Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The trial of the appellant was split up from the other accused-persons as he was absconding. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted for the offence under Secs. 3 8s 5 of Explosive Substances Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as has been mentioned in the fardbeyan, is that one Jogendra Singh gave his fardbeyan before the Sub-Inspector of Police of Parsa Police Station on 10-6-1983 at about 8.25 p.m. that at about 7.45 p.m. he came from Bheldi at Parsa Bazar Chowk. His elder brother namely Bhola Singh was sitting in front of sahan of his Baithka facing west on chauki and was talking with one Shobha Rai. He reached at his Baithka to take his motor cycle to go to his house but there was some mechanical defect in the motor cycle as he was waiting for bus to go to his house. At about 8.10 p.m., he heard sound of bomb explosion causing injury to his brother who was sitting on the chauki. When he looked towards the direction from which the bomb had been thrown, he saw Rajan Rai (appellant), Kameshwar Rai, Tileshwar Rai, Sipahi Rai, Bankim Rai and Dasrath Rai having bags in their hands. All the six accused-persons threw bomb on his brother as a result of which he died on the chauki. He caught the waist of the appellant but he was rescued by accused Kameshwar Rai by giving blow on his leg from behind. Appellant Rajan Rai and accused Kameshwar Rai fled away towards west. Accused Bankim Rai & Dasrath Rai ran away towards north and accused Sipahi Rai and Tilesher Rai ran away towards south on a motor cycle, Sobha Rai, Ram Gobind Sao and Ram Ayodhya Rai were also there who had sustained splinter injuries on their person. He also sustained splinter injury on his hand and on right leg. The neighbours present at the time of occurrence might have identified the accused-persons. He also sustained splinter injury on his hand and on right leg. The neighbours present at the time of occurrence might have identified the accused-persons. The motive of occurrence was previous enmity with Rajan Rai and Tileshwar Rai who had attempted to kill the deceased 3 to 4 years ago by throwing bomb but he had escaped, A year before the alleged occurrence an attempt was also made to kill the informants brother by appellant Rajan Rai and Tileshwar Rai in Sunderpur orchard by throwing bomb for which a case was lodged in Daryapur Police Station. Deceased Bhola Singh had succeeded in election of Pramukh against Hazari Rai with whom he had differences. Accused persons are the men of Hazari Rai and as such they have committed the crime. 3. Fardbeyan was recorded at the place of occurrence within 15 minutes of the occurrence, Ext. 3. Formal First Information Report was registered at 9.30 p.m. Ext. 1. The investigation of the case was taken up. The Investigating Officer inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report, Ext. 9. He inspected the place of occurrence and found copious blood spread beneath the Chauki. He seized blood-stained earth and the splinter and prepared seizure list, Ext. 10. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Sadar Hospital, Chapra and thereafter, recorded the statement of witnesses. At 10.30 p.m. the Superintendent of Police came and supervised the case. He also sent the injury report of Jogendra Singh prepared by him to Parsa Hospital, Ext. 12 He also obtained sanction for prosecution of the accused-persons for offence under Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act. After completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-persons. On receipt of charge-sheet, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Accused Tileshwar Rai was killed in encounter with the police during pendency of the case. The remaining accused-persons, namely, Bankim Rai, Dasrath Rai, Sipahi Rai and Kameshwar Rai were separately tried in S.T. No. 245/83 as the appellant was absconding. Those accused-persons were convicted by the trial Court but .subsequently in appeal they were acquitted. The appellant has separately been tried and has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellant was that deceased Bhola Singh had animosity with several persons. Those accused-persons were convicted by the trial Court but .subsequently in appeal they were acquitted. The appellant has separately been tried and has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellant was that deceased Bhola Singh had animosity with several persons. He might have been killed by some other persons and the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 17 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 2 Wakil Rai, P.W. 3 Bijay Singh, and P.W. 5 Upendra Singh have claimed to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 9 Jogendra Singh is the informant and eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is formal witness and has proved his signature and signature of Dharamnath on certain documents. P.W. 4 is Chaukidar who took the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W. 6 is also formal witness who proved sanction order for prosecution of the accused for the offence under Sec. 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act. P.W. 7 has proved his signature on certain documents. P.W. 13 identified the dead body. P.W. 8 is police officer who sent the injured persons for examination to the Hospital P.W. 11 is the Officer-in-Charge of Daryaganj Police Station who executed warrant of arrest. P.W. 14 is Officer-in-Charge of Parsa Police Station at whose instance the appellant was remanded in this case. P.W. 17 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 is Doctor who held post-mortem over the dead body. P.W. 12 is also Doctor who examined the informant and prepared injury report P.W. 15 is also a Doctor who gave first aid to the injured witnesses and referred them to P.M.C.H. P.W. 16 is also a Doctor who examined the injured persons at P.M.C.H. 6. The place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence are not in dispute. However, learned Counsel for the appellant disputed participation of the appellant in the occurrence and pointed out that the eye-witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2,3,5 and 9 were also examined in Sessions trial No. 2345/83 as P.Ws, 3, 4, 2 and 5 respectively and on consideration of evidence available on the record the trial Court convicted accused Bankim Rai, Dashrath Rai, Sipahi Rat and Kameshwar Rai but on appeal they were acquitted as their evidence was not accepted by a Division Bench of this Court. The findings given by the aforesaid appellate Court in the above-mentioned case are relevant fact and as such on the evidence of same witnesses the appellant also deserves acquittal. 7. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that even acquittal of some of the accused-persons in the same trial cannot be a ground for acquittal of other accused-persons. The Maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not to be blindly invoked in appraising evidence adduced in the Court rather the Court is required to consider the evidence and disengage the truth from the falsehood. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Tana Patil V/s. The State of Maharashtra -- , has held as follows: The mere fact that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not firm and safe enough to be relied upon with regard to the part assigned to the acquitted accused in the occurrence, is no ground to reject it mechanically against the other accused also. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not to be blindly invoked in appraising evidence adduced in our Courts where witnesses seldom tell the whole truth, but often resort to exaggerations, embellishments and padding-up to support a story however true in the main. It is the function of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood and to accept what it finds to be true, and reject the rest. It is only where truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up, polluting beyond refinement, the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness that the Court might be justified in rejecting his evidence in toto. In the case of the acquitted accused, the requisite confirmation of the evidence of witnesses from independent sources may be lacking. This may not be so in the case of other accused. Therefore, it is evident that the ground taken by learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be aground for acquittal of the appellant. Moreover, in the instant case, the appellant was separately tried as he was absconding. Evidence of the witnesses was recorded separately. Thus, the case has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in the case. Therefore, it is evident that the ground taken by learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be aground for acquittal of the appellant. Moreover, in the instant case, the appellant was separately tried as he was absconding. Evidence of the witnesses was recorded separately. Thus, the case has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in the case. 8 P.W. 2 Wakil Rai, P.W. 3 Bijay Singh, P.W. 5 Upendra Singh and P.W. 9 Jogendra Singh, the informant, are eye-witnesses to the occurrence P.W. 9 stated in his evidence that on 10-6-1983 his brother Bhola Singh was sitting on a chauki in front of his Baithka. Some persons were talking with him. He was waiting for bus to go to his house as some defect had cropped up in his motor cycle. He heard sound of explosion of bomb and saw his brother Bhola Singh injured. Thereafter, accused-persons including the appellant threw bomb on him due to which he died then and there. He cought hold waist of the appellant but accused Kameshwar Rai gave blow on his leg from behind due to which he fell down and the appellant ran away. He, Sobha Rai, Ram Govind Sao and Ram Ayodhya Rai also sustained injury. The aforesaid injured-persons out of fear of the accused-persons did not want to depose in the case. The injured persons were taken to the Hospital and he remained with his brother, the deceased. He identified the culprits in electric light and also patromax. The police c- .tie within 10 minutes and he recorded his fardbeyan. The police seized blood-stained earth, splinters found at the place of occurrence and prepared Inquest report. He also showed the injury on his person to the Investigating Officer. Injury on hi. person was simple. He remained busy in funeral of deceased brother Bhola Singh as he had taken Uttari and in that condition he went to the Hospital for examination of his injury. The statement of witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 & 5 was recorded at the place of occurrence. He also stated that earlier also the appellant attempted to kill his brother. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing cogent could be elicited to discredit his evidence rather in cross-examination the witness testified his evidence in chief. 9. P.Ws. 2, 3 & 5 have also claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He also stated that earlier also the appellant attempted to kill his brother. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing cogent could be elicited to discredit his evidence rather in cross-examination the witness testified his evidence in chief. 9. P.Ws. 2, 3 & 5 have also claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. However, their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report as witness to the occurrence, P.W. 2 stated in his evidence that P.W. 9 is brother of the deceased. He was at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and saw the accused-persons including the appellant with jhola. They threw bomb on Bhola Singh who was sitting on Chauki in front of his Baithka, Sobha Rai, Ram Govind Sao, Ram Ayodhya Rai and the informant also sustained splinter injuries. He took the injured-persons to the Hospital. He identified the culprits in the electric light and patromax. In cross-examination., the witness stated that after purchasing vegetables he was waiting at the place of occurrence for vehicle to go to his house. P.Ws. 3, 5 & 9 were also There, His statement *"s recorded at the place of occurrence in the night itself. The witness was cross-examined at length and he stood the test of cross-examination. Nothing cogent could be elicited by the defence to discredit the evidence of the witness. 10. P.W. 3 is Panchayat Sewak. He stated in his evidence that he was at the place of occurrence. Deceased Bhola Singh was sitting on the Chauki in front of his Baithka. He heard sound of the bomb explosion and saw the accused-persons who were throwing bomb on him. He was examined in the night itself. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that he had come to attend the meeting in the Block Office. He stayed there as he had to purchase some articles. He had come at the place of occurrence about five minutes before the occurrence. He went to the hospital with the injured persons. P.Ws. 2 and 5 were also at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited to discredit his evidence rather it appears that witness stood the test of cross-examination. 11. P.W. 5 is cousin of deceased. He went to the hospital with the injured persons. P.Ws. 2 and 5 were also at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited to discredit his evidence rather it appears that witness stood the test of cross-examination. 