KUNDAN SINGH, J. Both the appeals have been preferred by the above appellants against a common judgment, dated 29- 11-1983 passed by Sri Om Pal, Vllth Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad "in Session Trial Nos. 62 of 1979 and 61 of 1979, whereby accused of both the Sessions Trials have been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 147, I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment on the first count and to one years rigorous imprisonment on the second count, making both the sentences to run con currently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Jasvir son of Dayawati w/o Rajvir Singh resident of village Roshanpur Salemabad, Police Station Murad-nagar, district Ghaziabad, had gone to his fields in Village Dhindar on 6-11-1977. Three appellants Mahendra Singh, Vijendra and Virendra residents of Salemabad and other appellants residents of village Dhindar, caughthold Jasvir and took him forcibly towards village Dhindar. They brought Jasvir in the Gher of Kali Char an and assaulted him with lathis, handle of the engine and a hammer. Rameshwar and Satyavir residents of village Salemabad saw the appellants taking away Jasvir forcibly to the Gher of Kali Charan. Mahavir, Surajpal and others residents of Dhindar also saw the appellants taking Jasvir forcibly to the Gher of Kali Charan. Besides abovenamed witnesses, various other persons of the village attracted to the scene of occur rence who also saw beating of Jasvir. Rameshwar son of Khadag Singh informed Smt. Dayawati about that incident. She reached village Dhindar where she was told by the villagers that police had taken away Jasvir in a Buggi of Kali Charan to Police Station Muradnagar. She lodged an F. I. R. at 10-15 p. m. on 6-11-1977 at Police Station Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad, the distance of the Police Station being five miles from the place of occurrence. 3. The case was registered in the presence of PW 7 K. K. Gautam, Station Officer, Police Muradnagar who took up investigation of the case in his own hands. He recorded the statements of Mahavir, Rameshwar, Surajpal Singh and other witnesses under Sec. 191, Cr. P. C. The Inquest report of the deceased was prepared by S. D. M. , Ghaziabad. The Investigating Officer reached at the spot and prepared a site plan. He also recorded the statements of other witnesses under Section 161, Cr. He recorded the statements of Mahavir, Rameshwar, Surajpal Singh and other witnesses under Sec. 191, Cr. P. C. The Inquest report of the deceased was prepared by S. D. M. , Ghaziabad. The Investigating Officer reached at the spot and prepared a site plan. He also recorded the statements of other witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. The postmortem of the deadbody of Jasvir was conducted by Dr. Vinai Maitin PW 5, who found six injuries caused by some blunt object. Parietal bone and 3rd and 4th ribs on left side were fractured. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants except Satya Pal on 27-12-1977, while the charge-sheet against Satya Pal was submitted on 14-2-1978. 4. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of them, Mahavir (PW 1) Rameshwar (PW 2) and Suraj Pal Singh (PW 3) were the witnesses of the factum of incident, while rest were of formal nature. 5. The accused-appellants denied the prosecution version and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. Viyay Pal stated in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that Jasvir deceased came at his house and fired a shot towards him but he escaped narrowly. On his cry, Shishpal, Ramvir and 5-7 more persons had come there. After inflicting few injuries on the person of Jasvir, they arrested him. The country-made pistol alongwith cartridges was snatched from Jasvir and then a report was lodged at the police station. The Sub-Inspector who was accompanied by other police personnel, interrogated Jasvir saying that he was absconding since long but he could not be arrested. He was given severe beating by the Sub-Inspector at the police station and he came to know in the evening that Jasvir has died in the Hospital. Accused Vijay Pal accepted that he lodged the F. I. R. at P. S. Muradnagar, as Ext. Ka-11. at 4-00 p. m. on 6-11-1977 and the chick report of that F. I. R. was prepared by clerk constable Vijay Singh which he tendered in evidence and marked as Ext. Ka-12. He further stated that Jasvir came at his house and fired a shot. Jasvir was arrested after inflicting a few injuries on his person and was handed over to police. 6. Vijendra Singh stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr. Ka-12. He further stated that Jasvir came at his house and fired a shot. Jasvir was arrested after inflicting a few injuries on his person and was handed over to police. 6. Vijendra Singh stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he instituted a theft case against Jasvir in which he was absconding. The house hold property of the deceased was attached. Due to that enmity, he and his brother have falsely named him in the F. I. R. Mahendra Singh stated that he is brother of Vijendra Singh, who instituted a case against the deceased. Shish Pal Singh stated that he was a witness in the F. I. R. lodged by Vijay Pal. However, Satya Pal took the plea of alibi and stated that he was arranging All-India Tournaments on the date of incident and that he was also Joint Secretary of the Tournament committee of the Ordnance Factory. On the date of incident he remained in the Factory from morning to evening and to that effect he was issued a certi ficate from the factory and that he has also examined Lalit Kumar Sharma (DW 3), who was General Secretary of Sport Association, appointed by General Manager and Sri Ninan George (DW 4), who was Director In charge of the tournaments which had taken place between 4-11-1977 and 6-11-1977, in order to prove the plea of alibi. The defence also examined Constable Rajendra Singh and Vijay Pal as DW 1 and DW 2 respectively, to prove that the deceased was a history-sheeter and was involved in various cases. The charge sheet was filed under Section 457 and 380 I. P. C. against the deceased showing him as absconder. 