Judgment : V.S. Ravi, J. 1. The appellants are arrayed as A-1 to A-7 in S.C.No.68 of 1992 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 28.07.1992 has convicted the accused as follows;- A1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC. A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. A-6 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 302 r/w 149 IPC. A-3 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 302 IPC. In respect of such convictions, A-1, A-3 and A-6 have been each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 have been each sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. A-1 and A-3 have been each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A-6 has been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. A6 has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 have been each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The above appeals have already been allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court have been set aside by this Court by common order, dated 12.04.2001 and all the accused have been acquitted from all the charges. Against which the State preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos.656 of 2002 and 742 of 2003, By judgment dated 18.09.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has remitted the matter back to this Court to consider the matter afresh. The operative portion of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court reads as follows;- "We find that the only reason indicated by the High Court to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses is that the dying declaration had been discarded. Even if that be so, without indicating any reason as to what deficiency was there in the evidence of eye witnesses, the High Court should not have discarded their evidence. Even if that be so, without indicating any reason as to what deficiency was there in the evidence of eye witnesses, the High Court should not have discarded their evidence. Nowhere it has been recorded by the High Court that the eye witnesses evidence was in any way deficient. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. Since the High Court has not discussed the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 independently to test whether it has credibility or not, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court to consider the matter afresh and examine whether for any reason the evidence of Pws1 and 2 need to be discarded." 3. For the sake of convenience, the case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows;- 3.1 PW-1 is the wife of the deceased in the present case and she resides at Mudukkupatti. The deceased has carried on the business as a fish vendor. PW-2 and PW-3 are the daughters of PW-1 and the deceased. PW-2 resides three houses away from the house of PW-1 along with her husband. All the accused reside at Mudukkupatti. A-2 is the brother of A-1. A-5 is the wife of A-1. A-3, A-4 and A-6 are brothers. A-7 is the friend of A-1 to A-6 and A-8. 3.2 The occurrence has taken place on 23.06.1991. One week prior to the date of occurrence, around 1.30 p.m. PW-3 went to collect water from a Public water tank. At that time, A-1 came in a cycle and teased her. PW-3 informed about this to the deceased and the deceased in turn questioned A-1. 3.3 Further, at 06.00 p.m. on 22.06.1991, A-1 has come in a cycle with a load of arrack and he has fallen down, during which time, the front wheel of the cycle has hit as against the daughter of PW-2. On seeing the same, PW-2 scolded A-1, which has followed by a wordy quarrel between PW-2 and A-1. On coming to know about the same, the deceased and PW-1 went to that place. PW-2 narrated to them as to what happened and the deceased reprimanded A-1 for his improper conduct. 3.4 At 07.30 p.m., on 23.06.1991, PW-1, the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3 have all watching the television in their house. On coming to know about the same, the deceased and PW-1 went to that place. PW-2 narrated to them as to what happened and the deceased reprimanded A-1 for his improper conduct. 3.4 At 07.30 p.m., on 23.06.1991, PW-1, the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3 have all watching the television in their house. At that time, A-1 and A-5 came there and standing opposite to the house of PW-1, challenged the deceased to come out. Accordingly, the deceased came out of the house, followed by Pws-1, 2 and 3. A-2 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 have also arrived, there at that time. A-1 armed with suluki, while A-3 and A-6 each armed with an aruval and A-4, looking at the deceased, asked him as to why he is often inviting trouble and saying so, he caught hold of his right hand. A-2 caught hold of his left hand. A-5 induced others to stab him without wasting any further time. Immediately A-1 stabbed on the stomach of the deceased with suluki, followed by A-3, with an aruval, attacked on the head of the deceased. 3.5 Further, PW-1, on seeing that her husband is being cut by the accused, intervened. At that time, A-6 attacked her with an aruval, which has been warded off by PW-1 with her hand, resulting in an injury on her left elbow. He also attacked PW-1 on her head. PW-3 also stepped in, by raising her voice and A-7, with a stick, attacked on the lip and hand of PW-3. The deceased has become unconscious. On seeing that, all the accused ran away. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 17 exhibits besides 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused have been questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied them as incorrect. On the side of the defence one document has been marked as Ex.B1. 5. Having considered the materials available on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier. Against which the above appeals have been preferred and the above appeals have already been allowed by this Court by common order dated 12.04.2001 and accused have been acquitted from all the charges. 5. Having considered the materials available on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier. Against which the above appeals have been preferred and the above appeals have already been allowed by this Court by common order dated 12.04.2001 and accused have been acquitted from all the charges. Thereafter, the State preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos.656 of 2002 and 742 of 2003, By judgment dated 18.09.