JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 1 to 7, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 149, 324 read with 149of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for one month and RI for one month and each accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for seven days, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by judgment dated 12.07.2005, in Sessions Case No. 433 of 2004, by these appeals question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 819 of 2005 has been filed by Original Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5, Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2005 has been filed by Original Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2005 has been filed by Original Accused Nos. 6 and 7. Since all these appeals arise from the same judgment of the trial court, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may be stated thus:- PW-22 PSI Sandipan Pawar, who on 4.4.2004 was attached to the Malad Police Station and was on duty, received an anonymous telephone call at about 00.15 a.m. informing him that one person was injured due to assault and the relatives of the injured had taken him to the Bhagvati Hospital. PW-22 PSI Pawar, alongwith PI Thakur and other police staff went to the Bhagvati Hospital. Statement of PW-1 Pappu, who was present in the Hospital was recorded at Exhibit 18. On the basis of the said statement, an offence vide Crime No. 171 of 2004 was registered. Inquest panchnama of the dead body of deceased Soni was drawn at Exhibit 29 in the presence of the panch witnesses. The dead body was referred for postmortem examination alongwith the requisition at Exhibit 78. A photographer was called who had taken photographs of the dead body. The clothes of deceased Soni were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 79. PW-22 PSI Pawar thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident and in the presence of the panch witnesses drew the scene of the incident panchnama at Exhibit 32. A photographer was called who had taken photographs of the dead body. The clothes of deceased Soni were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 79. PW-22 PSI Pawar thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident and in the presence of the panch witnesses drew the scene of the incident panchnama at Exhibit 32. From the scene of the incident he seized sample of ordinary mud and blood mixed mud and one slipper. Photographs of the scene of the incident were also taken by the photographer. The clothes of PW-1 Pappu were seized in the presence of panchas. PW-23 PI Rajendra Thakur, who was also attached to the Malad Police Station and who had accompanied PW-22 PSI Pawar to the Hospital as well as to the scene of the incident, recorded the statement of witnesses. PW-21 PSI Marathe had arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 5 on 5.4.2004 under arrest panchnama at Exhibit 76. During custodial interrogation, Accused No. 1 Naresh expressed his willingness to point out the place where a pair of scissors and the clothes had been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum at Exhibit 34 was drawn in the presence of panchas. Accused No. 1 Naresh led the police and panch to a room in Gudiyapada Area and produced a pair of scissors and clothes from the roof of the room which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 34-A. During custodial interrogation on 8.4.2004, Accused No. 5 Jitesh expressed his willingness to point out the place where his clothes had been concealed. A memorandum was accordingly drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 40. Accused No. 5 Jitesh led the police and the panch to his house situated at Sarojini Naidu Road and produced one chopper and his clothes which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 40-A. On 9.4.2004 Accused No. 2 Mahendra expressed his willingness to point out the place where the clothes worn by him and the blade of scissors had been concealed. A memorandum to that effect was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 38. Accused No. 2 Mahendra led the Police and the panch near the house of his sister and produced his clothes and scissors which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 38-A. Accused No. 3 Siquender expressed his willingness to point out the place where his clothes had been concealed as well as the scissors. Accused No. 2 Mahendra led the Police and the panch near the house of his sister and produced his clothes and scissors which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 38-A. Accused No. 3 Siquender expressed his willingness to point out the place where his clothes had been concealed as well as the scissors. A memorandum was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 25. Accused No. 3 Siquender led the police and the panch to his house and produced his clothes and a chopper which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 25-A. Accused No. 4 Sunil, on 