Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. On 2.11.1992, at about 8.45 A.M., Balbir Singh followed by Sher Singh, PW.2, left his house on a bicycle and was going to Fazilka City for doing Palledari work. When Balbir Singh reached near the field of Gulshan son of Dewan Chand. Teja Singh armed with a kirpan, Prem Singh armed with a Kappa an Makhan Singh armed with a Gandasa emerged from the cotton field of Angrez Singh. Makhan Singh raised a lalkara that what for he (Balbir Singh appellant) is waiting for and Balbir Singh deceased should not be allowed to escape. At this Balbir Singh appellant armed with a Gandasa came running from the cotton field belonging to the Government. Teja Singh appellant inflicted a Kirpan blow from its sharp side on the right arm of Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh threw the bicycle and tried to run towards his left hand side towards the field. Prem Singh and Makhan Singh chased and surrounded him. Prem Singh inflicted a Kappa blow on his head as a result of which Balbir Singh fell down on the ground. While he was lying on the ground all the aforesaid four accused continued causing injuries with their respective weapons to Balbir Singh hitting on his head, neck, arms and chest. Sher Singh, PW.2 raised alarm hearing which Kashmir Singh, PW.3 attracted to the scene of occurrence. Thereafter Balbir Singh and Makhan Singh accused went towards Fazilka city with their respective weapons whereas Prem Singh and Teja Singh went towards the village. Balbir Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 2. Sher Singh, PW.2 went to lodge the report to the police. On the way in the area of village Salemsheh, he met ASI Sulakhan Singh, PW.5 before whom he made his statement Ex. PF at 10.30 A.M. and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PF/2 was recorded at the Police Station. The said ASI visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report Ex. PD, sent a request for post mortem examination vide Ex. PC. He also inspected the spot, lifted blood stained earth from near the dead body and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. The Investigating officer also lifted stained earth from the place of occurrence and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG/l. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PL. PC. He also inspected the spot, lifted blood stained earth from near the dead body and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. The Investigating officer also lifted stained earth from the place of occurrence and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG/l. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PL. He took into possession the bicycle lying near the road near the deadbody vide recovery memo Ex. PH. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Prem Singh and Teja Singh accused were arrested on 23.11.1992 from their houses. On interrogation Prem Singh accused vide his disclosure statement Ex. PM got recovered Dattar Ex. P 1 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PM/2. Similarly, on interrogation Teja Singh accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement of Ex. PN got recovered Kirpan Ex. P2 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN/2. 3. The post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashwani Luna, PW.1, who found atleast 25 injuries on the person of the deceased which was mostly incised wounds. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to brain and major neck vessels as a result of injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex. PA is the copy of the postmortem report. 4. All the four accused were put to trial and the version taken up by way of plea of defence was that Toshan Bai wife of Prem Singh had illicit intimacy with the deceased. The said lady and the deceased were seen in a compromising position and therefore, Prem Singh claimed that he had killed not only the deceased Balbir Singh under a state of mind of grave and sudden provocation but also his wife Toshan Bai. Other accused persons calmed that they were falsely involved and that they were innocent. However, the learned trial Judge did not place reliance on the plea of defence and convicted all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. However, the learned trial Judge did not place reliance on the plea of defence and convicted all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 5. It remains a fact that not only Balbir Singh deceased was hacked to death but Toshan Bai also. For the murder of Toshan Bai, the accused have been separately charged in a separate challan. For the purpose of the present case it has come in the statement of Sher Singh, PW.2 categorically that Prem Singh inflicted a Kappa blow on the head of the deceased and the deceased fell down on the ground. Teja Singh also caused a Kirpan blow on the right arm of the deceased. It is thereafter that these two accused and other two also inflicted injuries with their respective weapons to the deceased. The prosecution version to the extent that, Prem Singh and Teja Singh accused inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased there remains to be no doubt. Sher Singh, PW.2 has been cross-examined at length. In the same manner the other witness Kashmir Singh, PW.3, has also attributed mainly the injuries at the hands of Prem Singh and Teja Singh accused. The injuries with respect to other two accused are in the general manner. There is no specific injury alleged to have been caused by Makhan Singh and Balbir Singh appellant-accused. Unless there is some specific injury alleged to have been caused by them it would be difficult toitold them guilty for causing the death of Balbir Singh deceased. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to sustain the conviction of these two accused, namely Makhan Singh and Balbir Singh and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 6. So far as the involvement of the other two appellants namely, Prem Singh and Teja Singh is concerned, as mentioned above, Prem Singh himself admits that he had given the blows and had done the deceased to death. There is sufficient evidence against Teja Singh that he inflicted Kirpan blows on the person of the deceased. In cross-examination the version of the aforesaid witnesses to that extent cannot be dislodged. There is sufficient evidence against Teja Singh that he inflicted Kirpan blows on the person of the deceased. In cross-examination the version of the aforesaid witnesses to that extent cannot be dislodged. The principle of falsus in uno, fall us in omnibus would not be applicable. Therefore, in this situation the plea of the defence that Prem Singh had caused the death of the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation appears to be far fetched. He already knew about this. It is in evidence that the appellant-accused Prem Singh suspected the illicit relation of the two. However, the case of grave and sudden provocation comes to be applicable only when it is absolutely so sudden that the persons affected totally loses his balance and gets provoked to the extent that he has no other course open except to do away with the life of the person concerned. 7. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in K.M. Nanawati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 will hold good even in this case. 8. So we do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the Prem Singh and Teja Singh appellants that the death of deceased was because of grave and sudden provocation. Both the appellants Prem Singh and Teja Singh are already knew about the illicit relation of the wife of Prem Singh and deceased Balbir Singh. Hence the appeal qua Prem Singh and Teja Singh appellants is dismissed. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.