7. The defence F. I. R. Ext. Ka-12 which was lodged by Vijay Pal at 4-00 p. m. on 6-11-1977 at Police Station Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad, makes it clear that Kali Charan brother of Vijay Pal had got executed an agreement to sell (sic) from Rajvir father of Jasvir deceased and the sale-deed it was to be executed on 8-11-1977. JDue to that agreement, Jasvir deceased was inimical to him. He is a notorious bandit of that area. JDue to that agreement, Jasvir deceased was inimical to him. He is a notorious bandit of that area. At aboat 3-00 p. m. Vijay Pal was taking bath infront of his Gher when Jasvir suddenly came there and fired a shot at him but narrowly he escaped the aim and when Jasvir was re-loading the country- made pistol he grappled with him. The sound of fire attracted Shishpal, Alel Singh and various other persons who arrested Jasvir Singh with a belt containing 6 cartridges after inflicting injuries on his person. He left Jasvir in the custody of other villagers who had come there and then went to Police station for lodging the F. I. R. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 and 147, I. P. C. and accordingly he convicted and sentenced them as above. 9. It is a case where the defence has not disputed the time and place where the injuries were caused. It is also not disputed that large number of injuries were sustained by the deceased at the hands of Vijay Pal Singh accus ed and 5 and 7 othsr persons. However, the place from where the deceased was whisked away and the manner in which the incident took place has serious ly been disputed by the defence. 10. Now first question arises for consideration is as to whether the F. I. R, (Ext. Ka-12) lodged by Vijay Pal accused and his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. O. are admissible in evidence and can be read against him. An F. I. R. lodged by an accused is nothing but a statement given to the police. If such statement does not amount to confession it will be relevant and admissible under Sections 21 (2) and (3) and 24 of Indian Evidence Act. The illustration (d) and (e) of Section 21 of the Evidence Act reads as under : " (d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue. (e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue. (e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the coin, as he doubted, whether it was a counterfeit or not and that that person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration. 11. In another case where husband lodged a j report that his wife has committed suicide at 4-00 p. m. at his house and later on the husband is found an accused of committing murder of his own wife, the statements in the F. I. R. that death of his wife has occurred at the time near about the time mentioned in the F. I. R. and the place where the death was caused are admissible against that accused husband as these statements are not inculpatory. If such state ment contains the confessional part which is inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act that confessional part of the report must be excluded from proof of the guilt of the accused and not the entire report. But if those portions relate to notice, opportunity, conduct and information leading to discovery of facts they would be relevant. 12. So far the statement of accused recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is concerned, it is made clear in sub-section (4) of Section 313, Cr. P. C. that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration iu such inquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against him. It is an important piece of evidence which is to be considered alongwith the other evidence and circumstances brought out at the trial. Statement given by a accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. should not be taken lightly and ignored but that has to be given due weight. Such statements may not be sacrosanct but certainly it is an important piece of evidence which deserves consideration. An answer that an accused gives, provided it is believed, can be given some weight as a piece of evidence and much or less can form basis for conviction. Such statements may not be sacrosanct but certainly it is an important piece of evidence which deserves consideration. An answer that an accused gives, provided it is believed, can be given some weight as a piece of evidence and much or less can form basis for conviction. But a conviction based solely upon the statement made by an accused should not be allowed, to stand unless theje are very strong circumstances and each must depend upon its own circumstance. 13. Thus the statements of accused in the F, I. R. which do not amount to confession as it contained some exculpatory matter, can be accepted as his admission to show conduct, motive and his presence at the scene of occurrence. In our opinion these statements which may not amount to confession, at least these statement may not form the basis of conviction but certainly the court may rely upon to corroborate the circumstances arising out of the evidence on record for or against the accused persons. In this manner Court can draw an inference from the F. I. R. (Ext, Ka-12) lodged by the accused Vijay Pal to show that the incident took place, the deceased was beaten and the accused was also present at that time. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellants firstly assailed the prosecu tion version on the ground that 3 accused hail from another village, while accused persons hail from the village of occurrence. Both the sets of accused persons have no common interest. On the other hand the interest of one set of the accused person clashes with the other. Kali Charan accused had got an agreement for sale executed in his favour from Rajvir, father of deceased Jasvir and the sale-deed was to be executed on 8-11-1977 whereas the deceased did not want any portion of his land to be transferred to Kali Charan. The agricultural land of Jasvirs share was mortgaged by his Dada (Grandfather ). After the expiry of the period of mortgage, Jasvir asked Mahendra to redeem the land but he did not release it in his favour. Due to that reason Mahendra and others ware on inimical terms with him. The bone of contention in the present case was the land of Jasvir which was in possession of Mahendra accused. After the expiry of the period of mortgage, Jasvir asked Mahendra to redeem the land but he did not release it in his favour. Due to that reason Mahendra and others ware on inimical terms with him. The bone of contention in the present case was the land of Jasvir which was in possession of Mahendra accused. Unless it was released by Mahendra and others, the possession of the land of Jasvir could not have been taken by Kali Charan if the sale deed has also been executed in his favour. We have anxiously considered this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants but we do not find any merit in it, because the deceased was pressing Mahendra accused for release of the land and simultaneously Kali Charan and others also not to purchase the land. Therefore, there was nothing improbable if both the sets of accused had joined together to achieve their common object for eliminating Jasvir who was menacing both of them on the issue of redemption purchase of the land. According to the pro secution Jasvir deceased was a history sheeter Badmash and he was involved in various cases. Both sets of the parties were apprehending danger from the side of the deceased in the land transaction. Therefore we do not find any inter se conflict or clash in the interest of both the sets of accused. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that some of the persons were only spectators. In support of that argument he took us through the statement of Rameshwar who admitted that some of the accused had lathis in their hands while others were empty handed at the time of incident and had not inflicted any injury to the deceased. On the basis of that statement he contended that mere presence of those accused persons at the spot would not amount that they had any common object to kill Jasvir, hence no case was made out against those persons. It is true that PW 2 Rameshwar admitted in his statement that some of the accused persons were empty handed but it does not mean that they had not assaulted the deceased in prosecution of the common object of their assembly. None of the accused persons except Vijay Pal admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence in their statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. None of the accused persons except Vijay Pal admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence in their statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. If it was true that they were not members of that assembly the object of which was to cause injuries to Jasvir, they should have straightway confessed in Court their presence at the spot and spoken that they were simply viewers of the incident and were not associates of those who caused injuries to Jasvir and did not take any part in the incident. On the other land the F. I. R. lodged by Vijay Pal indicates that the deceased assaulted by various persons while apprehending him. It is also mentioned in the F. I. R. that the deceased sustained numerous injuries. Vijay Pal also admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that 5 or 7 persons reached there who after giving light beating arrested the deceased. It is a case where the arrest of the deceased and infliction of the injuries on the person of deceased are admitted by Vijay Pal accused. In order to justify the arrest and infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased, the accused took up a false plea that the deceased fired a shot from a country made pistol along with cartridges was recovered when he was arrested but this defence plea is not proved or substantiated by any evidence on record. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the conduct of PW 1 Mahavir, PW 2 Rameshwar and PW 3 Surajpal Singh is inherently unnatural and improbable to infer that they were present at the scene of occurrence and they saw the accused persons taking away the accused and inflicting injuries on his person. Ho also drew our attention to relevant portions of the statements of the witnesses. PW 1 Mahavir stated that he saw the accused being beaten by the accused person but he did not go to the police station nor to village Chaukidar or Village Pradhan. When the police reached the village he did not inform it about the actual facts of the incident. PW 2 Rameshwar stated that after informing Smt. Dayawati about the incident he became busy in his own work. He did not think it proper to collect some villagers and reach the place of occurrence to save Jasvir deceased. When the police reached the village he did not inform it about the actual facts of the incident. PW 2 Rameshwar stated that after informing Smt. Dayawati about the incident he became busy in his own work. He did not think it proper to collect some villagers and reach the place of occurrence to save Jasvir deceased. Similarly PW 3 Suraj Pal Singh stated that he wanted to save Jasvir. He was unable to bear the shrieks of Jasvir when he was being beaten and therefore, the left to his house and got engaged himself in the work. The did not turnip to the Gher of Kali Charan till the arrival of police. , He did not inquire as to what happened to Jasvir later on. He did not inform any person of the village nor did he send any information to the house of Jasvir. He also did not inform the police about this incident when it came in the village. He also stated that he did not try to enquire whether Jasvir was dead or alive. 