Prosecution case cannot be rebuilt by courts after rejecting its core version; conviction and sentence were set aside.

Where the courts below reject the material substratum of the prosecution case, they cannot discard the core version, retain only fragments of testimony, and reconstruct a different narrative to sustain conviction. Minor or incidental untruths do not justify rejecting the entire prosecution case, but once the essential features of the occurrence are disbelieved, conviction cannot rest on a judicially invented version not advanced by the prosecution. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained after the courts below rejected the material substratum of the prosecution case and reconstructed a different case of their own.

Analysis: The rejection of minor or incidental untruths in testimony does not justify discarding the core version of the prosecution and substituting an alternative narrative not put forward by the prosecution. Where the essential features of the occurrence are disbelieved, the court cannot accept the remaining fragments and build a fresh case to support conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

---