hereinbelow: - “4. The conviction of the appellant rests on the oral testimony of Natesan and Manisekaran who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the murder of the deceased. Both the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have believed the evidence of these two witnesses and ordinarily we would be loath to disturb the concurrent view taken by both these Courts as regards the appreciation of their evidence, but we find that there are inherent improbabilities in the story put forward by these two witnesses and we do not think it would be safe to act upon their uncorroborated testimony. In the first place, it is difficult to believe that the appellant was so inflamed with passion as to demand sexual intercourse with the deceased who 1 (1976) 4 SCC 343 16happened to be the wife of his cousin, and that too, not while she was alone, but in the presence of her husband. Even if he was mad with lust, he would not have chosen to come at this particular time, namely, 9 p.m. for