JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants, who are accused A1 to A4 in S.C.323/03 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery challenge the conviction under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. The charge against the accused is that on 19.11.99 at 8.30 am, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like sword, dagger etc, and in prosecution of the common object committed rioting and trespassed into the house K.P.X/238 of Kodiyeri amsom, Moozhikkara desom with an intention to cause death, A1 cut on the left hand of PW2 with sword and A2 before cut on the leg of PW2 caused simple hurt. As a result, PW2 sustained grievous injuries inside the house K.P. X/238, Kodiyeri amsom, Moozhikkara desom and thereby the accused committed the offence. Chokkly Police registered a Crime No.167/99 under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. After completing investigation, Circle Inspector of Police Panoor laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery. A5 is absconding, therefore, his case was split up and the case of A1, A3 and A4 was committed to Sessions Court Thalassery and it was taken on file as S.C. No.406/04 and the case of A2 was committed and it was numbered as S.C. No.323/03. The cases were made over to Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc III, Thalassery and both cases were clubbed together and tried as S.C.323/03. 2. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 as documentary evidence and admitted MO1 to MO8 as material objects. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any defence evidence. During cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, Ext.D1 to D4 were marked in the trial court. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any defence evidence. During cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, Ext.D1 to D4 were marked in the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III convicted the accused (A1 to A4) and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months each u/s.143 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 1 year each u/s.147 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 2 years each for the offence u/s.148 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 3 years each and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, imprisonment for 6 months each u/s.452 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 2 years each for the offence u/s.324 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 5 years each and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default, imprisonment for 9 months each for the offence u/s.307 r/w 149 IPC. If the fine amount is realized, it was directed that Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to PW2 as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there is inordinate delay of 29 days in recording the statement of the injured witness. Prosecution is silent about the delay, which creates a doubt in the credibility of the prosecution case. The eye witness PW1 gave Ext.P1 statement to the police which is inconsistent with the oral testimony of PW2. If PW1 is believed, the evidence of PW2 is not believable. Another eye witness PW5 also gave a different story with regard to the occurrence. The incident happened inside the house of PW6, Nalini who also did not see the incident. The weapons were not recovered by the investigating officers. PW2 gave inconsistent version about weapons which is not corroborating with the evidence in the wound certificate. Therefore, the injuries noted by the Doctors who treated PW2 is not tallying with the nature of weapon stated by PW2. The origin of the incident was from the shop of one Panchara Kannan, who was not cited as witness in this case. Non-mentioning of the name of the assailants in Ext.P2 and the name of the weapon stated to the Doctor also create a doubt in the oral evidence of PW2. This shows that name of the assailants and the name of weapons stated by PW2 was only after thought. Non-mentioning of the name of the assailants in Ext.P2 and the name of the weapon stated to the Doctor also create a doubt in the oral evidence of PW2. This shows that name of the assailants and the name of weapons stated by PW2 was only after thought. In the court charge, the overt act is alleged against A1 alone, that too an injury on the left hand. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW2 without any independent corroboration creates a doubt and the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and he relied the decisions reported in Vadivelu Thevar V. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 , Mohanlal V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 839 , Panda Nana V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 697 , Rahmat V. State of Haryana AIR 1997 SC 1526 , Ramji Surjya V. State of Maharashtra AIR1983 SC 810. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW1 cannot be relied upon, since he is telling a story diametrically opposite to the case of PW2. On the other hand, the injured (PW2) is a believable witness and he stated about the overt act and the weapon used by the accused specifically. There are some minor discrepancies in his evidence with regard to the use of weapon by A3 and A4 which will not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW5 is also supporting the evidence with regard to attempt of murder. When PW2 was admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery, the Doctor never enquired about the name of the person, who attacked him. Therefore, he could not disclose their names to the doctor who treated him. Analysing the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution substantially proved its case and therefore, the conviction and sentence entered by the courts below are only to be confirmed. He suggested to provide sufficient compensation u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. to the injured. The learned Public Prosecutor relied the Apex Court decision in Meharban v. State of Madhyapradesh [ AIR 1997 SC 1528 ]. 