( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No. 160/89 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/149 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that 1 1/2 months before the date of incident i. e. 27-4-89 there was some quarrel between the appellants and the deceased Nagu Singh. On 27-4-80 at 8. 00 a. m. in the morning the appellants who were armed with sword, Dhariya, Farsi and Lathis chased Nagusingh when he was passing the village through Padmakhedi while going to Ujjain. Nagusingh ran and entered the house of Udaysingh. The appellants also followed him and entered the house of Udaysingh and assaulted him. They severed his left hand from elbow. Udaysingh (P. W. 10), his mother Sitabai (P. W. 12) and brother Amar Singh were present in their house. Atmaram (P. W. 13) the son of Bhera Chowkidar (P. W. 5) came on the spot whom Udaysingh narrated the incident who immediately went to the house of Nagusingh and informed Umraosingh (P. W. 2) and Manoramabai (P. W. 4), the son and wife of the deceased and also to his father Bhera (P. W. 5) that Nagusingh had been assaulted by the appellants. Bhera immediately sent him to Police Station Ghatiya where his information was recorded in Roznamcha-Sana No. 573 by A. S. I. Om Prakash Mishra (P. W. 16 ). Shri Mishra immediately started for the place of occurrence. He met Udaysingh at village Nipaniya who was bringing Nagusingh to the Police Station Ghatiya. Shri Mishra recorded the report of Udaysingh as Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P-7 and sent Nagusingh to the District Hospital Ujjain for medical examination. Dr. Ghanshyam Dhawan (P. W. 3) examined Nagusingh and found nine incised wounds including amputation of left hand above elbow vide report Ex. P-2. On the same day Nagusingh died. Vikramlal Head Constable (P. W. 11), post-mortem examination of the deadbody was conducted by Dr. V. K. Garg (P. W. 1) who found the following injuries :1. Incised wound over scalp Rt. side temporal region 4" long stitched. 2. Incised wound over scalp middle part frontal region 2" long stitched bone deep. P-2. On the same day Nagusingh died. Vikramlal Head Constable (P. W. 11), post-mortem examination of the deadbody was conducted by Dr. V. K. Garg (P. W. 1) who found the following injuries :1. Incised wound over scalp Rt. side temporal region 4" long stitched. 2. Incised wound over scalp middle part frontal region 2" long stitched bone deep. ( 3 ) INCISED wound over left shoulder 5" long bone deep. ( 4 ) AMPUTATION of left hand just above elbow joint. ( 5 ) INCISED wound over Rt. hand dorsal aspect extending from middle part to the web between little and ring finger 2" long. ( 6 ) PARTIAL amputation of Rt. thumb vertically. ( 7 ) INCISED wound over Rt. hand radial aspect1" each, two in number. ( 8 ) INCISED wound over Rt. forearm. ( 9 ) INCISED wound over Rt. arm ulnar aspect middle part 2" long. ( 10 ) INCISED wound over lumbar spine oblique 2" long. ( 11 ) INCISED wound over left side of chest posterior aspect scapular region 1 1/2" long. ( 12 ) FRACTURE of skull bone Rt. side temporal region underneath injury No. 1. ( 13 ) LACERATION of brain underneath the fracture, clotted blood present over it. Dr. Garg opined that these injuries were antemortem caused by hard and sharp object and the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries, fracture of scalp and laceration of brain vide report Ex. P-1. 3. Om Prakash Mishra, P. W. 16, visited the house of Udaysingh where the incident had taken place and prepared map Ex. P-4. He collected stained and unstained earth vide memo Ex. P-5, he also seized Bhagoni, bamboo, lathi and one pair of shoes having bloodstains vide seizure memo. Ex. P-6. Ashok Kumar (P. W. 17), incharge, out-post Pan Bihar arrested the appellants Lakshman Singh, Bapu Singh, Ratan Singh, Chain Singh, Omkar Singh and Gangabai on 27-4-89 vide arrest memos Ex. P-14, P-15 and P-16. On 27-4-89 Ashok Kumar seized Dhariya from appellant Lakshman Singh, sword from Bapusingh, Farsi and shirt from Ratan Singh, Dhariya and Kurta from Onkar Singh and lathi from Gangabai vide seizure memos Ex. P-17, P-18, P-19, P-20 and P-21 respectively. The clothes of the deceased Nagusingh which he was wearing at the time of incident were also seized. On 27-4-89 Ashok Kumar seized Dhariya from appellant Lakshman Singh, sword from Bapusingh, Farsi and shirt from Ratan Singh, Dhariya and Kurta from Onkar Singh and lathi from Gangabai vide seizure memos Ex. P-17, P-18, P-19, P-20 and P-21 respectively. The clothes of the deceased Nagusingh which he was wearing at the time of incident were also seized. All the seized articles were sent to F. S. L. Sagar for chemical examination. The chemical examiner of F. S. L. Sagar found blood on the seized weapons (except lathi), clothes of the appellants, Bhagoni and clothes of the deceased. After investigation challan was filed. The appellants pleaded not guilty and false implication. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced as above, hence this appeal. 