carefully before recording satisfaction. It is not the quantum, but what matters is the quality. Both the Courts below found the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 acceptable. The seriously inherent contradictions in the statements made by them have not been duly taken note of by both the courts. When the offence is heinous, the Court is required to put the material evidence under a higher scrutiny. On a careful consideration of the reasoning of the Trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court, we find that sufficient care has not been taken in the assessment of the statements made by P.Ws. 1 to 3. No one spoke as to who sent the FIR to the court and when it was sent. Strangely even the copy of the post­mortem report was admittedly received by SHO on the 13.03.2012 though the post mortem was conducted on the 09.03.2012,. It was the same date on which the FIR reached the Court. These factors certainly create a strong suspicion on the story as projected by the prosecution, but both the Courts have overlooked the same completely. This erroneous approach on the part of the Sessions Court and the High Court has led to the appellant being ordained to be dispatched to the gallows. 45