JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - 20 accused stood trial for various charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, 302/149, 324/149 & 323/149, Indian Penal Code. Only 3 have been convicted. Ramakanta alias Ramanath Sethi has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Chakradhar Sahu and Ramakanta alias Thekar Sahani have been each convicted u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly narrated, The accused persons are residents of village Sahipur in the District of Balasore. There are 3 Sahis in the village-Brahmana Sahi, Tala Sahi and Dalei Sahi. Brahmana Sahi is inhabited by Brahmins only. Dalei Sahi is inhabited by Daleis who are fishermen by profession. Tala Sahi is inhabited by persons of various other castes not being Brahmans or Daleis. The Sasan Tank, otherwise called as Mahadeb Pokhari, belongs to the Brahmins. There is however no other tank from which the Daleis can suitably use water. Accordingly trey use the water of Mahadeb Pokhari. In the village there is admittedly party faction. The Daleis are led by one Krushna Mohan Panda who is a Brahmin. Paramananda Panda (accused) leads most of the Brahmins and the residents of Tala Sahi. In the afternoon of 20-7-1965 certain persons were clearing weeds from Mahadeb Pokhari under the direction of Paramananda Panda, Bansidhar Pati and Babaji Panda who are all accused. p.ws. 1, 3 and 6 got information that the water of the tank was being spoiled on account of clearance of weeds. They approched Paramanand Panda and questioned him as to why be was getting the water spoiled. Paramananda filthily abused them. On the very night some of these Daleis got information that some persons from Balasore town were catching fish from the tank. On going to the spot they found that Paramananda and his party-men were sitting at the tank, and under this direction fish was being callght. On this protest, Paramananda and others abused Daleis and threatened to assault them. Accordingly they left the place. At about 7 A.M. on 21-7-1965, p.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 with some other Daleis were doing earth work near a newly dug well in Dalei Sahi. Paramananda Panda, Babaji alias Padmalochan Panda and Harekrushna alias Baja Panda passed through Dalei Sahi towards village Unchadiha. They returned about half an hour after. Accordingly they left the place. At about 7 A.M. on 21-7-1965, p.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 with some other Daleis were doing earth work near a newly dug well in Dalei Sahi. Paramananda Panda, Babaji alias Padmalochan Panda and Harekrushna alias Baja Panda passed through Dalei Sahi towards village Unchadiha. They returned about half an hour after. Nearabout the well they had an exchange of words with Nalu Dalei (p.w. 6) and some other Daleis. Paramananda and his two companions left for Brahmin Sahi. About half an hour after, the 20 accused persons with many others came running in a body to Dalei Sahi shouting to kill and assault the Daleis. Ramakanta alias Ramanath Sethi Chakradhar Sahu and Ramakanta alias Thekar Sahani were each armed with a bow and arrows, and other accused were armed with lathis. Ramakanta Sethi shot an arrow at Madan Dalei who was coming on the village lane near the house of Kanduri Dalei. Madan Dalei was unarmed. He was being followed by Faka Dalei (p.w. 2). Chakradhar Sahu and Ramakanta Sahani shot arrows at p.w. 2. Thus punctured wounds were caused to Madan Dalei (the deceased) and p.w. 2. Accused Paramananda assaulted Baisa Dalei (p.w. 5) who in turn snatched away the lathi from Paramananda and dealt a blow on him. Accused Hrudananda assaulted Budhi Dalei (p.w. 4) who snatched away the lathi from the hand of Hrudananda and dealt a blow on him. Accused Chhagali alias Upendra Parida assaulted Baya Dalei (p.w. 3) by a lathi. The accused persons thereafter left the place. The injured Madan Dalei and Faka Dalei were carried to Balasore. Madan succumbed to his injuries and died. 3. The defence in this case is somewhat difficult to understand. Ramakanta Sethi advances the plea that when he was ploughing his land near Dalei Sahi on that day, he heard a bulla and on going to Dalei Sahi he found that Satrughna Das and Harekrushna Das were taking the injured Paramananda Panda and Hrudananda Panda towards Brahmin Sahi. Krushna Mohan Panda and other Dalei persons were shouting to assault persons of Brahmin Sahi. They also shouted to kill him. So this accused ran away and went to his land. He disclaims knowledge as to how Madan Dalei received injuries and who killed him. Thus his defence is that he had not taken any part in the rioting. Krushna Mohan Panda and other Dalei persons were shouting to assault persons of Brahmin Sahi. They also shouted to kill him. So this accused ran away and went to his land. He disclaims knowledge as to how Madan Dalei received injuries and who killed him. Thus his defence is that he had not taken any part in the rioting. The defence of Chakradhar Sahu is also one of denial. He pays that in the morning of the date of occurrence he started from Balasore in the morning and reached village at about 7 A.M. He heard from the parents of Paramananda that the Dalei people had assaulted Paramananda. He went to the school and found Paramananda and Hrudananda lying injured with bleeding injuries. Krishna Mohan Panda was instigating Dalei people to kill Paramananda and Hrudananda. Jagannath (p.w. 1) and Kana Dalei had bow and