17. We have carefully read that portion of the statements of the witnesses in particular referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants and pondered over the submissions passively made at the bar. In this connection it may be mentioned that mettle, intelligence, presence of mind and human sentiments differ from man to man. When a ghastly incident occurs in the presence of certain persons, the viewers behave differently. Some people try to run away, others start weeping, some try to conceal their presence on the pot and a very few intervene. So how the witnesses ought to have behaved or reacted at the time of present incident no cast iron principle can be laid down. We are fully aware of the tendency of the men that generally they want to keep themselves abstain from their involvement in such incidents. We are not barren of our experience that when an incident occurs even in the heart of city in humming locality in broad day light, nobody except a near and dear of the victims get ready to appear as a witness or report the incident to police. Some time even close relatives prefer to keep themselves aloof if the assailant is a notorious character and a recognized goon of the area. Some time even close relatives prefer to keep themselves aloof if the assailant is a notorious character and a recognized goon of the area. In the present case if the viewers of the incident had not reacted in the manner suggested or contended by the learned counsel, in our opinion, would not serve us a ground to reject their evidence readily or disbelieve their presence on the spot. 18. We, in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, do not find any improbability or unnaturalness in the conduct of the witnesses if they had avoided to get themselves involved in the litigation of two parties particu larly for reason that Jasvir was a notorious person who might have been disliked by them due to his misbehaviour or rough conduct or they might have feared of the high handed action of the accused person in taking him forcibly to the room of Kali Charan for giving him a severe beating. 19. So far as the evidence of prosecution witness is concerned, PW 1 Mahavir stated that Jasvir was brought by the accused persons at the crusher and thereafter he was taken to the Kothri where the deceased was given beating by the accused persons with lathi, hammer and handle of the engine. The police came in the village at 5. 00 or 6. 00 p. m. Then he heard the report of a shot. When he inquired about that firing then he was told that the police tested fire-arm by making shot. When he and other villagers intervened, the accused persons scolded them and exhorted them to run away as they would kill Jasvir. He saw the incident by peeping through the window of the Kothri. PW 2 Rameshwer stated that when he was going to crusher of Kali Charan to inquire about the sale price of sugarcane he saw that the accused persons were taking away the deceased Jasvir forcibly through the way behind Junior High School and that they took him to the crusher of Kali Charan where they started beating Jasvir with handle of engine, hammer and lathi and when he intervened they asked to run away and then he went to inform Smt. Dayawati, mother of the deceased, about the incident. Similarly, PW 3 Suraj Pal stated that the accused persons went to the chak of Jasvir where he was present. Similarly, PW 3 Suraj Pal stated that the accused persons went to the chak of Jasvir where he was present. They seized the deceased and took him away forcibly to the crusher where they started beating him. Therefore he was taken to the Gher of Kali Charan and he intervened saying as to why they were assaulting him. Kali Charan told that he did not have any concern with the matter between the accused and the deceased and the accused had assaulted the deceased in the room of his Gher with iron bar, handle of engine and lathis. At that time they were telling that they would kill him and Jasvir was crying. Taking into account the testimony of the witnesses and the fact that the deceased sustained numerous injuries as mentioned in the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-12 of Vijay Pal accused and the statement of Vijay Pal recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. showing that Jasvir was assaulted by them, the eye-witness account is consistent and coherent in connection with the catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons from the chak of the deceased and then taking him away forcibly to the Gher of Kali Charan where he was given a merciless beating. We do not find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that some of the accused were only viewer of the incident and they did not can any injury to the deceased. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased was given a very light beating during his arrest by the villagers and the deceased sustained few injuries. Later on the police dealt with Jasvir and inflicted serious injuries to him. He was taken from the place of occur rence at 5. 