S. C. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against acquittal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Jagmer Singh of village Sultanpur, P. S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad allegedly received injuries at the hands of Laheri, Deopal and Smt. Krishna on 2. 2. 1976 while he was working in his field. A complaint was lodged by Jagmer at P. S. Muradnagar on the same day i. e. 2. 2. 1976 just after the incident i. e. at 4. 45 P. M. and a case u/s. 324 I. P. C. was registered. As per the medical report Ext. Ka 2, the injured Jagmer was medically examined by Dr. Ram Kishan of P. H. C. Murad Nagar on the same day and following injuries were found on his person: 1. Incised wound on the post auricela reo gion i" x 1/8 x 1. 8 deep right side (upper part of neck and lower part of head right side ). It is 7/8 behind from the right ear and 3 below the ociput. Margins of the wound are clean cut and sharp cut hairs are seen in the wound. ( 2 ) RED contusion 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 on the right elbow joint front and inner aspect. Doctor opined that both injuries are simple. Injury No. 1 is caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 2 is caused by blunt weapon and dqration is about 1/2 day. 2. For about three months no action was taken by the police on his report then the injured Jagmer filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 7. 5. 1976 mentioning all the facts which were mentioned by him in the report before the police. The Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses produced by the complainant coupled with the medical report ordered for a summoning all the three accused persons Laheri, Deopal and Smt. Krishna U/s. 323/324 I. P. C. and they were tried for the said offences. During trial Jagmer complainant examined himself as P. W. 1, Sri Satendra as P. W. 2 Khancheru as P. W. 3, Dharamveer as P. W. 4, Dr. Ram Kishan as P. W. 6 and Sri Om Dutt the police official who recorded F. I. R. (P. W. 5 ). In their statements Vis. 313 Cr. During trial Jagmer complainant examined himself as P. W. 1, Sri Satendra as P. W. 2 Khancheru as P. W. 3, Dharamveer as P. W. 4, Dr. Ram Kishan as P. W. 6 and Sri Om Dutt the police official who recorded F. I. R. (P. W. 5 ). In their statements Vis. 313 Cr. P. C. accused denied the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. In defence they examined one witness Rohtasas D. W. 1 who stated that on the date of the incident no marpeet was done ( 3 ) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad Sri Sultan Singh acquitted all three accused persons on the grounds that at the time of the incident, the witnesses could not be there and that the age of Deopal accused was only 10 to 12 years and that in the report before the police it was not mentioned that he was having the lathi and caused injuries by the lathi. Disbelieving the evidence of the complainant, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the three accused persons Laheri, Deopal and Smt. Krishna. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed this appeal against the acquittal order dt. 17. 2. 1979. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention towards the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant and argued that Jagmer Singh is injured person and there is no reason todisbelieve him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact. According to him, the incident is of dated 2. 2. 1976 and the time is of 2 P. M. The F. I. R. was promptly lodged on the same day at 4. 45 P. M. The distance of the police station was 4 Km. The injured was examined by Dr. Ram Kishan at the P. H. C. Muradnagar at 7. 45 P. M. on the same day. As per the medical report Ext. Ka 2 there was an incised wound on the post auricela region 1 x 1/8 x 1. 8 deep Rt. side (upper part of neck and lower part of head Rt. side) it was 7. 8 behind from the right ear, and 3 below the ociput. Margins of the wound were clean cut and sharp cut. As per the Doctor, this injury could have been caused by an exe (Kulhari ). 8 deep Rt. side (upper part of neck and lower part of head Rt. side) it was 7. 8 behind from the right ear, and 3 below the ociput. Margins of the wound were clean cut and sharp cut. As per the Doctor, this injury could have been caused by an exe (Kulhari ). There was another injury i. e. red contusion 1 W x IIht on the right elbow joint front and inner aspect and that injury was caused by blunt weapon. According to the learned counsel, the learned Svecial Judicial Magistrate did not take into account this medical report and statement of Doctor coupled with the statement of the injured and he acquitted all these three accused persons without any reason and justification misusing his judicial discretion. According to the learned counsel, it is a fit case wherein all the three accused persons should have been convicted U/s. 323/324 I. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent argued that the incident is of dated 2. 2. 1976 and complaint was filed after three months before the Judicial Magistrate and it makes the complaint a doubtful one. According to the learned counsel, as per the statement of the witnesses, the age of Deopal was 10 to 12 years and there is no mention in the report lodged with the police on the same dar that Deopal was having lathi with him. Imputing the injury of lathi caused by Deapal on the person of Jagmer is an after thought version and learned Special Judicial Magistrate has correctly acquitted him on the said charge. The allegation against Smt. Krishna giving fist blows is also not borne out from the record and she has also rightly been acquitted. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the injury No. 1 alleged to have been received by Jagmer is simple in nature and that injury No. 2 could be self inflicted. He also pointed out that the witnesses examined by the complainant, namely, Satendra P. W. 2, Khecheru P. W. 3, Dharamveer P. W. 4 are interested witnesses and are chance witnesses who are also related to the injured and are inimical towards accused persons and that ihe trial Court has rightly disbelieved them while acquitting the accused persons. He also pointed out that the witnesses examined by the complainant, namely, Satendra P. W. 2, Khecheru P. W. 3, Dharamveer P. W. 4 are interested witnesses and are chance witnesses who are also related to the injured and are inimical towards accused persons and that ihe trial Court has rightly disbelieved them while acquitting the accused persons. According to the learned counsel, when a witness has been disbelieved in part his remaining statement qua the other accused, should not be accepted. ( 5 ) AS far as the accused Deopal is concerned, no doubt, it is true as has come on record thatat the time of the alleged incident his age was only 10 to 12 years i. e. he was a juvenile. In the first information report, it has not been mentioned that he was having a lathi and that he gave injury to the injured Jagmer with that lathi. This omission is of vital importance and as such, the trial court has rightly acquitted Deopal on the charge of causing injury with