JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants herein are accused Nos.2, 3 and 1, respectively, in S.C.No.93 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin. The 4th accused in the case is one Mr.Joseph. Originally, there were seven accused in the case, against whom final report was laid. As a matter of fact, the trial court framed charges against all the seven accused. Originally, the appellants were accused Nos.4, 6 and 1, respectively and the 4th accused in S.C.No.93 of 2006 was accused No.7. As against all the seven accused, the trial court framed charges, as detailed below. Sl.No Charge Accused 1 U/s.148 IPC Against all the accused. 2. U/s.341 IPC Against all the accused. 3. U/s.302 IPC Against accused 1 to 6 4. U/s.302 r/w.149 IPC Against accused No.7 2. Before the trial could commence, the 5th accused Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu passed away. The other two accused by name Suresh and Kavi @ Kavithai were absconding and therefore the case against them was split-up. Thus, the remaining accused, namely the appellants herein and Mr. Joseph, hereafter referred to as accused Nos.1 to 4, faced trial. By judgment dated 04.10.2010, the trial court convicted all the four accused as detailed below. Accused Conviction Sentence A-1 to A-4 U/s.148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year to each accused. A-1 toA-4 U/s.341 IPC Simple imprisonment for one month to each accused. A-1 to A-3 U/s..302 IPC Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to each accused. A-4 U/s.302 r/w.149 IPC Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to each accused. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed on them, the appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 3, are before this Court with these appeals. 3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Murugan. Some time before the alleged occurrence, one Glory was allegedly raped by one Vimal and others. The deceased and his men helped the police to arrest the accused in that case. The accused in this case were aggrieved over the same. This is stated to be the motive for the present occurrence. Some time before the alleged occurrence, one Glory was allegedly raped by one Vimal and others. The deceased and his men helped the police to arrest the accused in that case. The accused in this case were aggrieved over the same. This is stated to be the motive for the present occurrence. (b) While so, on 30.09.2002, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was coming just in front of the house of one Mr.Karuppiah (P.W.5) on the main road. At that time, it is alleged that these appellants and the other four accused came to the said place, in an unlawful assembly, all armed with knife, each. It is further alleged that they restrained the deceased, wrongfully, from proceeding further, by surrounding him. It is also alleged that in the course of the same transaction, the first accused Vinoth stabbed the deceased Murugan, repeatedly, on various parts of his body. Absconding accused Suresh also stabbed the deceased, indiscriminately, on various parts of his body. If is further alleged that the another absconding accused Kavi @ Kavithai then stabbed the deceased, repeatedly, on his body. Then the 2nd accused Francis stabbed the deceased, repeatedly with knife. Then, the deceased accused Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu stabbed the deceased, repeatedly, with knife, on his left leg, neck and other parts of the body. The 3rd accused Sekar, then stabbed the deceased on his neck and other parts of the body. Thus, these six accused caused the death of the deceased by indiscriminately stabbing him with knives. So far as the 4th accused Mr.Joseph is concerned, it is alleged that he was also a member of the unlawful assembly and thus he is liable to be punished under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. (c) Out of the injuries sustained in the occurrence, the deceased died on the spot. Then, the father of the deceased (P.W.1) went to the police station and made a complaint to P.W.20, a Head Constable, attached to Tuticorin South Police Station. P.W.20, on receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.731 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC. Ex.P-40 is the First Information Report. Then P.W.20 forwarded both the documents (Exs.P-1 and P-40) to Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police, Tuticorin South Police Station (P.W.21). (d) P.W.21 investigated the case. P.W.20, on receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.731 of 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC. Ex.P-40 is the First Information Report. Then P.W.20 forwarded both the documents (Exs.P-1 and P-40) to Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police, Tuticorin South Police Station (P.W.21). (d) P.W.21 investigated the case. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem. (e) P.W.18 Dr.Arunachalam conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.30 a.m. on 01.10.2002. He found the following external injuries: “1.A lacerated cut injury 24 x 4 cm size starting from left angle of mandible encircling anterior aspect of neck ends behind right ear. Thyroid cartilage cut in the middle. Neck vessels on right side seen cut. Underlying neck muscle cut. 2. Two horizontal cut injuries 2 cm x 0.25 cm x muscle deep on either side of midline seen below injury Number 1. 3. Vertical stab injury 3 x 2cm x muscle deep seen over left side of chest 3cm from midline over 3rd intercostal space. 4. Vertical stab injury 3 x 2cm x cavity deep seen over the left side of chest 3cm from midline over 3rd intercostal space. 5. Stab injury over midline at the level of nipple 1 x 2 cm size. 6. Horizontal stab injury 3 x 2cm size x cavity deep 7cm below the left nipple. 7. Stab injury over lower end of sternum 5cm x 2cm x muscle deep. 8. Oblique cut injury 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep seen over the right side of chest 5cm above nipple. 9. Vertically oblique stab injury 3 x 2cm x cavity deep seen 2cm below the left skills. 10. Horizontal cut injury 6 x 3cm x muscle deep seen over the left side of abdomen lumber region. 11. A horizontal cut injury 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep seen 2cm below angle of Right scapula. 