JUDGMENT 1. - By this appeal, appellants, Arjun, Rampal, Bhagwan & Mukhoram, assail their conviction & sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, in Sess. Case No. 8/89, under judgment dated the 1st August, 1990. Though each of the appellants had been acquitted of the Charge under Section 148, IPC, but they have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, further one month's R.I.). Co-accused, namely, Nathc, Badle, Damodar & Panna, were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 & 148, IPC. 2. As per version given out in a written report lodged by Satyapal (P.W. 7) on November 27, 1988 at police station Kama (District Bharatpur, Rajasthan), there had been long standing animosity in between Satypal (informant) and accused-persons, Arjun, Mukkhoram, Rampal etc., besides pendency of series of cases against each other. The incident, out of which present criminal case has arisen, took place on November 27, 1988 at 11 O'clock in the noon, when Jyotiram (father of informant) was going from his village so as to purchase water-pipe at Pasopa and as soon as be was at the outskirt of the village, he was encircled forming assembly with a common object by Mukkhoram, Arjun, Badleram, Damodar Lai, Pannalal, Bhagwan Sahai, Rampal, Natbe Jatava of village Baroli Dhau. As per first version stated in informant's written report(Ex. P.8), Mukkhoram was armed with a lance while, Rampal, Bhagwan Sahai & Arjun had pick-axes, and the remaining encircling persons had lathies in their hands. Upon Arjun's exhortation to kill Jyotiram, all the accused persons assaulted him by lance, pick-axes & lathies. Further upon Jyotiram's hue and cry, it is alleged in the F.I.R., informant, Satypal & others from village, including Harishchand, Puran, Bhagwan Sahai, Bahori, etc., reached the scene of occurrence and saw accused persons assaulting his father, Jyotiram, and on seeing the village people, the accused persons assuming Jyotiram as dead, fled away from the scene of occurrence. As per written report Jyotiram sustained various injuries on his person and as a result, he had been besmeared with blood and became unconscious, and in that state, after laying him in a tractor, he was being taken to Kama for medical aid and treatment but in the way, he breathed his last and died. 3. As per written report Jyotiram sustained various injuries on his person and as a result, he had been besmeared with blood and became unconscious, and in that state, after laying him in a tractor, he was being taken to Kama for medical aid and treatment but in the way, he breathed his last and died. 3. Upon the written report of Satyapal, F.I.R. No. 198/88 was chalked out and criminal case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, IPC at police station Kama. Investigation conunenced. Autopsy was conducted on the lich of Jyotiram (deceased) by Dr. Mangal Singh (P.W. 8). After completion of usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against eight persons including the present appellants. After committal proceedings, the present appellants and four other accused persons were sent for trial before the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after framing charges, examining the prosecution witnesses and examining the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as stated above, convicted & sentenced the accused-appellants. Hence this appeal. 4. The learned Sessions Judge based the conviction of the appellants principally on the evidence of Bahori (P.W. 1), Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 2), Harish Chand (P.W. 4), Pooran (P.W. 3) & Satyapal (P.W. 7) and on the basis of their evidence, their presence on the scene of occurrence has not been doubted and it impelled him to hold these witnesses as eye witnesses to the occurrence. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the presence of the afore named witnesses is highly doubtful as they were chances witnesses of the incident. In this regard, it has been urged that as per statement of Bahori (P.W. 1), the deceased before the start to depart from his village to Pasopa so as to purchase water pipe, had told him to accompany him to which he replied that he would be accompanying him (deceased) after taking his meals which he was doing at that time. So, in this view of the testimony, learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the natural course would have been for the deceased to have waited for him (P.W. 1) but he (deceased) did not do so and departed for Pasopa and in these circumstances, Shri Biri Singh urged, it was quite impossible for P.W. I to have followed. So, in this view of the testimony, learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the natural course would have been for the deceased to have waited for him (P.W. 1) but he (deceased) did not do so and departed for Pasopa and in these circumstances, Shri Biri Singh urged, it was quite impossible for P.W. I to have followed. We find nothing substantial in cross-examination of P.W. 1 so as to establish that since P.W. 1 was taking meals it was not possible for him to have followed the deceased. No question was put to this witness in this respect as to whether he continued to take meals even after start of the deceased from his place/home and whether he started or finished to take meals when the deceased asked him (P.W. 1) to accompany for Pasopa. Rather, in his evidence, P.W. 1 categorically deposed that he was taking meals at break-fast and after taking break-fast he started chasing the deceased so as to follow him as was asked by him (deceased). Thus, in view of this categorical testimony which could not have been distorted by the defence in cross-examination of P.W. I, the contention of Shri Biri Singh is devoid of any .force, and a reasonable inference can be drawn therefrom that there was every likelihood of P.W. I being followed the deceased, and P.W. I since followed the deceased, could have witnessed the occurrence and his presence in view of Shri Biri Singh's contention cannot be doubted. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants then contended that the presence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 & P.W. 7 who are said to have come to the scene of occurrence from the Panchayat Bhawan upon hearing hue & cry of the deceased, was improbable because, it was not possible for these witnesses to have heard hullo of the deceased on account of long distances in between the place of occurrence and the village panchayat building, and moreover, the Investigating Officer in his statement has deposed that the place of occurrence was at about 1 km, away from the village; so, in view of such a testimony, these witnesses could not have heard of the alleged hulla of the deceased. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that as per the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the appellants assaulted the deceased after arrival of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence but, according to the learned Counsel, the story propounded by the witnesses that the accused gave beating to the deceased after their arrival, is highly doubtful because, the accused could not have bidden one's time of arrival of the witnesses so as to create the evidence against them. Further contention to raise doubt as to the presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence is that since the witnesses arrived at the scene of occurrence after hearing hulla of the deceased, according to the learned Counsel, it was quite natural and it can safely be inferred that the deceased could have made hubbubs after sustaining the injuries, and before sustaining the injuries, there was no occasion to make any hulla so as to attract the village persons; but the testimony given out by the witnesses in their statement as to their arrival on the scene of occurrence worthy of do credence does make their presence doubtful. 7. Having considered the aforesaid contention and perused the testimony given out by the said witnesses, in our view, such a contention is a mere hypothesis and is not sustainable so as to discard whole of the testimony or to hold their presence doubtful that too on evidence and groundless assumptions. Nothing has been elicited while cross-examining the said witnesses so as to make their presence doubtful on the aforesaid plea. In the evidence of the said witnesses, the appellants are consistently mentioned as having participated in the attack. It is wrong assumption having no truth as urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that without sustaining injuries out of assaults allegedly made by the appellants, the deceased could not have made any hullo. It has come in the evidence on record that, the accused appellants and the deceased had animus, that, the accused -appellants surrounded the deceased while he reached the out-skirt of the village, that, while surrounding, the appellants were duly armed with deadly weapon. It has come in the evidence on record that, the accused appellants and the deceased had animus, that, the accused -appellants surrounded the deceased while he reached the out-skirt of the village, that, while surrounding, the appellants were duly armed with deadly weapon. In these circumstances, it can safely be inferred that as soon as the deceased was surrounded by the accused persons including the appellants duly armed with deadly weapon, in fact, he had made a hulla so as to attract somebody from the village seeking protection as he was all alone that too without any support to escape from any assault of the accused surrounding him. Thus, the theory propounded by the learned Counsel for the appellants so as to make the presence of the said witnesses as doubtful on the ground that the witnesses reached the scene of occurrence only after hearing hulla made by the deceased after sustaining injuries, is not acceptable. And, we are unable to make or hold the presence of the witnesses as doubtful for seeing the actual assaults made on the deceased by the accused, on the hypothesis made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 8. Next contention urged by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants is that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, simpliciter without taking any aid of Section 34 or 149, IPC, and conversely, they have been acquitted of the charge of Section 148 and 149, IPC. In our considered view, the Trial Court held the appellants guilty, under Section 302, IPC, arriving at the conclusion that ocular and prosecution version is consistent viz. that thee appellants were armed with lethal weapons like lance, larhies & lance and attacked the deceased, inasmuch as the injuries found on the person of the deceased by the doctor while giving autopsy report are corresponding to the overt-acts attributed to each of the appellants. 