arrows. Other Dalei people had lathis. He went away to his house. He also disclaims knowledge as to how the deceased and p.w. 2 received injuries. Ramakanta Sahani resorts to a plea of denial. According to him, he and his brother Umakanta had gone to this paddy field in the morning. Having heard a hulla, his brother went to Dalei Sahi. As he did not return, this accused went and found that Jagannath Dalei (p.w. 10) and Kana had bows and arrows, and other Dalei people had lath is. Krushna Mohan Panda was instigating the Dalei people to kill Paramananda Panda and Hrudananda Panda, both of whom were lying injured. Satrughna Das and Khageswar Das intervened and he left the place. It is not necessary to give the defence of the other accused who have been acquitted. It would be sufficient to give the plea taken in the defence by Paramananda Panda who was the leader of the group. He filed the F.I.R. (Ext. A) in the counter case which resulted in acquittal. His plea is that Hadi Dalei (p.w. 7) and Baisa Dalei (p.w. 5) assaulted him by lathis, when he was returning from Unchadiha via Dalei Sahi. He fell down with bleeding injuries and lay on the ground semiconscious. Later he found himself sitting on the outskists of Dalei Sahi. Satrughna Das, Harekrushna Das and others were standing. His brother Hrudananda was also sitting there with bleeding injuries. He and Hrudananda were carried to the Police Station and then taken to the hospital. He fell down with bleeding injuries and lay on the ground semiconscious. Later he found himself sitting on the outskists of Dalei Sahi. Satrughna Das, Harekrushna Das and others were standing. His brother Hrudananda was also sitting there with bleeding injuries. He and Hrudananda were carried to the Police Station and then taken to the hospital. Krushna Mohan Panda incited Dalei people to assault him. In the F.I.R. (Ext. A) he had stated that after there was an exchange of words with Muli Dalei, Kuna Dalei gave him a push. Then Hadi Dalei (p.w. 7) assaulted him on the head. Somebody else also assaulted him on the back. He became unconscious. After some time when he gained consciousness, he found that be was lying on the road near the house of Kanduri Dalei. p.w. 5 and Krushna Mohan Panda assaulted his younger brother Hrudananda with lath is. Thus there is some inconsistency in between his plea taken now and the F.I.R. (Ext. A) as to who assaulted him and Hrudananda with lathis. 4. The learned Sessions Judge held that the death of the deceased was homicidal as a result of injuries caused by arrow-shot. This finding has not been assailed before us. In fact before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution case that the death was homicidal was not even challenged. 5. The only question for consideration is whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant Ramakanta Sethi killed the deceased by arrow-shot and the other two Appellants injured p.w. 2 by arrow-shots. Before discussing the relevant evidence, it would he profitable to notice the findings and the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the 3 Appellants and in acquitting the other accused. 6. The findings are enumerated as follows: (i) It is the consistent evidence of p.ws. 1 to 7 and 15 who are eye-witnesses that the 3 Appellants had each been armed with bow and arrows. They injured the deceased and p.w. 2 near the house of Kanduri Dalei away from the place of melee. (ii) These 3 accused persons with bows and arrows were standing near the house of Kanduri Dalei and some of the other accused persons were near the well. (iii) Madan Dalei and Faka Dalei were not in the melee near the village well. (ii) These 3 accused persons with bows and arrows were standing near the house of Kanduri Dalei and some of the other accused persons were near the well. (iii) Madan Dalei and Faka Dalei were not in the melee near the village well. They were coming on the village lane and were near the house of Kanduri Dalei when they were assaulted by arrows. (iv) There is no material whatsoever even to remotely suggest that there had been any provocation from the side of Madan or Faka before these 3 accused persons shot arrows at them. (v) In view of the evidence of p.ws. 5 to 7, the omnibus evidence of p.ws. 1 to 4 and 15 that each of t he accused persons came shouting being armed with lathis cannot safely be accepted. (vi) As far as the assault by lathis is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not presented a true and complete picture of the occurrence regarding the mutual assault in between both the parties in the melee near the village well. 7. On the aforesaid findings, the learned Judge was of opinion that the prosecution suppressed the truth and has not given a true picture of what happened during the fracas near the village well and as to who assaulted whom and under what circumstances. He accordingly acquitted all the accused persons of various charges, relating to the fracas and assault near the well. He was however of definite opinion that the prosecution version regarding the injuries caused to Madan Dalei and Faka Dalei by the shooting of arrows near the house of Kanduri Dalei away from the melee near the well was established beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly he convicted the 3 Appellants as indicated above. 