JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J.--1. Aggrieved by his conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T. No. 99/90, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 27.1.90 at village Akolia at about 9 P.M., late Nandu accompanied by his son Arjun (PW 3) aged about 14 years was on his way to his fields when the accused intercepted and started abusing, after some altercation of hot talks between the two, the accused gave a Dharia blow (cutting weapon) in his neck, as a result of which Nandu fell down on the spot. Tolaram (PW 1) and Arjun (PW 3) who had reached the spot, took the deceased to Pithampur, however, he expired in the way. FIR vide Ex. P/1 was lodged by Tolaram at 9.30 PM on the same night at P.S. Pithampur on the basis of which a case was registered and after due investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for trial. 3. At the trial, he accused denied his guilt and pleaded to have been implicated falsely by Tolaram and others due to enmity. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after trial held the appellant guilty under section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as above. Thus, giving rise to this appeal. 5. Appellant has assailed his conviction as contrary to law and facts. It was contended on his behalf that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all pertisans and that their evidence is full of contradictions. As against this, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondent/State defended the impugned conviction and sentence. 6. That on the relevant date, Nandu died a homicidal death was not disputed before us besides it being established fully by the occular and medical evidence on record. Tolaram (PW 1) Gordhan (PW 2) and Arjun (PW 3) have deposed of the homicidal death of deceased which is further borne out from the evidence of inquest conducted by Sub Inspector M.B. Awasthy (PW 8) vide punchnama Ex.P/2. Medical evidence of Dr. R.C. Hanotia (PW 6) further confirm this fact. Dr. Hanotia deposed to have performed autopsy on the body of deceased on 28.1.90 and found that the deceased had following antemortem injuries on his body. Medical evidence of Dr. R.C. Hanotia (PW 6) further confirm this fact. Dr. Hanotia deposed to have performed autopsy on the body of deceased on 28.1.90 and found that the deceased had following antemortem injuries on his body. a) Incised wound 9 x 4 x 6 cm at the lower and anterior part of Neck on right side just above the clavicle horizontal caused by heavy sharp object b) Abrasion with contusion on lateral aspect of left upper arm, size 7 x 3 cm by blunt object According to the Doctor, the death was result of shock and haemorhage resulting due to injury to neck vessles (Vide report ex. P/10). 7. The question, therefore, arises for determination in this appeal is whether the accused has caused the death of the deceased and whether his act amounted to 'murder'. 8. Tolaram (PW 1), Gordhan (PW 2) and Arjun (PW 3) have been examined who deposed that in their presence and view the accused assaulted the deceased with Dharia injuring him in his neck as a result of which he fell down and later on died. 9. At the out set we find that the trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of the child witness, Arjun, doubting his very presence on the scene of occurrence in asmuch as his name does not find place in the FIR (P/1) lodged by Tolaram immediately after the incident. The trial Court further observed that the other two witnesses i.e. Tolaram and Gordhan did not seem to be telling truth in so far as the presence of Arjun is concerned. The trial Court, however, placed full reliance on the remaining testimony of Tolaram and Gordhan which according to the trial Court is corroborated fully by other circumstantial evidence on the record. 10. The trial Court has had the advantage of observing the demean our of the witnesses and was certainly in a better position to appreciate their evidence. We are, therefore, not inclined to take a different view, so far as the evidence of this child witness is concerned and now proceed to examine the evidence of other two witnesses keeping in view the fact that they have been disbelieved in part as aforesaid by the learned trial Judge. Tolaram and Gordhan had testified that in the relevant night, they alongwith one Madan (brother of deceased) were on their way back to home. Tolaram and Gordhan had testified that in the relevant night, they alongwith one Madan (brother of deceased) were on their way back to home. When they saw the accused and the deceased abusing each other and that the accused delivered a blow of Dharia on the later injuring him vital on his neck. The deceased fell down and the accused left the place with Dharia, the witnesses added. Tolaram deposed to have immediately gone to Village Chowkidar Nandu and related the incident to him, Nandu has fully corrobrated the former's testimony and further deposed that he then accompanied Tolaram to Radheshyam's house to fetch tempo. He stated that while coming to Radheshyam's house, he saw deceased lying on the path way near Tolaram's house and that Gordhan and Madan were also standing there. He thus also confirms the presence of Gordhan on the scene of occurrence. 13. Radheshyam (PW 4) has also lent adequate corroboration to the evidence of all the three witnesses above and confirmed that Tolaram accompanied by Chowkidar Nandu came to his house in the said night and that Tolaram told him about the accused Rajaram having assaulted the deceased by Dharia. He also confirmed presence of Gordhan on the scene of occurrence but further stated accompanied to tolaram in taxing the deceased to Pithampur in his Tempo. 14. The FIR was lodged without any delay whatsoever by Tolaram at P.S. Pithampur in short the account of the incident and naming the accused as assai lent. 15. Tolaram is no doubt a distant relation of the deceased but this itself no ground to discard his testimony in as much as he gets adequate corroboration from other evidence on record already described above. His instantenously reporting the matter to Village Chowkidar and also telling the Tempo Driver about the incident naming the accused as assailant lands credence, to his testimony. Gordhan is an independent witness and had absolutely no reason to implicate the accused falsely. The occular evidence of both these witnesses also finds full corroboration from the medical evidence of Doctor Hanotia. So, notwithstanding the fact that the trial Court has disbelieved them in part (As to the presence of Arjun on the scene of occurrence), their evidence that they witnesses the accused assaulting the deceased inspired full confidence. The occular evidence of both these witnesses also finds full corroboration from the medical evidence of Doctor Hanotia. So, notwithstanding the fact that the trial Court has disbelieved them in part (As to the presence of Arjun on the scene of occurrence), their evidence that they witnesses the accused assaulting the deceased inspired full confidence. It is well settled that the Court has right rather a duty to scrutinise the evidence carefully and in terms of the felacitous metaphore, separate the grain from the chaff. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1965 SC 277 ):-- "The maxim falsus in one, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false m every thing) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries of embelishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felacitous metaphore, separate the grain from the chaff." 16. Madan who according to the other two eye witnesses was also present on the scene of occurrence has not been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly he is the brother of deceased. Non-examination of this witness, in our opinion, is of no material consequence as he would have only added to the number not the quality of the evidence. In any case his evidence was not necessary to unfold the prosecution story. 17. Curiously enough the defence has put a suggestion to Tolaram in para 9 of his cross-examination that the deceased had developed illicit relations with the newly married wife of the accused and that a few days before the incident, the said woman has deserted the deceased and fled away. Although Tolaram has refutted the suggestion but it provides a clue as to the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. 18. Sub Inspector Awasthy (PW 8) and punchanama witness Jagganath (PW 5) have further proved that the accused was arrested on 28.8.90 and his shirt was recovered and seized from his body vide seizure memo P/7. The accused further gave information (vide P/5) to discover a Dharia which was seized and sealed (vide P/6). The Chemical analysis of both these articles confirms presence of blood on them. The accused further gave information (vide P/5) to discover a Dharia which was seized and sealed (vide P/6). The Chemical analysis of both these articles confirms presence of blood on them. Although no further evidence has been laid down by the prosecution as to the origin and group of the blood nevertheless presence of blood on the shirt worn by the accused and the Dharia recovered at his instance reinforces towards complicity in the crime in question. 19. The defence has laid evidence to the effect that after the incident, the family members of the accused were made to leave the village and that their houses have been burnt allegedly by the family members of the deceased. All these even taken on the face value, did not exonerate the accused of the charge established fully against him. 20. From the foregoing discussions, it, therefore, inevitably follows that it was the accused and he alone caused death of the deceased by delivering Dharia blow on the neck of the deceased. 21. This brings us to the last question as to whether the homicide in question amounted to murder. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that it was a case of single injury inflicted after some hot talks between the accused and deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the case fell within part II of Sec. 304 IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sitala Prasad v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1994 SC 1643 ) It was a case where on the spur of moment, the accused gave a spear blow to the accused in his abdomen. The Apex Court on the basis of the facts of that case, therefore, held that the appellant (of that case) was guilty u/s. 304 II IPC instead of Sec. 302 IPC. We are, however, afraid with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the ratio in Sitala Prasad's case (supra) is not available to him. It is not a case of sudden fight. The deceased was on his way to his fields when he was intercepted by the accused who carried Dharia with him. It was thus a premeditated crime by the accused. As deposed by Dr. It is not a case of sudden fight. The deceased was on his way to his fields when he was intercepted by the accused who carried Dharia with him. It was thus a premeditated crime by the accused. As deposed by Dr. Hanotia, the internal blood vessels of the neck of the deceased were cut and that the injury was inflicted by a heavy cutting weapon. In view of the matter, it is not wrong to infer that the accused had intentionally caused the death of the deceased. He was, therefore, clearly guilty of murder and has rightly been adjudged so by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence u/s. 302 IPC, therefore, deserves to be and are hereby upheld. The appeal stands dismissed.