Conviction cannot be sustained based on the sole testimony of a witness who is found untruthful due to material contradictions between the FIR and oral evidence, unexplained delays in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, and the failure to examine independent witnesses at a public place of occurrence.

(1) THESE appeals are by the 4 accused persons. Two of whom had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, and their acquittal was set aside by the High Court, and two others were convicted by the Sessions Judge, and their conviction was upheld in appeal by the High Court. Initially, 7 accused persons stood charged under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code for having caused the murder of two persons Dalip Singh and Jeet Singh on 26.7.1975 at about 5.00 p.m. by assaulting them with different weapons in their hands. The prosecution case in nutshell, as unfolded in the First Information Report given by Public witness .1, is to the effect that these accused persons and the deceased belonged to two different groups and had some rivalry, and on the date of occurrence, they were all travelling in the same bus. The bus in question was stopped at a place Khare Chak when one of the passengers got down, and as soon as the said passenger got down at the bus stop, accused Jang Singh snatched the Kirpan from Jeet Singhs hand and then Balbir Singh caught hold of deceased and pushed him on the ground and thereafter rest of the accused persons got down from the bus and Balbir Singh accused No. 4 threw (him) at a distance, and then Jagdeo Singh A6 gave a blow on Dalip Singh with gandasa on his foot, and thereafter rest of the accused persons pounce^ upon him. The further prosecution case is that when Jeet Singh immediately tried to run away from the bus, the accused persons chased him, caught hold of him and started beating him, it is at that point of time when passengers raised a hue and cry. The bus started moving and 3 of the accused persons Balbir Singh, Mahendra Singh and Dulah Singh came running and boarded the bus, and came away on the bus leaving the rest of the persons at the place of occurrence itself. After the bus travelled for some distance, it again stopped at a place called Morgand, and then Balbir and Mahendra got down at that place. Public witness .1 got down from the bus at Manmad, and then went to Hanumangarh Police Station to lodge a report, which report was ultimately treated as F.I.R., and police started investigation. On the basis of the said F.I.R. and on completion of the investigation submitted the chargesheet. On being committed the accused persons stood their trial, as already stated. The prosecution case hinges upon the sole testimony of Public witness .1, inasmuch, though the prosecution pressed into service the evidence of Public witness .2, but he did not support the prosecution case during trial, and therefore was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Sessions Judge after scanning the evidence of Public witness .1 came to hold that accused no.4, accused no.7, and accused no.5, who boarded the bus, as soon as the bus started and came away, along with other passengers could not have shared the common object with those who assaulted the two deceased persons at the place of occurrence, and as such acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. But so far as accused no.1, accused no.3, accused no.2 and accused no.6 are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of Public witness .2 came to hold that they are the authors of the crime, and convicted them of the charges, as already stated. Out of these convicted persons, accused no.1 died during the pending of the appeal in the High Court, as stated to us by Mr. Prem Malhotra. Accused no.3 also died while the matter was pending in the High Court. Accused no.5, who had been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge, and whose acquittal has been set aside by the High Court, however, did not prefer any appeal to this Court, and therefore these appeals are by 4 accused persons, as already stated. Since the prosecution case hinges solely upon the oral testimony of Public witness .1, we have been taken through the evidence of said Public witness .1. On a bare perusal of the said evidence, we find it difficult to hold him to be