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has remitted the matter back to this Court to consider the matter afresh. 6. When the matter stood thus, it is reported that A-1 and A-4, namely Shankar and Rajendran, have expired and Death Certificates to that effect have also been filed. Therefore, the appeal gets abated as against A-1 and A-4. 7. Brief averments made in the memorandum of appeal and also the submissions made on behalf of the appellants by the learned Counsel are as follows:- 7.1 The lower Court ought not to have believed the interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses and non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. 7.2 The lower Court ought not to have believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are all bristling with contradictions. The present version is contra to the F.I.R., Ex.P-9 and also the statements of witnesses and deceased made /before the Doctor. 7.3 There is no allegations to attract Section 149 as per Ex.P9 and their present evidence is an after thought. The non availability of bloodstain clearly shows that the occurrence is shifted to suit the prosecution case. There is an inordinate delay in F.I.R. reaching the Court, which cut the roots of the prosecution case. 7.4 The non attestation and non availability of a statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. of the deceased makes it crystal clear that F.I.R. would have been prepared subsequently to suit the prosecution case. 7.5 There is no whisper about the light in the F.I.R. or any of the 161 statements of the witnesses with regard to the light, and admittedly the occurrence took place in the night. When Ex.P-5 falsifies the main allegation, the lower Court ought to have held that the prosecution is not coming with the truth. The non examination of the treatment doctor is fatal to the prosecution. 7.6 The Lower Court ought to have believed the defence version which is more cogent and convincing. When Ex.P-5 falsifies the main allegation, the lower Court ought to have held that the prosecution is not coming with the truth. The non examination of the treatment doctor is fatal to the prosecution. 7.6 The Lower Court ought to have believed the defence version which is more cogent and convincing. The arrest and recovery is completely in correct. The Lower Court failed to see that the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 p.m. and there is no proper light in the scene of occurrence for the witnesses to speak about the occurrence, clearly. 7.7 The Lower Court failed to see that the motive attributed by the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The doctor is also not able to give definite opinion in respect of the weapon that could have caused the alleged injury. 7.8 The Trial Judge erred in convicting the accused based upon the interested testimony of PW1, PW-2 and PW-3, who have been wife and daughters of the deceased. 7.9 The Trial Judge erred in convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. when the injuries sustained are simple in nature and deceased survived for over two days. 7.10 The Trial Court ought to have rejected the motive which is feeble. The Trial Court ought not have relied upon Ex.P-9, which has been made before police and not a dying declaration as recorded by Judicial Magistrate. 7.11 The Lower Court ought to have seen that Ex.P-9 and the F.I.R. have sent belatedly to the Court which throws considerable doubt on the prosecution case, since it is possible for having written a detailed complaint implicating all the accused on the basis of prior enmity. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of prosecution are quite natural and there are no reasons to disbelieve the same. There are eye witnesses to occurrence. Further, motive has been established by the prosecution. Having an overall consideration of the facts, he would further submit that the prosecution has proved the case as against the above mentioned appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the Trial Court has convicted the accused, after properly appreciating the evidences and materials on record. 9. There are eye witnesses to occurrence. Further, motive has been established by the prosecution. Having an overall consideration of the facts, he would further submit that the prosecution has proved the case as against the above mentioned appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the Trial Court has convicted the accused, after properly appreciating the evidences and materials on record. 9. The points arise for consideration are:- i) Whether the appeals have to be allowed for the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and also for the reasons and grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeals? ii) Whether the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 have credibility to establish the case of the prosecution? iii) Whether the conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court against the appellant/accused are sustainable? 10. Discussion, Analysis and Findings:- According to the prosecution, At 07.30 p.m., on 23.06.1991, PW-1, the deceased, PW-2 and PW3 have all watching the television in their house. At that time, A-1 and A-5 came there and standing opposite to the house of PW-1, challenged the deceased to come out. Accordingly, the deceased came out of the house, followed by PWs-1, 2 and 3. Further, A-2 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 have also arrived there at that time. Furthermore, A-1 armed with suluki, and A-3 and A-6 each armed with an aruval and A-4 looking at the deceased, asked him as to why he is often inviting trouble and saying so, he caught hold of his right hand and A-2 caught hold of his left hand. A-5 induced others to stab him without wasting any further time. Immediately A-1 stabbed on the stomach of the deceased with suluki, and followed by A-3, with an aruval, attacked on the head of the deceased. 11. However, PW-1 in her evidence has stated that she could not able to say that A-1 has stabbed his husband with suluki which has been kept in the Court and complaint has not been given as against A-1, for dashing his cycle against her grand-daughter. She further stated that she has witnessed the occurrence with the light emanated from two electric bulbs and except A-1 dashed his cycle against her grand-daughter, there is no previous enmity between the accused and her family and she has clearly deposed that no one has stabbed her husband and also herself with "etti". She further stated that she has witnessed the occurrence with the light emanated from two electric bulbs and except A-1 dashed his cycle against her grand-daughter, there is no previous enmity between the accused and her family and she has clearly deposed that no one has stabbed her husband and also herself with "etti". Also, PW-1, in her evidence has further stated that when the police came to the scene of occurrence, her husband has got conscious enough to speak and he has given statement to the Sub Inspector of Police. Further, the Sub Inspector of Police PW 11 has stated that he has recorded the statement of PW-1, after recording the statement of her husband and also she has been taken to hospital for treatment. Further, in her evidence she has categorically stated that she has not informed the Doctor or the Sub Inspector of Police that she has been beaten by 10 people. Further, PW1 has stated in her evidence that A-6 attacked her with an aruval. However, PW-7, the doctor, who has given treatment to PW-1, has stated that PW-1 informed the said doctor that 10 known persons have attacked PW1 with aruval and the said doctor has issued Ex.P6 injury certificate. In fact, the doctor has submitted in her evidence that PW-1 has got only simple injuries. In such circumstances, only, on behalf of the appellants, it has been rightly pointed out that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW1 and the doctor. 12. Further, PW-2 in her statement has stated that the deceased Madhappan is her father and it is not correct to state that the occurrence has not taken place as stated by her and she has not seen the occurrence. During investigation before the Sub Inspector of Police and thereafter before the Inspector of Police, she has stated that A-5 has screamed and also PW-2 has stated in her statement that she has informed to the Sub Inspector of Police and also Inspector of Police, during course of investigation that she has seen the occurrence with the help of Electric bulb lights situated in front of her house. 13. PW-11, in his evidence, has stated that on 23.06.1991, he went to the Tiruchy Government Hospital on information and recorded the statement of the deceased Madhappan, who has been admitted as inpatient. 13. PW-11, in his evidence, has stated that on 23.06.1991, he went to the Tiruchy Government Hospital on information and recorded the statement of the deceased Madhappan, who has been admitted as inpatient. The complaint given by the deceased Madhappan is Ex.P-9 and he has signed in the complaint. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it is not correct to state that FIR and Ex.P-9/complaint are not given by the deceased Madhappan. He further stated that it is not correct to state that the complaint is prepared in the police station after Madhappan has expired. 14. It is pertinent to point out that in the Accident Register/Ex.P-5, of Madhappan, it is stated that he has been assaulted by known persons with Aruval, etti and sticks at his house on 23.06.1991. In the wound certificate of PW-1, it is stated that she has been assaulted by 10 known persons with aruval in her house. Whereas, in her evidence, she has categorically stated she has not informed the Doctor, who has given her the treatment or the Sub Inspector of Police that she has been beaten by 10 people. For, the above mentioned vital contradiction, there is no explanation forthcoming on the side of the prosecution. 15. Further, PW2 has stated in her evidence that she is the daughter of the deceased and PW-1 and she also stated that blood has fallen from the deceased in the occurrence place and the deceased and PW1 became unconscious after the occurrence. However, PW-1 has stated in her evidence that no blood has fallen in the place of occurrence from the deceased and in the hospital, the deceased gave statement to the Sub Inspector of Police with good consciousness and blood has fallen from the hand injury suffered by PW-1 and PW-1 has informed the doctor in the hospital only about the cut and stab injuries caused to herself. Further, PW-1, has stated that she has informed the Sub Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police, during the investigation, that she has seen the occurrence from two lights in front of her house. However, PW11, Sub Inspector of Police has stated that PW-1 to PW-3 have not informed about the witnessing, the scene of occurrence with the help of electric lights. However, PW11, Sub Inspector of Police has stated that PW-1 to PW-3 have not informed about the witnessing, the scene of occurrence with the help of electric lights. Further, PW3, who is the daughter of the deceased and PW-1, has stated that the accused Murugan has attacked her with stick and she has suffered injuries in the lower lip, and also in the left hand, and his father namely the deceased have not been caught hold of by the accused and she has shown the injuries suffered by her to the Sub Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police has not sent her to the doctor for treatment. However, PW11, Sub Inspector of Police has not stated about the said details in his evidence. Further, the said stick used by the accused to attack PW-3 has not been seized and produced before the Court by the prosecution. Further, PW5, has stated in the evidence, that on the next day of the occurrence, and also during the time of investigation by the Sub Inspector, blood stains have been seen. However, the said Sub Inspector has not stated anything about the same, in his evidence before the Court. Further, PW7 doctor has admitted in her evidence that she has not mentioned in the Accident Register that the deceased has suffered stab injuries and also irregular injuries. 16. The crucial witnesses in the present case are PW-1 to PW-3, namely wife and daughters of the deceased Madhappan. As they are close relatives of the deceased person and admittedly there are certain previous quarrel between the accused and PW-1 to PW-3, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 have to be examined with much care and caution. The key witnesses in the present case are PW-1 to PW-3 and their evidence should be cogent, reliable, credible and trustworthy in support of the case of the prosecution. PW-1 and PW-2 in their evidences have stated that A-2 and A-4 caught hold of each one of the hands of the deceased. However, PW-3 would state that none caught hold of the hands of the deceased. Further on a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not clinching and trustworthy. Further, it is useful to extract the following judgment in this regard. However, PW-3 would state that none caught hold of the hands of the deceased. Further on a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not clinching and trustworthy. Further, it is useful to extract the following judgment in this regard. 1995 SCC (Cri) 151 (State of Haryana v. Inderaj and another), wherein it is held as follows;- "Criminal trial ? Appreciation of evidence ? Murder ? Prosecution case based on evidence of highly interested witnesses. Their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful ? Witnesses making certain improvements regarding nature of weapon used ? No other person of locality examined by the prosecution. Evidence of defence witness who resided near the place of occurrence found reliable ? Held. In the circumstances, it is highly unsafe to convict the accused in appeal." In the present case also, on a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is found that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the contradictions as pointed out by the appellant are material and can be held to go to the root of the case. Due to the inconsistent statements given by PW-1 to PW-3, their testimony is not reliable and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3. The non examination of acceptable other person of the said locality, neighbours also throws a cloud on the case of the prosecution. Further, the said variations relate to vital parts of the prosecution case and cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 17. Further, as per the prosecution case, one week prior to the date of occurrence, around 1.30 p.m., PW-3 went to collect water from a public water tank and at that time A-1, came came in a cycle and teased her. Thereafter on 22.06.1991 at 06.00 p.m. when A-1 has come in a bicycle with a load of arrack and also, passing the house of PW-2, he has fallen, during which time, the front wheel of the cycle has hit as against the daughter of PW-2. These are the two incidents which are projected as motive by the prosecution. In this regard it is useful to extract the following decisions;- i) 2006(2) MWN (Cr.) 10 (DB) (Srikanth & others v. The State, rep . These are the two incidents which are projected as motive by the prosecution. In this regard it is useful to extract the following decisions;- i) 2006(2) MWN (Cr.) 10 (DB) (Srikanth & others v. The State, rep . by Inspector of Police, K10, Koyambedu Police Station), it is held as follows:- "Motive part of prosecution case, therefore, not acceptable- Recovery effected pursuant to confession allegedly given by accused in police custody, cannot be given much importance - No cogent evidence to connect accused to crime – Prosecution miserably failed to establish its Case. Conviction set aside." ii) AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Sharad v. State of Maharashtra) , wherein it is held as follows;- “The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a strait-jacket. Distance of time would depend or vary with the circumstances of each case. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some case have held is only this: where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court? (underlined for emphasis) In the present case, also PW1 in his evidence has categorically submitted that no complaint has been given as against the motive incident stated supra. (underlined for emphasis) In the present case, also PW1 in his evidence has categorically submitted that no complaint has been given as against the motive incident stated supra. In such view of the matter, the motive projected by the prosecution is not supported by evidence or material records and the prosecution has not proved the said motive beyond reasonable doubt, by examining the acceptable and convincing evidences on the side of the prosecution. 18. Further, the prosecution has projected PW-4 as independent witness. However, she has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, she has been treated as hostile. In this regard it is useful to refer the following judgment;- 1989 SCC (Cri) 585 (State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan and ors.), wherein it is held as follows;- “Be that as it may, the fact remains that the genesis of the crime is suppressed and no witness from the locality whose presence would be natural is examined which creates a doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version.? In the present case, also, no clinching independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to support their case. It is pertinent to point out that the independent witness PW-4 has turned hostile. Apart from that the doctor who gave treatment to the deceased Madhappan, has also not been examined, which is also, not in favour of the prosecution, and the prosecution has clearly admitted that the deceased has been admitted on 23.06.1991 and expired only on 25.06.1991. 19. It is useful to extract the following judgments; i) 2013(2) MWN (Cr.)222(SC) (Sujit Biswas V. State of Assam) it is held as follows: "Burden though lies on Accused to prove his innocence, burden on prosecution much greater to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt" ii) (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 726 (Bhalinder Singh Alias Raju v. State of Punjab), it is held as follows: "Held, on fact, circumstances not sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused." iii) AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2002 (State of Rajasthan v. Wakteng), it is held as follows:- "18. Above being the position, the High Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations against the respondent." iv) (2007) 9 SCC 315 (Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka), wherein it is held as follows;- “Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. Similarly Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that confession by the accused person while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. However, to the aforesaid rule of Sections 25 to 26 of the Evidence Act, there is an exception carved out by Section 27 of the Evidence Act providing that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Such statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given. Some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can by safely allowed to be given in evidence. 22. As the section is alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant about its application. The Court must ensure the credibility of evidence by police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. It does not, however, mean that any statement made in terms of the aforesaid section should be seen with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation. The Court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.? 20. The Court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.? 20. In this case also, PW-6 Mahazar witness has stated in his evidence that he has reached the particular point of time, when A1, Shankar has stated about M.O.3, and he has no knowledge about the prior details and also about the further details written by police. Further, PW1 has stated in her evidence that she could not able to say that A1 has stabbed the deceased, namely her husband with suluki, which has been kept in the Court. Further, the complaint/Ex.P-9 said to have been given by the deceased Madhappan, on 23.06.1991 has not reached the Court immediately. The deceased Madhappan has taken treatment in the hospital from 23.06.1991 to 25.06.1991 and he died only 25.06.1991. Subsequently, the FIR and then the complaint along with the alteration report, reached the Court only on 25.06.1991 at 06.00 a.m. The statement said to have been recorded from the deceased on 23.06.1991 has not reached the Court immediately and only after the death of the deceased, the said complaint has been received by the Court along with the FIR and alteration report. In this regard it is worth to mention the following judgments;- i) (2010) 1 MLJ (CRL) 687 (SC) (Prabir Mondal and anr. V. State of West Bengal), wherein it is held as follows: "Further, knife which was seized and was alleged to have been used for commission of offence, was never sent for forensic examination so as to connect it with offence. Also, there is delay in lodging FIR and chances of fabrication in FIR cannot be ruled out -Neither Trail Court nor High Court appears to have looked into such details properly -Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court and upheld by High Court is set aside. Also, there is delay in lodging FIR and chances of fabrication in FIR cannot be ruled out -Neither Trail Court nor High Court appears to have looked into such details properly -Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court and upheld by High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed." ii) Dr.Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and ors V. State of Maharastra (2010) 13 SCC 657 , wherein it is held as follows: "Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfullness of a witness and other witnesses also make material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence." On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record of the present case, it is found that the above judgments are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is satisfied that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 are not worthy of credence, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their evidences. Further, the evidence of other witnesses which are only of corroborative type would not in any way improve the prosecution case. Further, there is no clinching evidence to connect the accused with injuries suffered by the deceased as pointed out in the postmortem Report, namely, Ex.P-8. 21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out the following decisions in support of his contentions. i) JAGROOP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB {(2013) 1 SCC (CRI) 1136}, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows;- "Aspects which have to be taken care of are nature of circumstances, time when confession is made and credibility of witnesses who speak of such confession. Before relying on such confession, Court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and it is not result of inducement, threat or promise." ii) N.V.SUBBA RAO v. STATE (2013) 1 SCC (CRI) 891, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "Preponderance of probabilities. On facts held, since prosecution established its charges beyond reasonable doubt by adducing acceptable evidence, submission by A-1 that accused could establish his defence by preponderance of probability was irrelevant." The citations relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case, for the above mentioned reasons. On facts held, since prosecution established its charges beyond reasonable doubt by adducing acceptable evidence, submission by A-1 that accused could establish his defence by preponderance of probability was irrelevant." The citations relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case, for the above mentioned reasons. Further, no reliable, trustworthy, and credible witnesses have been examined by the prosecution before the Court, in order to establish the above mentioned case of the prosecution. 22. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubts and the above mentioned circumstances also create serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. The doubts have not been clearly explained by the prosecution in any manner and thus, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of such doubts. Thus, it is found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants, are entitled for acquittal and the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2 have no credibility to establish the case of the prosecution. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded. The judgment of the lower Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed. The Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of the judgment to the jail authorities (ie. Central Prison, Tiruhcirapalli), so as to enable them to act, in accordance with law.