(17) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) weapon on disclosure of the accused was doubtful. There was overwriting in the recovery memos. Hence it was held that the case was vitiated by serious error and hence accused were acquitted. 34/­ Advocate Shri Mote has also relied on the ratio in the case of “Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1953, S.C.468” . In this case, accused put forward a reasonable defence which was likely to be true and in addition it was supported by two prosecution witnesses. Hence it was held that it raises reasonable doubt because of which the accused must get benefit of doubt. Hence accused was acquitted. 35/­ Advocate Shri Mote has also relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Manik s/o Sitaram Jibhkate & Ors, Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2011 ALL M.R.(CRI.)2474”, in which case of “Jotiram Indrajeet Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 ALL MR (Cri.)N.O.C.14)” was referred wherein it was held that when there are too many contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses, such evidence must be set apart.