S.S. BYAS, J.—This is an appeal by accused Hanuman Nath directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated July 10, 1978 convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 447, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months regorous imprisonment under the second count. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. At about 6.00 P.M. on 3-7-77, PW 14 Bhagwan Ram appeared at Police Station, Ratansar (District Churu) and verbally lodged report Ex. P 14 stating therein that he was sent by the villagers of Mehrawansar to lodge the information that a quarrel had taken place in the village in which one woman has met death. The Station House Officer Shri Gauri Shanker (PW 28) recorded the report in the Rojnamcha Sine the report was vague and disclosed no facts, the Station House Officer immediately left for village Mehrawansar. He reached there at about 8-30 P M. PW 14 Trilokaram met him there and presented written report Ex. P. 12. It was stated therein that in the afternoon of 2-7-77, PW 13 Birbalram, the deceased victim Smt. Kesar and he were working in his field situate in Mauja Mehrawansar Smt. Kesar was working as their hired labour. The accused-appellant accompanied with Khumanaram and Dularam (both real brothers) came there riding on a camel. They were armed with Lathies. Khumanaram and Dularam started beating him (Trilokaram) and his brother Birbalram (PW 13). Accused-appellant started beating Smt. Kesar. The accused appellant also thrust a lathi in the private parts of Smt. Kesar. She became unconscious. The accused-appellant thereafter tied her hands with a rope and dragged her for some distance. Birbalram also became unconscious. The accused-appellant and his two companions thereafter went away. It was further stated therein that he (Trilokaram) left the place and came to the village. He informed his father and other persons about the incident. The Station House Officer treated Ex. P. 12 as the First Information Report and registered a case on its basis under sections 302, 307 etc. of the Penal Code. The usual investigation ensued. The Investigation Officer prepared the inquest report of the dead-body of Smt. Kesar, which was lying on a cot in her house. The site was also inspected. The Station House Officer treated Ex. P. 12 as the First Information Report and registered a case on its basis under sections 302, 307 etc. of the Penal Code. The usual investigation ensued. The Investigation Officer prepared the inquest report of the dead-body of Smt. Kesar, which was lying on a cot in her house. The site was also inspected. The injuries of Birbalram (PW 13) were examined at about 1.30 A.M. on 4-7-77 by PW 20 Dr. M.L. Shyamsukha, the then Medical Jurist, D.B. Hospital, Churu. He found the following injuries :— (1) Lacerated wound 1, 1/2" x 1/3" x 1/3 on left parietal region-simple blunt. (2) Lacerated wound l"x 1/3" x 1/3" posterior to injury No. 1, Simple -blunt. (3) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/3" x 1/3" back of left foream upper one-third - Simple-blunt. (4) Contusion 1" x 1" right thigh middle laterally-simple-blunt. (5) Abrasion 1" x 1/3" above right knee joint. Simple-blunt. All the injuries were designated as simple and caused by some blunt object. The injury report issued by him is Ex. P. 20. At about 10.00 A.M. on the same day, he examined the injuries of PW 14 Trilokaram and found the following: (1) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" back of right ear. (2) Abrasion 1/4" x linear back of right index finger. (3) Swelling 1/2" x 1/2" above right knee joint. The injuries were said to be simple and caused by some blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P. 21. At about 11.00 A.M. on the same day he performed the autopsy on the deadbody of Smt. Kesar and found the following: External (1)Diffused contusion of nose. (2)Lacerated wound 1-1/2" x1/2" 3/4" in the right fist interdigital space. (3)Lacerated wound 1/3" x 1/3" x 1/6" on right leg middle anteriorly. (4)Contusion 1" x 1" left buttock. (5)Contusion with abrasion 3" x 1-1/2" on the left side of back of chest. (6)Abrasion 2" x 2" on right side of chest lower part laterally. (7)Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the front of left wrist. (8)Contusion 1/2" x 1/2" left shoulder blade middle. (9)Vulva was contused. Facal matter was coming out of anus. Internal (1)3rd, 5th and 6th ribs were found fractured. (2)Liver was enlarged. There were lacerations two in number on the anterior surface. Average was 2" x 1-1/2" x 1". (7)Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the front of left wrist. (8)Contusion 1/2" x 1/2" left shoulder blade middle. (9)Vulva was contused. Facal matter was coming out of anus. Internal (1)3rd, 5th and 6th ribs were found fractured. (2)Liver was enlarged. There were lacerations two in number on the anterior surface. Average was 2" x 1-1/2" x 1". (3) One laceration was found on the anterior surface of the size of 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". Vulva was oedematous and congested. There was swelling at the external anal opening. Anal sphincter was patulous. Facal matter was coming out of anux. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death of Smt. Kesar was injuries to the liver, haemorrhage leading to shock and death. The post-mortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P. 22. The doctor also examined the injuries of accused Dularam and found the following. (1) Abrasion with blackish scab 1" x 1" on left parietal region. (2) Abrasion with brownish scab 1" linear left thigh upper one-third laterally. 3. The injuries were simple, caused by some blunt object. The injury report issued by him is Ex. P. 19. The blood-smeared clothes of the deceased-were also seized. The accused persons Hanuman Nath, Khumanaram and Dularam were arrested and in consequence of the informations furnished by them lathies and rope were recovered. On chemical examination, most of these articles were found stained with human blood. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against Khumanaram, Dularam and the accused-appellant, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who in his turn committed the case for trail to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302, 447 and 307/34 against the accused-appellant under sec. 302/34, 307 and 447 IPC against Dularam and under sections 302/35, 307/34 and 447, I.P.C. against Khumanaram. All the three accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to them, they have been falsely implicated. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating evidence against accused Dularam and Khumanaram. They were, therefore, acquitted of the offences they were charged-with. The learned Sessions Judge, however, held the prosecution case substantially true against the accused-appellant. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating evidence against accused Dularam and Khumanaram. They were, therefore, acquitted of the offences they were charged-with. The learned Sessions Judge, however, held the prosecution case substantially true against the accused-appellant. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant has taken this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also carefully gone through the voluminous record of the case. 5. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the prosecution adduced three sets of evidence against the accused persons, i.e. : — (1) the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the culprits before PW 12 Harlal, (2) the direct evidence of PW 13 Birbalram and PW 14 Trilokaram, and (3) the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by deceased victim Smt. Kesar before PW 8 Rameshwar. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence relating to extra judicial confession and dying declaration. He accepted the testimony of PW 13 Birbal-Ram and PW 14 Trilokaram as against the accused appellant and convicted him thereon. It may be mentioned both these witnesses were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case against the acquitted accused Dularam and Khumana Ram. 6. In assailing the conviction of the accused, the first contention raised by learned counsel is that the First Information Report which was a written one and was lodged by PW 15 Bhagwana Ram at Police Station Ratansar has been suppressed by the prosecution and a new fabricated First Information Report Ex. P. 13 was introduced. The suppression of the FIR speaks heavily against the prosecution and the whole prosecution case, therefore, becomes suspicious. In reply it was argued that PW 15 Bhagwanaram lodged the verbal report Ex. P 14 which was entered into the Rojnamcha of the Police Station. It was submitted that Bhagwanaram did not present any written report at the Police Station. We have examined the prosecution evidence and we are of the opinion that there is ample evidence to show that Bhagwanaram presented a written report at Police Station, Ratansar on 3-7-77. PW 15 Bhagwanaram himself deposed that he was a Panch in the Gram Panchayat. It was submitted that Bhagwanaram did not present any written report at the Police Station. We have examined the prosecution evidence and we are of the opinion that there is ample evidence to show that Bhagwanaram presented a written report at Police Station, Ratansar on 3-7-77. PW 15 Bhagwanaram himself deposed that he was a Panch in the Gram Panchayat. The villagers gave him a written report and asked him to take it to Police Station. The report was written by Mohanlal (PW 24) and was signed by 10-20 persons. He went to police Station, Ratansar and presented that written report. P.W.3 Malnath in his cross-examination admitted that the villagers got a report written of the incident and was given to Ward Panch Bhagwanaram (PW 15) to be taken to the Police Station. He further admitted that the report was written by Mohanlal (PW 24) at the dictation of the villagers. PW 24 Mohanlal, who is also a scribe of report Ex. P. 12, admitted in cross-examination that on a day prior to his writing Ex.P. 12 the villagers got a report written from him about the incident and it was delivered to Bhagwana-Ram to be taken to the Police Station. That report was signed by as many as 10-15 persons of the village. He further