JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) APPELLANT Gotilal son of Runwa Sacnami and 8 others stand charged under Sections 147,148,302,149 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of patiram on 28-8-1982 at 10 A. M. in village Mehka Pakaria, District Bilaspur, in the field known as manotora ka Khet. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case is that at about noon time on 26-8-1982 at village Mehka pakaria, the incident had taken place. The land in dispute was purchased by appellant gotilal about 12 to 13 years back from one Satnami through a registered sale-deed and since then it has been in his possession and cultivating the same; but for the last 5/6 years mst. Pacho Bai wife of Bakku, at the instance of deceased Patiram has been harvesting the crop. As such, appellants relations with Patiram were not cordial and proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 Criminal Procedure Code were pending. Patiram had purchased the said land in the name of his daughter-in-law Vejdan Bai from one Amrita bai Suryawanshi for Rs. 3,000/- through a registered sale-deed. It is also stated that the appellant Gotilal was acting as Mukhtyar on behalf of Amrita Bai and was not allowing vedan Bai to get the said land mutated in her name. ( 3. ) ON the day of the occurrence at about 10 A. M. when appellant Gotilal was going to the field and deceased Patiram was returning from the field, the latter tried to assault him, upon which accused Gotilal gave 5/6 lathi blows to Patiram. The other co-accused also reached on the spot and they also participated in the alleged incident. Patiram, as a result of lathi blows received fatal injuries andsuccumbed to death. ( 4. ) THE accused-appellant himself went to the police station Sheorinarayan and lodged the first-information report (Ex. P. 15) the same day and as such the police has come in motion. The police reached the spot and panchnama of the dead body was prepared. ( 5. ) DURING the course of investigation the police found that alongwith the appellant Gotilal, other eight persons viz. Tijram, Balar, Chhatrarn, Kholbahra, shatruhan, Ruplal, Bhanwarshing and Khuluram also participated in the alleged incident. Therefore, all the accused persons, including the appellant, were charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 109 Indian Penal Code. ( 6. ) DR. ( 5. ) DURING the course of investigation the police found that alongwith the appellant Gotilal, other eight persons viz. Tijram, Balar, Chhatrarn, Kholbahra, shatruhan, Ruplal, Bhanwarshing and Khuluram also participated in the alleged incident. Therefore, all the accused persons, including the appellant, were charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 109 Indian Penal Code. ( 6. ) DR. K. R. Agarwal (P. W. 7) held an autopsy over the dead body of Patiram and found the following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound over cheek right side trangular in shape, size 4" x 1" x 1", margins inverte, blood clot present. Fracture-Mandible in the centre. (ii) Incised wound over lateral position of right eye, size 1" X 5" X1". Fracture of orbital bone. (iii) Lacerated wound over scalp right side near ocipital bone. Size 3" X 1" X 0. 5". Skull-bone smashed brain matter oozing out of it. (iv) Lacerated wound over scalp 1" behind the right ear. Size 1" x 1/2" x 1/2 blood oozed from nostrils and right ear and clotted. No legature marks noted. ( 7. ) THE incident was witnessed by P. W. 3 Sukhram and P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar, as such they are the eye-witnesses. ( 8. ) ALL the accused persons abjured the guilt and said that they have been falsely implicated. ( 9. ) THE trial Court while assessing the evidence on record, disbelieved P. W. 3 sukhram and P. W. 8 Shamkanwar was partly believed to the extent of the charge levelled against the present appellant Gotilal, but as far as other 8 co-accused are concerned, he was not believed with the result with the trial Court while convicting the appellant Gotilal acquitted all the other co-accused persons. ( 10. ) APPELLANT Gotilal has come up in appeal against his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment thereunder. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the first-information report (Ex. P. 15) having been lodged by the appellant Gotilal himself, is not admissible in evidence as the same is not a substantive piece of evidence. ( 12. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the first-information report (Ex. P. 15) having been lodged by the appellant Gotilal himself, is not admissible in evidence as the same is not a substantive piece of evidence. ( 12. ) NO doubt, the first-information report, being not a substantive piece of evidence by itself is not admissible in evidence, but it can be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under section 145 of the Evidence Act. Besides this, however, where the person lodging the first-information report regarding commission of an offence, if subsequently becomes accused, the first-information report lodged by him, if not a confessional first-information report within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but is an admission of certain facts which have the bearing on the question to be determined by the Court, then the same is admissible in evidence. As such, the first-information report in such circumstance, is admissible to prove against his admissions which are relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Evidence Act, admission of an accused can be proved against him. ( 13. ) EX. P. 15, the first-information report contains certain admissions which have bearings on the question to be determined by the Court, viz. , the circumstances as to how the murder of Patiram was committed. In Faddi vs. State of M. P. , AIR 1964 S. C. 1850, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that person lodging the first-information report, if subsequently made accused of the offence and tried, the information contained therein does not hit the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence act and the same shall be admissible in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the evidence Act. In this case reliance was placed in the decision in Dalsingh vs. King emperor. AIR 1917 P. C. 24 and the case of Nisar Ali vs. State of U. P. , AIR 1957 SC 366 has been distinguished. Therefore, where the accused himself gives the first information report, the fact of his giving the information is admissible in evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, if the information is the Instant case the part of Ex. P. 15 is admissible which is non-confessional. Therefore, where the accused himself gives the first information report, the fact of his giving the information is admissible in evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, if the information is the Instant case the part of Ex. P. 15 is admissible which is non-confessional. As such the entire information contained in Ex. P. 15 cannot be overlooked outright. (See Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 ). ( 14. ) IT is next contended that the Trial Court has completely disbelieved the statement of P. W. 3 Sukhram though he was an eye-witness. Similarly, the trial Court has also not fully placed reliance on P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar and as such the other co-accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, it is argued that the statement of P. W. 8 being partly, believed and partly disbelieved, placing reliance on such a statement of shyamkanwar, no finding of conviction can be reached against this appellant. ( 15. ) THERE is no hard and fast rule that a witness, if not relid upon against a particular set of co-accused persons, then his statement implicating other co-accused persons in the alleged offence cannot be relied upon against other co-accused persons. In such circumstances the statement of such a witness only requires close scrutiny and while scrutinizing the same if it is found that the statement of that witness implicitly proves the guild of the accused and the circumstances prove the culpability then there is no legal bar to accept the statement. ( 16. ) IN Ahmed Suleman Bhorat and others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 991 it has been held that even though the Court is unable to rely fully on the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to some of the accused persons it can still accept the evidence of these witnesses with regard to other accused persons and hold them guilty. Similar is the case here. P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar has specifically stated in para 2 of his deposition that she has witnessed the incident from a distance of 100 yards and seen that accused Gotilal gave lathi blows to the deceased Patiram. Wife of Balar also dealt blows with blunt (lethal) weapon. Her statement is corroborated by the post-mortem examination report (Ex. P. 7) wherein Dr. K. R. Agarwal (P. W. 7) has given the description of the injuries as lacerated and incised wounds. Wife of Balar also dealt blows with blunt (lethal) weapon. Her statement is corroborated by the post-mortem examination report (Ex. P. 7) wherein Dr. K. R. Agarwal (P. W. 7) has given the description of the injuries as lacerated and incised wounds. Therefore, the statement of p. W. 8 Shyamkanwar is fully corroborated by the statement of P. W. 7 Dr. K. R. Agarwal. ( 17. ) THIS is not all. The statement of P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar is also corroborated by the Chemical Examiners report (Ex. P. 21 ). The Chemical Examiner has confirmed the presence of blood on lathi (Art. A), Baniyan (Art. B) and half-pant (Art. C) which were undoubtedly seized from the possession of the accused-appellant Gotilal by P. W. 9 a. R. Ahirwar, Investigating Officer, vide seizure-memo (Ex. P. 1 ). This relevant fact cannot be lost sight of, being corroborative piece of evidence which gives more weightage and strength to the statement of P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar. ( 18. ) FOR proving a particular fact, in view of the provisions of Section 134 of the evidence Act, plurality of evidence is not required. It is the quality of evidence that counts and not the number of witnesses examined in a particular case. In the instant case the statement of P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar having been corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the Chemical Examiners report and further her statement being it fact relating to the lathi blows inflicted by the accused Gotilal on the deceased patiram, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any mistake in convicting the appellant, relying upon the statement of P. W, 8 Shvamkanwaf. ( 19. ) IN Suresh Pal and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 1161 , it has been held that where the eye-witnesses were not found to be absolutely false in regard to all the accused persons, in such circumstances, their statements cannot be discarded as a whole. In the instant case similar is the statement of P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar. ( 20. In the instant case similar is the statement of P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar. ( 20. ) THEREFORE, in such a case where out of many accused persons, some are acquitted that by itself will not be sufficient to reject the entire prosecution case, but in such circumstances it is required to find out truth from the falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff, rather than to reject the entire prosecution case, merely because there is some embellishment. The statement of P. W. 8 Shyamkanwar, as such, cannot be rejected outright as a whole against this appellant Gotilal. See Molu and others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 . ( 21. ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, we do not see any legal infirmity in the judgment impugned and the trial-Court cannot be said to be unjustified in convicting the appellant Gotilal under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. ( 22. ) IN the result, the appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained. Appeal dismissed.