9. According to the autopsy report over the lick of the deceased, (Ex. P.11), the following external injuries were found : Skull: (1) Incised wound 4" X 1" X bonny deep at right parietal area (2) Incised wound 3" X 1" X bonny deep at left parietal area - by sharp weapons. Face : (1) Oedematous, echymosis over right eye Diffuse in area. P.11), the following external injuries were found : Skull: (1) Incised wound 4" X 1" X bonny deep at right parietal area (2) Incised wound 3" X 1" X bonny deep at left parietal area - by sharp weapons. Face : (1) Oedematous, echymosis over right eye Diffuse in area. (2) Incised wound 1" X 1/2" X 1/4") gap in between (3) Incised wound 1" X 1/2" X 1/4") these two wounds is one inch. and these wounds are on middle part of right ear resulting from sharp weapons. (4) Stab wounds (i) 1/2" X 1/2" X 1" on the right side of face near the ear. (ii) 1/2" X 1/2" X 1" (iii)1/2" X 1/2" X 1" (iv) 1/4" X 1/2" X 1" on the right side of face-mandibular area (v) 1/4" X 1/2" X 1" All wounds by sharp weapons. (5) Stab wound 1/2" X 1/2" X 1" at right side of occipital area behind the right ear - by sharp weapons. Shoulder & hand (6) Abrasions 1" X 1/2" at right shoulder blunt (7) Lacerated wound 1/2" X 1/2" X bony deep at left with fracture of hand by blunt vth metacorpal bone weapons External surface. 10. Dr. Mangal Ram (P.W. 8) opined that the cause of death is brain hemorrhage causing shock and death, and that the brain hemorrhage was due to fatal injury Nos. 1 & 2 and individually, these fatal injury Nos. 1 & 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As stated above, these two fatal injury Nos. I & 2 were caused by sharp weapons. 11. We have carefully gone though the evidence. However, with a view to satisfy ourselves about the nature of the offence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutinise those parts of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses which deal with the assault on the deceased and the complicity of the accused-appellants. 12. Bhagwan (P.W. 2) deposed that the accused - appellants were armed with lethal weapons, like lance, pick-axe and participated in the impugned incident assaulting injuries on the deceased. 12. Bhagwan (P.W. 2) deposed that the accused - appellants were armed with lethal weapons, like lance, pick-axe and participated in the impugned incident assaulting injuries on the deceased. He deposed that Mukkhoram gave lance blow on the right side of the face of the deceased (Jyoti); that, Arjun, Rampal & Bhagwan Sahai accused assaulted the deceased using pick-axe (Farsa) causing injuries on the head, skull & right side of the face of Jyoti, respectively, and that, when the deceased fell on the ground, another lance blow was also given by Mukkho on the right side of the face of the deceased. Upon a perusal of the evidence of other ocular witnesses, namely P.W. 1, P.W. 4, Pooran, (P.W. 3) & Satyapal Singh (P.W. 7), we find consistent and corroborative testimony as to complicity of the accused-appellants so also the assaults made by them on the deceased describing their overt-acts and description of the weapons used by them for causing injuries on particular part of the body of the deceased. In this view of the consistent evidence, we are of the view of that the conclusion with regard to the assault on the deceased by the accused-appellants, as recorded by the Trial Court is based on proper appraisal of the evidence and is sound. The learned Trial Judge took pains and made conscientious efforts to scrutinise the evidence relating to the complicity of the accused appellants. The consistent evidence of ocular witnesses as to the assaults made by each of the appellants on the deceased is corroborated by the medical evidence which establishes the causing of the grievous injuries over the body of the deceased qua the assaults made by the appellants. We find no reason to doubt the involvement of the accused-appellants in so far as the assault on the deceased is concerned. 13. Confronted with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that initially the challan was filed against eight accused persons but the prosecution evidence including the ocular, has been disbelieved by the Trial Judge against four of them other than the accused-appellants, the same evidence so disbelieved by the Court against co-accused while acquitting them of the charge, could not be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellants either. In our considered option, the mere fact that the other four accused are acquitted, is not a ground to reject the prosecution evidence as a whole because the same has been so disbelieved as against co-acquitted co-accused & against whose acquittal no appeal has been preferred by the State. Not only this Court but also the Apex Court in a series of decisions, pointed out that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be mechanically applied and the mere fact the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was found unsafe for conviction against the co-accused, is by itself no ground for rejecting the whole body of their testimony. It only puts the Court on its guard to carefully scrutinise their evidence. As already stated, we are satisfied with the appraisal of the evidence by the Court below and see no reason to doubt the parts played by the appellants & their complicity of assaulting fatal injuries on the deceased in the impugned incident of murder of the deceased, as is established by the consistent evidence of the prosecution which could not have been destroyed by the defence. 14. It is correct to say that the Investigating Officer has stated distance of one km. in between the village & the scene of incident. Conversely, the ocular witnesses have given out consistent version deposing the distance in question in yards, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer, himself, admitted in his statement before the Court that the place of incident was clearly visible from the Panchayat Bhawan and that the distance stated by him is in approximation and it may be less or more. In this view of the testimony, it cannot be, with an amount of certainty, said that the distance in between the Panchayat Bhawan & the scene of occurrence was definitely one km. and on account of such a distance of 1 km. the eye-witnesses could not have been in a position to hear the cries of the deceased whether made before or after the incident of assaulting him by the accused. Be that as it may, on mere that count, whole body of the testimony which is consistent to the complicity of the accused appellants & attribution of the injuries to them, cannot be discarded. 