12. Vertically oblique cut injury seen over the back, 2cm to left of midline communicating into abdominal cavity 2cm x 0.5cm size. 13. Horizontal cut injury 2 x 1cm size seen 6cm below the injury No.12. 14. 11. A horizontal cut injury 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep seen 2cm below angle of Right scapula. 12. Vertically oblique cut injury seen over the back, 2cm to left of midline communicating into abdominal cavity 2cm x 0.5cm size. 13. Horizontal cut injury 2 x 1cm size seen 6cm below the injury No.12. 14. Vertical cut injury 3 x 1cm x bone deep starting from root of Right little finger on the palmer side cutting 5th metacarpal bone. 15. Horizontal cut injury 2 x 0.5cm x tendon deep over the back side of wrist. 16. Lacerated cut injury 7 x 4cm x muscle deep seen over the medial side of middle of Right arm. 17. A cut injury 0.5 x 0.2cm x 0.2cm lateral aspect of left wrist. 18. Cut injury root of left index finger 3 x 0.5cm x bone deep. 19. Horizontal cut injury 2 x 1cm x muscle deep seen 6cm above left to wrist. 20. Two cut injuries 0.5 x 0.2cm seen 10cm below the elbow. 21. Lacerated cut injury 7 x7 cm lateral aspect of left knee with skin hanging as a flap from above muscle deep. 22. Horizontally oblique lacerated cut injury 8 x 4cm x muscle deep over the middle of Right thigh anteriorly with upper margin of the skin rolled up. 23. Horizontal cut injury 3 x 2cm x bone deep middle of Right leg anteriorly. 24. Horizontal superficial cut injury 2 x 0.2cm seen over posterior aspect of middle Right fore arm.” Ex.P-38 is the postmortem certificate issued by P.W.18. According to him, the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries, involving neck vessels, lungs and intestine. (e) During the course of investigation, on 02.10.2002 at 10.00 a.m., P.W.21 arrested accused Sekar (A-3) in the presence of P.W.14 and P.W.15. On such arrest, A-3 made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife. In pursuance of the same, A-3 took P.W.21 and witnesses to the said place and produced a knife and it was recovered under Ex.P-46 Mahazar. On 13.10.2002 at 8.00 a.m., in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9, P.W.21 arrested accused Vinoth (A-1), Suresh (absconding accused), Kavi @ Kavithai (another absconding accused), Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu (died). On such arrest, they started giving confessions, voluntarily, one after the other. On 13.10.2002 at 8.00 a.m., in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9, P.W.21 arrested accused Vinoth (A-1), Suresh (absconding accused), Kavi @ Kavithai (another absconding accused), Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu (died). On such arrest, they started giving confessions, voluntarily, one after the other. In pursuance of the confession made by Vinoth (A-1), a knife was recovered under a mahazar, marked as Ex.P-48. Then, in pursuance of the confession made by accused Suresh, a knife was recovered from him, under Ex.P-50 Mahazar. Then, in pursuance of disclosure statement by the accused Kavi @ Kavithai (absconding accused) a knife was recovered under Ex.P-52 Mahazar. At 2.30 p.m., in pursuance of confession made by Sudai @ Sudalaimuthu (absconding accused), a knife was recovered under Ex.P-54 Mahazar, in the presence of the same witnesses. On returning to the police station, P.W.21 forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the court. On 17.10.2002, at 12.00 Noon, P.W.21 arrested the 4th accused Joseph at Ettaiyapuram busstand. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to said place and produced a knife, that was recovered under Ex.P-56 Mahazar. Then, on returning to the Police Station, P.W.21 forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand. He examined the Doctor, who conducted autopsy and collected medical records. Finally, he lodged charge-sheet against all the accused. 4. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused denied the same. As stated earlier, before the trial could commence, Accused Suresh and Kavi @ Kavithai absconded and therefore the case against them was split-up. Accused Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu passed away. Therefore, the trial proceeded against the present appellants and the other accused Mr.Joseph. 5. In order to prove the charges against the appellants (A-1 to A-3) and the other accused Mr.Joseph (A-4), on the side of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 58 documents were exhibited, besides 13 Material Objects. 6. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 12, 14 and 15 have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution, in any manner. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased. 6. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 12, 14 and 15 have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution, in any manner. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, she came to the place of occurrence and found the dead body. Thus, her evidence is also not useful for the prosecution. P.W.16 has spoken only about the motive. P.W.1 is the eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, at about 8.30 p.m., on 30.09.2002, when he was in his house, his wife told him that she was searching for their son, but she could not locate him and then she wanted him to go and search for their son, the deceased. Therefore, according to him, he proceeded in search of the deceased. When he found the deceased near the temple, he told him to go home as his mother was searching for him. Accordingly, he started proceeding towards his house. P.W.1 followed him. At that time, it is alleged that all the accused emerged there, armed with weapons and attacked the deceased with knives. He further stated that he, immediately, went to the police station and made a complaint. P.W.17 has spoken about the fact that he handed over the original FIR to the learned Magistrate around 10.10.30 p.m. on 30.09.2002. P.W.18 Dr.Arunachalam has spoken about the postmorterm conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.19 is the Constable, who carried the body for postmorterm. P.W.20 has spoken about the registration of case and P.W.21 about the investigation. 7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document. Their case is one of total denial. 9. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants (A-1 to A-3) and the other accused Mr.Joseph (A-4), as detailed in the second paragraph of this Judgment and therefore they are before this Court with these criminal appeals. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 11. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial court has relied on the sole testimony of P.W.1 to convict the appellants, erroneously. They would further submit that P.W. 1 would not have seen the occurrence at all. They would further submit that P.W.1 has not explained the reasons for his presence, by chance, at the place of occurrence when the occurrence is said to have taken place. They would further submit that in Ex.P-1, P.W.1 has mentioned the names and the fathers' names of all the accused; whereas, in cross-examination, he did not see the accused prior to the occurrence and even he did not know the names of the accused. They would further submit that P.W.1 has spoken even about the minute details of the accused, thereby speaking about the individual overt acts of each accused in a meticulous manner. This, according to the learned counsel, shows that the evidence of P.W.1 is unnatural and artificial. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the trial court has erred in convicting the appellants. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. According to him, there is no bar in law to act upon a solitary evidence of a witness, provided his evidence is cogent, trustworthy and believable. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is duly corroborated by medical evidence. He would further submit that the contradictions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants are not of importance so as to cast any doubt in the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the appeals are deserve to be dismissed. 13. We have considered the above submissions. 14. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the solitary witness to speak about the occurrence. He has tacitly admitted, during cross-examination, that before the occurrence, he did not know the names and addresses of the accused. He also admitted that he has never seen the accused before the occurrence. But, in the complaint, not only the names of the accused but their fathers' names have also been very vividly mentioned. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the same. He also admitted that he has never seen the accused before the occurrence. But, in the complaint, not only the names of the accused but their fathers' names have also been very vividly mentioned. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the same. This would only go to show that Ex.P-1 was drafted after due deliberations, after collecting the names of all the accused. This improbability creates lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution. 15. Next, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, P.W.1 has spoken about each and every overt act of every accused, in a parrot like manner. It is as if the accused came on a stage one after another, causing injuries on the deceased one after another, in quick succession and leaving the place of occurrence. The narration of events by P.W.1 itself would go to show that the occurrence would not have happened in the manner as projected by the P.W.1. His evidence is artificial. It is hard to believe that the occurrence would have taken place as narrated by P.W.1. This also creates doubts in the case of the prosecution. Apart from that, the house of P.W.1 is not situated anyway nearer to the place of occurrence. He claims to have been present at the scene of occurrence, by chance. It is settled law that when a witness claims to be present in the place of occurrence, by chance, it is necessary that the reasons for his being present in the place of occurrence is to be explained to the satisfaction of Court. In this case, though P.W.1 tries to explain that he was in search of his son and at that time he witnessed the occurrence, it is difficult to accept the same. If it is true that P.W.1 was present in the scene of occurrence, since the accused had grudge against P.W.1 also, the accused would not have spared P.W.1. These are all improbabilities in the case of the prosecution. Thus, the presence of P.W.1 itself is doubtful. 16. To put it in nutshell, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be fully believed. As per the law laid down in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 , the rule of prudence requires that the evidence of P.W.1 should receive corroboration from independent source. At the most, he can only be believed in part. 16. To put it in nutshell, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be fully believed. As per the law laid down in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 , the rule of prudence requires that the evidence of P.W.1 should receive corroboration from independent source. At the most, he can only be believed in part. Since there is no such corroboration from any independent source, it is not possible to act upon the evidence of P.W.1 alone. 17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no bar in law to act upon the evidence of solitary witness. In this regard, we should say that though there is no legal bar to act upon the evidence of solitary witness, the evidence of solitary witness should inspire the confidence of the Court so as to act upon, even in the absence of any corroboration. Here, in this case, when the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of Court, it is not safe to act upon his evidence to sustain the conviction. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused. 18. The fourth accused Mr. Joseph has not filed any appeal. Since his case is inseparable from the case of the appellants, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 69 , we are inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him also. 19. In the result, all the appeals are allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants as well as Mr. Joseph, the fourth accused, who has not filed appeal, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.93 of 2006, dated 04.10.2010, is set aside and all the four accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by them, is ordered to be refunded.