9.4.2004, expressed his willingness to point out the place where a sword stick had been concealed. A memorandum was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 24. Accused No. 4 Sunil led the police and the panch to his house and produced his clothes and a sword stick which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 24-A. PW-24 API Raju Kasbe, who was also attached to the Malad Police Station, arrested Accused Nos. 6 and 7 on 10.4.2004. On 10.4.2004, Accused No. 7 expressed his willingness to point out the place where his clothes and sword stick had been concealed. A memorandum was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 48-A. Accused No. 7 Sunil led the police and the panch to his house and produced his clothes and one sword stick which were seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 48-B. On 13.4.2004, Accused No. 6 Surajban expressed his willingness to point out the place where his clothes and chopper had been concealed. A memorandum was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 27. The accused led the police and the panch to his house and produced his clothes and a chopper which were seized under Exhibit 27-A. PW-23 PI Thakur forwarded the seized property to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition at Exhibit 81. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was submitted. 2. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Soni Nanhu Chandaliya was performed by PW 14 - Dr. Priya Bhosale. PW 14 - Dr. Priya Bhosale noticed that deceased Soni had sustained the following external injuries:- (i) Incised wound on back infrascapular 6.5 x 1 c.m. muscle deep. (ii) Incised wound left gluteal region 3 x 1 c.m. in centre cavity deep. Priya Bhosale. PW 14 - Dr. Priya Bhosale noticed that deceased Soni had sustained the following external injuries:- (i) Incised wound on back infrascapular 6.5 x 1 c.m. muscle deep. (ii) Incised wound left gluteal region 3 x 1 c.m. in centre cavity deep. (iii) Incised wound left chest below nippled 4 x 2 c.m. cavity deep. (iv) Incised wound left lower abdomen 3 x 1 c.m. (v) Incised wound in the centre of lower abdomen 2 x 1 c.m. (vi) Incised wound right side of abdomen 3 x 1 c.m. (vii) Right upper thigh 2 x 1/2 c.m. muscle deep. On internal examination, she noticed the following injuries:- (i) Left lung: Left chest injury pierces lung blood present. (ii) Pericardium: Blood present. (iii) Heard with weight: Left chest injury pierces heart and resulting hemorrhage under it. (iv) Large vessels: Blood present. (v) Stomach: semi digested dal, rice present about 200 cc. Smell of alcohol present. (vi) Small and large intestine: Gaseous. Mesentery small intestine loop pierces with large haematoma, corresponding to injury No. 4 and 5 mentioned in clause No. 17 of PM report. PW-14 Dr. Priya Bhosale opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to multiple incised injuries. The postmortem report is at Exhibit 44. Dr. Bhosale has further opined that the injuries were possible by the weapons articles 7 and 8 and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 3. On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 4 framed charge against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 326 read with 34/326 r/w. 149, 302 read with 34/302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section37(i) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 4/27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined 24 witnesses. The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the Appellants/accused as afore-stated. 4. We have heard Mr. Choudhary and Ms. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined 24 witnesses. The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the Appellants/accused as afore-stated. 4. We have heard Mr. Choudhary and Ms. Anjali Patil learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State and in order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. Prosecution has examined PW-3 Ravi as an eyewitness to the incident. PW-3 Ravi deposes that on 4.4.2004 Ravi alongwith PW-20 Rakesh were bringing food from the house of PW-2 Kelabai towards the house of PW-3 Ravi at about 10.45 p.m. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 surrounded Ravi and Rakesh and began abusing them. This incident occurred in the open ground in front of the house of the Paleram Bhumkar. According to PW-3 Ravi, his uncle deceased Soni was sitting on a cot which was kept in the open ground at a distance of about 20 to 25 feet. Deceased Soni came towards them and questioned the accused as to why they were abusing. An altercation took place between the accused and deceased Soni. The accused removed chopper, sword stick and scissors and assaulted deceased Soni with the said weapons. According to Ravi, he could not state exactly on which part of the body each accused had inflicted injury. According to Ravi, Accused No. 4 Sunil Ridlan and Accused No. 7 Sunil Soda were armed with sword sticks, Accused No. 