15. Another attempt of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants to show the presence of the ocular witnesses, P.Ws. Be that as it may, on mere that count, whole body of the testimony which is consistent to the complicity of the accused appellants & attribution of the injuries to them, cannot be discarded. 15. Another attempt of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants to show the presence of the ocular witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 4 & 7 as highly doubtful, and to reject their testimony, is to urge that admittedly there were strained relations in between the parties and because of the admitted animosity, these eye witnesses are partisan ones, and they had a motive to falsely implicate them. Again, the attempt of the learned Counsel for the appellant is barren of force. We are unable to accept the contention that merely the witnesses are partisan in nature, their evidence should be discarded as a whole. As already noticed, the Trial Judge was conscious of this fact of the witnesses being partisan in nature and having enmity between the two factions, and we find that he had scrutinised their evidence closely and in great details in order to satisfy himself in so far as the involvement of the present accused-appellants is concerned with regard to the truth or otherwise of their evidence. It is an accepted proposition that in the case of group rivalries and enmities, the Courts have therefore, to be very careful and if after a close scrutiny of the evidence there is no doubt as to the participation of any of those who have been roped in, (as has been found in the case of the present appellants by the trial judge, as noticed above), the Courts would not be hesitated in relying upon the evidence of such partisan witnesses so as to sustain the conviction of the accused. Since the Trial Judge, after making conscientious efforts to scrutinise the evidence relating to the complicity of the accused-appellants and held them guilty of the murder of the deceased, found no doubt on the veracity of their evidence as to the involvement of the present accused appellant, therefore, he has rightly not given the benefit of doubt and has rightly held them guilty of the murder of the deceased. 16. Another attempt having no foundation and not sufficient to discard whole of the consistent evidence, is to urge that the F.I.R. was dispatched to the concerned Magistrate after an inordinate delay. 16. Another attempt having no foundation and not sufficient to discard whole of the consistent evidence, is to urge that the F.I.R. was dispatched to the concerned Magistrate after an inordinate delay. The incident took place at 11 in the noon of 27.11.88 report of which was lodged at 2 p.m. and statement of Satyapal was recorded by the police on 27.11.1988 itself, and immediately the investigating officer remained busy to investigate into the matter, inasmuch as the next day, 28.11.88, the F.I.R. reached the concerned Magistrate's Court, and the formalities of inquest report, autopsy report etc. were gone into the same day. In this state of material on record, it cannot be held that the F.I.R. was dispatched lately or belatedly, and it is not fatal to the prosecution so as to doubt. 17. Last plank of attack is that the overt-act attributed to the present appellants does not find place in the F.I.R., and therefore, it is a case of exaggeration and no reliance can be placed on the ocular evidence as their testimony especially that of the informant becomes highly doubtful. In this regard, suffice is to cite decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1975 SC 125 and AIR 1973 SC 2627. While adopting from the decision in Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) SVLR (Cr.) p. 234 , we reiterate that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt but only for the purpose of corroboration or contradicing the maker. The omission or mis-description of the details in the F.I.R. which was recorded most promptly within three hours of the occurrence, would not tell on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellants in the crime. They had taken a leading and prominent part in spearheading and committing the murder of the deceased. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Trial Judge was right in convicting the appellants on giving cogent reasons. 18. The evidence on record discussed above leads to the conclusion that the accused-appellants caused all the injuries to the deceased with the intention to cause his death. We see no ground to differ with the conclusions reached by the Court below. 19. 18. The evidence on record discussed above leads to the conclusion that the accused-appellants caused all the injuries to the deceased with the intention to cause his death. We see no ground to differ with the conclusions reached by the Court below. 19. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. We affirm the conviction & sentence awarded by the Trial Court against the accused appellants. Mukhoram (appellant) was released on interim hail vide order dated 3.8.1990 and was ordered to surrender himself on 20.8.1990. We find no report on the file, from the jail authority whether he has surrendered on August 20,1990 or not. So, in case he has not surrendered and he is not in jail, he must surrender to his interim bail bonds and the Trial Court is directed to take steps to get hint arrested so as to serve out the sentences.Appeal dismissed. *******