00 p. m. on a buggi and after passing a short distance he was then taken by a truck to the police station but he was brought at police station at 9. 00 p. m. as is apparent from Ext. Ka-5. G. D. entry written at the police station at 9. 00 p. m. On its basis the learned counsel for the appellants argued that it was the police which inflicted serious injuries and that is res ponsible for those injuries due to which Jasvir died. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Ext. Ka-5. G. D. entry written at the police station at 9. 00 p. m. On its basis the learned counsel for the appellants argued that it was the police which inflicted serious injuries and that is res ponsible for those injuries due to which Jasvir died. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Ext. Ka-5, which is G. D. entry made at the police to show that the deceased was brought at the police station by Malkhan Singh, S. I. and at that time the deceased was not in a position to make his statement due to serious injuries on his head and his condition was precarious, therefore, he was sent to hospital where he was declared dead Thereafter a fictitious G. D. entry was made to show that the deceased was alive whereas the truth was that he had already died at the police station due to serious injuries inflicted by the police. 21. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused party inflicted only few injuries just to affect arrest of the deceased and that it was the police which gave severe beating as a result of which the deceased sustained numerous injuries and died does not appeal to us parti cularly when the defence FIR Ext. Ka-12 itself speaks that the deceased was given beating by the villagers and he sustained extensive injuries on his body The defence FIR was lodged at 4. 00 p. m. at the police station and the deceased was taken into custody by Malkhan Singh, S. I. , at 5. 00 p. m. . The probability that the deceased might have been interrogated and had been taken by the police from place to place in connection with ascertaining certain facts and then he was brought at the police station at about 9. 00 p. m. by which time the condition of the deceased might have deteriorated and then he was taken to hospital where he died could not be ruled out. He died as a result of his extensive injuries caused by the persons whoever he may be either the villagers or the accused persons, but it is certain that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were not caused by the police. 22. He died as a result of his extensive injuries caused by the persons whoever he may be either the villagers or the accused persons, but it is certain that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were not caused by the police. 22. We also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is highly interested and partisan and independent witnesses have been withheld to prove the prosecution version. In the facts and circumstances stated above the evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved or ignored only on the ground that they were interested particularly when their presence at the spot was very much natural. The persons of the locality might not be willing to indulge themselves in the litigation of two contending parties. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants then strenuously argued that one of the appellants Satya Pal was not present at the scene of occurrence. He was a Government servant in the Ordnance Factory and he has proved that he was in the Factory through out the day in connection with the tournaments going there. In was not possible for him to leave the Factory premises for committing the crime and then again to return back to the Factory after commission of the offence. The plea of alibi of the appellant Satyapal Singh has been fully established by the defence evidence. In case the participation of the appellant Satyapal was not proved and his presence at the scene of incident is not established then the evidence of witnesses regarding partici pation of other accused persons was also false and their testimony cannot be relied upon for want of corroboration of their testimony by independent witness. In support of his contention the learned counsel cited certain case-law. He drew our attention to the Judgment dated 8- 11-1960 of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 1959 in which one of the co- accused Yagvir Singh was found not to be present in the village on the date of occurrence but at Udaipur and his participation in crime was held to be not proved while the witness had assigned him also the same role as was assigned in other co-accused. It was concluded by the Division Bench in that case that once the evidence of the witnesses was found not to be true regarding participation of Yagvir Singh, their evidence about participation of the other accused also in the crime could not be accepted. 24. He also quoted a reported decision published in 1956 ACrr 19, Guchun Misir v. State of U. P. , where it was held that if a part of the testi mony of a witness is untrue, there should be special reason to believe the veracity of rest of this testimony. Thereafter he cited a Division Bench Judgment dated 30- 10-1964, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 1964, Anjani Kumar v. State of U. P. In that case, the plea of alibi was taken in this Court. The Jailor was examined to establish that plea and it was proved that one of the accused was in jail on the date of incident and hence it was held by the Court that the testimony of the witness regarding the participation of other accused was also untrue and the appeal was allowed and the accused were acquitted. 