8. Mr. Kanungo contended that once the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not present the true story with regard to material part of the occurrence, the conviction is not well founded on the statements of the self-same witnesses with regard to the other part, particularly when they are parties and interested witnesses. Mr. 8. Mr. Kanungo contended that once the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not present the true story with regard to material part of the occurrence, the conviction is not well founded on the statements of the self-same witnesses with regard to the other part, particularly when they are parties and interested witnesses. Mr. Kanungo however contended that the Court can distinguish the chaff from the grain and reach the conclusion that the Appellants injured the deceased and p.w. 2 in the manner indicated by the prosecution if the defence has failed to establish any right of private defence of person so as to escape conviction. His empbasis therefore is that on a true appraisement of the prosecution evidence the Court cannot reach a correct conclusion as to where the melee was and how the deceased and p.w. 2 received this injuries. 9. It would be profitable to indicate the law on the point, before we grapple with the facts of this case. In Masalti v. State of U.P. 1964 S.C.D. 980 the principle regarding assessment of partisan and interested witness was laid down. this Lordship shield, But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witness should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witness. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No bard and fast rule can he laid down as to bow much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be collations in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct. With regard to the question whether a witness is to be dishelieved, because part of his statement is either false or contradictory to his earlier version, the matter was fully discussed by this Court in State v. Sashibhusan 28 C.L.T. 523. (See para 13). It was observed therein that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omni bus' has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. (See para 13). It was observed therein that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omni bus' has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of calltion. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given-state of circumstances, but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence. This principle is expressed in another form by saying that the Court must be careful to examine the entire evidence and must distinguish the chaff from the grain and must not take to an easy course of discarding the entire prosecution case merely because a part of the story is false. The same view was taken in Hisingi Sallra v. State 28 C.L.T. 337. (See para 6). 10. The aforesaid principles must be applied to the facts of this case to see if the learned Sessions Judge reached the correct conclusion. Certain glaring facts are to be noticed. The fracas admittedly took place in Dalei Sahi far away from the Brahman Sahi. Even on the defence case the incident started near the well in Dalei Sahi where Paramananda and Hurdananda are alleged to have been assaulted. The defence story is that Babaji alias Padmalochan Panda and Harekrushna alias Raja Panda escaped from the clutches of the Dalei near the well, and on information being given the Brahmans anti residents of Tala Sahi came to the well to rescue Paramananda. The story appears to be inherently absurd. Even assuming that Paramananda had been detained and assaulted at the well, the nature of injuries does not show that he was assaulted for a period of about more then half an hour. The distance between Dalei Sahi and Brahman Sahi would be more then a furlong. For people to go from the well to Brahman Sahi to collect men to come to Dalei Sahi it would take at least half an hour time. The distance between Dalei Sahi and Brahman Sahi would be more then a furlong. For people to go from the well to Brahman Sahi to collect men to come to Dalei Sahi it would take at least half an hour time. If it was the intention of Dalei Sahi people to assault Paramananda in the first instance when he was returning from village Unchadiha, he would not have been let off with the injuries on his body which do not appear to be very serious. The following injuries were found on Paramananda: (1) One lacerated bleeding wound about ?' ? 1/16" on the dorsum of right hypothenar area (2) One lacerated bleeding wound about 4?' ? ?' which was semi-ciscular and skin deep on the scalp on the parietal region. (3) One contusion about 6" ? ?' on the right side of the back below the right scapular reigion. (4) One contusion about ?' ? ?' above the right shoulder (5) One abrasion on the right shoulder at the posterior aspect Though the number of injuries is 5 and 2 of them are lacerated, injury No. 2 alone appears to be given by lathi. The Doctor has given a general statement that these injuries could be caused by some blunt and bard substance. That may not necessarily be by lathi, and may be by fall when Paramananda was assaulted by lathi. At any rate the injuries do not show that Paramananda was detained and assaulted for more then half an hour. Similarly injuries on Hrudananda, which are 4 in number, show that injury No. 2 must have been caused by lathi, but not the other injuries. 