Unreliable prosecution evidence cannot sustain conviction when the incident's genesis, place and manner are materially inconsistent.

Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC could not be sustained where the prosecution evidence was materially unreliable on the genesis, place and manner of occurrence. The informant and injured eyewitnesses gave inconsistent versions on the foundation of the incident, and the evidence was not capable of reliable separation of truth from falsehood without reconstructing a new case. The principle that falsehood in part does not necessarily destroy the whole prosecution case did not assist the State on these facts. The evidentiary defects affecting the co-accused applied equally to the appellant, so the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the basis of prosecution evidence found unreliable in material respects and inconsistent on the genesis, place and manner of occurrence.

Analysis: The prosecution version was found to be materially discrepant on the very foundation of the occurrence, including the place of incident and the sequence of assaults. The informant and injured eyewitnesses gave inconsistent versions, and the evidence was not capable of reliable separation of truth from falsehood without reconstructing a new case. In such circumstances, the rule that falsehood in part does not necessarily destroy the whole case could not assist the prosecution. The findings against the co-accused, based on the same defective evidentiary substratum, were held to apply equally to the appellant.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and the appellant succeeded.

---