25. It is true that in the cases mentioned above, the participation of one of the accused persons was found not to be proved in the incident and the whole case ended in acquittal but the Court relied on other circumstances also in those case. In the background of the above decision the learned counsel vehemently argued that if the plea of alibi of Satya Pal is accepted and the evidence of the prosecution is disbelieved regarding his participation in the incident, then there is no guarantee that the evidence of these witnesses regard ing participation of other accused is correct. 26. However we are afraid to accept the above contention of the learned counsel even if the plea of Satya Pal prevails still the prosecution evidence as a whole cannot be rejected regarding other accused irrespective of the fact there is no independent evidence in its corroboration. 27. The doctrine of false in falsest in omnibus is not a good rule of law. 27. The doctrine of false in falsest in omnibus is not a good rule of law. In that connection we may quote the relevant observation of the Supreme Court in the case Sohrab v. State of M. P. , reported in AIR 1972 SC 2020 : "this Court has held that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be con sidered though where the substratum of the prosecution case or material part of the evidence is disbelievable it will not be permis sible for the Court to reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. " 28. So far as rejection of evidence of witnesses in respect of other accused the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of plea of alibi is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case Atnrik Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 447, has rules that the testimony of Trilok Kumar witness cannot be rejected in respect of their accused merely on the ground that his testimony with regard to participation of four accused has been dis believed by the learned Sessions Judge and their acquittal has been upheld by the High Court. The relevant observation of Supreme Court in that record are extracted below : "the question now remains regarding the two accused persons Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh. The main argument given by the learned Sessions Judge for disbelieving the evidence of Trilok Kumar PW 1 was that when his evidence is discarded with regard to the four accused persons, his evidence should not be relied upon regarding the remaining two accused persons also----Thus, even if, the four accused persons viz. The main argument given by the learned Sessions Judge for disbelieving the evidence of Trilok Kumar PW 1 was that when his evidence is discarded with regard to the four accused persons, his evidence should not be relied upon regarding the remaining two accused persons also----Thus, even if, the four accused persons viz. Pritam Singh, Jagdish Kumar, Artic Singh and Harbans Singh are given advantage of plea of alibi, it is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of Trilok Kumar so far as Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh are concerned. . ,. " 29. The view of the observation of the Supreme Court, we are constrain ed to hold that even if one or more accused are acquitted on the basis of plea of alibi or any other ground, the courts are still required to probe into the veracity of the statements of the witnesses regarding the participation of the accused other than those who have been acquitted about whom their evidence has been disbelieved by the courts. The other accused person can very well be convicted as held by the Supreme Court in the above reported decision if their evidence about them is found credible and convincing. 30. Now we have to consider the evidence of alibi in respect of the accused Satya Pal. The learned State Counsel took us through the defence evidence led in support of the plea of alibi and contended that the papers filed by defence witnesses showing the presence of the accused in the Factory were loose and they were not numbered and according to him the evidence of alibi has been manufactured subsequently shield Satya Pal accused and that the defence witnesses have appeared in court to save the official of their factory. Their evidence is totally unconvincing and unreliable. His further contention was that the possibility of his resuming the duties after committing offence during lunch hours also could not be ruled, the distance of his office being 5 miles from the place of incident and that the learned Sessions Judge was quite justified in rejecting the plea of alibi. 13. Their evidence is totally unconvincing and unreliable. His further contention was that the possibility of his resuming the duties after committing offence during lunch hours also could not be ruled, the distance of his office being 5 miles from the place of incident and that the learned Sessions Judge was quite justified in rejecting the plea of alibi. 13. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the State that plea of alibi is liable to be rejected only for the reason that the papers filed by the defence witnesses were not numbered and were loose bound and that the accused has sufficient time to resume his duty after committing the offence. DW 4 Ninan George, who was the Director Incharge of the tourna ments, stated that the accused remained with him throughout the day on the date of occurrence except lunch hours. DW 3 Lalit Kumar Sharma, who was Joint Secretary of Sports, appointed by the General Manager, stated that Satya Pal prepared the record Ext. Kha-1 to Kha-12 in respect of competition of the tournaments. 