11. Mr. Kanungo concedes that the consistent prosecution evidence, as presented by p.ws. 1 to 7 and 15, is that Ramakanta Sethi shot an arrow at the deceased. The shot was given by him while he was at a distance of about 20 cubits from the victim who was coming in the lane near the house of Kanduri Dalei. The lane is at a distance of about 45 yards from the when where the melee took place Thus the assailant was in between the well and the house of Kanduri Dalei. If the victim was in the lane, obviously he was not a member of the melee. The lane is at a distance of about 45 yards from the when where the melee took place Thus the assailant was in between the well and the house of Kanduri Dalei. If the victim was in the lane, obviously he was not a member of the melee. It is also the consistent evidence of these witnesses that the deceased had no arms and he was coming from the lane side shouting that there should not be any assault and fracas. P.ws. 2, 3, 4: and 5 admittedly received injuries during the farces. this presence also is admitted in the F.I.R. (Ext. A) and they were made accused in the counter case. this competency to depose as to the manner how the fracas took place cannot be questioned. Since however they partisan, this evidence requires close scrutiny on the principles narrated above. The learned Sessions Judge therefore rightly discarded this evidence regarding the assault by lathis during the fracas. this evidence is divergent as to who assaulted Paramananda and Hrudananda. It is not necessary to discuss in detail the nature of the discrepancy. It would be sufficient to say that the evidence is discrepant. As already indicated, even accused Paramananda gives different versions as to who assaulted him. At one stage he admitted that p.w. 5 also assaulted him which is exactly the prosecution case. In the F.I.R. (Ext. A) he did not refer to p.w. 5 as being assailant. This is therefore not a case in which the injuries on Paramananda and Hrudananda have not at all been explained by the prosecution. The prosecution has given a story as to how both of them were assaulted during the fracas. There were a case and a counter case, and each party is likely to suppress a part of the story to avoid this involvement. But on scrutinizing the evidence as a whole the learned Judge correctly reached the conclusion that the deceased Madan Dalei was sought by an arrow in the lane near the house of Kanduri Dalei far from the malee near the well. So far p.w. 2 is concerned, one cannot place much reliance on his evidence, as in his statement u/s 162, Code of Criminal Procedure he had given a different story that he was working at the well and had seen the assault on Paramananda He is a liar. So far p.w. 2 is concerned, one cannot place much reliance on his evidence, as in his statement u/s 162, Code of Criminal Procedure he had given a different story that he was working at the well and had seen the assault on Paramananda He is a liar. It is difficult to place reliance on his evidence. That being so, we also do not place much reliance on the evidence of other witnesses that p.w. 2 was following the deceased. 12. The result of the aforesaid analysis is that on the consistent evidence of p.ws. 1, 3 to 7 and 15 conclusion is isresistible that Madan Dalei (the deceased) was shot with an arrow by accused Ramakanta Sethi though the deceased not a member of the melee which was at the well. We fully agree with the analysis of the learned Sessions Judge, but give benefit of doubt to the Appellants Chakradhar Sahu and Ramakanta alias Thekar Sahani. 13. Mr. Kanungo placed reliance on Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai Vs. The State of Bihar in support of the contention that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. this Lordships observed thus: In our judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probablises the plea taken by the Appellant. This decision is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Hisingi Sallra v. State 28 C.L.T. 337. In this case the defence has no positive story as to how the injuries were sustained by them bereft of the injuries caused to the deceased and p.w. 2. Doubtless the prosecution evidence is not very clear or consistent as to which of the members of Dalei Sahi gave injuries to them. But this evidence is consistent that in course of the fracas at the well such injuries were caused by the people of Dalei Sahi on Paramananda and Hrudananda. The injuries received by Paramananda and Hrudananda were in course of the occurrence and are admitted to have been caused by the members of Dalei Sahi though the exact identity of the person giving the injuries is at variance. The injuries received by Paramananda and Hrudananda were in course of the occurrence and are admitted to have been caused by the members of Dalei Sahi though the exact identity of the person giving the injuries is at variance. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on Hrudananda and Pramananda. At any rate, the story regarding callsation of injuries on the deceased can be safely distinguished from the story resulting in injuries on Paramananda and Hrudananda on the one hand and p.ws. 3 to 5 on the other, in course of the fracas at the well. 14. In the result, we set aside the order of conviction and sentence u/s 324, Indian Penal Code passed against Appellant Chakradhar Sahu and Ramakanta alias Thekar Sahani. They be set at liberty forthwith. We confism the conviction and sentence of Appellant Ramakanta Sethi u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. The appeal is thus allowed in part as indicated above. Ray, J. 15. I agree. Final Result : Allowed