JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the second accused in S.C. No. 138 of 2003, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin. Altogether, there were 13 accused in this case, including this appellant. One accused, by name, Irudhyaraj absconded even before the framing of charges. The rest of the 12 accused, including this appellant, faced trial. The trial Court framed as many as eight charges, which are as follows: Charge No. Accused Charges framed against the accused 1. 7 to 10 and 12 Criminal conspiracy in order to commit murder under Section120(B) IPC. 2. 1 to 6 Rioting armed with deadly weapons punishable under Section148 IPC. 3. 1 and 2 Murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. 3 to 6 Member of unlawful assembly while the remaining members committed murder under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. 5. 2 Exploding country bomb in a public place in order to endanger human life under Section 3 of E.S. Act. 6. 2,3,7 Possession of country bomb punishable under Section 5 of E.S. Act 7. 11 Abetting to commit murder punishable under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. 8. 7 and 10 to 12 Murder committed by others on the strength of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 302 read with 120(B) IPC. 2. By judgment dated 29.8.2003, the trial Court acquitted all the accused except this appellant. So far as the appellant is concerned, the trial Court has acquitted him from the charge under Section 148 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908, but, convicted the appellant only under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is now before this Court with this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is as under: 3.1. The deceased in this case was one Vanniaperumal @ Durai. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the cousin and brother respectively, of the deceased. They are the residents of Tuticorin. They belong to Konar Community. During the year 1995, one Gopal was allegedly murdered. The deceased was one of the accused in the said murder case. Again, on 14.4.2000, one Sankarapandi was allegedly murdered by the people belonging to Konar Community. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the cousin and brother respectively, of the deceased. They are the residents of Tuticorin. They belong to Konar Community. During the year 1995, one Gopal was allegedly murdered. The deceased was one of the accused in the said murder case. Again, on 14.4.2000, one Sankarapandi was allegedly murdered by the people belonging to Konar Community. Because of the above occurrence, there was lingering enmity between the deceased and the other group of people at Mukkani Village. 3.2. On 21.8.2000, at about 7.00 a.m, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased had gone to shops in Tuticorin for the purpose of supplying milk, which was the business of the deceased. After completing the said work, they were returning in by-cycles towards their village. The deceased was proceeding first in a cycle, followed by P.Ws.1 and 2 in another cycle. When they were nearing Easckiamman Temple, one person suddenly appeared before them and hurled a country bomb at the deceased. It fell on the back of the deceased and caused multiple injuries. The deceased fell down. At that time, two other persons emerged from a nearby bridge, with aruval in their hands. They cut the deceased indiscriminately with aruvals. The person, who threw the country bomb also cut him with aruval. By seeing the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2 raised alarm. All the three assailants ran away towards north with the weapons. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. 3.3. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to Tuticorin North Police Station and gave an oral information regarding the occurrence. P.W.16, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuticorin, reduced the statement of P.W.1 into writing under Exhibit P-1. P.W.2 was also present in the police station at the time when the statement of P.W.1 was reduced into writing. Based on the same, P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No. 547 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Exhibit P-18 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-18 to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith. Then, at 8.30 a.m, P.W.16 handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 3.4. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, Tuticorin, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and examined P.Ws.1 to 4, 6,7 and 12 and recorded their statements. He forwarded Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-18 to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith. Then, at 8.30 a.m, P.W.16 handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 3.4. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, Tuticorin, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and examined P.Ws.1 to 4, 6,7 and 12 and recorded their statements. Then, at the place of occurrence, he prepared Exhibit P-7, Observation Mahazar in the presence of two witnesses. He also prepared Exhibit P-25, rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence. From the place of occurrence, in the presence of two witnesses, he recovered the material objects M.O.12 blood stained earth and M.O.23 sample earth, under Exhibit P-8. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on 21.8.2000. He examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and few more witnesses. He arranged for taking photographs of the place of occurrence. P.W.14, took photographs of the body at the place of occurrence. M.O.7 series are the photographs including the negatives. Then, he forwarded the body to the Tuticorin Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin for Post-mortem. P.W.13-Doctor Elango conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 1.30 a.m. on 21.8.2000. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: “External wounds: “1. 2”x1”x 2” stab injury right inguinal area. 2. ½” x ½” x 1 ½ stab injury 2 in number 1” apart over the right side of the hip. 3. Burns over the upper part of the back close to the neck 5” x 5” in size of hair is burnt out over the occipital and right temporal area. 4.1 0” linear abrasion over the right side of the back. 5.1 2” deep cut injury extending from the right maxillary area of the face upto 2” behind the left ear extending 5” depth and totally seround entire spinal cord and major blood vessels of the neck and a chip of bone 2” x 2” is also cut off from the base of the skull expossing the brain substance on opening the throax heart is pale 350 gm chambers empty lungs pale weight right 450 gm left 400 gm. Stomach empty liver pale weight 1800 gm. Spleen pale weight 200 gm kidneys pale each kidney weight 150 grm. Intestine Pale. Large intestine Pale. Stomach empty liver pale weight 1800 gm. Spleen pale weight 200 gm kidneys pale each kidney weight 150 grm. Intestine Pale. Large intestine Pale. Bladder empty on opening the skull 2” x 2” bone in cut off from the base of the skull. Brain pale weight 1400 gm.” 3.5. Exhibit P-10 is the Post-mortem Certificate. The said Doctor has opined that the cut injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like aruval. He has further opined that the lacerated injuries could have been caused by the tip of aruvals. Sofaras the bone injuries are concerned, the doctor opined that they could have been caused by explosive substances. 