5. The occurrence was stated by PW1, an independent witness who was present at the tea shop of one Pancharakkannan. According to PW1, on the date of incident, between 8 and 8.30 am, he went to the tea shop of Pancharakannan, which is on the northern side of the house of one Nalini. 5. The occurrence was stated by PW1, an independent witness who was present at the tea shop of one Pancharakkannan. According to PW1, on the date of incident, between 8 and 8.30 am, he went to the tea shop of Pancharakannan, which is on the northern side of the house of one Nalini. When PW1 reached in that tea shop, he found some people running to the house of Smt. Nalini and he also went there. PW2 was found lying in a bed on the central hall near varanda, oozing blood from his body and found a cut injury on the left leg. He, with the help of one Panchara Shaiju, removed the injured to Govt. Hospital, Thalassery. From there, he removed the injured to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, where he gave Ext.P1 statement. He stated that, he never mentioned the name of the accused in Ext.P1. The denied portion of the statement of PW1 given to the police was marked as Ext.D1 to D3. But in cross-examination, he stated that at the time of incident, he was sitting inside the tea shop of Panchara Kannan. A close analysis of the oral testimony of PW1, it is found that he did not see the incident and not identified the accused. PW1 admitted that he is an ardent worker of BJP. 6. Another occurrence witness PW5 stated that on the date of incident he was waiting for bus near the tea shop of one Mohanan, PW2 was taking tea from that shop. At that time, he found 3-4 persons chasing PW2 from that tea shop and PW2 ran to the house behind the tea shop and he did not know what happened thereafter. But he could not identify the person who chased PW2, because the assailants had covered their face with towel. He admitted that he gave a statement to the police that PW2 had got down from an autorikshaw at Moozhikkara junction. PW5 is also a BJP worker, in cross-examination he stated that PW2 was drinking tea from the tea shop and the assailants went to the tea shop which is also a twisting story. 7. The injured was examined as PW2, who deposed that on 19.11.99 at 8.30 am, the incident happened at the house of one Nalini (PW6). PW5 is also a BJP worker, in cross-examination he stated that PW2 was drinking tea from the tea shop and the assailants went to the tea shop which is also a twisting story. 7. The injured was examined as PW2, who deposed that on 19.11.99 at 8.30 am, the incident happened at the house of one Nalini (PW6). During that period, he was an autorikshaw driver and on that day morning he went to Pandokavu, Ayyappa Temple for offering his prayers and returned at Moozhikkara at 8.20 am. While getting down from the autorikshaw, he saw A1 who is his friend and he went near him, while he was talking with him friendly, A1 held on his hand. On looking back he found 3 or 4 persons behind him, he escaped from the clutches of A1 and ran to the tea shop of one Panchara Kannan and went out through the back door of that tea shop and entered in the house of Nalini through the back door which is behind the tea shop at a distance of 5 mtrs. After entering inside the house, he closed the back door and subsequently he went to close the front door, A1 attempted to cut at the neck with a sword and he blocked it with his left hand, that sword hit on his left wrist, so he sustained injury on his left wrist. He fell down on a cot inside the house, at that time A5 cut on his left leg with a sword. A2, A3 and A4 cut his right and left leg with sword and bill hook. One among the accused told that “MALAYALAM” and the gang left the place. Immediately he was removed to Government Hospital, Thalassery in an autorikshaw, after first aid, he was removed to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Subsequently, he was admitted at Kasthurba Medical College Hospital, Manipal, where his left leg was amputated and undergone treatment there. Chokli Police recorded his statement. He deposed that he is a RSS-BJP worker and accused are CPM workers. MO1 was lost in the incident. 8. During cross examination he denied the statement that he was drinking tea with PW1 at the tea shop of Panchara Kannan. The Doctor did not ask about the assailants, therefore, he did not mention their names to the Doctor. He told the doctor that 5 persons stabbed him. MO1 was lost in the incident. 8. During cross examination he denied the statement that he was drinking tea with PW1 at the tea shop of Panchara Kannan. The Doctor did not ask about the assailants, therefore, he did not mention their names to the Doctor. He told the doctor that 5 persons stabbed him. In cross-examination he admitted that A3 had a “kathi” with him. 