JUDGMENT : B.R. Gavai, J. 1. The appellants have approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26/2/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 496/2010, thereby convicting appellants, who are accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus : P.W. 4 Shanti lodged an oral report with Gittikhadan Police Station stating therein that on 28/8/2010 at about 2 p.m. when her brother-in-law Ashish was having lunch, accused No. 4 Pramod alias Chhotu came to her house and told Ashish that he had some work and took him along with him. After about half an hour, one girl by name Guddi residing near her house told her that some people are assaulting Ashish near the ring road. When first informant went near ring road, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 and two others were assaulting Ashish with sticks and knifes. When her brother-in-law Ashish fell down, one person having black complexion picked up a big stone and assaulted her brother-in-law with the same. She with the help of two persons took her brother-in-law Ashish to Kunal Hospital where Doctors asked her to take Ashish to Mayo Hospital. On reaching Mayo Hospital, within five minutes, Ashish was declared to be dead. 3. On the basis of oral report of P.W. 4 Shanti, first information report (Exh. 112) came to be lodged. She with the help of two persons took her brother-in-law Ashish to Kunal Hospital where Doctors asked her to take Ashish to Mayo Hospital. On reaching Mayo Hospital, within five minutes, Ashish was declared to be dead. 3. On the basis of oral report of P.W. 4 Shanti, first information report (Exh. 112) came to be lodged. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against in all eight persons in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. Since the case was exclusively triable by learned Sessions Judge, same came to be committed to the Sessions Court. Charges came to be framed for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code vide Exh. 81 against all the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge acquitted accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 for all the charges. The present appellants were also acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. However, learned trial Judge passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid against the present appellants. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been filed. 4. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for appellants, submits that conviction is based solely on the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti, who is an interested witness. He submits that her evidence is not supported by even her own husband, i.e. P.W. 5 Manoj. The learned Counsel further submits that from the material placed on record itself, it will be clear that the investigation has not been done in a fair manner. It is submitted that first information report is manipulated so as to implicate the present appellants. He, therefore, submits that conviction as recorded by learned trial Judge is not sustainable. 5. Shri Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, on the contrary, submits that learned trial Judge has rightly believed the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti. It is submitted that merely because P.W. 4 Shanti is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard her testimony. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the present appeals. 6. Shri Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, on the contrary, submits that learned trial Judge has rightly believed the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti. It is submitted that merely because P.W. 4 Shanti is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard her testimony. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the present appeals. 6. Perusal of the judgment and order passed by learned trial Judge would reveal that learned trial Judge has basically relied on the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti along with her identification of some of the accused in the identification parade. Undisputedly, learned trial Judge has not believed the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti so far as accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are concerned and believed her evidence insofar as present appellants are concerned. No doubt, principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian jurisprudence. However, it is to be noted that P.W. 4 Shanti is an interested witness being sister-in-law of deceased Ashish. No doubt, merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard completely the testimony of such witness. However, evidence of such witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection. If evidence of such witness is found to be reliable, trustworthy and cogent, conviction on the basis of same would be sustainable. 7. P.W. 4 Shanti states in her evidence that at around 2 p.m. on 28/8/2010 deceased Ashish had taken meal. At that time, Pramod alias Chhotu Mishra came to her house and took deceased Ashish with him for some work. After about half an hour, Guddi, who was residing behind her house, came to her house and told her that somebody was assaulting deceased Ashish near ring road and, therefore, she rushed to ring road and reached the shop of Nirmala Tours and Travels. At that time she observed that accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 and two other unknown boys were beating Ashish by means of sticks, knifes, suri and vastara. She observed that out of two unknown boys, one was aged 20 years having fair complexion and other was black in colour, aged about 25 years. She states that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 8 were assaulting deceased Ashish by means of sticks. She observed that out of two unknown boys, one was aged 20 years having fair complexion and other was black in colour, aged about 25 years. She states that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 8 were assaulting deceased Ashish by means of sticks. Accused No. 3 and two unknown boys were beating deceased Ashish with chaku, suri and vastara. She then observed that person having black colour lifted one stone from spot and assaulted it on the head of deceased Ashish. Thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot. She further states that she with the help of two persons took her brother-in-law Ashish to Kunal Hospital. There Doctor referred Ashish to Mayo Hospital. He was brought to Mayo Hospital and was declared dead in five minutes. Thereafter she along with her husband went to Gittikhadan Police Station for lodging report. P.W. 4 Shanti also states about identification parade carried out in Jail. She identified accused No. 6 Rakesh Meshram, who was wearing red coloured "T" shirt and accused No. 5 Dhiraj, who was wearing purple shirt. The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined. No doubt, in spite of her thorough cross-examination, her evidence insofar as main incident is concerned, has remained unshattered. 8. No doubt, even on the basis of testimony of sole eye witness, conviction could be rested. However, it is to be noted that in the present case, only solitary witness has admitted in her cross-examination as under : "It is true to say that before entering into witness box, I have read over my complaint. Witness states, I know, what is written down in the complaint." 9. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph No. 32 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh S/o. Purushottam Ashtankar v. The State of Maharashtra and another 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 4243) : "(32) In para 10 of the said reported judgment, the learned Single Judge found that Pundlik (PW-1) has admitted that the Police had read over his statement to him and also told him to tender the evidence as per his statement. The learned Single Judge has observed thus : "There would indeed be nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his memory, but that ought to be done before the Court and not outside the Court. The learned Single Judge has observed thus : "There would indeed be nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his memory, but that ought to be done before the Court and not outside the Court. In order to test the veracity of a witness, he would be required to recollect the incident out of his own memory and should he falter on some material aspect, he could be allowed to refresh his memory with reference to the contemporaneous records of the incident created by the Police. It would not be permissible for such witness to stealthily refresh his memory before entering the Court and deposing about the entire evidence giving minute details as if he was reeling them out from his memory. Therefore, the objection to the reliability of evidence of P.W. 2 Prabhakar taken by learned Counsel for the appellant is valid." In that view of the matter, it will not be safe to rest an order of conviction solely on the basis of evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti unless there is some corroboration to her testimony. 10. P.W. 5 Manoj is brother of deceased Ashish and husband of P.W. 4 Shanti. In his evidence, he talks about enmity between Sushilkumar Shukla and his sons on one hand and he and his brother deceased Ashish on the other hand. He states that on the date of incident, he was out of station and his wife informed him that accused No. 7 Sushilkumar, accused No. 1 Satish, accused No. 2 Shailesh, accused No. 4 Pramod, accused No. 8 Vipin and two unknown persons had injured Ashish seriously and she had shifted Ashish to Mayo Hospital. It could thus be seen that this witness is not an eye witness. 11. It will also be relevant to refer to the evidence of P.W. 11 Guddi, who is stated to have informed P.W. 4 Shanti about the incident. She states that when she was washing clothes in her house, some labourers came from kaccha road and while they were going in front of her house, they told that one person was lying on the road near ring road. It could thus be seen that even this witness also does not corroborate the version of P.W. 4 Shanti. 12. P.W. 12 Pradeep Mishra states that he was working as a Driver with Nirmala Tours and Travels. It could thus be seen that even this witness also does not corroborate the version of P.W. 4 Shanti. 12. P.W. 12 Pradeep Mishra states that he was working as a Driver with Nirmala Tours and Travels. He states that on the day of incident, at around 3 p.m. - 4 p.m. when he was coming to his house at Ingole layout from Mankapur ring road, he saw that some people had gathered near ring road. He further states that Ashish was residing adjacent to his house. Sister-in-law of Ashish was crying to take Ashish to any Hospital. He was called to take Ashish to Hospital. Therefore, he parked his Indica car in front of his house and in one Maruti Van of Awadh, shifted Ashish to Kunal Hospital. Along with him, sister-in-law of Ashish, Satish Kolhe and other two persons were with him in Maruti Van. This witness has also not supported the prosecution version. 13. It will be further relevant to note that perusal of charge-sheet itself would show that after Police came to know that Ashish was done away with on 28/8/2010 at about 15 hours, on suspicion, search of the house of accused No. 8 Vipin was conducted. The said panchanama would reveal that Police had suspicion that accused No. 8 Vipin had committed crime along with his accomplices and, therefore, search of his house was taken under house search panchanama. The panchanama would reveal that when Police party had gone along with panchas to carry out search, accused No. 8 Vipin was present in the house and they could not find anything incriminating. Perusal of panchanama would reveal that said panchanama was started between 17 hours and 17.40 hours. In this background, if Investigating Agency between 17 hours and 17.40 hours is not aware as to who are the real assailants, then a serious doubt is created as to whether first information report (Exh. 112), which was registered at 16.10 hours, is genuine or not. If first information report was registered at 16.10 hours wherein name of accused No. 8 is clearly mentioned, then there was no occasion of writing in the house search panchanama that assault was made by unknown persons. Similar house search panchanama is also carried out in respect of accused No. 7 Sushilkumar, who is father of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Similar house search panchanama is also carried out in respect of accused No. 7 Sushilkumar, who is father of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The said panchanama was executed between 16.15 hours and 16.50 hours. If first information report was really registered at 16.10 hours where names of these accused are specifically mentioned, then question arises as to why in the said panchanama, it is mentioned that assault was carried out by unknown persons. No doubt, these panchanamas have not been exhibited though they are part of the charge-sheet. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka III (2014) CCR 551 (SC)} : "Relying upon this evidence, the trial Court has disbelieved the story of the prosecution that Laxmi was cremated even before these persons had reached the village of the appellant. Strangely, the High Court has discarded Mahazar drawn by P.W. 8 by giving a spacious reason viz. it was not an exhibited document before the Court, little realising that this was the document produced by the prosecution itself and even without formal proof thereto by the prosecution, it was always open for the defence to seek reliance on such an evidence to falsify the prosecution version." We, therefore, find that accused are entitled to rely upon aforesaid house search panchanamas to falsify the prosecution version. 14. In that view of the matter, from the perusal of evidence placed on record, possibility that P.W. 4 Shanti has not at all witnessed the incident and that she has implicated the accused persons on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. As has been consistently held, previous enmity is a double edged weapon. On one hand, it can provide motive and on the other hand, it can also lead to false implication. In the present case, from the material placed on record, it is doubtful as to whether first information report is a genuine or fabricated document. It is also doubtful as to whether P.W. 4 Shanti has really witnessed the incident or not. As already discussed hereinabove, there is no evidence against appellants except the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti. The learned trial Judge has disbelieved her evidence insofar as accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are concerned. It is also doubtful as to whether P.W. 4 Shanti has really witnessed the incident or not. As already discussed hereinabove, there is no evidence against appellants except the evidence of P.W. 4 Shanti. The learned trial Judge has disbelieved her evidence insofar as accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are concerned. We find that it will not be safe to rest order of conviction insofar as other accused are concerned solely on the basis of testimony of P.W. 4 Shanti without there being any corroboration to the same. 15. In the result, we find that prosecution has failed to prove the case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt and appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order : Criminal Appeal Nos. 178 of 2013, 197 of 2013 and 198 of 2013 are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 26/2/2013 in Sessions Trial No. 496/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of offences charged with. The appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.