00 p.m. and gave a written report-Ex.P.19 to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered a case in Crime No.354/2007 for the offence under sections 363 and 302 IPC. Ex.P.20 is the First Information Report. He has sent the FIR to the Court as well as to the Inspector of Police. [f] P.W.3 has stated that he has witnessed the van hitting the goat. The van number was given by P.W.4. The deceased and the said Kumar came to that place and thereafter went in search of that van. P.W.3 gave a report-Ex.P.16 to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police on 13. 2000 who registered the case in Crime NO.353/2000 for the offence under section 279 IPC. Ex.P.17 is the FIR in Crime No.353/2000. P.W.18 investigated that case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. The case was tried in STC.No.1821/2000 and A-1, who has been implicated as an accused, was convicted for the offence under section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. Ex.P.17 is the FIR in Crime No.353/2000. P.W.18 investigated that case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. The case was tried in STC.No.1821/2000 and A-1, who has been implicated as an accused, was convicted for the offence under section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The said Judgment is marked as Ex.P.18. [g] P.W.19 the Inspector of Police received the FIR in Crime No.354/2000 and took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence on 12.03.2000 and prepared Ex.P.1-the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.21-rough sketch. He recovered M.O.2-blood stained pieces of tar road and M.O.3-sample pieces of tar road under Ex.P.2. He examined the witnesses. He went to the Government Hospital, Salem and examined the said Kumar, P.Ws.1,2 and one Palanivel and recorded their statements. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.22 is the Inquest Report. He sent the body for postmortem. [h] The doctor, P.W.14, attached to the Government Medical College Hospital, Salem conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 12.03.2000 at 1.20 p.m. He found the following injuries:- "INJURIES:- 1. Abrasion over right shoulder 10x7cm left shoulder 5x4 cm right scapular region 11x7cm right side of back 3x2cm, sacral region 1x0.5cm & 0.5x0.5cm right knee 1x2 and 2x1 cm right leg 3x2cm left cheek 2x2cm l3ft side of lower jaw 2x1 cm left elbow 2x1cm left side of chest 15x1cm, Multiple abrasions on left hand 5x4cm left foot 1x0.5cm, 2x1cm, 2x1cm right eyebrow 2x1cm left thigh upper and outer aspect 7x4cm [dark brown in colour.] 2. Contusion on [i]left arm 7x4cm dark red [ii]5x2cm dark red [iii]left temporal region of scalp 6x3x0.5cm [iv] right side of lower aspect of chest 10x7cm dark red. 3. Fracture of ribs 4,5,6,7 on right side present on para vertebral line. 4. A linear fissured fracture on left temporal bone 10 cm in length. 5. Subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhages present over both cerebral hemisphere. 6. Laceration of right temporal lobe of brain present 3x23x1cm." Ex.P.14 is the Postmortem Certificate wherein the doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of the injuries sustained due to forcible pushing from the vehicle. [i] P.W.19, in continuation of his investigation, examined P.Ws.3,4 and others and recorded their statements. He made arrangements to search for the vehicle, viz., the van and also the accused. On 13. [i] P.W.19, in continuation of his investigation, examined P.Ws.3,4 and others and recorded their statements. He made arrangements to search for the vehicle, viz., the van and also the accused. On 13. 2000, at 6.00 a.m., he arrested A-1 who was the driver of the van bearing registration No.TN-51-X-5697 at Kudavasal Van Market. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A-1 under Ex.P.3, he recovered the van-M.O.1 under Ex.P.4-Mahazar. On the same day, he arrested A-2 near Kudavasal Mariamman Temple. The accused were remanded to judicial custody. P.W.19 recovered blood-stained shirt-M.O.4, Lungi-M.O.5 and Underwear-M.O.6 under Form 95 under Ex.P.15 as produced by the Head constable taken from the body of the deceased. He sent the material objects for chemical examination through Court. On 23. 2000 he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 13, 15 and others who had travelled in the van on the date of occurrence. He also recovered the Trip sheet of the van under Ex.P.23 from the owner of the van on 13. 2000. He examined the doctors P.Ws.9 and 10 and recorded their statements. He received the Chemical Examination Reports under Exs.P.11 and 12 respectively. After completion of the investigation, P.W.19 filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 on 09.04.2000 for the offence under sections 364 and 302 IPC. 5. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them they have come forward with the version of total denial. They have not chosen to examine any witnesses on their side. 6. Mr. S. Vijayan, learned counsel for the appellant/ A-1 and Mr. S. Naina Mohammed, learned counsel for the appellant/A-2 vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is contended that the alleged eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.8, 12, 13, 15 and 16 who are said to have travelled in the van driven by A-1 at the time of the alleged occurrence have completely turned hostile. It is contended that the prosecution is therefore, left with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. It is contended that P.W.1 has not stated that he has witnessed the occurrence, even as per his chief examination. It is contended that the prosecution is therefore, left with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. It is contended that P.W.1 has not stated that he has witnessed the occurrence, even as per his chief examination. It is also contended that P.W.2, the brother of the deceased has not stated anything implicating A-1 or A-2 and he has simply stated that the deceased and one Kumar said to have followed the van in a two-wheeler. P.W.3 had spoken only about the van hitting against the goat and P.W.4 also only said to have spoken about the van hitting against the goat and noting the van number and thereafter, the deceased and the said Kumar went in search of that van. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no convincing evidence available on record to implicate the accused for kidnapping the deceased in the van and for murdering the deceased by pushing him down from the van. It is further submitted that P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that he and the said Kumar stated to the doctor P.W.9 as to how the deceased sustained injuries. P.W.9, the doctor has stated that the said Kumar informed him that the deceased sustained injury due to road accident. As such, the prosecution version is highly doubtful. It is also contended that even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution as the doctor P.W.9 who first treated the deceased as well as P.W.14, who conducted the postmortem, have categorically admitted in their cross examination that the deceased could have sustained injuries due to road accident. 7. Per contra, Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing acceptable evidence. It is contended that though the eyewitnesses turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the deceased was taken in the van by the accused 1 and 2 and as such, the deceased could have died at the hands of the accused 1 and 2. It is contended that the van-M.O.1 was recovered only at the instance of A-1 and further the evidence of the doctor P.W.14 who has conducted the postmortem categorically stated that the deceased could have sustained injuries while he was forcibly pushed down from the van. It is contended that the van-M.O.1 was recovered only at the instance of A-1 and further the evidence of the doctor P.W.14 who has conducted the postmortem categorically stated that the deceased could have sustained injuries while he was forcibly pushed down from the van. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution has proved its case in all aspects beyond reasonable doubt against the accused 1 and 2. 8. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also scanned through the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned Judgment of conviction. 9. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.8, 12, 13, 15 and 16 who are said to have travelled in the van driven by A-1 and who claimed to have witnessed the actual occurrence. But, all the said eyewitnesses have completely turned hostile. Though it is well settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto and any portion, either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence, can very well be placed reliance. It is seen in this case that the evidence of the above said witnesses is not at all helpful to the prosecution or to the defence as they have totally turned hostile. Excluding the evidence of the above said eyewitnesses, we are left with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. We are constrained to state that there is no consistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 has categorically stated even in his chief examination that the deceased got into the van as the accused informed him they will go to the Police Station. There is no reason for the deceased getting into the van as the deceased already came along with one Kumar in TVS-50 two-wheeler to go to the Police Station following the van driven by A-1. From the evidence of P.W.1 it cannot be stated that the deceased was kidnapped by A-1 and A-2. Unfortunately, the said Kumar died even before filing the charge sheet in this case and as such, we are left with the solitary evidence of P.W.1 in respect of A-1 and A-2 kidnapping the deceased in the van-M.O.1. From the evidence of P.W.1 it cannot be stated that the deceased was kidnapped by A-1 and A-2. Unfortunately, the said Kumar died even before filing the charge sheet in this case and as such, we are left with the solitary evidence of P.W.1 in respect of A-1 and A-2 kidnapping the deceased in the van-M.O.1. We are constrained to state that the solitary evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring even in respect of the accused kidnapping the deceased. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that whether actually the deceased was taken by the accused in the van at the time of fateful occurrence. Apart from the above said infirmity in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 even in his chief examination categorically stated that the number of the said van, namely TN 51 X 5697, which was said to have been driven by P.W.1 is now changed. But curiously P.W.1 stated that if he sees the van he can identify the van. But the fact remains that the van was not shown to P.W.1 and thereafter P.W.1 identified. P.W.1 only stated about the arrest of A-1 and thereafter recovering the van, M.O.1, at the instance of A-1. It is further relevant to note that even the mahazar witness, P.W.6 has not identified the van M.O.1 and he has stated that only he can identify the van if it is seen by him. P.W.6 is also related to the deceased. P.W.2 stated that he was informed by P.Ws.3 and 4 that a van bearing registration No.TN 51 X 5697 hit against a goat. Therefore, it is very clear that P.W.2 has not seen the van. It is pertinent to be noted that A-1 and A-2 and were not known to P.Ws.1 to 4 earlier to the occurrence. P.Ws.2 to 4 have not whispered a word about A-1 and A-2 and they have not identified A-1 and A-2 even before the Court. As far as P.W.1 is concerned, he has admitted that he has seen the accused outside the Court and thereafter, he has identified the accused before the Court during the course of his evidence. In view of the above said infirmities and inconsistencies, we are of the considered view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. 10. In view of the above said infirmities and inconsistencies, we are of the considered view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. 10. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is also not helpful to advance the case of the prosecution. The version of P.W.4 that she has noted down the van number is also highly doubtful and unbelievable. P.W.4 stated that she has noted down the van number in a slip, but did not produce the slip to the police. It is the version of P.W.3 that he came to know about the van number only through P.W.4. But the fact remains that P.W.4 has admitted in her cross examination that she has not stated to the police during her examination that she has given the van number to P.W.3. 11. As already pointed out, as far as P.W.2 the brother of the deceased is concerned, he has simply stated that the deceased and one Kumar said to have followed the van in TVS-50 two wheeler and there is no other incriminating materials available from the evidence of P.W.2 against the accused. P.W.2 has simply stated about the van hitting against the goat. But he has fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not stated to the police during the course of investigation that he has seen the van hitting the goat in person. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is also not all inspiring our confidence. 12. The yet another disturbing feature in this case is that as per the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor, who treated the deceased at the first instance, has categorically stated that one Kumar brought the deceased to the hospital and stated that the deceased sustained injury due to road accident. It is the admitted version of the prosecution that P.W.1 was accompanied by the said Kumar in his TVS 50 vehicle and chased the van and they only found the body of the deceased and thereafter took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Namakkal. P.W.1 further admitted in his cross-examination that the said Kumar and himself stated to the Doctor, P.W.9 as to how the deceased sustained injury. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the information about the deceased sustaining injury due to road accident was given by P.W.1 and the above said Kumar. P.W.1 further admitted in his cross-examination that the said Kumar and himself stated to the Doctor, P.W.9 as to how the deceased sustained injury. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the information about the deceased sustaining injury due to road accident was given by P.W.1 and the above said Kumar. It is pertinent to be noted that the doctors P.W.9 as well as P.W.14 have categorically stated in their cross examination that the deceased could have sustained injuries due to road accident. This serious infirmity goes to the root of the prosecution case and raises doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. Therefore, the entire prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 10.08.2005 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal District in S.C.No.134/2003 is set aside and the criminal appeals are allowed. 14. It is reported that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are on bail. Hence,the bail bond, if any, executed by them, shall stand terminated.