'Kathi' means a weapon with a handle and with a straight blade. A4 also stabbed him with a kathi. He do not remember whether anybody else had stabbed him with kathi. He did not state to the Investigating Officer that Biju and Sujith cut him. The denied portion of the statement was marked as Ext.D4. A5 also cut him with sword. A2 cut him on the left hand and left leg. He stated to the police that A2 Mathai Sunil cut on his right leg. But later, he admitted that he found sword in the hands of A1, Sahadevan only and others had kathi with them. 9. The other occurrence witnesses did not support the prosecution case. PW3 and PW4 did not see the incident and they were declared hostile. PW6 deposed that the incident happened in her house, at that time, she was washing clothes and she could not identify the accused. PW9 also deposed that he did not see the incident occurred in his sister's house. But, he was present at the time of preparing Ext.P4 mahazar and he signed it. 10. In the light of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW5, I have examined whether these witnesses saw the accused chasing the injured on the date of occurrence. The testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused is relevant, since nothing has been stated by these prosecution witnesses to show that the accused attacked PW2 in this crime. PW1 deposed that the accused are his neighbours and they never attacked PW2. PW5 stated that assailants while chasing PW2, had covered their face with towels and he could not identify them. Generally speaking, when strangers witness the incident and see the assailants, it requires corroboration, which should be in the form of an earlier identification parade. There may be exception to this rule where the Court is satisfied that the evidence of a particular witness in such cases can be relied without any earlier identification proceedings. Generally speaking, when strangers witness the incident and see the assailants, it requires corroboration, which should be in the form of an earlier identification parade. There may be exception to this rule where the Court is satisfied that the evidence of a particular witness in such cases can be relied without any earlier identification proceedings. Analysing the evidence of PW1 and PW5, it is clear that they had not witnessed the incident or were suppressing the actual facts before Court. If the witness fails to pick up and identify the real accused, it is presumed that they did not see the incident. It is the primary responsibility of the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused, who assaulted PW2. Therefore, I can conclude that the oral evidence of PW1 and PW5 is not connecting the evidence of PW2, the injured. 11. Now the question is whether the solitary evidence of PW2 alone is sufficient to prove the case against A1 to A4. Under the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of a fact. The well established rule of law is that the quality of the evidence is relevant and the Court is not concerned with the quantity of the evidence. Apex Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 614 ] held as follows: “11. ...........Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way – it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution. In each case, the Court has to consider whether it can be reasonably satisfied to act upon the testimony of one single witness for the purpose of convicting an accused. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye witness. But, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and inspires confidence. Adopting this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, it should be wholly reliable. On the other hand, if such witness is an injured witness, normally his presence may not be doubted, but if his evidence is conflicting each other, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony without corroboration. Adopting this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, it should be wholly reliable. On the other hand, if such witness is an injured witness, normally his presence may not be doubted, but if his evidence is conflicting each other, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony without corroboration. Therefore, corroboration in material particulars by adducing reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial is necessary in such situation. Apex Court in Badri v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1976 SC 560 ] held that if a witness, who is the only witness against the accused to prove a serious charge of murder, can modulate his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing a conviction, such a witness cannot be considered as a reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony. He also relied on the decisions reported in Ranjit Singh & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 2011 SC 255 ] & Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006 (4) KLT 638 SC]. Apex Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala [ AIR 2011 SC 255 ] held that even though such witness is an injured witness and his presence may not be seriously doubted, when his evidence is in conflict with other evidence, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony. This would mean that when there is only the evidence of a single injured witness, there is chance for manipulating his evidence, and it would be unsafe to convict the accused without corroborative evidence. 12. It is better to analyse the medical evidence in the light of the above oral evidence of PW2. PW7 Asst. Surgeon, General Hospital, Thalassery gave first aid to PW2 on 19.11.1999 at 9.45 a.m. and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. The allegation was that on 19.11.1999 at 9.15 a.m. five persons (Marxist) stabbed him inside a house at Moozhikkara. This would show that the injured did not know the name of the assailants. After examination of the injured PW7 issued Ext.P2 certificate, in which he noticed the following injuries: 1. Incised wound over the left forearm 8x3 c.m. involving the muscles and pendent. 2. Incised wound 6x2 c.m. over the middle of right leg. (It is vertically placed and deep up to born) 3. After examination of the injured PW7 issued Ext.P2 certificate, in which he noticed the following injuries: 1. Incised wound over the left forearm 8x3 c.m. involving the muscles and pendent. 2. Incised wound 6x2 c.m. over the middle of right leg. (It is vertically placed and deep up to born) 3. Incised wound 8x2 c.m. over the lower part of right leg. 4. Incised wound 10x2 c.m. over the right leg over lateral malleolus . 5. Incised wound involving the lineal aspect of right foot 20x2 c.m. it involves the right tarcel born and muscles. 6. Lacerated wound 8x2 c.m over the lateral aspect of left leg, tibia and fibula fractured. 7. Incised wound 8x3 cm over the lower part of left leg joint above the angle joint. Its just above the lateral malleolus. It involves underlying parts of muscles. Subsequently the injured was referred to Medical College Hospital, Calicut. PW7 deposed that all the injuries noted in Ext.P2 could be caused with a sharp edged weapon and grievous. If timely medical attention is not given, the injuries could cause death of the patient. PW7 had not recorded whether the patient was conscious or not. The time of incident was noted as 9.15 a.m. and the patient never mentioned the name of the assailants which is relevant to the facts of this case. If the name of the assailant is stated he would have recorded it in Ext.P2 wound certificate. Usually edge of lacerated wound would be irregular and such injury could be caused by a blunt object. The injury no.1 is simple in nature and could be caused by a knife. The injured has not stated the nature of weapon used for causing the injury. By words 'kuthiyath', it can be inferred that the injured was stabbed with a knife. The injury nos.1 to 5 and 7 could be caused with a knife. Injury no.6 is a lacerated injury. Laceration means the edges are irregular with surrounding abrasion or bruises. The deeper tissues are torn irregularly. Lacerated wounds are tears or splits produced by blows from blunt objects and missiles, by violent falls on hard projecting surfaces, by machinery and railway accidents, by the wheels of a vehicle causing a grinding compression by their weight resulting in avulsion of the skin. These wounds do not generally correspond in shape or size to the weapon producing them. Lacerated wounds are tears or splits produced by blows from blunt objects and missiles, by violent falls on hard projecting surfaces, by machinery and railway accidents, by the wheels of a vehicle causing a grinding compression by their weight resulting in avulsion of the skin. These wounds do not generally correspond in shape or size to the weapon producing them. Their edges are torn, jagged, irregular and swollen or construed. Apex Court in Panda Nana Kare v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1979 SC 697 ] held that concealing the name of the assailant before the two Doctors that as the accused was his sister's husband, he did not want to implicate him and then later he felt that he should tell the truth, in such situation, it is unsafe to accept the testimony of Prosecution witness to identify the assailants. 13. The evidence of PW8 shows that on 19.11.1999 while he was working as Lecturer in Orthopedic department, Medical College Hospital, Calicut, he examined PW2 and issued Ext.P3 discharge certificate. On examination, he was having multiple cut injuries on right and left legs. Fracture of fibula, Fracture of tibia and Fracture of talus left leg were the three fractures and which were on the left leg. There is fracture on Mavicular bone and fracture left radius. The case was referred from General hospital, Thalassery. He was admitted with IP No.61233 and discharged on 09.12.1999. The fracture could be possible due to contact with heavy sharp edged weapon. 14. Injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are incised wounds. An incised wound is defined as orderly solution of skin and tissue by a sharp cutting weapon drawn across the skin. It may either be produced by light sharp cutting instruments such as knife, razor, scissors, or heavy sharp cutting weapons such as sword, chopper, axe, hatchet, scythe, kookri or any object such as a broken piece of glass or metal which has a sharp, cutting pointed or linear edge and are mostly intentionally inflicted [Modi's Medical Jurisprudence 23rd edition Page No.698]. The cutting edge of a knife may be completely or partly sharp and partly blunt and the other edge may be blunt, serrated, scalloped or hollow, all these variations affect the shape of the wound. While analysing the incised wound, it is always necessary to note its direction. The cutting edge of a knife may be completely or partly sharp and partly blunt and the other edge may be blunt, serrated, scalloped or hollow, all these variations affect the shape of the wound. While analysing the incised wound, it is always necessary to note its direction. The commencement of the wound is deeper and it gradually become shallower and tail of towards the end. Tailing of which the incised wound indicate the direction in which the weapon was drawn of. Such symptoms were not noticed by PW7 and PW8 while issuing Ext.P2 wound certificate and Ext.P3 discharge certificate. Therefore, it is the primary duty of the prosecution to explain the injury and also how it was sustained. For that, the evidence of PW2 is not sufficient since it is inconsistent. There is no recovery of weapon. Analysing the injuries and the oral testimony of PW2, the recovery of weapon is very essential. PW2 stated that A1 attacked with a sword on the left wrist, which also tally with the injury found on the left wrist. But in cross examination PW2 stated that 'now I don't remember correctly as to who exactly cut on my hand”. PW8, the doctor also deposed that cut injury with heavy weapon is possible to make fracture. A5 cut left leg with a sword. A2, A3 and A4 cut with sword and bill hook, but who used the sword and who used the bill hook were not specifically stated by PW2. The above vague statement by PW2 is not admissible for fastening the criminal liability upon A1, A2, A3 and A4. But, during cross examination of PW2, it is deposed that A3 had a 'kathi' with him. A4 also stabbed with a 'kathi. A5 also cut his leg with sword. He specifically stated that A1 was carrying sword and all others were carrying kathi which is a light sharp cutting instrument. In this context, the recovery of weapon is very relevant. PW2 gave inconsistent version with regard to use of weapon by A2 to A5 which is against the medical evidence of PW8. The investigating officer never questioned the accused for recovery of weapon. If weapons were recovered on the basis of information given by the accused, that was a connecting link to the evidence of PW2. No effort was made by the investigating officer to trace out the weapons. The investigating officer never questioned the accused for recovery of weapon. If weapons were recovered on the basis of information given by the accused, that was a connecting link to the evidence of PW2. No effort was made by the investigating officer to trace out the weapons. Apex Court in Ramji Surjya and another v. State of Maharashtra [ Air 1983 SC 810 ] held as follows: “There is no doubt that even where there is only a sole eye-witness of a crime, a conviction may be recorded against the accused concerned provided the Court which hears such witness regards him as honest and truthful. But prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought from the other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness also happens to be closely related to the deceased and the accused are those against whom some motive or ill-will is suggested. 15. The statement of PW1 was recorded by PW11 on 19.11.1999 at 14.30 hours. When he reached at the Medical College Hospital, the injured was in the operation theater, therefore, he recorded the statement of his friend PW1. On the basis of Ext.P1 statement he reported the matter at Chokkli Police station. During cross examination, he admitted that he had not seen the doctor in the operation theater. Exts.D1 to D3 were marked through PW1. On the basis of Ext.P1, PW12 registered Crime No.167 of 1999 of Chokkli Police Station under Secs.147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. Ext.P6 is the FIR. Subsequently PW10 arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P5 site plan. In this context, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Nanhku Singh v. The State of Bihar [ AIR 1973 SC 491 ] is relevant wherein it was held that if an information of a cognizable offence is given u/s.154 of Cr.P.C. and if there is any statement made therein, it can be used for the purpose of contradicting and discrediting the witnesses u/s.145 of the Evidence Act. The learned Public Prosecutor admitted that PW1 is making inconsistent version or suppressing real facts out of fear. Analysing the evidence it is found that his previous statement can be used for the purpose of either corroborating its maker u/s.157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting u/s.145 of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor admitted that PW1 is making inconsistent version or suppressing real facts out of fear. Analysing the evidence it is found that his previous statement can be used for the purpose of either corroborating its maker u/s.157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting u/s.145 of the Act. Here accused used Ext.P1 statement for contradicting his evidence and marked those portion as Exts.D1 to D3. 16. The investigation in this case was started on 20.11.1999 by PW13. On that day, at 9.00 a.m., he arrived at the place of occurrence and inspected the place of occurrence, thereafter, prepared Ext.P4 mahazar. The material objects found at the place of occurrence were taken into custody after preparing the mahazar. Ext.P7 is the property list. On 12.01.2000 at 10.30 a.m., he arrested the accused from Moozhikara bus stop. Ext.P9 series are arrest memo. They were produced before the court with remand application. He questioned the witnesses. After completing investigation he laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The material objects 2 to 8 were produced before the court as per Ext.P7 mahazar. Apex Court in Surajit Sarkar v. S tate of West Bengal [2013 Crl.LJ 1137] held as follows: “We are not prepared to accept as a broad proposition of law that in no case can defective or shoddy investigations lead to an acquittal. It would eventually depend on the defects pointed out. If the investigation results in the real culprit of an offence not being identified, then acquittal of the accused must follow. It would not be permissible to ignore the defects in an investigation and hold an innocent person guilty of an offence which he has not committed. The investigation must be precise and focused and must lead to the inevitable conclusion that the accused has committed the crime. If the investigating officer leaves glaring loopholes in the investigation, the defence would be fully entitled to exploit the lacunae.” 