3 Siquender, Accused No. 5 Jitesh and Accused No. 6 Surajban @ Bhone were armed with choppers. Accused No. 1 Naresh and Accused No. 2 Mahendra were armed with scissors. According to Ravi, he was standing near deceased Soni at the time of the incident. Ravi also deposes that the accused had stated that if anyone assists the deceased, he would also be dealt with in similar manner. After the assault, PW-1 Papu, PW-2 Kelabai and PW-4 Balveer arrived at the scene of the incident and removed the injured Soni to Bhagvati Hospital. Ravi further clarifies that Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 had also assaulted PW-1 Pappu with choppers on his left hand when he had come to rescue Soni. After the assault, PW-1 Papu, PW-2 Kelabai and PW-4 Balveer arrived at the scene of the incident and removed the injured Soni to Bhagvati Hospital. Ravi further clarifies that Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 had also assaulted PW-1 Pappu with choppers on his left hand when he had come to rescue Soni. 6. In cross-examination he has admitted as true that he had not stated in his previous statement the reasons as to why the accused had surrounded him. He has also admitted as true that when the accused had surrounded him, there was a commotion and residents from the locality had gathered there. He has also admitted as correct that he had not disclosed in his previous statement the names of the persons who had gathered at the scene of the incident. He has also admitted as correct that he had cried out and asked his father to help him. He has admitted that he was bringing food in a big plate and the plate with the food had fallen on the ground. He then claims that he had left as soon as the thali with the food had fallen. An omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about the accused surrounding him and abusing him. An omission is also elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about Soni sitting on the cot when the accused had surrounded PW-3 Ravi. Omission is elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that his uncle Soni was sitting at a distance of about 20 to 25 feet. Omission is also elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that the accused were abusing deceased Soni and that there was an altercation between the accused and deceased Soni. Omission is also elicited that he had not stated that he had cried out for help and deceased Soni had come to his rescue. In further cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not know the surname and the father's name of the accused. He then admits in cross-examination as true that there was darkness as it was night. He has also admitted as true that persons cannot see properly the place situated in front of the house of Paleram Bhumkar from his house. In further cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not know the surname and the father's name of the accused. He then admits in cross-examination as true that there was darkness as it was night. He has also admitted as true that persons cannot see properly the place situated in front of the house of Paleram Bhumkar from his house. He admits as correct that his previous statement had been read over to him before he steps into the witness box and that he was deposing as per the statement which had been read over to him. 7. Prosecution has examined PW-20 Rakesh, who had accompanied PW-3 Ravi to the scene of the incident. PW-20 Rakesh deposes that deceased Soni as well as PW-1 Pappu are his relatives. He alongwith Ravi was carrying food from the house of PW-2 Kelabai. Accused No. 1 Naresh and Accused No. 2 Mahendra accosted them in the ground near the house of Ravi. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 started assaulting PW-20 Rakesh and PW-3 Ravi. Thereafter, deceased Soni arrived at the scene of the incident and questioned Accused Nos. 1 and 2 as to why they were assaulting Ravi and Rakesh. Accused No. 1 Naresh and Accused No. 2 Mahendra then assaulted Soni. Soni died on the same day. In cross-examination he has admitted that his previous statement had been read over to him before being examined as a witness and he was told about what to depose. He has then admitted as correct that there was darkness at the time of the incident. He has also admitted that he could not see the faces of the assailants. He has admitted as correct that there was no previous enmity between the accused and his uncle. He has also admitted as correct that he had not seen by which weapons the assailants had assaulted Soni. He has then admitted as correct that apart from the two accused he had not seen any other person. In fact, according to him, he could only see the outlines of the assailants in order to judge that they were males. He has then admitted as correct that PW-1 Pappu had arrived at the scene of the incident when blood was oozing from the injuries sustained by Soni and when PW-1 Pappu had arrived at the scene of the incident, the assailants were not present. 