32. We have gone through the defence evidence in order to find out truth in the place of alibi of Satya Pal accused was not present in the Ordnance Factory at the time of incident. However the defence evidence of alibi has not been believed only on the ground that Satya Pal during lunch recess could travel 5 miles and return to the Factory to resume his duty after com mitting the crime. Looking to the nature of duties entrusted to Satya Pal in the Regional tournaments held in the factory we do not think that Satya Pal accused had so much time available that during lunch hours he could go out of the factory and return post haste after committing the offence from a distance of 5 miles to resume his duty before restart of the game immediately after lunch hours. In our opinion the presence of Satya Pal on the spot is doubtful and hence he is entitled to the benefit of doubt on that score. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased was an absconder in the theft case. In our opinion the presence of Satya Pal on the spot is doubtful and hence he is entitled to the benefit of doubt on that score. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased was an absconder in the theft case. His property was attached under Section 82/83, Cr PC and the accused persons could cause necessary injuries to the deceased for effecting his arrest and their action was fully protected by the provisions of Section 43 Cr PC. This argument of the learned counsel has no force inasmuch as the case of the accused at the initial stage was that the accused persons caught hold the deceased and inflicted severe injuries on his person and in order to escape the responsibility of his injuries they subsequently took up a false case that the deceased fired a shot on Vijay Pal (accused; which narrowly went stray and thereafter villagers arrested and caused severe injuries to him during the course of his arrest. The defence version does not inspire confidence. If the deceased was a notorious character and was armed with a country made pistol, he would not have so easily surrendered himself without causing single injury to Yijay Pal or those villagers who arrested him. In our opinion, in the circumstances indicated above, the accused persons are not entitled to the protection of Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, all the accused appellants except Satpya Pal are responsible for causing various injuries to Jasvir. 34. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased sustained a lacerated wound on his head which was a fatal injury as parietal bone was fractured. None of the accused has been assigned the role of causing that injury specifically and as such accused persons had no intention to cause death of Jasvir and hardly a case under Section 325, IPC was made out against them as all other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body of the deceased. The doctor on medical examination of Jasvir has found fractured also on his body and therefore we are unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel. The doctor on medical examination of Jasvir has found fractured also on his body and therefore we are unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel. No doubt Injury No. 1 has not been specifically assigned to any particular accused by the witnesses but the other injuries caused to Jasvir were also sufficient to cause his death as the dimension of these injuries are indicative of the fact that (he deceased was severally and mercilessly assaulted by the accused. His 3rd and 4th ribs of the left side were found fractured and patella of both the legs were also found fractured. The accused persons had knowledge that the injuries being caused to Jasvir could also result into his death though they might not have the intention to cause death. In our opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved the offences under Sections 147 and 304 Part II and not under the Section 302/149, I. P. C. against all the accused appellants except Satya Pal whose plea of alibi we have already accepted. 35. Now the question arises as to what should be the punishment under the altered charge of Section 304 Part II. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we think the ends of justice would adequately be served if 5 years sentence under Section 304 Part II is awarded to each of the appellants except Satya Pal and their sentences under Section 147, I. P. C. as passed by the Sessions Judge are maintained. 36. Accordingly the appeal of Satya Pal succeeds and is hereby allowed. His conviction and sentence under Section 302/149 and 147, I. P. C. as passed by the trial Judge are set aside and he is acquitted of those charges. He is on bail and he need not surrender. His bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 37. The appeals of other appellants are allowed in part. Their con viction and sentence under Section 302/149, I. P. C. are set aside. Instead they are convicted under Section 304 Part II, I. P. C. and each of them is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. However their conviction and sentence under Section 147, I. P. C. as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge are maintained which will run concurrently with the sentence of five years R. I. , as awarded under Section 304 Part II, I. P. C. They are on bail. However their conviction and sentence under Section 147, I. P. C. as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge are maintained which will run concurrently with the sentence of five years R. I. , as awarded under Section 304 Part II, I. P. C. They are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail forthwith and be taken into custody to serve out their sentences as above. Appeal partly allowed, .