11. P.W. 5 is cousin of deceased. He stated that he was taking tea at the place of occurrence and his cousin Bhola Singh was sitting on Chauki in front of Baithka. He saw the accused including appellant throwing bomb on Bhola Singh. He identified the culprits in electric light and patromax. Sobha Rai, Ram Gobind Sao, Ram Ayodhya Rai and the informant also sustained splinter injuries. The injured persons were taken to hospital and the informant remained with the deceased. The informant caught hold the appellant but accused Kameshwar Rai gave blow on his leg from behind due to which he fell down and the appellant succeeded in running away. Bhola Singh, the deceased, had business at Parsa Bazar, the place of occurrence. The witness also stated animosity with the appellant Raj an Rai as he had attempted earlier to kill Bhola Singh, the deceased. The witness was cross-examined m detail but nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony rather it appears that he stood the test of cross-examination. 12. P.W. 10 is a doctor, who held post-mortem over the dead body of Bhola Singh on 11-6-1983 at 7.20 a.m. The doctor has stated in his evidence that he found splinter injuries on the chest and lace of the deceased. Injuries were ante mortem caused by bomb explosion. The time elapse since death was 6 to 12 hours. The injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. Thus, the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case with regard to time and manner of occurrence. P.W. 12 is also a doctor, who examined the informant. He stated that he examined informant, P.W. 9 on 15-6-1983 and found four injuries on his person which were caused by bomb explosion. Injuries were simple in nature. Therefore, the claim of the informant that he also sustained injuries is supported by the evidence of the doctor. 13. P.W. 17 is the [investigating Officer. He stated that he examined informant, P.W. 9 on 15-6-1983 and found four injuries on his person which were caused by bomb explosion. Injuries were simple in nature. Therefore, the claim of the informant that he also sustained injuries is supported by the evidence of the doctor. 13. P.W. 17 is the [investigating Officer. He stated in his evidence that he heard sound of bomb explosion at about 8.10 p.m. He went to the place if occurrence along with other police officials and found the dead body of Bhola Singh on Chauki in front of his Baithka. The dead body was in pool of blood. He recorded the fardbeyan of informant, Yogendra Singh at 8.25 p.m. and prepared inquest report then and there. He inspected the place of occurrence and found copious blood beneath the Chauki and also splinters around the Chauki. He seized blood-stained earth and splinters and prepared seizure list. He went to the police station and recorded formal first information report and again returned to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses. The Superintendent of police also came at 10.30 p.m. and supervised the case. He obtained post-mortem report and also sanction order for prosecution of the accused under Secs. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He stated that he found injuries on the person of the informant and sent him for examination to the hospital. Nothing could be elicited to discredit his evidence in cross-examination. 14. Thus, it is evident from the discussions of evidence of the witnesses that eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case on all material points. However, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 should not be accepted as they were not named as witness in the first information report. In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention that naming of the witness in the first information report is not at all necessary. There may be a case where the informant may not have seen the person present at the place of occurrence but the persons may have seen the occurrence if such witness claims to be present at the place of occurrence. However, evidence of such witness should be scrutinised cautiously to determine the presence of the witness. There may be a case where the informant may not have seen the person present at the place of occurrence but the persons may have seen the occurrence if such witness claims to be present at the place of occurrence. However, evidence of such witness should be scrutinised cautiously to determine the presence of the witness. The evidence of the aforesaid witness has been discussed in details and they were cross-examined at length but the learned Counsel could not be able to suggest any part of the evidence to show that their presence at the relevant time at the place of occurrence becomes doubtful. In the case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Ani @ Hanif and Ors. -- , the Apex Court has held that non-mentioning the name of the witness in the first information report is not fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, on consideration we dc not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant next pointed out that in the First Information Report itself, it has been stated that Sobha Rai was talking with the deceased and other two persons, namely, Ram Govind Sao and Ram Ayodhya Rai were also present. They received injury at the place of occurrence but they were not examined by the prosecution. They have been examined as defence witness and they have stated categorically that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, due to non-examination of injured persons an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that informant P.W. 9 has categorically stated in his evidence that out of fear of the accused-persons, the injured persons were not ready to depose in this case on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, stand of the prosecution as stated by P.W. 9 that out of fear of the accused-persons, they were not ready to depose on behalf of the prosecution clinches the stand taken by learned Counsel for the defence and it can safely be said that evidence of the informant, P.W. 9 to the aforesaid effect explains the circumstance for their non-examination. 16. Thus, on consideration in any view of the matter, non-examination of injured persons in view of the evidence of P.W. 9 cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. No other point was raised. 17. 16. Thus, on consideration in any view of the matter, non-examination of injured persons in view of the evidence of P.W. 9 cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. No other point was raised. 17. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed the bail-bond of the appellant who is on bail is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve remaining period of sentence.