8. He has then admitted as correct that PW-1 Pappu had arrived at the scene of the incident when blood was oozing from the injuries sustained by Soni and when PW-1 Pappu had arrived at the scene of the incident, the assailants were not present. 8. Prosecution has examined PW-1 Pappu, who claims to be an eye-witness as well as an injured witness. PW-1 Pappu deposes that there was a religious function at the house of his sister PW-2 Kelabai. House of Kelabai was situated in the same locality and was near his house. His cousin PW-3 Ravi and his cousin PW-20 Rakesh had been sent by him to the house of PW-2 Kelabai for bringing food. Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 reside in the same locality where PW-1 Pappu was residing for the last 8 to 10 years. According to Pappu he knew Accused No. 5 Jitesh because he has sent him at the time of incident. Accused No. 1 Naresh and Accused No. 2 Mahendra had assaulted Ravi on 4.4.2004 at about 11.00 p.m. Deceased Soni was sitting on the cot at a distance of about 10 feet from PW-1 Pappu. According to Pappu, he alongwith others was sitting in front of the house. Ravi had cried for help and therefore, deceased Soni had gone to assist him. PW-1 Pappu also went towards the scene of the incident. There was a scuffle between deceased Soni and Accused Nos. 1 to 7, Accused No. 1 Naresh and Accused No. 2 Mahendra were armed with scissors. Accused No. 3 Siquender was armed with a chopper and Accused No. 6 Surajban was armed with a chopper. Accused No. 5 Jitesh was also armed with a chopper while Accused No. 4 Sunil Ridlan and Accused No. 7 Sunil Soda were armed with sword sticks. Accused No. 5 Jitesh dealt a blow of chopper to deceased Soni. All the accused were assaulting deceased Soni with the weapons with which they were armed. According to Pappu, he tried to intervene and rescue deceased Soni but Accused No. 3 Siquender, Accused No. 6 Surajban and Accused No. 5 Jitesh assaulted with the weapons on his left hand. Soni had sustained several injuries. Meanwhile, accused were shouted that if anyone intervenes, he would also be dealt with in similar manner. Accused then fled from the scene of the incident. Soni had sustained several injuries. Meanwhile, accused were shouted that if anyone intervenes, he would also be dealt with in similar manner. Accused then fled from the scene of the incident. According to Pappu, injured Soni was then shifted to the Bhagvati Hospital where the Medical Officer declared him dead on admission. Pappu admits that he had taken treatment for the injuries sustained by him. The police had interrogated him and had recorded his statement at Exhibit 18. He then admits that the scene of the incident was in front of the house of Paleram Bhumkar. In cross-examination he has admitted that he could not state if he was knowing the name of Accused No. 5 Jitesh till his report was scribed. He has denied the suggestion that he had informed the Medical Officer that 30 to 40 known persons had assaulted him. He has denied the suggestion that about 40 to 50 persons had assembled at the scene of the incident after hearing the commotion. An omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his report that Soni was sitting on the cot at a distance of 10 feet. An omission is also elicited that he had not stated in his report that PW-3 Ravi had cried for help and therefore, deceased Soni had gone to help him. In further cross-examination he has admitted that the Medical Officer had questioned him as to how he had received the injury and he had informed the Medical Officer the manner in which he had received the injury. He then admits as correct that there are 6 injury marks on his left hand. He has admitted as correct that the injury marks were prior to the alleged incident. He could not state as to how he had received those 6 injuries on his left hand. Omission has been elicited in the cross-examination that he had not stated in his report the full name of Accused No. 7. He then admits that on 5.4.2004 in the night the police had shown him the weapons and that the weapons were not sealed when they were shown to him. He has also admitted as correct that the weapons were stained with blood when they were shown to him in the Police Station. 9. He then admits that on 5.4.2004 in the night the police had shown him the weapons and that the weapons were not sealed when they were shown to him. He has also admitted as correct that the weapons were stained with blood when they were shown to him in the Police Station. 9. Prosecution has examined PW-2 Kelabai, sister of PW-1 Pappu, who deposes that on 4.4.2004 a religious function had been arranged at her house and on that day PW-3 Ravi and PW-20 Rakesh were carrying food from her house to the house of PW-4 Balveer at about 11.00 p.m. Accused No. 1 Naresh slapped PW-3 Ravi and thereafter, there was a quarrel. Kelabai states that she had not seen as to who had assaulted deceased Soni. She then states that the accused had assaulted Soni and that Soni was murdered at the same place where the quarrel took place. According to her, she alongwith others had removed Soni to the Bhagvati Hospital. He claims that the distance between her house and the scene of the incident is about 15 to 20 feet. In cross-examination she has admitted that she could not state as to which accused was armed with which weapon. She has then admitted as correct that when she had reached the scene of the incident, deceased Soni was already lying on the ground with injuries. She has then admitted as correct that PW-1 Pappu, Dharam Kaur, Bimla and PW-4 Balveer had arrived at the same time when she had reached the scene of the incident. 10. Prosecution has examined PW-4 Balveer, brother of PW-1 Pappu and PW-2 Kelabai. According to PW-4 Balveer, on 4.4.2004, there was a religious function at the house of his sister PW-2 Kelabai. His on PW-3 Ravi and his nephew, PW-20 Rakesh were bringing food from the house of Kelabai at about 10.45 p.m. Accused No. 1 Naresh assaulted PW-3 Ravi on the ground that he was bringing food. According to Balveer, the scene of the incident was visible from his house. Deceased Soni, brother of PW-4 Balveer went to the assistance of PW-3 Ravi. Accused No. 1 Naresh slapped deceased Soni and thereafter, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 arrived at the scene of the incident. Accused No. 1 Naresh was armed with scissors while Accused Nos. 3, 6 and 7 were armed with choppers. Accused Nos. Deceased Soni, brother of PW-4 Balveer went to the assistance of PW-3 Ravi. Accused No. 1 Naresh slapped deceased Soni and thereafter, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 arrived at the scene of the incident. Accused No. 1 Naresh was armed with scissors while Accused Nos. 3, 6 and 7 were armed with choppers. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were armed with sword sticks. He further deposes that Accused Nos. 6 and 7 had assaulted PW-1 Pappu on the left hand with a chopper. In cross-examination he has admitted as correct that he, PW-2 Kelabai, PW-1 Pappu and others reached the scene of the incident at the same time. He has admitted that neither he nor PW-1 Pappu were armed with any weapon. He has then admitted as correct that the Medical Officer had inquired from PW-1 Pappu as to how he had received the injuries on his left hand. He has then admitted as correct that if a person standing in front of the house of PW-1 Pappu, then due to darkness he cannot identify the persons standing in front of the house of Paleram Bhumkar. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants have rightly urged before us that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-1 Pappu, PW-3 Ravi and PW-20 Rakesh in the light of major variance in their testimony. It is also urged before us that since PW-1 Pappu has admitted that the weapons had been shown to him prior to the alleged discovery of the weapons, no reliance can be placed on the discovery memorandum of the weapons at the behest of the Appellants. The learned APP has supported the findings arrived at by Trial Court. 12. PW-1 Pappu claims that he had gone to the scene of the incident and had been assaulted by the accused. The claim of PW-1 Pappu is falsified by the admission given by PW-2 Kelabai and PW-4 Balveer that they had also reached the scene of the incident alongwith Pappu and at that point of time, the accused had fled from the scene of the incident. This is also deposed to by PW-2 Kelabai, PW-4 Balveer and PW-20 Rakesh have not been declared hostile by the prosecution after they were cross-examined by the accused. The admission elicited in the cross-examination which virtually shattered the testimony of PW-1 Pappu cannot be wished away by the prosecution. This is also deposed to by PW-2 Kelabai, PW-4 Balveer and PW-20 Rakesh have not been declared hostile by the prosecution after they were cross-examined by the accused. The admission elicited in the cross-examination which virtually shattered the testimony of PW-1 Pappu cannot be wished away by the prosecution. The said admissions therefore will have to be taken into consideration alongwith evidence of PW-1 Pappu. If these admissions are taken into consideration, it is clear that when PW-1 Pappu had reached the scene of the incident, the accused had already fled. It is true that PW-1 Pappu claims to be an injured eye-witness. A witness who claims to be injured during the incident, can legitimately urge before the Court that his presence at the scene of the incident and at the time of the incident is fully established. PW-1 Pappu in his cross-examination has admitted that there were 6 marks of injuries on his left hand which he had sustained prior to the incident. Prosecution has examined PW-18 Dr. Rana, who was working as a Medical Officer in the Bhagvati Hospital. Admittedly, PW-1 Pappu had been examined by Dr. Manish Patel, who unfortunately was not examined by the prosecution. PW-18 Dr. Rana proved the certificate issued by Dr. Manish Patel regarding the injuries sustained by PW-1 Pappu. The said certificate discloses that Pappu had sustained the following injuries:- (1) Incise wound on left forearm middle 3rd 8 to 12 c.m. x 3 c.m. muscle deep. (2) Incise wound on left forearm middle 3rd 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. subcutaneous deep. (3) Minor abrasion on left forearm lower 3rd. In cross-examination PW-18 Dr. Rana has admitted that she had not personally seen the injuries sustained by PW-1 Pappu. In the said certificate, we find that there is a reference to 3 injuries. The age of the injuries is not given in the said certificate. Moreover, in the history narrated by PW-1 Pappu, he has disclosed that he was assaulted by 30 to 40 persons who were known to him with sword and knife. In the said certificate, we find that there is a reference to 3 injuries. The age of the injuries is not given in the said certificate. Moreover, in the history narrated by PW-1 Pappu, he has disclosed that he was assaulted by 30 to 40 persons who were known to him with sword and knife. In the absence of the age of the injuries being disclosed, the fact that PW-1 Pappu had sustained the injuries during the assault on deceased Soni has not been established, in our opinion therefore, no reliance could be placed by the prosecution on the fact that PW-1 Pappu had sustained injuries and his claim at having sustained injuries in the incident also has not been established. 13. According to PW-20 Rakesh, there was darkness at the time of the incident and he could see the outlines of only 2 persons. He has admitted that only 2 accused were present who were armed with scissors. According to him, those 2 accused have assaulted deceased Soni. The Medical Officer in no uncertain terms has deposed that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be caused by the scissors which had been produced in the Court. Even other witnesses have attributed the scissors to Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The evidence of PW-20 Rakesh is therefore completely at a discord with the evidence of the other two eye-witnesses. Prosecution witnesses have also in no uncertain terms admitted that the scene of the incident was not visible, due to darkness, from the house of PW-1 Pappu. If that be the case, in our opinion, it would be extremely difficult for PW-1 Pappu to have witnessed the assailants assaulting deceased Soni and as per the other witnesses, when PW-1 Pappu had arrived at the scene of the incident, the accused had fled. Thus, in our opinion, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is intermixed with falsehood. Generally, it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff that is the truth from the falsehood. However, if truth and falsehood are so intermingled and so intertwined that they cannot be separated, the evidence of the eye-witnesses will have to be jettisoned. In the present case as pointed out by us, prosecution has not declared PW-2 Kelabai, PW-4 Balveer, PW-20 Rakesh as hostile after their cross-examination. However, if truth and falsehood are so intermingled and so intertwined that they cannot be separated, the evidence of the eye-witnesses will have to be jettisoned. In the present case as pointed out by us, prosecution has not declared PW-2 Kelabai, PW-4 Balveer, PW-20 Rakesh as hostile after their cross-examination. The evidence of these witnesses therefore is binding on the prosecution and the admissions elicited in the cross-examination which assist the defence cannot be ignored. The prosecution cannot urge the Court to ignore the admissions of these witnesses. In other words, the prosecution cannot just wished away the evidence of these witnesses. As pointed out by us above, the evidence of these witnesses completely shatters the entire prosecution case. Where the prosecution comes forward with 2 parallel versions each computing any truthfulness with the other, it would be hazardous for the Court to pick and choose any one version for sustaining the conviction. 14. As pointed out by us above, PW-1 Pappu has admitted that on the day of the incident itself, the weapons had been shown to him which he had noticed to be stained with blood. If that be the case, the entire discovery of the weapons at the behest of the prosecution cannot be relied upon. Since we find that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the eye-witnesses and since the evidence relating to discovery cannot be relied upon, we find that the Appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and the Appellants are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the Appellants, be refunded to them. Bail bonds of Accused No. 1 Naresh Magan Patel, Accused No. 2 Mahendra Magan Patel, Accused No. 3 Siquender Ridlan, Accused No. 4 Sunil Ridlan, Accused No. 6 Surajban @ Bhone Soda Dhanajiram and Accused No. 7 Sunil Ismasingh @ Dile Dhanajiram Soda stand cancelled. Since Accused No. 5 Jitesh Ramesh Rathod is in Jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed