Judgment S.B.SINHA and D.SINHA JJ. 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27-8-1988 passed by Sri Sadaqat Hussain, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1988 whereby and whereunder, the said learned Court found the appellant guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. One Marhu Malhar (P.W. 1) lodged a first information report at about 10 P.M. on 1-10-1987 before the Officer-in-charge, Bundu Police Station (P.W. 8) alleging inter alia, therein that Genua Malhar was his father-in-law and Kartik (appellant) and Barju Malhar were his brother-in-law. It appears that Barju Malhar was married to his sister, Lalmani Devi, but in view of her desertion, she used to live with the informant over which Barju had been picking up quarrel with them and sometimes threatened to kill them. About five months prior to the occurrence Barju had shot an arrow at him causing an injury, in respect whereof, an information was lodged with the police. 4. He further stated that at about 8 P.M. a stranger came to his house and inquired from his brother Bahoran about one Sukhdeo. The deceased having disclosed his ignorance about the said Sukhdeo, he went to the house of Barju Malhar, but, thereafter, he came to his house and! fell the deceased down. At that point of time, P.W. 2 (Fulmani) objected to his conduct whereupon a quarrel stemmed. Allegedly, thereafter, Kartik Malhar went back to his house and returned with a Farsa in his hand and gave a Farsa blow on head left scapula of the deceased, as a result whereof, he sustained injuries and thereafter died on the spot. 5. It was further stated that at that time, the other two accused persons namely, Genua Malhar and Barju Malhar had been abetting Kartik Malhar. 6. It may be mentioned that alongwith the informant, his wife Rajo Bala Devi and the widow of the deceased Fulmani had gone to the police station. 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses. 8. P.W. 1 Marhu Malhar is the informant. He was declared hostile. P.W. 2, Fulmani is the widow of the deceased. P.W. 3, Abhiram Mirdha is a formal witness. 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses. 8. P.W. 1 Marhu Malhar is the informant. He was declared hostile. P.W. 2, Fulmani is the widow of the deceased. P.W. 3, Abhiram Mirdha is a formal witness. He has proved the seizure list and inquest report. P.W. 4, Haradhan Mandal is also a formal witness being a witness of the seizure. P.W. 6, Rajobala Devi is the wife of the informant. P.W. 5 has been tendered. P.W. 7 is Dr. Tulsi Mahto, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Bahoran Malhar. P.W. 8, M. K. Horo is the Investigating Officer. 9. It appears that the relationship between the. accused persons on the one hand and the deceased and informant on the other are admitted. 10. P.W. 1, the informant is the brother-in-law of the appellant being sisters husband, in other words. P.W. 6, Rajobala Devi is the sister of the appellant. It further appears from a perusal of the first information report that sister of P.W. 1, Lalumani Devi was married to Barju Malhar. 11. In this case, there were only three eye witnesses and out of them, as noticed hereinbefore, P.W. 1, the informant was declared hostile and his wife P.W. 6, Rajo Bala Devi was also declared hostile. 12. P.W. 1, in his examination in chief, admitted about the occurrence, but according to him he had gone to a fair and when he came back to his house, he found his brother murdered. He alleged that he came to learn about the factum of the murder from P.W. 2, but at that time, she had not disclosed the name of the assailants. 13. He further denied to have lodged a first information report with the police and stated that the police had obtained his thumb impression on a plain paper. He even denied to have made any statements before the police. He was, then on the prayer made by the prosecution, permitted to be cross-examined. His earlier statement made in the first information report was read over to him, but he denied to have made such statement. He further denied that there had been any dispute between him and accused persons. 14. In this situation, we are left with the evidence of P.W. 2 only. His earlier statement made in the first information report was read over to him, but he denied to have made such statement. He further denied that there had been any dispute between him and accused persons. 14. In this situation, we are left with the evidence of P.W. 2 only. P.W. 2, in her evidence stated that at about eight months back, she was inside her house alongwith her husband when a stranger came and enquired about one Sukhdeo. An enquiry was made by him as to whether they knew one Sukhdeo or not. Her husband replied in negative. Allegedly, thereafter. Barju Malhar came alone and started fighting with her husband. It is further alleged that Barju even abused her and assaulted her with a Danda. Thereafter, he went back to his house and came back with the appellant and Ganua Malhar. Kartik was armed with Farsa, Barju had a Danda and Ganua Malhar did not have any weapon with him. 15. She further stated that the appellant assaulted her husband on the neck, back and on the right side of the body and thereafter, they fled away. She had further stated about the motive for commission of the offence as alleged in the first information report. 16. She. in her cross-examination admitted that at the relevant time. Marhu was not in his house. According to this witness Kartik assaulted her husband thrice. 17. P.W. 3 stated that he had seen the dead body of Bahoran Malhar. He further stated that the Investigating Officer prepared an inquest report and he proved the same. He further proved the seizure of the Farsa and the blood stained earth. 18. P.W. 6 is the wife of the informant. She also stated that she was not in her house and later on came to learn about the death of Bahoran Malhar. She admitted that the appellant and Barju Malhar were her own brothers and the other accused Genua Malhar was her father. She denied to have made her statement that at the relevant time, she was in her house and witnessed the assault with P.W. 2 on the deceased by her brothers. 19. She was permitted to be cross-examined on the prayer of the prosecution, but in her cross-examination also she denied the contents of her previous statements made before the police. 20. P.W. 7 is Dr. 19. She was permitted to be cross-examined on the prayer of the prosecution, but in her cross-examination also she denied the contents of her previous statements made before the police. 20. P.W. 7 is Dr. Tulsi Mahto, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. The said witness found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased : "1. Incised wound with avulsion of skin/scalp over right face and adjoining scalp over temporal region measuring 9 cm. x 3 cm. x skin scalp deep. 2. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep over right cheek below right cheek prominence. 3. Incised wound 10 c.m. x 2 c.m. X bone deep over left frontoparietal scalp. The bone underneath is cut completely over 7.5 cm. length and a crack fracture extends from posterior and of the cut over 6 c.m. in length. Brain matter underneath is cut and is coming out of the wound. 4. Incised wound 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone deep with avulsion of skin. 5. Incised wound 26c.m. x 7 c.m. x 9 c.m. over right side of back which runs obliquely from left scapula to the right side of root of neck. Vertebra and spinal cord is cut completely at the leval of 7th cervical vertebra. There is three tags of skin over the edges of the wound." The doctor further found that the time elapsed since death was 6 to 24 hours from the post-mortem examination and the injuries were caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon such as Fatsa. 21. This witness further stated that Injury Nos. 3 and 5 were separately sufficient to cause death. 22. P.W 8 is the Investigating Officer. He proved the first information report lodged by P.W. 1, which was marked as Ext. 3. He further proved the formal first information report. He also reiterated the statements made before him by P.Ws. 1 and 6. He after preparation of the inquest report and seizure list searched the house of Kartik Mahto, where he seized a blood stained Farsa. He further seized some blood stained earth. According to this witness, he thereafter, searched for the accused persons but they were not found. Genua Malhar was arrested on 2-10-1988 and thereafter, the other accused persons including the appellant surrendered in Court. 23. He further seized some blood stained earth. According to this witness, he thereafter, searched for the accused persons but they were not found. Genua Malhar was arrested on 2-10-1988 and thereafter, the other accused persons including the appellant surrendered in Court. 23. The learned Court below on basis of the aforementioned evidences on record found the appellant only guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He acquitted the two other accused persons on the ground that charges against them for abetment of the offence has not been proved. 24. Mrs. Jaya Roy. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the instant case, this Court should not rely upon the testimony of P.W. 2 alone, who was the wife of the deceased. 25. According to the learned counsel, P.W. 2 has stated that the two blow was hurled upon her husband whereas according to the medical evidence, P.W. 7 found five injuries on the person of the deceased. 26. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 2 was not examined by the police and as such her statement should not be relied upon. 27. It was next contended by the learned counsel: that in this case, no independent witness was examined. 28. It is true that in this case, the entire prosecution rests upon the testimony of P.W. 2 alone. However, from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 also, it is evident that the deceased was murdered and his dead body was lying on the lane just in front of the house of the deceased. 29. We have no doubt in our mind that in view of their relationship with the accused persons, P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 did not support the prosecution at a later stage. 30. P.W. 2, Fulmani, in our opinion, is a truthful witness. She did not want to rope any other two accused persons, although, they had accompanied the appellant at the relevant time. She further very frankly stated that P.W. 1, at the relevant time, was not in his house. If P.W. 2 was not a truthful witness, she would have tried to implicate Genua and Barju Malhar and would have made statements by attributing some overt acts on their part. 31. She further very frankly stated that P.W. 1, at the relevant time, was not in his house. If P.W. 2 was not a truthful witness, she would have tried to implicate Genua and Barju Malhar and would have made statements by attributing some overt acts on their part. 31. It is true that she, in her deposition stated that she has not made any statements before the police, but the same appears to be a mistake, inasmuch as P.W. 8 categorically stated that P.W. 2 was examined by him. 32. From the Fardbayan (Ext. 3), it appears that she had also put L.T.I. in the first information report. Her presence in the police station at the time when the first information report was lodged cannot, therefore, be doubted. 