JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the accused Mansingh and Shriram against the judgment & order dated 25-9-93 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kukshi, District Dhar, in S.T. No. 229/92 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in village Haldi, Ajmersingh (P.W. 1) was running flour mill. There was dispute of this land and the land adjacent to it between him and the appellant Mansingh. On the date of incident Le. 26-2-92 at about 5 p.m. the appellants and acquitted accused Mahendra, Rajendra and Manohar, the sons of appellant Mansingh and Lakshman entered the flour-mill and caused injuries to Ajmersingh and asked him to remove the flour-mill and also demolish the house standing thereon. The appellant Mansingh and Shriram gave him Faliya -blows and other appellants caused him injuries with lathi and other weapons. Ranjeet, Lakshman (P.W. 4), Kailash and Beserbai came to rescue Ajmersingh. They were also beaten by the accused persons. Hearing commotion, Vikramsingh (P.W. 2), the brother of Ajmersingh, came there and asked his father Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh to go to P.S. Kukshi and lodge report against the accused persons who had already left for police station. On this, the deceased Kunwarsingh and Dilip went to the police station on their Rajdoot motor-cycle No. C.I.N. 5528. When they reached near the field of Hattu Baba, the appellants surrounded them and felled them down from the motor-cycle in a pit and appellants gave them Faliya -blows and other accused persons inflicted injuries with lathi, bow and other weapons. Gajendrasingh (P.W. 6) and Ratnsingh (P.W. 7) witnessed the incident. They ran to village Haldi and informed Vikramsingh, Anarbai (P.W. 8), wife of deceased Dilip and Mohnibai, wife of Kunwarsingh that the appellants were assaulting the deceased persons. Kishan (P.W. 14) also saw the incident from other corner and he also gave information of this incident to the family members of the deceased. Immediately Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) went on the spot. He found both the deceased dead. They were having several injuries. He went to P.S. Haldi and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-14 which was reduced to writing by Ajit Tiwari, Sub- Inspector (P.W. 15). Ajit Tiwari (P.W. 15) registered crime and started investigation. He reached the spot and prepared spot-map Ex. Immediately Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) went on the spot. He found both the deceased dead. They were having several injuries. He went to P.S. Haldi and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-14 which was reduced to writing by Ajit Tiwari, Sub- Inspector (P.W. 15). Ajit Tiwari (P.W. 15) registered crime and started investigation. He reached the spot and prepared spot-map Ex. P-2 near the field of Hattu-Baba and Ex. P-3 where flour-mill was installed. He conducted inquest on the dead-body of Kunwarsingh and Dilip and prepared inquest report Ex. P-6 and P-7 respectively. He collected stained and unstained earth vide seizure memo Exs. P-25 and 26 from the places where the dead- bodies were lying and seized them vide seizure memos Ex. P-25 and 26. He also seized the Rajdoot motor-cycle C.I.N. 5528 and part of Faliya and one arrow vide seizure memo Ex. P-27. He sent the dead-bodies for post-mortem examination and other injured persons for medical examination. T.I.R. Verma (P.W. 16) arrested the appellants on 27-2-92 vide arrest memo Ex. P-8. The appellant Shriram gave information that he had concealed Faliya and would recover the same. This information memo has been marked Ex. P-19. The appellant Mansingh also gave information which was reduced to writing by him and has been marked Ex. P-20 and thereafter both these appellants gave Faliyas which were seized vide seizure memos Ex. P-9 and P-10 and some weapons were also seized at the instance of other acquitted co-accused. Dr. R.C. Patidar (P.W. 11) performed post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Kunwarsingh and found the following: 1. Incised wound on right cheek which had gone up to right ear, which had lacerated brain, 1" x 1, 1/2'' x brain deep. 2. Incised wound on the right forehead on frontal region 8" x 1/2''x bone deep. 3. Incised wound on right chest 6" x 4, 1/2'' x bone deep cutting 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs. 4. Penetrating wound on chest 1" x 1/2'' x lung deep. It had cut 1/4'' x 1/4'' area of the right lung. 5. Penetrating wound 1" x 1/2'' x lung deep. It had also caused injury in 1/4'' x 1/4'' area of the right lung. Dr. Patidar opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal. The cause of death was shock as a result of haemorrhage vide report Ex. P-16. Dr. It had cut 1/4'' x 1/4'' area of the right lung. 5. Penetrating wound 1" x 1/2'' x lung deep. It had also caused injury in 1/4'' x 1/4'' area of the right lung. Dr. Patidar opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal. The cause of death was shock as a result of haemorrhage vide report Ex. P-16. Dr. C.K. Jain conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Dilip and found the following injuries: 1. Incised wound on forehead which had gone from left eye- brow to last part of occipital bone lacerating brain 11" x 2" x brain deep. 2. Incised wound on left ear which had gone up to middle part of the skull 6" x 1". 3. Incised wound on chin 3" x 11" x bonedeep. 4. Penetrating wound on scapular region 1" x 1". 5. Incised wound on left knee-joint 12" x 6", cutting bone tissues and blood vessels. It was nearly amputated. Dr. Jain opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The cause of death was excessive haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused to the vital part of the body vide report Ex. P-15. 4. The seized weapons, earth and clothes of the deceased were sent to F.S.L. Sagar for chemical examination. The chemical examiner found blood stains on the Faliyas seized from the appellants and on the clothes of the deceased. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellants and acquitted accused were charged of the offences under Sections 147,148, 307/149,323 and 302 of the I.P.C. Lakshman was charged with offence under Section 120, IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and false implication due to enmity. Their defence is that the complainant party attacked them and caused injuries. The appellant Shriram lodged F.I.R. Ex. D-l0 on the same day i.e. 26-2-92 at 6:00 p.m. On his report Crime No. 126/92 was registered for offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. against the members of the complainant party. The appellant Shriram was medically examined. He had two lacerated wounds, one on near left ear and the other 1" above this injury vide Ex. D-12. Accused Manohar died during trial. The appellant Shriram was medically examined. He had two lacerated wounds, one on near left ear and the other 1" above this injury vide Ex. D-12. Accused Manohar died during trial. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence convicted the appellants Shriram and Mansingh under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and acquitted all the accused of the charges of offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323, 302 and 120 of the I.P.C. Hence, this appeal. 5. Shri A. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302, IPC. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses with regard to accused persons Mahendra and Rajendra but believed the same evidence with regard to the appellants. He submitted that the name of eye-witness Kishar. does not find place in the F.I.R. It clearly shows that he is a planted witness. He further submitted that the witnesses Gajendra Singh and Ramsingh arc interested witnesses. The appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity. He argued that the complainant party had caused injuries to the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the appellants should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC. He further submitted that even otherwise it has not been proved which particular fatal injury was caused by which of the accused and there is no charge under Section 302/34, IPC, therefore, they could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC. On the other hand, Shri G. Desai, learned Dy. A.G. submitted that the Trial Judge discussed the evidence of these witnesses in detail and he rightly put reliance on their testimony. 6. We considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and went through the evidence on record. 7. The fact of homicidal death of Kunwarji and Dilip on 26-2-92 has not been disputed before us and rightly so as it is amply proved from the inquest report Ex. P-6, P-7, post-mortem reports Ex. P-15 & P-16 and the medical evidence and other occular evidence. 8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants Shriram and Mansingh killed the deceased persons ? 9. Admittedly, there was a dispute about the land on which Ajmersingh had established flour mill and the land adjacent to it between Ajmersingh and the appellants. P-15 & P-16 and the medical evidence and other occular evidence. 8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants Shriram and Mansingh killed the deceased persons ? 9. Admittedly, there was a dispute about the land on which Ajmersingh had established flour mill and the land adjacent to it between Ajmersingh and the appellants. The evidence of Ajmersingh (P.W. 1), Kailash (P.W. 3), Lakshman Singh (P.W. 4), Ranjeetsingh (P.W. 5) and Beserbai (P.W. 6) is that on the date of incident at about 5 - 5:30 p.m. the appellants and other co-accused persons came near the flour mill and assaulted Ajmersingh. When Lakshman, Kailash, Beserbai etc. came to save him, they were also assaulted. Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) who is a teacher in the school situate at Haldi where appellant No. 1 Shriram was Headmaster, called Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh and asked them to go to P.S. Kukslii and lodge report against the appellants. It has come in the evidence of Ajmersingh, Vikramsingh, Lakshman, Ranjeet-singh, Ramsingh that Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh left village Haldi on motorcycle for P.S. Kukshi. It has come in the evidence of Vikramsingh that after about 1/2 an hour Gajendrasingh (P.W. 6) and Ramsingh (P.W. 7) came to him and told that the appellants were assaulting Kunwarsingh and Dilip near the agricultural field of Hattu-Baba. Hearing this, he (Vikramsingh) went to the field of Hattu-Baba. He saw that in the side of the road in a pit Kunwarsingh and Dilip were lying dead with injuries on their bodies and their motor-cycle was also lying in a pit. He went to P.S. Kukshi and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-14 at 19:15. The evidence of these witnesses and Dr. Kailash Malviya (P.W. 19) examined Ajmersingh and Ajmersingh, Kailash, Beserbai, Lakshmansingh, Ranjeetsingh were examined by Dr. Jain vide report Exs. P-34, P-35, P-36, P-37 and P-38. Appellant Shriram also lodged F.I.R. Ex. D-10 at 6:20 p.m. on the same day. Dr. Jain (P.W. 17) also examined appellant Shriram on the same day and found two lacerated wounds on his skull vide report Ex. D-12. This evidence clearly proves that some 'Mar-peet' took place about 5 p.m. in village Haldi between the complainant party and the accused party, therefore, as Vikramsingh and Ajmersingh etc. stated, they sent Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh on motor-cycle to Police Station, Kukshi to lodge F.I.R., the appellants had already gone to police station to lodge report. D-12. This evidence clearly proves that some 'Mar-peet' took place about 5 p.m. in village Haldi between the complainant party and the accused party, therefore, as Vikramsingh and Ajmersingh etc. stated, they sent Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh on motor-cycle to Police Station, Kukshi to lodge F.I.R., the appellants had already gone to police station to lodge report. 10. It has come in the evidence of Gajendrasingh (P.W. 6) and Ramsingh (P.W. 7) that on the date of incident i.e., 26-2-92 they were going to Palasi from Haldi. At about 6 - 6:15 p.m. when they came near the field of Hattu-Baba they saw that the appellants Mansingh, Shriram, Manohar, Rajcndra, Mahendra and Lakshman were assaulting Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh. Mansingh and Shriram were armed with Faliyas, Manohar with bow & arrow and Rajendra with lathi and Mahendra with Pirani. Seeing this incident they ran to Haldi and narrated the incident to Vikramsingh, the son of Kunwarsingh. Gajendrasingh in cross- examination deposed that Kunwarsingh was being beaten by all the accused persons and Shriram was assaulting Dilipsingh. The same statement was made by Ramsingh in cross-examination. Of course Ramsingh stated that Dilipsingh sustained Faliya-blow on his leg while Kunwarsingh was caused Faliya-blovt on his head. This fact does not find place in his police statement Ex. D-5. But it does not make him unreliable witness. Police officer docs not cross-examine a witness. When in cross-examination, it was asked as to where Faliya-blows were given, the witness gave this answer. Gajendrasingh stated that they called Vikramsingh separately and narrated him the incident. In his police statement and statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. 'separate' word has not been used. In our opinion, this is not a material omission and it carries no weight. 11. Kishan (P.W. 14) deposed that on the date of incident he returned from Kukshi travelling in a truck. He got down on Plasi-Phata and started on foot for Haldi. When he reached near Sindhi-valley he saw the appellants assaulting Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh with Faliya, lathi and Pirani. Seeing this he ran towards Palasi. He stated that the accused persons stopped a passenger hus of Kanchan company and boarded it and took the bus back to Kukshi. Thereafter he returned to village Haldi. He saw Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh lying in a pit. They were injured. They had died. Seeing this he ran towards Palasi. He stated that the accused persons stopped a passenger hus of Kanchan company and boarded it and took the bus back to Kukshi. Thereafter he returned to village Haldi. He saw Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh lying in a pit. They were injured. They had died. He stated in cross-examination that he also saw Ramsingh and Gajendrasingh witnessing this incident. They were standing 75-100 steps away from the place of occurrence. He witnessed this incident from distance of 75-100 steps. He stated that Manohar was having lathi in his hand while Gajendrasingh and Ramsingh told that he had a bow & arrow. He stated that he went to the house of Dilipsingh and narrated the incident lo his wife Anarbai (P.W. 8) and his mother. Anarbai corroborated his evidence. It is true that in police statement Ex. D-4 it is not mentioned that he narrated the incident to the wife and mother of Dilipsingh, but it is mentioned therein that he went lo the house of Dilipsingh and narrated the incident. In view of above, the omission of non-mentioning of the name of Anarbai becomes of little importance. Kishan's name does not find place in F.I.R. Ex. P-14 but it was natural, as Kishan did not narrate this incident to Vikramsingh when he lefl for Kukshi for lodging reporl. It is also true that Gajendrasingh and Ramsingh slated that they did not sec Kishan near the spot at the time of incident. It may be that the place from where Kishan wasstanding was not visible to these witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses has been corroborated by Vikramsingh. The name of Gajendrasingh and Ramsingh find place in F.I.R. Ex. P-14 which was lodged just after 45 minutes of the incident. The evidence of these eye-witnesses further stands corroboraled from the medical evidence. Dr. R.C. Patidar (P.W. 11) who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Kunwarsingh, found three incised wounds and two penetrated wounds and Dr. C.K. Jain (P.W. 10) four incised wounds and one penetrating wound on the dead-body of Dilipsingh. The incised wounds could be caused by Faliya. These witnesses had no animosity against the accused. Kishan and Gajendrasingh are not related in any way to the deceased. Ramsingh is not near relation of the deceased. Vikramsingh staled that Ramsingh was his father's uncle's son. 12. The incised wounds could be caused by Faliya. These witnesses had no animosity against the accused. Kishan and Gajendrasingh are not related in any way to the deceased. Ramsingh is not near relation of the deceased. Vikramsingh staled that Ramsingh was his father's uncle's son. 12. It was also argued that the prosecution witnesses Beserbai (P.W. 9) and Ajmersingh (P.W. 1) staled that the first occurrence took place at 5:30 p.m. and after half hour of this incident Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh left for Kukshi, then how the deceased persons could murder them at 5:30 p.m. and reach police station and lodge F.I.R. Ex. D-10 at 6:20 - 6:30 p.m. Il was contended that this fact clearly proves that some other persons had killed the deceased persons and due to enmity they were falsely implicated. It is true that according to Ajmersingh (P.W. 1) and Kailash (P.W. 3) this incident took place at 5 - 5:30 p.m. and according to Beserbai (P.W. 9) and Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) it happened at 5:30 p.m. Except Vikramsingh, these witnesses are rustic villagers. They are members of Bhil-Bhilala tribe. It cannot be accepted from them that they will tell the correct lime. The evidence of these witnesses and the F.I.R. Ex. D-10 lodged by the appellant Shriram clearly prove that the first incident took place at about 5 p.m. and as Vikramsingh staled, the deceased were called and were asked to go to police station. Vikramsingh deposed that it had taken 15-20 minutes in bringing motor-cycle and after about half an hour at 5:30 p.m. Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh started for Kukshi on their Rajdoot motor-cycle. It must have taken not more than 5 minutes in reaching the place of occurrence which was not more than 1 - 1 1/2 kms. away from village Haldi. The accused persons who were also going to police station saw them coming there. They attacked them and felled them on the ground as stated by the eye-witnesses and just after this incident the appellants proceeded and found Kanchan bus coming from Kukshi. They stopped it and took it back to Kukshi and reached police station at 6:15 or 20 and lodged F.I.R. Ex. D-10. They attacked them and felled them on the ground as stated by the eye-witnesses and just after this incident the appellants proceeded and found Kanchan bus coming from Kukshi. They stopped it and took it back to Kukshi and reached police station at 6:15 or 20 and lodged F.I.R. Ex. D-10. As Vikramsingh stated, after about half an hour i.e., at about 6p.m. Gajcndrasingh and Ramsingh informed him of the incident and immediately thereafter he reached the spot and saw the dead-body of his father Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh and went to Police Station, Kukshi and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-14 at 7:15 p.m. As stated earlier, Gajendrasingh, Ramsingh and Kishan deposed that the incident took place at about 6 - 6:15 p.m. and they reached village Haldi within 5 - 10 minutes and informed Vikramsingh. Thus, in view of the time mentioned in F.I.R. Ex. D-10 lodged by the appellant Shriram and F.I.R. Ex. P-14 made by Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) and the time stated by these witnesses, the argument of the defence that the appellants were not present on the spot, at that time they were in police station, is not acceptable. In F.I.R. Ex. P-14, the distance of place of occurrence from Police Station, Kukshi has been shown to be 15 kms. and this distance could be covered within 20 minutes by a bus. 13. Recovery of weapons of offence and find of blood thereon also corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses. It has come in the evidence of R. Verma (P.W. 16), T.I. P.S. Kukshi that he arrested the appellants on 27-2-92. The appellant Mansingh made disclosure statement and gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had concealed the iron Faliya in his house, he will produce the same. This information was reduced to writing by him, it has been marked as Ex. P-20 and thereafter the appellant Mansingh gave Faliya from his house which was seized under seizure memo Ex. P-21. This witness also stated that the appellant Shriram also gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had concealed iron Faliya in a field near straight valley. This information has been marked Ex. P-19 and thereafter this appellant Shriram took him to the field and from there gave Faliya which was seized vide memo Ex. P-21. P-21. This witness also stated that the appellant Shriram also gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had concealed iron Faliya in a field near straight valley. This information has been marked Ex. P-19 and thereafter this appellant Shriram took him to the field and from there gave Faliya which was seized vide memo Ex. P-21. The statement of R. Verma has been corroborated by independent witness Narayan (P.W. 13) and from this evidence it is proved that the appellants recovered Faliyas. It has come in the evidence that these Faliyas, stained and unstained earth and other articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar for chemical examination. It is clear from the F.S.L. report that these Faliyas were found stained with blood. 14. It was also contended that on the basis of the evidence, which has been found unreliable with regard to the accused Mahendra, Rajendra and Lakshman, appellants could not be convicted. This contention has no force. There is no any such rule that, if evidence of a witness is not believed with regard to some accused, his evidence with regard to other accused should also be rejected. As the Apex Count in case of Sohrab and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 SC 2020, observed the maximum 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Even contradictions and omissions occurred in the evidence of truthful witness due to weak memory and power of observation. The evidence of these witnesses was found contradictory to medical evidence with regard to the other accused, therefore, the learned Trial Judge acquitted them. The evidence of these witnesses with regard to the appellants is reliable. It has been corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses and medical evidence. The recovery of the weapons and find of blood thereon further gave strength to the prosecution story. This argument is, therefore, rejected. 15. In our opinion, in view of above, the learned Trial Judge rightly put reliance on the testimony of Gajendrasingh, Ramsingh and Kisan and held that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants with intention to cause deaths of the deceased Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh, caused injuries to them, as a result of which they died. 15. In our opinion, in view of above, the learned Trial Judge rightly put reliance on the testimony of Gajendrasingh, Ramsingh and Kisan and held that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants with intention to cause deaths of the deceased Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh, caused injuries to them, as a result of which they died. It is true that a separate charge under Section 302/34, IPC was not framed against these appellants but there is no bar for convicting these appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC. No prejudice has been caused to the case of these appellants. 16. In the result, this appeal is without substance and deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before the Trial Judge and the Trial Judge shall take necessary action to take them in custody for serving out the jail-sentence. 17. Criminal Appeal dismissed.