JUDGMENT Misra, J. -- 1. History records sometimes with perplexity and sometimes with stoic acceptance the manner in which ambitious sons in furtherance of their uncontrollable lust for power and their impatience to achieve it, had, thrown their progenitors behind the prison walls or had ruthlessly contrived their ignoble ends and justified the cruel conduct by solemn indifference. It is well-known that a son may pardon his father's murderer but does not excuse the person who makes adroit attempts to snatch away his patrimony, but in the case in hand the father Bisaru had nothing to offer and the son, Chaitu had nothing to inherit. An old father of 60 with his sonly obsession chastised his unemployed inebriated son but the chastisement provoked the drunken youth who yielding to the inferior endowment of his lowly nature gave a blow with 'Luta; picking the same from burning fire on the back portion of the head of the old father who could not sustain the bum of injury and ultimately succumbed to the same after three days. 2. The genesis of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution, in essence, are as follows :-The accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and not inclined to work either for himself or for the family for which there has been disputes between him and his father. In the evening of 8.1 0.84 at about 8 p.m. while deceased Bisar was sitting in the side of the fire in front of his house, the accused reached in an intoxicated state. The deceased reprimanded him. Intolerent of this reprimand the accused gave blow with 'Luta' on the back portion of the head of his father who became unconscious and was removed to the hospital for treatment where after three days he expired. The incident was reported at the concerned police station on 12.10.84 by PW-3 and the intimation of his death was also given from the hospital. After completing all the formalities the challan was filed before the competent Court. 3. The accused took the plea of complete denial and false implication due to animosity. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined 11 witnesses. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. After completing all the formalities the challan was filed before the competent Court. 3. The accused took the plea of complete denial and false implication due to animosity. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined 11 witnesses. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. The learned II Additional Judge to Sessions Judge Camp Kanker on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly he convicted the accused/appellant under section 302. IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.'. 6. Shri Sanjay Agarwal learned counsel appearing for the appellant impugning the judgment of conviction has contended that the learned trial Judge has committed a palpable error by accepting the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to altercation between the accused and his father though in their cross-examination they have clearly admitted that they had not seen the assault by the accused on their father. It is further submitted by him that the reliance on PW -3 by the Court below is misplaced inasmuch as the said witness was not an eye-witness as for his version in the FIR and more so, he could not have been an eye-witness as he was not in a position to see the occurrence. Shri Agarwal has also proponed that the accused has been falsely implicated because of the dispute over the ancestral property but the same has not been scrutinised in proper perspective by the learned trial Judge which makes the judgment of conviction incurably vulnerable. It is also contended that some of the material witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been offered for the same. The learned trial Judge should have drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. The last plank of submission put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the instant case even if the assault is proved, the appellant should have been punished under section 304 Part-II, IPC as there has been no intention to commit murder but the occurrence emerged because the accused as well as the deceased was in an intoxicated state, and moreover a singular blow was given. 7. 7. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned Government Advocate completing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that inference drawn by the Court below from the evidence ofPW-1 and PW-2 with regard to the factum of altercation, has been done properly and the same cannot be found fault-with. He has urged with vehemance that the grounds of attack in appeal to declare the version of PW -3 as incredulous has no justification as his evidence has remained unshaken on all scores. It has been highlighted by him that the jt4dgment of conviction by the learned trial Judge is cogent and based on proper analysis of evidence in record and the same is, in fact, impregnable. 8. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the bar, we have perused the impugned judgment with utmost care and anxiety. We have appreciated the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the doctor, PW - 3 who had conducted postmortem on the dead-body had noticed the following injuries :- (i) Abrasion over the left lower lip and (ii) Haematoma over vertex That doctor has opined that he had found clotted blood under skull on the right frontal parietal region and fracture of tight parietal frontal bones. He has clearly stated that the death was due to head injury. We notice that the Court below has scrutinised the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and has observed that these witnesses are not eye-witnesses but their testimony to the extent that there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused cannot be disbelieved. Shri Agarwal had tried to impress upon us that when the Court below has not believed these witnesses as eye-wtnesses, he should have totally ignored their evidence. It is well settled in law that a testimony of witnesses can be partially accepted and taken into consideration. The doctrine ''falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India. To satisfy ourselves we have also perused the evidence of these two witnesses and we are of the considered view, reliance placed by the learned trial Judge for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion in regard to the altercation between the appellant and his father has been correctly done, and we do not see any compelling reason to differ with the same. 9. 9. As far as the evidence of PW -3 is concerned he has categorically deposed with regard to the altercation as well as the assault. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the FIR to point out that the said witness while lodging the FIR has not stated that he had the occasion to see the occurrence. We find that such a position really does not clearly flow from the FIR. Quite apart from that, we also notice that this aspect has not been confronted to the said witness. It is perceptible from the evidence on record that there was no obstruction which could have hindered the vision of this witness to see the assault. Though, an attempt has been made before us to highlight that there has been hostility between the brothers over family property nothing has been suggested in this regard to the prosecution witnesses. In absence of any positive evidence or suggestion to that extent, we are constrained to hold that such a plea at this belated stage is spacious and mercurial. We find no reason not to place reliance on the evidence of PW -3, in our considered opinion, his version passes close scrutiny and the trial Judge has rightly relied upon his evidence the same being unimpeachable. 10. In regard to the submission of the learned counsel that material witness namely Sukamati has not been examined, we are of the view that the prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses. It is the quality of the evidence which matters but not the quantity. 11. Now, to the last plank of submission of learned counsel for the appel1ant, on a perusal of the matters on record, we find that the accused was in a drunken state and was unemployed. It has also been admitted by PW-I that their father had consumed liquor. The PW-3 has also stated that when the father castigated the accused for his drinking habit, the accused gave a blow on the head. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that only a singular blow was given. It is also evident from the evidence on record, that the deceased was old and sickly. The PW-3 has also stated that when the father castigated the accused for his drinking habit, the accused gave a blow on the head. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that only a singular blow was given. It is also evident from the evidence on record, that the deceased was old and sickly. Though we stated at the beginning about the ambitious, impatient, unscrupulous and intolerent sons subjecting themselves to their avaricious desires and behave unbehavely but in the case at hand, the fact situation is different and we repoeat that the son had nothing to get but he failed to control his anger because of his drunkenness. Because of these redeeming features and because of the singular blow, we are of the considered view the offence committed by the accused would come under section 304 Part-II of IPC and accordingly, we convert the same. As he has been in custody since 1984 and has served the maximum setnence imposable for the aforesaid offence we direct that he should be released forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed in part.