33. Further, it is evident that that first information report was lodged at 10 P.M. i.e., within a period of two hours from the time of occurrence. 34. Evidently, P.W. 2 alongwith P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 had gone to the police station on foot as even P.W. 8 stated that after lodging of the first information report, he also came on foot to the place of occurrence. 35. It is absolutely unlikely that the P.W. 2 would falsely implicate her near relations without any reason whatsoever. It further appears from the fact that the first information report was lodged within two hours, goes to show that there was no chance for her deliberations with other persons in order to implicate the appellant falsely. 36. Further, the Investigating Officer also stated that when he searched for the accused persons they were not found in their house and the accused Genua Malhar could be arrested only on 2-10-1968. 37. Further, it appears from the order-sheet of the Court below that a prayer was made for process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the arrest of the appellant and his brother Barju Malhar. 38. On 7-10-1987, the said two accused persons surrendered in Court and their prayer for bail was rejected on the same day. 39. If the appellant did not take part in the assault accompanied by the other two accused persons, it is unlikely that they would have fled away from their houses. This conduct on the part of the appellant and the other accused persons have also to be taken into consideration. 40. 39. If the appellant did not take part in the assault accompanied by the other two accused persons, it is unlikely that they would have fled away from their houses. This conduct on the part of the appellant and the other accused persons have also to be taken into consideration. 40. In State of U. P. v. Anil Singh, 1988 S.C.C. (Criminal) Page 48 : 1988 East Cr C 681 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that "It is also our experience that invariably the witness add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the tear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected it is the duty of the Court to call out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witness. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." 41. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that : "Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want ot corroboration by independent witness, or for some falsehood state or embroidery added by witnesses In some cases the entire prosecution case doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally relunctant to come forward before the Court, it is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witness, if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witness, if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses. It is well to remember that there is tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Binari Malti v. Matangini Dasi, the Privy Council had this to say. That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a false case must be if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue, there is on some occassions, a tendency amongst litigants--to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence." 42. The Supreme Court also pointed out that post crime conduct of the accused should also be taken into consideration in the following terms : "The post crime conduct of the accused cannot also be lost sight of. The plea of alibi has not been pursued. It has been proved that the accused was not available in the town after the occurrence till November 24, 1977. It is on record that the accused could not be traced and proceedings under Sections 82/83, Cr.P.C were initiated. The warrant of arrest issued against the accused returned unserved. Thereafter proclamation was made and his property was attached. This was on Nov. 23, 1977. He appeared on the next day in the Police Station Kotwali. That has been proved by the general diary entry of the said police station." 43. It is true that no independent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution, but it is evident that in this case, P.W. 2 was left in larch, even by her close relation like P.W. 1 and his wife. 44. In such a situation, and particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant was closely related with the family of the P.W. 2 by marriage from both sides, it is likely that the independent witnesses had not come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. 45. In Appabhai and another v. The State of Gujarat, 1988 Cr. 44. In such a situation, and particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant was closely related with the family of the P.W. 2 by marriage from both sides, it is likely that the independent witnesses had not come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. 45. In Appabhai and another v. The State of Gujarat, 1988 Cr. LJ page 848, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the murder that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the Investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the spectrum or the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused." 46. There is no doubt that there are some discrepancies between the occular evidence and medical evidence. 47. However, in our opinion, the prosecution case should not be thrown out on that ground alone. Farsa is such a weapon that it is possible to cause two injuries by one blow, as it is like a second bracket. Thus. It was possible to cause injury No. 1 and 2 by one blow. 48. Further, P.W. 7 has not stated as to on which part of the body injury No. 4 was inflicted. 49. Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 50. I agree.