admitted that earlier report was written at about 1.00 A.M. on 4-7-77 i.e. to say in the night between 3rd and 4th July, 1977. It was, thus, written within a few hours of the occurrence. There is, thus, convincing evidence of the above witnesses to affirmatively prove that Bhagwanaram (PW 15) presented a written report at Police Station, Ratansar. That report has not been produced by the prosecution. It is true that Investigating Officer Gaurishanker (PW 28) denies that Bhagwanaram presented any written report to him, but in view of the above evidence of the witnesses, we are unable to put reliance on the testimony of Investigating Officer. All these witnesses are not interested in the accused- appellant and we find no cogent reasons that they would falsely speak about the existence of the earlier written report. 7. The prosecution is, thus, guilty of suppressing the earlier written report of the occurrence. That first report of the occurrence has been, thus, with held and it has been substituted by the other First Information Report Ex. P. 12. 7. The prosecution is, thus, guilty of suppressing the earlier written report of the occurrence. That first report of the occurrence has been, thus, with held and it has been substituted by the other First Information Report Ex. P. 12. It appears that the Investigating Officer wanted to keep the matter open and, therefore, a vague report Ex. P. 14 was entered into the Rojnamcha. In Marudanal Auguliti v. The State of Kerala(1) it was observed by their Lordships that once the First Information Report is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence, the entire prosecution case must collapse. 8. It was next argued by the learned counsel that Ex.P. 12 is also not a genuine document. There are contradictory statements of the witnesses as to by whom it was dictated. Though it purports to have been dictated by the eye witness Trilokaram (PW14), it was in fact not dictated by him but by the Inves-tigation Officer. The contention is again not without force. PW 14 Trilokaram who is the star witness of the prosecution and is said to be the author of the report Ex P. 12, admitted in his cross-examination that the Investigating Officer first heard his version and thereafter the Investigation Officer dictated the report to Mohanlal (PW 24). Report Ex. P. 12 is a long document covering 1-1/2 pages of fool scape paper. Such a long report could not be dictated by an illiterate person like Trilokaram (P.W. 14). As such we are unable to hold report Ex P. 12 to be a genuine and innocent document. 9. The suppression of the original First Information Report and its substitution by a report dictated by the Investigation Officer must throw considerable doubt on the prosecution case and renders the prosecution story highly suspicious. 10. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the court below wrongly put reliance on the testimony of PW 13 Birbalaram and PW 14 Trilokaram in convicting the accused-appellant. It was argued that both these witnesses have suppressed the material facts. They gave a clean chit of acquittal to accused Khumanaram and Dularam who were his first cousins Both these witnesses diverted their entire energy in falsely implicating the accused-appellant. It was argued that both these witnesses have suppressed the material facts. They gave a clean chit of acquittal to accused Khumanaram and Dularam who were his first cousins Both these witnesses diverted their entire energy in falsely implicating the accused-appellant. These two witnesses, though belaboured by co-accused Khumanaram and Dularam according to police statements, denied during trail this fact and altogether introduced as new story that they were belaboured by the accused-appellant. It was also argued that even the taint d evidence of these two witnesses is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that Smt. Kesar was done to death by the accused appellant. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was open to the trial court to believe a part of the testimony of these witnesses and reject the other. There was nothing wrong in the approach of the learned Sessions Judge. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 11. Admittedly, PW 15 Birbalram and PW 14 Trilokaram are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. They are also the injured-victims in the occurrence. Their presence on the spot is, therefore, not open to any doubt. The partinent question, however, is whether they have told truth during trail or are guilty of introducing false material against the accused-appellant. 12. PW 13 Birbalram deposed that Smt. Kesar had come to his field situate in Mauja Mehrawansar to work as a hired-labour on the day of incident. The accused-appellant Hanumannath came along there and struck a blow of lathi on his head. He fell down. Accused Hanumannath thereafter struck blows to his brother Trilokaram (PW 14). The witness further stated that he became unconscious then and there. However, he saw accused Hanumannath striking blows to Smt. Kesar with his Lathi. The witness was declared hostile. In his police statement Ex. P. 11 he deposed that the three accused Hanumannath, Khumanaram and Dularam came together riding on a camel to his field. He and his brother Trilokaram were beaten and belaboured by accused Khumanaram and Dularam. The witness was pointedly cross-examined and confronted with portions A to B, C to D, E to F, G to H, I to J. K to L and M to N wherein he stated the above facts. But the witness denied to have stated the aforesaid portions in Ex. P. 12. His denial does not appear genuine. 13. The witness was pointedly cross-examined and confronted with portions A to B, C to D, E to F, G to H, I to J. K to L and M to N wherein he stated the above facts. But the witness denied to have stated the aforesaid portions in Ex. P. 12. His denial does not appear genuine. 13. The matter does not end here. Though in his exanination-in-Chief this witness deposed that accused Hanumannath struck blows with a lathi to Smt. Kesar, he could not successfully maintain this stand in cross-examination. In cross-examination he deposed that: — ^^esjs ns[kus esa rks guqekuukFk eqfYte us eq- ds Åij dksbZ pht ugh ekjh Fkh vkSj og pyk x;k FkkA^^ That is to say he did not see accused Hanumannath striking any blow to the deceased-victim Smt. Kesar. If it is so his testimony disclosed no incriminating material against the accused-appellant. More over, in Ex. P. 11, he deposed that in the noon of the day of occurrence, he and the deceased-victim Smt. Kesar working in his another field situate in Mauja Chhajusar. There a quarrel had taken place between him and the wife of Dularam (co-accused acquitted). During trial he denied this occurrence alleged to have been taken place in his field situate in Mauja Chhajusar. 14. PW 14 Trilokaram is another injured eye witness of the occurrence. He deposed that in the afternoon of the day of occurrence he, his brother Birbalram and the deceased victim Smt. Kesar were taking their food in his field situate in Mauja Mehrawansar Accused Hanumannath alone came there with a lathi in his hand. Accused Hanumannath struck a blow of his lathi on the head of Birbatram. He tried to intervene and the accused struck a number of blows to him. Thereafter he (witness) went in a corner and stood there, Smt. Kesar was raising cries. After sometime the accused brought out Smt. Kesar from the hut and struck blows to her. He also thrust the lathi in her private parts. The accused then tied the hands of Smt Kesar and dragged her to some distance of nearly 30 paces. Thereafter he left her and went away. He is the author of Ex. P. 12 which has been treated as the First Information Report in the case. He was examined during the investigation and his statement is Ex. P. 13. The accused then tied the hands of Smt Kesar and dragged her to some distance of nearly 30 paces. Thereafter he left her and went away. He is the author of Ex. P. 12 which has been treated as the First Information Report in the case. He was examined during the investigation and his statement is Ex. P. 13. The witness was cross-examined with reference to Ex.P. 12 and Ex.P. 13. In Ex. P 12 as well as Ex.P. 13, the witness deposed that the three accused Dula-Ram, Khumanaram and Hanumannath came together riding on a camel with lathies in their hands. Ail these three miscreants started beating him, his brother Birbalram and Smt. Kesar. He and his brother Birbalram were belaboured by accused Khumanaram and Dularam. Accused Hanumannath beat Smt. Kesar. He also thrust his lathi in her private parts She became unconscious. Accused Hanumannath thereafter tied her hands and dragged her to some distance. He was confronted with Ex. P. 12 and Ex. P. 13 wherein he stated that he and his brother Birbalram were belaboured and beaten by accused Khumanaram and Dularam. But he denied to have stated these specific portions before police. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 15. This is the state of affair of the testimony of these two witnesses PW 13 Birbalram and PW 14 Trilokaram. Both of them were declared hostile by the prosecution. They refused to state anything incriminating against the acquitted accused persons Khumanaram and Dularam for the simple reason that they were their first cousins. They diverted their entire lier against the accused appellant so much so that though they were beaten and belaboured by accused Khumanaram and Dularam, they said good-bye to that part of the story and went to the extent that they were beaten and belaboured by accused Hanuman-Nath. In report Ex. P. 12 as well as in their police statement they did not state that they were lent any blow by accused Hanumannath. Thus, they substituted Hanumannath as their assailant in place of the real assailants Khumanaram and Dularam. The story of the incident alleged to have taken place in the noon of the day of incident in their field situate in Mauja Chhajusar was also given a good-bye in their bid to protect the co-accused Khumanaram and Dularam. 16. There is again one more striking feature in the case. The story of the incident alleged to have taken place in the noon of the day of incident in their field situate in Mauja Chhajusar was also given a good-bye in their bid to protect the co-accused Khumanaram and Dularam. 16. There is again one more striking feature in the case. PW 8 Birbalram in the cross-examination, admitted that he raised cries when he was belaboured and beaten. At that time one Dungar, whose field is situate near by the place of occurrence, was working there. But he did not come to intervene. He was only at a distance of 80-100 paces from the place of occurrence Naturally Dungar Ram must have been at the occurrence. He was an independent person to witness the incident and yet the prosecution did not examine him in evidence for reasons best known to them. His non-production speaks heavily against the prosecution and permits us to raise a presumption that had he been examined he would have not supported the prosecution case as against accused-appellant Hanuman Nath. 17. The pertinent question which arises for our decision and deliberation is whether the testimony of these two witnesses can be taken as true as against accused appellant Hanumannath in view of the above circumstances. Now, where the witnesses are untruthful as to the greater part of their evidence it is generally dangerous to convict the accused on the residue of their evidence without corroboration. There is no corroboration to the testimony of these two witnesses. Both have been declared hostile by the prosecution. If truth and falsehood in the evidence of a witness for the prosecution are so intermingled as to make it impossible to separate them, the evidence should be rejected in its entirety. Once a witness has been found to be wholly unreliable, it is unable to place any reliance upon any part of his testimony. It is not open to the prosecution to pick out a bit here and a bit there from the evidence of witness whom the prosecution itself is not willing to accept as a witness of truth and use these picked-up bits from testimony which is otherwise contaminated to bolster upon their case against the particular accused, here against accused-appellant Hanuman Nath. 18. 18. We are quite live to the maximum "FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS" which is merely a rule of caution and not a rule of law and that the maxim has not received universal recognization in our country. A court is entitled to accept a part of the testimony which appears true and reject the other part which appears to be false. Here in the instant case, PW 13 Birbalram and PW 14 Trilokaram have given such jerks and zolts, that shape of the prosecution case stands completely tarnished and deformed. It has become difficult if not impossible for us to separate the grain from the chaff and to disengage the truth from falsehood. They have given a clean chit of innocence to co-accused Khumana Ram and Dularam and directed them against accused-appellant Hanumannath. If these two witnesses can substitute their own assailants by a person against whom they never deposed, where is the guarantee that they would depose truthfully against accused-appellant Hanumannath. We are, therefore, unable to maintain the conviction of the accused-appellant on such a tainted evidence of unreliable witnesses. 19. The suppression of the earlier information report, as discussed at the beginning, has assumed vital significance in view of the tainted evidence of these two witnesses. In our opinion, the earliest written report alleged to have been presented by Bhagwanaram (PW 15) at the Police Station has been willfully suppressed because it did not contain the name of the accused-appellant. Had there been no variance between that report and Ex. P. 14, there was no reason for with holding the earlier report. 20. On a careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, we arrive at the following irresistable and inevitable conclusions :— (1) The earlier report was willfully suppressed with oblique notice for the simple reason that the name of the accused appellant was not mentioned therein; (2) The testimony of PW 13 Birbalram and PW 14 Trilokaram does not inspire confidence. Their evidence is tainted and is wholly insufficient to seek the conviction of the accused-appellant; (3) Both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and it is unsafe to accept their testimony as against accused-appellant in absence of any corroboration from independent source; (4) The prosecution has not examined Dungar whose presence nearby the place of occurrence has been admitted by PW 13 Birbalram. The presumption is that in case he was examined he would not have supported the prosecution case as against the accused-appellant; and (5) The investigation was not fair. The role of investigating Officer PW 28 Gaurishanker deserves strong condemnation. It was he who suppressed the FIR and substituted it by Ex. P. 12. It was he who is the real author of Ex. P. 12. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the accused-appellant. His conviction is wholly unwarranted and must be set aside. 22. In the result, we allow the appeal of accused Hanumannath, set aside his conviction and sentence under sections 302, and 47, IPC and acquit him of the aforesaid offences. He is in jail and shall be immediately set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.