JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J. 1. The Appellants have filed the aforesaid Criminal Appeal against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them in ST No. 92/1992 dated 15/2/2000 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur whereby convicted Appellants Under Section 302/ 149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced each of them to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 300/-, with defaulting clause to undergo further RI of six months, six months RI and two years RI, respectively. However, the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Laconically, the prosecution case as narrated before the trial Court is that on 17/11/1991 complainant Samandarsingh (PW.6) andhis cousin brother, deceased Mangilal were transporting in a bullock-cart soyabean husk from the well of Hemraj in the morning at about 6.30-7.00 a.m. When they reached on the way of forest towards village Uchhod they were intercepted by Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar. Gangadhar objected taking of bullock-cart. At that moment other Appellants also reached over there having farsis and lathis. Present Appellants and other three acquitted co-accused persons had started assaulting Mangilal by their respective weapons. When Samandar singh tried to save his brother he too was assaulted by Gangadhar, causing injury on his back and left arm. Mangilal sustained injuries on his head, hands, palm, right and left knee and calf: At the time of incident, one Kamal Gadri and Dilipsingh (PW.9) had reached over there. After assault, accused persons fled away. PW.6 Samandar singh took Mangilal in bullock-cart to Police Station Akodia, District Shajapur and lodged the report (Ex.P. 16) recorded by Probationary Sub Inspector U.S. Tomar (PW.8). Mangilal was sent for medical examination to Civil Dispensary and examined by Dr. R.C. Kuril (PW.1). Dr. Kuril also medically examined and treated Samandar singh (PW.6), Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar and acquitted co-accused Radheshyam. He issued MLC report Ex.P.3 of deceased, Ex.P.2 of PW.6 Samandar singh, Ex.D.1 and D.2 of Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar and Radheshyam. Mangilal died on the same day during, the course of treatment. After completion of inquest enquiry, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Kuril (PW. 1). Postmortem report is Ex.P. 1. Investigating Officer seized the blood stained and controlled earth from the spot, also prepared spot map. Mangilal died on the same day during, the course of treatment. After completion of inquest enquiry, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Kuril (PW. 1). Postmortem report is Ex.P. 1. Investigating Officer seized the blood stained and controlled earth from the spot, also prepared spot map. 10 accused persons were arrested and on their disclosure statements, farsis and lathis were seized. Investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the case and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against 10 accused persons for the offence Under Section s. 148, 302, 302/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The accused persons denied the charges and their defence was that because of inimical term, they all were falsely implicated. They have also contended that in fact Gangadhar and Radheshyam were assaulted by the complainant party and complainant party to save themselves lodged a false report implicating as many as 10 persons. In cross examination, they got proved MLC report of both the accused vide Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 from Dr. Kuril (PW. 1). They have not examined any witness in defence whereas prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses and got proved 34 documents to prove its case. Learned trial Court, while acquitting three accused persons, convicted the present Appellants as described herein above. 4. Learned Counsel for Appellants have submitted that the conviction of the Appellants is mainly based on solitary testimony of Samandar singh (PW.6) who is the brother of the deceased and his testimony is contradicted by medical evidence on material particulars, therefore, it would be hazardous to place implicit reliance on his testimony without there being corroboration by other substantive piece of evidence. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment passed in case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand: AIR 2003 SC 854 . 5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for State has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court and also submitted that when several persons had assaulted the deceased by various weapons it was practically not possible for a witness to describe specific overtact and if there is some contradiction on this issue, the entire testimony cannot be thrown over the board. 6. 6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for parties and on perusal of the entire record, the core question emerged before us to visualise whether Samandarsingh (PW.6) is a reliable witness or not ?. It is settled legal position that testimony of interested and related witness cannot be discarded only on this count but Court is required to scrutinize his testimony with great care and caution. Close relative of deceased would not leave the real culprit by implicating innocent persons, at the same time he would not be immune to implicate innocent person/persons along with real culprit. 7. It is trite legal position that quality of evidence is required and not the quantity. Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, to prove the case, the parties are not required to examine the particular number of witnesses. Keeping in mind these principles, now we proceed to appreciate the statement of Samandarsingh. In the instant case, the evidence of Samandarsingh would be strengthened because he was an injured witness and his presence on spot is established. 8. Samandarsingh (PW.6) has deposed that on the date of incident he and his brother Mangilal had gone to well of Chattarsingh in the morning at 6-7 a.m. for bringing soyabean husk. When they were returning back on the road Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar stopped their bullock-cart and started abusing. He called other Appellants and on arrival of all the Appellants they surrounded Mangilal and also started assaulting by lathi and farsi. In para three he has assigned specific overtact causing injury by farsi on head by Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar and Appellant No. 2 Gajju @ Gajraj singh on backside of the neck but on head as well as neck medical expert Dr. Kuril (PW. 1) had not found even a single injury caused by any sharp heavy object or sharp object. On head Dr. Kuril found two lacerated wound, one on left side of temporal region and another on left parietal region. Apart from these two injuries and specific overtact attributed to Gangadhar and Gajju, Samandarsingh has deposed that all the 10 accused persons started assaulting conjointly to deceased by their respective weapons and in cross examination, he has deposed in para 20 that each accused had struck 2-3 blows by their weapons but his this statement is contradictory to the medical evidence of Dr. Kuril, Dr. Kuril, Dr. Kuril found in all seven injuries on the person of deceased out of which two were lacerated wounds on head and rest five incised injuries were simple in nature on right and left legs and one on right little finger. In the opinion of Dr. Kuril, all the five incised 'injuries were simple in nature. It is clear from the statement of Dr. Kuril that incised injuries were on non vital part of the body i.e. left arm, left knee, lower third of right leg and right little finger. Deceased died because of fracture of left parietal bone and damage to brain membrane as well as left parietal and temporal lobe. 9. The statement of Samandarsingh is completely at variance with the medical evidence. Supreme Court in case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand relying on the judgment of Vadi Velu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 held in para 10 as under: The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (I) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. 10. Applying this principle in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was further held in para 11 which is reproduced herein below:: In the case at hand, we can neither place implicit reliance on nor totally discard the testimony of Mannu (PW.9) as it can neither be called wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Mannu is a witness who could have been naturally present with his brother while ploughing the field. However, we find his testimony to have been substantially improved at the trial than what it was to begin with when the First Information Report of the incident was lodged. Mannu is a witness who could have been naturally present with his brother while ploughing the field. However, we find his testimony to have been substantially improved at the trial than what it was to begin with when the First Information Report of the incident was lodged. Though at the trial Mannu alleges all the 10 accused persons to have dealt blows with their respective weapons on the body of his brother Suphal Hansda, but that is certainly not correct. If 10 accused persons had dealt even one blow each, there would have been a minimum of 10 injuries on the person of the deceased. It is the specific case of Mannu that so far as the chest injuries (fracture of ribs) are concerned, it was the result of the accused Gurua having climbed upon the body of the deceased after he had fallen down and then pressed him against the ground. As the fracture of ribs is not accompanied by any apparent injury on the body, in all probability such injuries were not caused by any weapon. The injuries could have been caused either by pressing hard as alleged or even by forcefully pushing the deceased during the course of any scuffle. The deceased has suffered only two other injuries, which obviously were not caused by three persons. So far as the assault on the deceased is concerned, there is so much of chaff collected by Mannu (PW.9) in his deposition that it becomes very difficult, almost impossible, to sift the grains of truth from out of the mass of chaff of falsehood and exaggerations, 11. In the case at hand if 10 accused had assaulted the deceased, atleast 10 injuries would have been found by Doctor on the person of deceased but in all seven injuries were found and specific overtact attributed to Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar and Appellant No. 2 Gajju causing injury by sharp edged weapon farsi on the head and neck of deceased is demonstrably false in the light of medical evidence of Dr. Kuril who did not find even a single injury on neck and head. 12. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court verdict, Samandarsingh cannot be put in the category of fully reliable witness and for relying him in part there is no corroboration available in the ease by any independent material particulars or substantive piece of evidence. Kuril who did not find even a single injury on neck and head. 12. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court verdict, Samandarsingh cannot be put in the category of fully reliable witness and for relying him in part there is no corroboration available in the ease by any independent material particulars or substantive piece of evidence. It is the duty of this Court to separate the grain from the chaff but in the instant case same are so inextricably mixed to separate. Apart from specific overtact of Gangadhar and Gajju, the general and omnibus statements have been given by Samandarsingh that all the 10 accused thereafter assaulted the deceased by their various weapons and each had caused 2-3 blows meaning thereby deceased should have suffered atleast 20-30 injuries on his person but the total injuries were 7 in number. 13. In case of Nachhettar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 951 the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the major medical conflict with the ocular account and observed in para 15 as under: A big question mark arises. How is it that 3 empty cartridges of 8 mm said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence were found by the Expert to have been fired from Nachhattar's rifle and yet no rifle injury was found to have been caused on any of the victims although the rifle was used on two according to the First Information Report and on all the 3 according to the evidence in Court ? There being no answer to this questions mark, it could not but shake the foundation of the whole prosecution case and shake it to an irreparable extent. Principles of criminal Jurisprudence which govern the trial of criminal cases in our country do not permit the ignoring of or brushing aside such a big jerk given to the prosecution evidence. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court was justified in law in brushing aside such a serious infirmity and coming to the conclusion that even if this part of the prosecution story was not correct, still all the three Appellants had committed the crime in furtherance of their common intention. In such a situation it is not safe to say that the death of Chhota Puri was caused only by the gun shots of Dalip Gir. In such a situation it is not safe to say that the death of Chhota Puri was caused only by the gun shots of Dalip Gir. One could find all the Appellants guilty with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code for the three murders if the prosecution would have merely proved the participation in general of the persons armed with fire-arms in the commission of the crime. But it chose to give the details of the story of assault with the different fire-arms by the Appellants. It cannot escape the consequence when a vital part of the details is demonstrably found to be wrong. 14. In view of the aforesaid legal pronouncement, the prosecution cannot urge in the instant case before this Court to convict the Appellant with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code- 15. Apart from the above, in our considered view on the basis of the evidence of Samandarsingh it cannot be said that all the accused had formed unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of deceased Mangilal and assault Samandarsingh in prosecution of their common object. Samandarsingh had deposed that at the first instance Appellant No. 1 Gangadhar had already assaulted the deceased by farsi thereafter he reached on the spot and then other nine Appellants reached on the spot. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced as under: Section 149:Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. 16. In the light of this evidence, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all applicable in the present case. First of all the prosecution has failed to establish that Gangadhar had called other accused persons with an intention to assault the deceased. 16. In the light of this evidence, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all applicable in the present case. First of all the prosecution has failed to establish that Gangadhar had called other accused persons with an intention to assault the deceased. They reached on the spot one after another and joined Gangadhar, therefore, it cannot be said that it was an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of Mangilal and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly they assaulted Mangilal or the members of the assembly were knowing that there was likelihood of commission of murder of Mangilal. 17. In the light of aforesaid legal and factual discussion, in our considered view the prosecution has failed to prove its ease beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellants, therefore, this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial Court against all the Appellants are hereby set aside. Appellants are on bail. Their bail and surety bonds stand discharged.