a lathi. There are only two injuries on the body of the injured; injury No. 1 has been caused by a sharp edged weapon i. e. with an axe and that injury could not be caused by Deapal, as per the case of the complainant itself. Injury No. 2 is red contusion 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 on the right elbow joint front and inner aspect. This injury could be possible by fall. The acquittal of Deopal woo was a juvenile at the time of the incident has been correctly recorded and I do not find any ground to interfere in this finding of the trial court. This finding of the trial court is confirmed. ( 6 ) THE role alleged to have been played by Smt. Krishna is that she gave beatings with fist blows. The medical report does not corroborate this version of the complainant that Krishna gave beating with fist blows. Her acquittal by trial court is also confirmed and I find no teason to interfere in the findings of the trial court about this accused Krishna. ( 7 ) THE only point which requires consideration is the acquittal of Laheri. The statement of the injured Jagmer is fully corroborated with the medical report Ext. Ka 2 and the statement of the Dr. ( 7 ) THE only point which requires consideration is the acquittal of Laheri. The statement of the injured Jagmer is fully corroborated with the medical report Ext. Ka 2 and the statement of the Dr. Ram Kishan In-charge P. H. C. Muradnagar who appeared as P. W. 6. According to the Doctor, this injury which is incised would on the post auricela region 1 x 1/8 x 1. 8 deep right side (upper part of neck and lower part of head right side) which is 7. 8 behind from the right ear and 3 below the ociput could have been caused by an axe (Kulhari) as the Margins of the wound were clean cut and sharp cut. The injured has also mentioned this fact in the first information report which he lodged immediately after the occurrence and he also mentioned about it in his complaint and the statement before the Magistrate on 7. 5. 1976. He has corroborated this version in the statement before the Court as P. W. 1. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his statement on this point remained unshattered. The plea that the complaint was filed after about three months does not help the respondent-accused in the present circumstances of the case. The complainant immediately lodged the report o (the occurrence after the incident and waited for three months and when the police did not take any substantive action in the matter, he resorted to his alternative remedy by moving the court concerned by filing this complaint under the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondentaccused cannot take the benefit of filing this complaint after three months. He waited for the police action and when no action was taken from the side of police, he filed this complaint and there is no illegality in it. ( 8 ) REGARDING the grounds taken for acquitting this accused Laheri by the Magistrate, I find that his approach is perverse; he docs not understand how to appreciate the evidence, he has not cared to look into the statement of the injured whose presence cannot be doubted. The medical report which was prepared on the same date after examining the injured and the statement of the doctor who appeared as P. W. 6 were not at all taken into consideration for the reasons but known to him. The medical report which was prepared on the same date after examining the injured and the statement of the doctor who appeared as P. W. 6 were not at all taken into consideration for the reasons but known to him. From his conduct, it is apparent that with ulterior motive, he acquitted this accused Laheri. When there was cogent and substantial evidence against him there was no justifiable reason to acquit him. Though the statement of other eye witnesses are corroborative and suffer from no lacuna, yet if we ignore the statement of these witnesses, the statement of injured coupled with the medical report and statement of the doctor who examined the injured immediately on that day are sufficient for the conviction of accused Laheri but the Magistrate has intentionally ignored all these facts and misused his judicial discretion in acq uitting the accused Laheri. When the statements of the witnesses are not accepted as wholly correct whether their statements should be thrown away is a question which cropped up in many cases before the Honble Supreme Court wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that the maxim falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus has not been accepted as a sound rule in India. In Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh Honble Supreme Court has observed at page 2024: This court has held that Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus is not the sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose statement 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 salient feature of the case, after cautious scrutiny, cannot be considered. TI ( 9 ) THE other point which the Magistrate has taken while acquitting the accused persons that the other eye witnesses are not believable being related or chance witnesses is also not justified. Their statement is corroborative and suffer from no lacuna. They may be related or interested but they cannot be termed as tainted witnesses. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be discarded out right. Their statement is corroborative and suffer from no lacuna. They may be related or interested but they cannot be termed as tainted witnesses. It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be discarded out right. ( 10 ) ALL that was necessary was to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care and circumspection with reference to the part and role assigned to each of the accused. Every person who witnesses a commission of a crime reacts in his own way, some arc stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start Wailing, some start shouting for help, others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim even going to the extent of counter acting the assailants. Everyone reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction to discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unreliable and unimaginative way. This is the law as has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana. ( 11 ) IN this particular case, the incident lasted for about 2 or 3 minutes and there was no occasion for the witnesses to counter act the assailants. The learned trial Court has misappreciated the evidence and did not correctly appreciate the law on the point and wrongly acquitted the accused Laheri the assailant and I, therefore set aside the judgment and order dated 17. 2. 1979 as far as Laheri is concerned and hold Laheri guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 324 I. P. C. and sentence him to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine Laheri to undergo further R. I. for three months. In case of realisation of fine of Rs. 1000/- the same be paid to the injured Jagmer and if he is dead to his heirs. ( 12 ) THIS appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.