17. It is true that PW2 was conscious when he was removed to Government Hospital, Thalassery and thereafter admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. Chokli Police did not visit Government Hospital, Thalassery. Subsequently on the next day, While PW11 visited the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, the injured was admitted in the operation theater and he was conscious. It is true that PW2 was conscious when he was removed to Government Hospital, Thalassery and thereafter admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. Chokli Police did not visit Government Hospital, Thalassery. Subsequently on the next day, While PW11 visited the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, the injured was admitted in the operation theater and he was conscious. In cross examination, it is clear that the doctor who treated PW2 has not stated that he had any physical difficulty in giving a statement. But, while considering the nature of weapon, the nature of injury, and the nature of overt act given by the assailants, it is not corroborating the oral testimony of PW2. The medical evidence of PW7 and PW8 are contradicting each other. If PW2 was capable to speak, PW11 has to question the injured and identify the assailants on the next day itself. This would indicate that there was lapses from the side of the Chokli Police from the very beginning itself. The investigating officer PW13 has not enquired about the weapon used by the accused. He never conducted a search in the house of the accused. The investigating officer made inordinate delay of 29 days in recording the statement of PW2 for which he has no explanation. The incident was started in the shop of one Panchara Kannan, and he was not cited as a witness. A combined reading of the aforesaid legal infirmities shows that the responsible investigating agency shut out the evidence from the very beginning itself. The conduct of the Police officers, who conducted investigation was in a hasty manner. The purposeful delay in questioning the witnesses and questioning the doctor will also affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 18. Apex Court in Ranbir and others v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1973 SC 1409 ] held that in case of party factions there is generally a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with the guilty ones. If a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, then it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the rest of the evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trust worthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. If the remaining evidence is trust worthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. In this case participation of the accused was denied by PW1 and PW5. But, the sole testimony available is the oral testimony of PW2 alone. It is true that PW1, PW2 and PW5 are workers of BJP-RSS and the accused are CPM people. In Ext.P2 wound certificate PW2 alleged that five CPM people stabbed him but not mentioned their names. In case of party factions, there is a tendency to implicate the innocent person along with the guilty or otherwise by avoiding guilty, they will include innocent person due to political enmity. If the injured witness is found to have given unreliable evidence about the involvement of a person and use of weapon, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize that evidence, the injury, weapon and the manner in which it was inflicted and analyse it with the rest of the evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and supporting, the Court has a duty to uphold the prosecution evidence as safe and trustworthy. If it creates a doubt in the credibility of the story and making inconsistent version about the occurrence and the medical evidence is contradicting each other, the sole testimony of the injured alone is not sufficient for a conviction. In such a situation, corroboration as stated by the Apex Court in Vadivelu Thevar's case (supra) is necessary. In this case there are five witnesses, who had seen the occurrence, but all other witnesses except PW2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The hostile witnesses unanimously deposed that the accused were not the real assailants. On a perusal of the evidence of PW2, it is found that it is difficult to separate the grains from the chaff, the truth, from the falsehood. In this case, the grains cannot be separated from the chaff on the ground that PW2 gave inconsistent version with regard to the occurrence, then Court would have to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. 19. The general rules is that an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of conjectures and suspicion. In this case, the grains cannot be separated from the chaff on the ground that PW2 gave inconsistent version with regard to the occurrence, then Court would have to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. 19. The general rules is that an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of conjectures and suspicion. If after taking into consideration of the entire materials before Court, reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding the complicity of the accused, such benefit should be given to the accused, provided such reasonable doubt should be real and substantial one and well founded [Relied State of UP v. Iftikhar Khan [ AIR 1973 SC 863 ]. Therefore, mere whims or surmises or suspicion is not a sufficient ground to raise reasonable doubt. Analysing the evidence, it is found that prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients to prove the charge against the appellants and they are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court u/s.143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w.149 IPC are to be set aside. 20. Before parting with this judgment, I have considered the pathetic situation of PW2, who has lost his left leg in the incident. From Ext.P2 wound certificate and Ext.P3 discharge card, it is clear that the victim (PW2) is entitled to get compensation u/s.357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'). The special provision 'victim compensation' has been inserted by the Parliament by Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 31.12.2009. According to Section 2(WA)”victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir. Accordingly, Government of Kerala issued notification G.O.(MS) No.37/2014/Home dated 24.02.2014 vide SRO No.16714 in exercise of power under Sec.357A of the Code and the Home Department shall be the Nodel department entitled for implementing the aforesaid scheme. As per the notification, the funds shall be operated by the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority. 21. Section 357A of the Code reads as follows: “357A. As per the notification, the funds shall be operated by the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority. 21. Section 357A of the Code reads as follows: “357A. Victim compensation scheme.- (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. (2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme refer to in sub-section (1). (3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the Victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation. (4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. (5) On receipt of such recommendation or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months. (6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge o the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.” 22. Apex Court in Suresh v. State of Haryana [ 2015 2 SCC 227 ] held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx ........ At the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation can be interim. At the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation can be interim. Gravity of offence and need of victim are some of the guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors as may be found relevant in the facts and circumstances of an individual case.” Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether any compensation is granted to the victim. Considering the nature of offence and the gravity of the injury, I am of the opinion that the victim sustained injury as a result of the crime and he required rehabilitation. He lost one leg in this incident and a physically handicapped man, aged 47 years. Therefore, he is entitled to get just compensation in this case. In the circumstances, I make recommendation for granting compensation to the victim by the State. The nature of injury and gravity of the offence are the relevant factors while fixing compensation. The earning capacity and the depreciation of money value are also other factors. Hence, the victim is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) u/s.357A of the Code. The State of Kerala will make necessary arrangements for making payment of compensation u/s.357A of the Code within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In Suresh's case (supra) it was held that the compensation fixed by the Government of Kerala in the Schedule is not sufficient. In the circumstances, the State Legal Services Authority shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the victim u/s.357A of the Code within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If sufficient funds are not available, the Government of Kerala will allot sufficient amount to the State Legal Services Authority. Home Secretary, who is the Nodal Officer shall ensure that the compensation is paid within the time fixed by this Court. The Government of Kerala shall deposit the amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the State Legal Services Authority shall disburse the amount within one month thereafter. 23. Home Secretary, who is the Nodal Officer shall ensure that the compensation is paid within the time fixed by this Court. The Government of Kerala shall deposit the amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the State Legal Services Authority shall disburse the amount within one month thereafter. 23. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery u/s.143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w.149 IPC are set aside. Appellants are acquitted and set at liberty. Crl. Appeal is allowed.