3.6. Then, P.W.21 went in search of the accused. On the same day, at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.21 arrested the absconding accused Iruthayaraj, A.2 to A.6 and A.10 at Thangammalpuram Village in the field of one Ravi. On such arrest, the absconding accused Iruthyaraj and this appellant (A.2) voluntarily gave statements in the presence of witnesses. P.W.21 recorded the same. In the said statement, the appellant told him that he had hidden one Vettaruval near a tamarind tree in the field belonging to the said Ravi. Based on the same, the appellant took P.W.21 and the witnesses to the said place and produced the aruval from the hide out. P.W.21 recovered the same under Exhibit P-6-Mahazar. Similarly, he produced another aruval from a different place in the same field, measuring 65 cms. He produced yet another aruval measuring 65 cms. All were recovered under Exhibit P-5-Mahazar. P.W.21 returned to the police station along with the accused and the properties recovered. Then, he forwarded the same to the Court. The accused were remanded to custody. 3.7. On the next day, P.W.21 gave a requisition (Exhibit P-21) to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tuticorin, for holding identification parade. On 5.9.2000, P.W.20, Mr. S.S. Mariappan, the then Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tuticorin, conducted identification parade in the Central Prison at Palayamkottai. In the said identification parade, Iruthayaraj, A.1 and 2 were put up for identification. P.Ws.1 and 2 were asked to identify them. During the identification parade both P.Ws.1 and 2 could not identify the first accused. However, they identified the said Iruthayaraj and this appellant. Accordingly, P.W.20, prepared a report under Exhibit P-22. 3.8. In the said identification parade, Iruthayaraj, A.1 and 2 were put up for identification. P.Ws.1 and 2 were asked to identify them. During the identification parade both P.Ws.1 and 2 could not identify the first accused. However, they identified the said Iruthayaraj and this appellant. Accordingly, P.W.20, prepared a report under Exhibit P-22. 3.8. P.W.21 gave a requisition to the Court concerned for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. Accordingly, they were forwarded to Forensic Laboratory, Chennai, by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The Expert has submitted report under Exhibit P-16. Exhibit P-17, wherein, the expert has opined that Sulphur, Aluminium, Potassium, Nitrate, Sulphate and Thio-sulphate were found on the material objects and thereby indicating that explosives had been used in the occurrence. Further, investigation was conducted by P.W.22. Finally, on completing the investigation, P.W.22, laid charge sheet against the accused. 4. As we have already stated, the accused Iruthayaraj was absconding and therefore, the rest of the accused and this appellant faced the trial. As many as eight charges were framed against the accused as stated above. They denied the same as false. Therefore, they were put on trial. 5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited and M.Os.1 to 25 were also marked. Of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed to be the eye witnesses and they have stated that at the time of occurrence, one person threw a country bomb on the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and fell down and suddenly, two other persons, emerged in the scene of occurrence and they started attacking the deceased indiscriminately with aruvals and the person who threw the country bomb on the deceased also cut the deceased and consequently, the deceased died on the spot. According to their evidence, A.1 and A.2 are the persons who caused injuries. They have identified them in Court as the assailants. They have further stated that it was this appellant (A.2) who threw the country bomb on the deceased. The said Iruthayaraj could not be dealt with by this Court, because he was not put on trial along with this accused. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade, was examined as P.W.20. They have further stated that it was this appellant (A.2) who threw the country bomb on the deceased. The said Iruthayaraj could not be dealt with by this Court, because he was not put on trial along with this accused. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade, was examined as P.W.20. The witness who witnessed the arrest of the appellant and the confession statement given by the accused and the consequential recovery has also been examined. 7. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document in their defence. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused, except this appellant and sentenced him as stated above. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 8. Insofar as this appellant is concerned, as we have already pointed out, he has been acquitted from the charges under Section 148 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908. However, he was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 9. In this appeal, it is contended that the prosecution has not come forward with a clear version of the alleged occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the prosecution has come forward with two versions, which are totally contradictory with each other. The learned counsel would further submit that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witnesses account. The third ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of all other accused, but, it has chosen to believe them in respect of the present appellant alone. The learned counsel would submit that this is not a case where the grain could be separated from the chaff. When P.Ws.1 and 2 have been proved to be not believable in full, in the absence of corroboration from other independent sources, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court ought not to have convicted this appellant alone by relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. When P.Ws.1 and 2 have been proved to be not believable in full, in the absence of corroboration from other independent sources, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court ought not to have convicted this appellant alone by relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, the learned counsel would point out that it is trite law that when material contradictions are found in the evidence of witnesses, it would go to the root of the prosecution case itself. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. According to him, P.Ws.1 and 2 have very meticulously spoken to about the individual overt acts of the appellant. He would further submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been clearly corroborated by the medical evidence. Thirdly, he would submit that the other accused, more particularly, the first accused was acquitted by the trial Court, because he was not identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 in the identification parade, whereas, this appellant was identified both in the identification parade as well as before the Court. He would further submit that the trial Court was right in holding that the appellant is guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that conviction of the appellant does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 11. We have considered the above submissions and we have also perused the records carefully. 12. Even according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence was at 7.30 a.m. on 21.8.2000. Under Exhibit P-18, it could be seen that the distance between the police station and that of the place of occurrence is hardly one kilometre. Exhibit P-18 came to be registered at 7.30 a.m. on 21.8.2000. Thus, there is no delay in preferring complaint to the police. As pointed out earlier, it is crystal clear that initially, the case was registered only against three unknown persons as assailants. It is not explained to the Court as to how the number of accused were swelled into 13, at a later point of time. Absolutely, there is no explanation offered by the prosecution in this regard. 13. As pointed out earlier, it is crystal clear that initially, the case was registered only against three unknown persons as assailants. It is not explained to the Court as to how the number of accused were swelled into 13, at a later point of time. Absolutely, there is no explanation offered by the prosecution in this regard. 13. Now, coming to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, even in the chief-examination, they have stated that at the time of occurrence, there were only three persons who participated in the occurrence. But, the case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the charges 2 and 3, is that totally 7 accused (A.1 to A.6 and the absconding accused Irudhyaraj) were present on the spot and all the accused were armed with deadly weapons like aruval. It is the positive case of the prosecution that all the seven accused gathered with common object to commit the murder of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution, only three accused, out of seven, attacked the deceased and the other accused either instigated or facilitated the rest of the accused, to attack the deceased. Had it been true that P.Ws.1 and 2 were eye witnesses to the occurrence, they could have seen the presence of all the seven accused and they could have spoken to about the participation of all the accused, namely, A.1 to 6 and Irudayaraj in the commission of the crime. It is not explained to the Court as to why they have spoken to the presence of A.1 to A.2 and Irudayaraj alone. It is also not explained to the Court as to how they have omitted to say anything about the rest of the accused. This creates doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether P.Ws.1 and 2 could have been really present at the scene of occurrence, when the deceased was attacked by the assailants. 14. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral evidence of the eye witnesses. It is stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 that repeatedly, the accused cut the deceased and caused injuries on the neck of the deceased. But, according to the medical evidence, there was only one injury on the neck. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to explain this material contradiction. It is stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 that repeatedly, the accused cut the deceased and caused injuries on the neck of the deceased. But, according to the medical evidence, there was only one injury on the neck. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to explain this material contradiction. In the light of the discussion regarding the doubt about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, this material contradiction between the medical evidence and the eye witness account makes the doubt stronger. 15. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that P.Ws.1 and 2 have been disbelieved by the trial Court in respect of the rest of the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the first accused was not identified in the identification parade and therefore, he was acquitted by the trial Court. As it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused were arrested on 22.8.2000 and they were put up for identification parade on 5.9.2000. Had it been true that the eyewitness had seen the accused, nothing would have prevented them from identifying the assailants in the identification parade. They have not identified A.1. There is no explanation as to why they did not identify the first accused in the identification parade. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that insofar as the identification parade is concerned, after the accused were arrested and produced before the Court, on 22.8.2000, they were kept in jail. When the accused were brought to the Court, they were brought in open so as to be seen by anybody in the Court. The learned counsel would submit that there is a possibility that this accused could have been seen by the witnesses before going for identification parade. In our considered opinion, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. Though P.W.1 has stated that he had not gone to see the accused, prior to the identification parade, the possibility of these witnesses having seen the accused, after the arrest cannot be completely ruled out. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 17. The trial Court has acquitted all the other accused including accused 3 to 6, against whom, there was a charge under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. The trial Court has disbelieved P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the rest of the accused. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 17. The trial Court has acquitted all the other accused including accused 3 to 6, against whom, there was a charge under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. The trial Court has disbelieved P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the rest of the accused. It is settled law that an evidence of a witness which is partly believable and partly unbelievable cannot be safely acted upon without there being corroboration from independent sources. But, in this case, there is no other independent evidence to corroborate P.W.1 and P.W.2. The medical evidence also contradicts the oral evidence of these witnesses. In view of all these facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, it is not safe to convict the appellant solely depending on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 18. Yet another piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of material objects (Aruvals) from the appellant, we are unable to attach any importance to this piece of evidence, because, P.Ws.1 and 2, the alleged eyewitness to the occurrence have not at all identified the weapons. 19. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that it is not safe to convict the appellant, based on the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be repaid to him. Appeal allowed.