4. The fact of homicidal death of Nagusingh is not disputed and rightly so as it is amply proved from the statements of eye-witnesses as well as medical evidence. Now the question that arises for determination is whether the appellants caused death of the deceased Nagusingh ? It is appropriate to mention at the out set that the deceased and members of his family and the eye-witnesses Uday Singh (P. W. 10) and his mother Sitabai (P. W. 12) had enmity with the appellants. Umarao Singh and Mankunwarbai (P. W. 14), the son and widow of the deceased admitted in cross-examination that on the report of committing theft of a hen made by appellants, Nagu Singh, Umrao Singh and Madhav (P. W. 5) were prosecuted and Nagu Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for one month. It has been admitted by Uday Singh (P. W. 10) and Sitabai that Uday Singh was prosecuted by appellants. It is, thus, clear that these witnesses have enimical terms with the appellants and they are interested in success of the prosecution. It is well settled that evidence of such witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are interested in the prosecution case. In such a situation the Court should be alert, it should put itself on guard and the evidence of such witness should be appreciated with close scrutiny, 1995 SCC (Cri) 1106, Namwar Dubey v. State of M. P. Now we will examine the prosecution evidence in the light of the above observations. In such a situation the Court should be alert, it should put itself on guard and the evidence of such witness should be appreciated with close scrutiny, 1995 SCC (Cri) 1106, Namwar Dubey v. State of M. P. Now we will examine the prosecution evidence in the light of the above observations. Sitabai (P. W. 12) deposed that on the date of incident in the morning she was preparing food for his sons Amarsingh and Udaysingh who were to go out, at about 8. 00 a. m. she saw that Nagusingh, the deceased came running and entered her house and after him the appellants Bapusingh, Laxmansingh, Onkarsingh, Ratnasingh, Chainsingh and Gangabai came inside her house. Bapusingh was armed with sword, Laxmansingh with Dhariya, Onkarsingh and Ratansingh with Farsis and Chainsingh and Gangabai with Dandas. Seeing appellants she came put of her house. Therefore, she could not see as to what had happened inside her house. Udaysingh (P. W. 10) supporting the evidence of Sitabai, testified that the appellants assaulted and inflicted injuries to Nagusingh with their respective weapons. He further stated that the appellant Bapusingh and Ratansingh severed the hand of Nagusingh with sword and Farsi. He immediately narrated the incident to Atmaram (P. W. 13), the son of Chowkidar Bhera (P. W. 5 ). Atmaram supported the evidence of Udaysingh and stated that he saw the appellants armed with sword, farsi, dhariya and lathis, going away fromthe house of Udaysingh. He further deposed that after narrating this incident to his father Bhera, hewent to the house of Nagusingh and told Mankunwarbai (P. W. 14) and Umaraosingh (P. W. 2), the widow and son of the deceased Nagusingh, that the appellants armed with the above said weapons chased Nagusingh and caused him injuries in the house of Udaysingh. Umaraosingh, Mankunwar and Madhav (P. W. 6) supported the statement of Atmaram. However, Chowkidar Bhera, the father of Atmaram deposed that Atmaram had told him that Bapusingh, Onkarsingh and Ratansingh had caused injuries to Nagusingh with sword and farsis. 6. From the evidence of Bhera, it seems that the appellants Gangabai, Lakshmansingh and Chainsingh did not go to the house of Udaysingh and caused injuries to Nagusingh. Had Atmaram seen these appellants going away from the house of Udaysingh, he would have told this fact to his father Bhera. 6. From the evidence of Bhera, it seems that the appellants Gangabai, Lakshmansingh and Chainsingh did not go to the house of Udaysingh and caused injuries to Nagusingh. Had Atmaram seen these appellants going away from the house of Udaysingh, he would have told this fact to his father Bhera. The evidence of Udaysingh that these appellants caused injuries to the deceased stands falsified by medical evidence also. Dr. Ghanshyam Dhawan (P. W. 3) and Dr. V. K. Garg (P. W. 1) did not find even a single injury caused by hard and blunt weapon. All the injuries found on the body of Nagusingh were incised wounds which could be caused by hard and sharp object. The version of Udaysingh and Sitabai that Gangabai come on the spot is not supported by Atmaram. He did not show for presence on the spot. According to Udaysingh and Atmaram, the appellant Chainsingh was empty handed while Sitabai deposed that he was having Danda in his hand. Udaisingh and Sitabai stated that Lakshmansingh was armed with dhariya while Atmaram deposed that he was having danda in his hand. Lakshmansingh and Gangabai are aged about 77 years and 66 years respectively. It does not appear probable that these appellants in such advanced age would come running on the spot and cause injuries to the deceased. 7. The learned trial Judge committed grave error in not taking into consideration the above mentioned facts and circumstances. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution failed to proved that the appellants Lakshmansingh, Chainsingh and Gangabai caused injuries to Nagusingh. It appears that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. 8. Now we have to see whether the appellants Bapusingh, Onkarsingh and Ratansingh caused injuries to Nagusingh. P. W. 10, Uday Singh, who is the sole eye-witness in this case who actually sawmar-peet,stated that all the appellants assaulted and gave sword, dhariya, farsi and lathi blows to the deceased. In paragraph No. 2 he made specific statement that the appellants Bapusingh and Ratansingh cut off the hand of Nagusingh by sword and farsi. As stated earlier, the part of the statement of this witness that Gangabai, Chainsingh and Lakshmansingh assaulted Nagusingh has been found false. He bore grudge against the appellants. Some contradictions have also occurred in his statement. But that by itself, in our view, is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence. As stated earlier, the part of the statement of this witness that Gangabai, Chainsingh and Lakshmansingh assaulted Nagusingh has been found false. He bore grudge against the appellants. Some contradictions have also occurred in his statement. But that by itself, in our view, is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence. There is no such hard and fast rule that, if a witness is disbelieved with regard to some accused persons, his testimony with regard to other accused should also be disbelieved. The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. In our opinion if a part of evidence of a witness is found truthful, it can be acted upon while rejecting the rest of it. So far as the evidence of Udaysingh relating to appellants Onkarsingh and Ratansingh is concerned, stands corroborated by the evidence of Atmaram and Sitabai. Sitabai (P. W. 12) saw these appellants entering her house armed with farsis. Atmaram (P. W. 13) saw them going away fromthe house of Uday Singh armed with farsis. Umraosingh (P. W. 2), Mankunwarbai (P. W. 14), Madhav (P. W. 6) and Bhera (P. W. 5) stated that Atmaram told them that these appellants armed with Farsis were going away from the house of Udaysingh. He also deposed that Udaysingh told him that these appellants caused injuries to the deceased with Farsis. This evidence is further corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Ghanshyam Dhawan (P. W. 3) and Dr. V. K. Garg (P. W. 1) found near about 13 incised wounds including amputation of left hand. Their names find place in Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P-7. Blood was found on the earth andbhagoniseized from the room of Udaysingh. From this evidence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants Onkar Singh and Ratan Singh caused injuries to the deceased by farsi blows. 9. So far as the case of the appellant Bapusingh is concerned, we are doubtful about his complicity in the crime. He was aged about 73 years at the time of incident. It does not appeal to reason thathe would run after Nagusingh and would give sword blows to him while his young sons-appellants Onkar Singh and Ratan Singh were present on the spot armed with farsis and were inflicting farsi blows to the deceased. He was aged about 73 years at the time of incident. It does not appeal to reason thathe would run after Nagusingh and would give sword blows to him while his young sons-appellants Onkar Singh and Ratan Singh were present on the spot armed with farsis and were inflicting farsi blows to the deceased. It is clear from the record that all the sons of Bapusingh, his brother Lakshmansingh aged about 75 years and his wife Gangabai aged about 66 years have been implicated. We, therefore, giving him benefit of doubt, hold him not guilty of the offence charged. 10. Now the question is as to what offence is made out against the appellants Onkar Singh and Ratan Singh. It is clear from the evidence on record that the appellants Onkar Singh and Ratansingh armed with deadly weapons (farsis) chased Nagusingh, when Nagusingh ran and entered the house of Udaysingh, they also followed him and gave farsi-blows and caused as many as 13 incised wounds. Ratansingh severed left hand of the deceased by farsi-blow. Dr. Ghanshyam Dhawan (P. W. 3) who conducted autopsy on the dead-body found four incised wounds on the head including fracture of right temporal bone, one incised wound on the left chest and one incised wound on back of the neck and amputation of left hand. There was laceration of brain also. Dr. Garg opined that the death was homicidal in nature and the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries specially fracture of skull, amputation of hand and laceration of brain. It is clear form the nature of the injuries and as they were inflicted on the vital parts of the body, we hold that the injuries were caused with intent to cause death. The appellants Onkarsingh and Ratansingh had common intention of causing death of Nagusingh. Thus, they have committed on offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I. P. C. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal, we acquit and appellants Bapusingh Lakshman Singh, Chainsingh and Gangabai of the offence charged and maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellants Onkarsingh and Ratansingh. However, they are convicted under Sections 302/34 of the I. P. C. in place of Sections 302/149 of the I. P. C. Appeal partly allowed. .