JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 67 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. He stood charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By judgment dated 7.10.2005, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SC and ST (POA) ACT”). However, the trial Court convicted the accused 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 3 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case was one Boominathan. He belonged to Scheduled Caste. P.W.7 is Mrs.Menaka, who belongs to a different caste. P.W.7 was given in marriage much against her wish to another person. But, she could not continue to live with her husband. Therefore, she returned to her parental home and stayed with them. At that time, the deceased had fallen in love for P.W.7 and wanted to marry her. (ii) The accused is the cousin of P.W.7. He also belongs to the same community to which P.W.7 belongs to. He was forcing P.W.7 to return to her matrimonial home to live with her husband. Her husband also came to the house of P.W.7 on a few occasions, to take back her into the matrimonial fold. P.W.7 wanted to marry the deceased. This was opposed by the accused and other family members of P.W.7. But, without the knowledge of the accused and other family members of P.W.7, she eloped with the deceased and married him. After the marriage, they were living together as husband and wife at Kaliapatti Village. The accused belongs to Kulathur Village. After the above marriage, there were ill feelings between the accused on the one side, the deceased and P.W.7 on the other side. (iii) While so, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21.10.2004 at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased was waiting at Jallipatti Bus Stop to board a mini bus. The bus came and stopped at the bus stop. (iii) While so, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21.10.2004 at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased was waiting at Jallipatti Bus Stop to board a mini bus. The bus came and stopped at the bus stop. The deceased was getting into the bus through the back entrance of the bus. It is alleged that at that time, the accused suddenly appeared with a knife in his hand and stabbed the deceased from behind. According to the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 5 witnessed the occurrence. P.W.2 pulled the accused from behind by holding his shirt but the accused managed to escape from the place of occurrence. The deceased fell out of the bus with bleeding injuries. (iv) P.W.2, immediately, attempted to get a taxi to take the deceased to hospital. For that purpose, he went to Velliyanai Village but the taxi people declined to lend their service. Therefore, he went to Velliyanai Police Station and with the help of the Sub Inspector of Police, he arranged for a van and returned to the occurrence place. By that time, the father and mother of the deceased had also come to the place of occurrence. They took the deceased in the said van to Karur Government Hospital. (v) P.W.17 Dr. Shanmuganathan examined the deceased at the Government Hospital at Karur at 8.30 p.m., on 21.10.2004. He found the following injuries: (1) A cut injury 3 cm x 2cm x 1 cm (R) forearm (2) A cut injury 5 cm x 3 cm x cavity depth (L) back (3) A cut injury 5 cm x 2 cm x cavity depth (L) lower (4) back. (5) A cut injury 2 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm (L) ear (6) A cut injury 3 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm (L) buttock. Exhibit P-10 is the Accident Register. Since his condition was serious P.W.6 (father of the deceased) was advised to take the deceased to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli. Accordingly, P.W.6 rushed him to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli but on his way, the deceased breathed his last. (vi) P.W.6 produced the deceased before P.W.26 Dr. Ravi Kumar, who was on duty in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, on 22.10.2004 at about 12.20 p.m. (mid night). He found that the deceased was already dead. Exhibit P-24 is the Accident Register. Then, he forwarded the body to mortuary. (vi) P.W.6 produced the deceased before P.W.26 Dr. Ravi Kumar, who was on duty in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, on 22.10.2004 at about 12.20 p.m. (mid night). He found that the deceased was already dead. Exhibit P-24 is the Accident Register. Then, he forwarded the body to mortuary. He also gave an intimation to the Outpost Police Station at the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli in respect of the above. (vii) It is the alleged that P.W.1 went to Velliyanai Police Station at 11.30 p.m., on 21.10.2004 and preferred a complaint. P.W.24, a Woman Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 117 of 2004 under Section 307 IPC. Exhibit P-21 is the complaint. Exhibit P-22 is the FIR. She forwarded both the documents to the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Karur and handed over the case diary to P.W.28 for investigation. (viii) P.W.28 took up the case for investigation on 21.10.2004. Even before he could commence the investigation, he received an intimation from the Government Hospital that the deceased died of the injuries. Therefore, he altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC at 1.30 a.m., on 22.10.2004. Exhibit P-28 is the alteration report. Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch at 6.a.m., and then, on the same day, between 11.00 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., he conduced inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Exhibit P-30 Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the body for post-mortem. (ix) P.W.27 Dr. Karthikeyan was the Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Government Medical College, Tiruchirappalli. On 22.10.2004, he commenced the Post-Mortem at 1.25 p.m., on the body of the deceased. He found the following injuries: 1. A transverse sutured wound, on the back of upper third of left forearm, 3 cm length. On removal of the sutures, the edges are clean cut, 1 cm in breadth and muscle deep. 2. A vertical incised wound, 4 cm x 0.5 cm x half thickness, on the pinna of left ear. 3. A vertical stab wound, 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep, on the back of right side of chest, in the supra scalpular region. O/E the edges are clean cut. The upper end is curved and lower end is sharp. O/D the Muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut. 3. A vertical stab wound, 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep, on the back of right side of chest, in the supra scalpular region. O/E the edges are clean cut. The upper end is curved and lower end is sharp. O/D the Muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut. A stab wound, 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, on the upper lobe of right lung, it is collapsed and on c/s pale. The thoracic cavity contains clotted and fluid blood. The wound is directed, forwards, downwards and inwards. 4. An oblique stab wound, 7 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep, on the back of left side of chest, at the level of D4 vertebra, in 6th intercostal space, close to the vertebral column. O/E the edges are clean cut. The lower right end is curved and the upper left end is sharp. O/D The muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut. 5. An oblique stab wound, 5 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep, on the back of right side of abdomen, at the level of L2 vertebral, close to the midline. O/E the edges are clean cut. The upper inner end is curved and lower outer end is sharp. O/D the muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut. A stab wound, through and through, on the right kidney present, on the posterior surface, 4 cm x 1 cm x full thickenss - Entry wound, on the anterior surface, 2 cm x 1 cm - Exit wound. Collection of blood in the perinephric tissues. The wound is directed, forwards and slightly outwards. 6. An oblique stab wound, 3 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm, on the left loin, close to the iliac crest. O/E the edges are clean cut. The upper outer end is curved and lower inner is sharp. O/D the muscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut. 7. A transverse stab wound, 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 6 cm, on the left buttock. O/E the edges are clean cut. The inner end is curved and outer end is sharp. Exhibit P-27 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. P.W.27 opined that the deceased would have died of hypoxia and haemorrhage due to wound Nos. 3 and 5. (x) P.W.28 recovered the dress materials found on the body of the deceased. O/E the edges are clean cut. The inner end is curved and outer end is sharp. Exhibit P-27 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. P.W.27 opined that the deceased would have died of hypoxia and haemorrhage due to wound Nos. 3 and 5. (x) P.W.28 recovered the dress materials found on the body of the deceased. On 24.10.2004 at 6.30 a.m., he arrested the accused at Kodangipatti Village in the presence of P.W.13 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife. P.W.28 recovered the dress materials of the accused under a Mahazar. Then, in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.28 and the witnesses to Bagawathi Amman Temple and produced a knife (M.O.11) from a bush. P.W.28 recovered the same. Then, he examined the doctors and collected the medical records. (xi) P.W.19 was the Tahsildar of Karur Taluk during the relevant period. He issued Exhibit P-12 Community Certificate certifying that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. He also gave a Certificate under Exhibit P-13 certifying that the accused belonged to Naicker Community, which is not a Scheduled Caste. P.W.28 examined a few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he handed over the case diary to P.W.29, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur for further investigation. (xii) P.W.29 again examined P.Ws.1 to 5 recorded statements. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (POA) Act. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed appropriate charges against the accused. The accused pleaded innocence. Therefore, he was put on trial. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 29 witnesses were examined, 31 documents were exhibited besides 13 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.Ws.3 to 5 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 alone is available for the prosecution to make reliance. P.W.2 has spoken to about the entire occurrence. P.W.6 and P.W.7 the father and wife respectively of the deceased have spoken about the motive. P.W.1 and P.Ws.3 to 5 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 alone is available for the prosecution to make reliance. P.W.2 has spoken to about the entire occurrence. P.W.6 and P.W.7 the father and wife respectively of the deceased have spoken about the motive. P.W.6 has stated that he alone took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karur and then, to the Government Hospital at Tiruchirappalli. P.W.15 is the Conductor of the bus in which it is alleged that the deceased was stabbed by the accused. But, P.W.15 also turned hostile and he has not stated anything against the accused. P.W.19 is the Tahsildar who has spoken to about the community of the accused and the deceased. P.W.24 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case. Others are official witnesses. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. He has not chosen to examine any witness on his side nor to mark any document. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act. However, the trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC alone. That is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the records carefully. 7. As we have already pointed out, out of 5 witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 5, who were examined as eye-witnesses, except P.W.2, all the others have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, the prosecution is left only with the evidence of P.W.2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the presence of P.W.2, at the time of occurrence, cannot be believed and in any event, his evidence is not trustworthy. Therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. 8. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.2 does not belong to the place where the alleged occurrence had taken place. He claims to be a chance witness to the occurrence. Therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. 8. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.2 does not belong to the place where the alleged occurrence had taken place. He claims to be a chance witness to the occurrence. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the very presence of P.W.2 is doubtful. He would further submit that though it is stated by him that he accompanied the deceased to Government Hospital, Karur, P.W.6 has stated that P.W.2 did not come to the Government Hospital, Karur, at all. 9. The learned counsel further pointed out that the original information passed on to the police has been suppressed. He would point out that during cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that immediately after the occurrence, he went to Velliyanai Police Station and informed about the occurrence. He has further stated that only with the help of the Sub Inspector of Police, a taxi was arranged for the purpose of shifting the deceased to the hospital. The learned counsel further pointed out that during cross-examination, P.W.2 has categorically stated that a woman Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Velliyanai Police Station came to the place of occurrence immediately and just before her arrival, the deceased had been taken to the hospital. From this admission made by P.W.2, the learned counsel would contend that the original information had been suppressed and P.W.2 has been projected as an eye-witness falsely. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that no importance could be attached to the recovery of Material Objects. The learned counsel would further point out that the evidence of P.W.2 had been disbelieved in part. It is because of that reason, the trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (POA) Act. The learned counsel would further contend that the trial Court ought to have rejected the entire evidence of P.W.2 as untrustworthy. 11. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this Criminal Appeal. He would submit that though P.W.1 and P.Ws.3 to 5 have turned hostile, there is no valid reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2. According to him, the contradictions pointed out by the leaned counsel for the appellant are too trivial in nature and the same will not in any manner harm the case of the prosecution. He would submit that though P.W.1 and P.Ws.3 to 5 have turned hostile, there is no valid reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2. According to him, the contradictions pointed out by the leaned counsel for the appellant are too trivial in nature and the same will not in any manner harm the case of the prosecution. In short, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of P.W.2 is trustworthy and coupled with the recovery of M.O.11 knife from the possession of the accused, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant do not require any interference at the hands of this Court, he contended. 12. We have considered the above submissions carefully. 13. As we have already pointed out, the prosecution has to either stand or fall only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of P.W.2 has been disbelieved in respect of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (POA) Act. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 has only been partly believed. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 , the evidence of a witness which is only partly believable cannot be taken as a sole foundation for convicting the accused in the absence of corroboration from the material particular. If the evidence of a witness is fully believable, then there can be no difficulty in basing conviction on the said evidence even in the absence of any other corroboration. Similarly, if the evidence is fully unbelievable, then there can be no difficulty in simply rejecting his evidence. The difficulty is only in respect of the witness who has proved himself to be partly believable. 14. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of corroboration, conviction cannot be recorded solely on the basis of a witness who is partly believable. In the instant case, there is no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. All the other witnesses have turned hostile. The presence of P.W.2, as has been pointed out, was only by chance. In the instant case, there is no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. All the other witnesses have turned hostile. The presence of P.W.2, as has been pointed out, was only by chance. it is the settled law that when a witness claims to have been present at the time of occurrence by chance, then, it is absolutely necessary for him to explain to the satisfaction of the Court, the occasion for him to be present at the time of occurrence. If he has not given satisfactory explanation for his presence at the time of occurrence, then the presence of such witness cannot be believed. 15. In this case, a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that he has not stated any explanation as to why and how, he came to be present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. Thus, in our considered view, the very presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. 16. Nextly, according to P.W.2, he went to Government Hospital at Karur accompanying the deceased. But, in the Accident Register, P.W.17 has recorded that the deceased was brought by his father (P.W.6) and he has not stated anything about P.W.2. It may be because that the Doctor was not required to mention the names of all the persons who had accompanied the injured. But, curiously, P.W.6, the father of the deceased, has categorically admitted during the cross-examination that P.W.2 did not accompany the deceased to the Government Hospital at all. In chief examination itself, P.W.2 has stated that after the occurrence, he went to his house. Had it been true that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence, had it been true that it was he who made arrangement for taxi to shift the deceased to the Government Hospital at Tiruchirappalli, certainly, he would have accompanied him to the hospital. This conduct of P.W.2 also improbablises his presence at the time of occurrence. 17. Nextly, during cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that immediately, after the occurrence, he went to Villiyanai Police Station and informed a Woman Sub Inspector of Police, who was present at the Police Station about the occurrence. He has further stated that the Women Sub Inspector of Police made arrangement for taxi and thereafter, she rushed to the place of occurrence. 17. Nextly, during cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that immediately, after the occurrence, he went to Villiyanai Police Station and informed a Woman Sub Inspector of Police, who was present at the Police Station about the occurrence. He has further stated that the Women Sub Inspector of Police made arrangement for taxi and thereafter, she rushed to the place of occurrence. He has further stated that when the Woman Sub Inspector of police just came to the place of occurrence, the deceased had already been taken to the Government Hospital at Karur. This would go to show that P.W.2 did not accompany the deceased to the hospital. That is the reason why he was present at the place of occurrence when the Sub Inspector of Police came to the place of occurrence. 18. The Women Sub Inspector of Police whom P.W.2 refers during his cross-examination is P.W.24. But P.W.24 disowns any knowledge about the arrival of P.W.2 to the Police Station at all. According to her, it was only P.W.1 who came to the Police Station with the earliest information at 11.30 p.m., on 21.10.2004. Thus, according to her, till 11.30 p.m., there was no information about the occurrence to the Police Station. This evidence of P.W.24 is in contradiction with the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, we have to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 that he was present at the place of occurrence and he only made arrangement to taxi with the help of P.W.24. Thus, either it can be held that the earliest information passed on by P.W.2 has been suppressed or otherwise, it should be held that P.W.2 would not have made arrangement for taking the deceased to the hospital. Thus, his presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. 19. In view of the above improbabilities and material contradictions, we have no hesitation to hold that P.W.2 is not a trustworthy witness and the conviction cannot be based solely on his evidence that too in the absence of corroboration for any other independent source on material particulars. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if already paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed.