JUDGMENT Rajeswar Singb, J. 1. At the police station situated at a distance of 6 miles from the place of occurrence, a First Information Report was lodged at 5-45 A.M. on 20-3-1976 saying that the nine accused entered the house of Smt. Inderpari at 3 AM. in the preceding night, lifted her out to a field and held down her feet and hands and cut her throat by a Gandasa, resulting in her death. Active role was assigned to four of the accused. They and their weapons are Santoshi (Gandasa), Hira Singh (Spear), Parmeshwar (Kanta) and SaliK (Lathi). Rest were armed with lathi or spear. The Station Officer made a prompt and usual investigation. Ultimately, nine accused were prosecuted. The Sessions court found ail the nine persons guilty under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Besides this, accused Satyadeo Singh, Jagdeo Sidgh, Chunmun Singh and Salik were convicted under section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and the remaining accused were convicted under section 148 IPC. As well and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed by all the nine accused. 2. The post-mortem examination was_ performed over the dead body. The injury found was an incised wound on the neck' 13 cm x 5 cm vertebrae deep, starting from 2 1/2 cm below the angle of mandible of right side extending infront of neck and going to left side to the posterior lateral aspect of neck at the level of clavical vertebrae between III and IV. All the blood vessels, muscles, veins and tissues inside the aforesaid injury were cut. Left carotid artery and left side of oesophagus and trachea were also cut. Semi- digested material about 3 ox. was present in stomach; small intestines were half full with faecal matter and large intestines were full with it; bladder was empty. Shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury caused death. The motive was also mentioned in the FIR Deo Narain was the husband of the deceased Smt. Inderpari. He purchased a grove from the Zamindar. It was not liked by the accused and they harboured ill-will. Some of them tried to break in the house of the deceased and a report was lodged about it. The motive was also mentioned in the FIR Deo Narain was the husband of the deceased Smt. Inderpari. He purchased a grove from the Zamindar. It was not liked by the accused and they harboured ill-will. Some of them tried to break in the house of the deceased and a report was lodged about it. Then all the accused one day attacked Deo Narain and caused his death and in this incident Smt. Inderpari and her son were also injured. This took place 6 months before the occurrence and a murder case regarding it was pending. Smt. Inderpari was doing 'Pairvi' in litigation regarding grove and this murder case. So, to get ride of her, she is said to have been murdered in this occurrence. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, there are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence besides formal evidence of Doctor and police officers. There are Sheo Kumar S/o the deceased He was inside the house with the deceased; the other is informant Ram Naresh, a cousin of the husband of the deceased and the third is their servant Ujhul. The last two witnesses were returning from their field were they had gone to look-after the crop in the night. They supported the prosecution case. 4. Thus all the prosecution witnesses are interested By way of abundant caution, the accused to whom active role has not been assigned and regarding whom only this much has been said that they were accompanying the persons who actually caused the murder, the benefit of doubt may be given as there is scope for the argument that it is not safe to rely on their, interested evidence. The accused are Basdeo Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Jagdeo Singh and Chunmun Singh. Their appeal may be allowed and they may be acquitted of the offence. But the acquittal of the aforesaid accused is not sufficient to discard the evidence of all the eye-witnesses as regards the others to whom active roles have been assigned. Firstly these live accused have been given benefit of doubt only by way of abut dent caution and not because of the finding that the witnesses are not speaking the truth. Secondly the law is well settled that evidence of a witness need not be believed in all respects; it may be partly true and it may be partly untrue. Firstly these live accused have been given benefit of doubt only by way of abut dent caution and not because of the finding that the witnesses are not speaking the truth. Secondly the law is well settled that evidence of a witness need not be believed in all respects; it may be partly true and it may be partly untrue. It is for the court to separate the truth from untruth. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general exceptions by the courts in our country. All that is required is that because of the interest of the witnesses the evidence should be looked with greater caution. So, the case of those four accused to whom active role has been assigned is to be considered in the light of the evidence and circumstances. 5. The Investigating Officer found the dead body. The Doctor found injury over it. That injury could not be self-inflicted and it has not been suggested by any one. So there is no doubt that murder has been committed. 6. At the alleged place of occurrence the dead body was found in the field and there is evidence of the Investigating Officer in support of it. He found blood at the spot. During chemical examination it has been found to be human blood. No other place of murder has been suggested and in the house of the deceased blood was not found. So, there appears no doubt that the evidence of the eye-witnesses regarding place of occurrence is true. Thus the place of occurrence is also proved. The eye-witnesses say that the occurrence took place at about 3 A.M. The distance of the police station is 6 miles and the report was lodged by 5 45 A.M. The opinion of the Doctor does not in any way contradict the alleged time of occurrence. In the intestines faecal matter was found. According to Modi a vegetable diet containing mostly farinaceious food as usually taken by an Indian, does not leave the stomach completely within 6-7 hours after its ingestion. In the stomach 3 oz. of semi-digested food was found. That will mean that food was taken at about 8 or 9 P.M. This will also bring the time of death to 3 AM. These eye-witnesses get support from all the available circumstances. Thus, time of death is also proved. 7. In the stomach 3 oz. of semi-digested food was found. That will mean that food was taken at about 8 or 9 P.M. This will also bring the time of death to 3 AM. These eye-witnesses get support from all the available circumstances. Thus, time of death is also proved. 7. No doubt, the three eye-witness were interested but if they could see the assailants, there is no reason that they would leave them and implicate wrong persons. There is no indication of dacoity. So possibility of murder by unknown persons is practically nil. The witnesses are the persons who were named in the FIR. The statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer at the police station itself. The manner of death given by the witnesses is that the woman was bodily lifted from the house and taken outside in the field. There three persons held down her hands and feet and the fourth cut her neck. NO abrasion on the body of the woman was found. This gives strength to the version that she was lifted from the house. Had the witnesses not seen the occurrence, they were more prove to say that she was dragged out of her house. Then we do not find any injury on any other part of the body. Had she been left free at the time of attack, she would have tried to save herself and in this process she would have received injuries on her hands and feet; but there is no injury. This supports the version of the witnesses that her hands and feet were held down The witnesses speak of only one or to blows of 'Gandasa', so appears from the medical evidence. There is only injury on her neck and the Doctor is unable to say whether this injury was the result of only one blow or two blows. All this gives substantial support to the manner of attack given by the witnesses. 8. It was argued as to where was the necessity for the assailants to take the woman outside the house and kill her in the field and in case these assailants wanted to murder the woman, they could have done it in the house itself. This argument is not based on any evidence The mind of criminals is abnormal one. 8. It was argued as to where was the necessity for the assailants to take the woman outside the house and kill her in the field and in case these assailants wanted to murder the woman, they could have done it in the house itself. This argument is not based on any evidence The mind of criminals is abnormal one. A criminal does not Act in a normal fashion and the very fact that he commits a crime, indicates his; abnormality. Therefore, the prosecution story is not to be subjected to the critical and meticulous test of rationalism. Rationality is not expected of criminals and if they are perfectly rational, they would not commit the crime. The veracity of the prosecution case is to be judged by the reliability of the witnesses and the circumstances from which their evidence gets support. If the witnesses are natural and have given a reasonable, consistent, straightforward and unbiased account, their evidence is not to be discarded on the ground that a rational minded accused would not behave or act in the manner stated by the witnesses. Not only this, there may be so many reasons for taking the woman out. It may be that they wanted to take the woman out and kill her at such a place that even her body may not be traceable. But when they found that two eye-witnesses returning from the field had come on the spot and others were likely to collect, they performed their worm then and there in the field and escaped. 9. The result is that the argument that the accused would not have taken the woman out of the house to kill her, is of no avail. 10. Rather, the conduct of the accused after the occurrence was that they were not available at their residence when police searched the same. Strangely enough all the nine accused were missing. Some comment has been made regarding presence of the witnesses on the spot. 11. The most important witness is Sheo Kumar PW 5 who saw the occurrence from beginning to the end. He is 11 years old son of the deceased. He was expected to be with the deceased. It was suggested to him that he was at his maternal uncle's place, where his elder brother was. He stoutly denied it. 11. The most important witness is Sheo Kumar PW 5 who saw the occurrence from beginning to the end. He is 11 years old son of the deceased. He was expected to be with the deceased. It was suggested to him that he was at his maternal uncle's place, where his elder brother was. He stoutly denied it. Had he not been here and the prosecution wanted to manufacture a false witness then it would have preferred to make the elder brother, who was sufficiently grown up, a witness rather than to rely on this child of 11 years of age. His name is to be found in the FIR that was lodged promptly at 5.45 A.M. and by that time this child could not be brought from another village. Even if this witness did not go out of the house and only this much is believed that in his presence his mother was taken away and soon after .she was found dead in the field with injury of a weapon that the persons taking' away the woman had, it would suffice to prove that her death was caused by the persons who took her away. He named all the assailants and identified them. The defence took the risk of asking this witness to identify the accused in court and he did it correctly. So, it is clear that he knew these assailants from before and there was no difficulty in recognizing them in the moon-lit night. But it is also in evidence that in the house a lantern was burning and the Investigating Officer saw that lantern and prepared its memo. The husband of the woman had been killed. She was afraid of the accused as is in evidence her servant and husband's cousin, the other two witnesses, had gone out of look-after their field after locking out the door from outside so that on their return they might come in without disturbing the children. Under the circumstances, to keep a lantern burning in the house is only natural. The evidence of this witness is straight forward and he gives a vivid description of the occurrence. It has a ring of truth. Thus, it is clear that this witness was present on the spot. He is not interested in implicating wrong persons and his version is unbiased. The evidence of this witness is straight forward and he gives a vivid description of the occurrence. It has a ring of truth. Thus, it is clear that this witness was present on the spot. He is not interested in implicating wrong persons and his version is unbiased. So, he is perfectly a truthful witness and he is to be believed. 12. The other two witnesses are deceased's husband's cousin, the informant Ram Naresh PW 3 and deceased's servant Ujhul PW 4. They have said in their evidence that they were residing with the deceased. Their statement is that some people used to cause loss to their gram crop. So, daily in the night they used to go to the field and return before morning. Their is nothing strange in it. Villagers go to look-after their fields and they also come back to their house early in the morning when damage to the .crop is not suspected in the morning. Had they not gone to look-after their crop, their was no difficulty in saying that they were in the house at the time of occurrence because they lived in this very house. The defence examined one witness to say that in the certain fields gram crop is not recorded in the records, but he does not say that there was no other field under the cultivation of the deceased where gram was sown. Hence the evidence of the defence- witness is not of much avail. When the witnesses came, they saw the occurrence. Their names are in the FIR and the informant was examined at the police station. So, there does not appear any ground to hold that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. of course how these unarmed two persons could have prevented the. assailants from completing their job when they were fully armed and were quite desperate. Their is one discrepancy in the evidence and that is regarding as to whether Hira Singh or Santoshi gave the fatal blow and whether only three persons or all the four were holding down the hands and feet of the deceased. Moreover, 'Gendasa' was shown with accused Santoshi but it is said that Hira Singh after taking the 'Gendasa' from Santoshi gave the blow, while Hira Singh had a spear with him. 13. Moreover, 'Gendasa' was shown with accused Santoshi but it is said that Hira Singh after taking the 'Gendasa' from Santoshi gave the blow, while Hira Singh had a spear with him. 13. In night in the light of moon, persons can be recognised very well and their roles can be seen broadly. But when there, are four persons holding down and giving only one or two blows to cut her neck, there can be some mistake in narration of those facts on account of difference in the power of observation when the entire incident of cutting the throat took place in a minute or so. There has been much comment as to why accused Hira Singh would take 'Gendasa' from accused Santoshi for giving the blow when he could have given the blow of spear. Spear "is a pointed weapon and its single blow may or may not be sufficient to kill a persons, but 'Gendasa' is a weapon having a long edge and its one or two blows at the neck will certainly be sufficient to kill a persons. So, when time was short and the entire act had to be performed in a few seconds, there is nothing strange it one of the accused chose to use (sic) to be certain and he took 'Gendasa' from the other accused and used it. This does not create any serious doubt regarding manner of the assault and this discrepancy is such as is rather a haul mark of the truth rather than an indication towards falsehood. 14. When the deceased's husband's cousin and her servant used to go out in the night, they used to lock the door, from outside. The Investigating Officer says that he did not get the lock at the spot but he got marks of bricks on the 'Kunda'. There is some discrepancy whether lock or 'Kilnda' was broken and whether lock was there when the Investigating Officer came. This is a minor point and is not entitled to much importance. It is in evidence that the accused broke open the lock and by this sound the immates of the house got awakened and the woman come out in the court-yard to see as to what was the matter and she was followed by her 11 years old son, who gave evidence. The assailants came and lifted away the woman. It is in evidence that the accused broke open the lock and by this sound the immates of the house got awakened and the woman come out in the court-yard to see as to what was the matter and she was followed by her 11 years old son, who gave evidence. The assailants came and lifted away the woman. In view of this, the witness, son of the deceased was well awake and he could not have any difficulty in recognising the accused. 15. Here it may be pointed out that the evidence of the deceased's servant Ujhul PW 4 was concluded on 8-11-1977 but on 15-2-1978 learned counsel for the accused got the witness recalled and the learned trial court recalled the witness. As soon as the witness came in the witness-box, the counsel for the accused asked that he was not threatened by any of the accused and he replied in affirmative. Then on being asked by the counsel for the accused, he said that once he had a quarrel with the accused regarding 'Tajia'. In the next breath he gave his statement that the accused had covered their faces and he merely said by guess that the accused were the assailants. The manner in which this witness has been recalled, the questions that have been put to him and his ready admissions, leave no room for doubt that during this period the witness was terrorised and so he came to help the accused by making such statement, when the children of the deceased and the informant out of fear had left the village and had gone to another village. This conduct of the accused does not help them; rather it shows how desperate they are and how much terror they are in the village. That is why no unrelated witness, though some of them had come to the spot, is willing to depose against the accused. One witness Daya Shanker was called by the Court at its instance. Obviously he was not able to support the prosecution for the reason for which the witness, Ujhul, who earlier supported the prosecution, came to depose for,the accused several months after his evidence was closed. Hence this part of the statement of Ujhul PW 4 or the statement of Daya Shanker does not help the accused rather they provide justification for not producing unrelated witnesses. 16. Hence this part of the statement of Ujhul PW 4 or the statement of Daya Shanker does not help the accused rather they provide justification for not producing unrelated witnesses. 16. The age of the five accused, who are being acquitted in this appeal, is given between 13 to 22 years at the time of their statement recorded in Sessions Court nearly two years after the incident. An argument can be raised that the persons of so tender age could not .have taken part in the commission of crime. This age has not been put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination, it was put all of a sudden in the statements of respective accused, the Sessions Judge has not given his estimate of age and the defence has not led evidence in support of it. More over persons in their teens are more daring and easily fall pray to investigation. Therefore, mere age can hardly be a deciding factor. The learned Government Advocate insisted that report regarding their age be had from the Chief Medical Officer. The learned counsel for the accused opposed it. In the circumstances the argument based on alleged and not on proved age does not create doubt in the prosecution story. One witness was produced by the accused to say that in the bundle of special reports available in the concerned court, the special report regarding this case was not available. But it will not prove that special report was not sent at the relevant time. 17. The motive for committing the crime is mentioned in paragraph 3 of this judgment. It has been proved by the reliable evidence of Kam Naresh PW 3. It has been conceded at the bar that an appeal against the conviction of the accused in the case of murder of Deonarain (husband of the deceased of this case) is pending in this very court. At the time of occurrence Smt. Inderpari, deceased, an injured witness of the murder case of Deonarain, was persuing civil and criminal litigation going on with the accused, who were naturally anxious to get rid of her. 18. Thus the prosecution witnesses appear to be truthful. But by way of abundant caution, benefit of doubt is given to accused Basdeo Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Jagdeo Singh and Chunmun Singh. 18. Thus the prosecution witnesses appear to be truthful. But by way of abundant caution, benefit of doubt is given to accused Basdeo Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Satyadeo Singh, Jagdeo Singh and Chunmun Singh. Their conviction under section 302 read with Sec. 149 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment are set-aside. Conviction of accused Basdeo Singh and Satyadeo Singh under section 148 IPC and sentence of two years' reigorous imprisonment are set aside. Conviction of accused Satyadeo Singh, Jagdeo Singh and Chunmun Singh under section 147 IPC and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment are set aside. They are acquitted of these offences. They are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged and they need not surrender to them. But it is proved that accused Hira Singh, Santoshi, Parmeshwar and Salik committed the offence. Since they are less than five, sections 149, 147 and 148 IPC will not be applicable in this case. However, all of them were there. They lifted the woman; three of them held down the woman and fourth cut the throat. So, obviously all of them were acting infutherance of their common intention to kill the woman and all of them participated in commission of the offence. The result is that their conviction under section 147 and 148 IPC, should be set aside and their conviction under section 302 read with section 149 IPC should be altered to the conviction under Sec. 302 read with section 34 IPC. 19. The conviction of Hira Singh, Santoshi and Parmeshwar u/Sec. 148 IPC and the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment are set aside and they are acquitted of this offence. Conviction of accused Sank u/Sec. 147 IPC and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment are set aside and he is acquitted of this offence. Conviction of accused Hira Singh, Santoshi, Parmeshwar and Salik under Sec. 302 read with section 149 IPC is altered to conviction under Sec. 302 read with section 34 IPC, but their sentence of life imprisonment is maintained. They are on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. 20. The appeal is decided accordingly. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall send compliance report within six weeks. Appeal dismissed.