Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. Ram Chander and his son Ramesh resident of village Mahawati, within the area of Police Station, Smalkha, district Panipat, in Haryana have been convicted and sentenced for the murder of one Goverdhan. 2. A criminal case was registered against Goverdhan deceased for causing simple injuries to Ram Chander. The complainant side had some agricultural and near the fields of Sarpanch Rajinder Singh in the said village. On 25.5.1995, at about 4.00 P.M., Goverdhan had gone to operate the electric tube well for irrigation of the sugar cane crop when he was allegedly caught hold of by Ram Chander, who asked his son Ramesh to avenge the previous incident. As a result of this Ramesh allegedly inflicted knife blows to Goverdhan in his chest and abdomen, as a result of which Goverdhan fell down. The occurrence was being witnessed by Om Singh P.W.6 land Puran Lal P.W.8, who are the real brothers of the deceased and were already present nearby. 3. The deceased was firstly taken to C.H.C. Smalakha. The doctor after giving first aid and medico legally examining him referred the deceased to Government Hospital, Panipat wherefrom he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak but keeping in view the serious condition of Goverdhan deceased, he was taken to Prem Nursing Home, Panipat and was admitted there, where the deceased passed away. On 25.5.1995, on receipt of ruqa Ex. PB from C.H.C. Samlkha, ASI Jorawar Singh P.W.12 went to C.H.C. Samlkha. The injured had already been referred to Civil Hospital, Panipat. He thereafter went to the house of Goverdhan in village Mahawati where he met Om Singh P.W.6 and he recorded his statement Ex. PQ and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PQ/1 was recorded at 2.15 A.M. on 26.5.1995. ASI Jorawar Singh also prepared rough site plan Ex. PX of the place of occurrence and took into possession a pair of Chappal Ex. P5 and P6 and blood stained earth vide recovery memo Ex. PR. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector Bhullan Singh P.W.14. On 26.5.1995, on receipt of message about the death of Goverdhan, SI Bhullan Sigh went to Prem Hospital, Panipat and prepared inquest report Ex. PH and sent the dead body for post mortem. After post mortem clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PV/2. Ramesh appellant was arrested on 6.6.1995. On 26.5.1995, on receipt of message about the death of Goverdhan, SI Bhullan Sigh went to Prem Hospital, Panipat and prepared inquest report Ex. PH and sent the dead body for post mortem. After post mortem clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PV/2. Ramesh appellant was arrested on 6.6.1995. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PS, he got recovered knife Ex.P3 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PU. On 2.7.1995 Ram Chander appellant was arrested by SI Surinder Singh P.W.7. After completion of the investigation, both the accused were put to trial. 4. Dr. Mahesh Parkash P.W.2, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Goverdhan deceased on 26.5.1995 at 12.30 P.M. and found the following injuries : (1) A stitched wound on the right side of the chest 2.4 cms long, present 7 cms below the superasternal noech and 3.5 cms lateral on the right side. On opening the stitches the margins were incised and the wound was going inside the chest. The wound was horizontally placed. (2) A stitched wound on the right side of the chest 2 cms long, placed 5.5 cms lateral and 1 cm above the right nipple. On opening the stitches the margins were incised and placed obliquely going in the chest. (3) Stitched wound 2.5 cms long present on the right side of the chest, 8.5 cms below the right nipple. On removing the stitches the margins were incised. (4) Stitched wound on the right side of the chest, 1.5 cms lateral to the Xipisternum, 2 cms long. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised. The wound was going in abdominal wall only. (5) Stitched wound on the right side of abdomen, 7.5 cms lateral and 1 cm below the Xipisternum, below the costal margin. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised and wound was going into the abdomen. (6) Stitched wound on the mid-line, 5 cms above the umblicus, 1 cm long. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised and the wound was muscle deep only. (7) Stitched wound 4 cm long present 8.5 cms below and 4 cms lateral to Xipisternum on right side was present. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised and the wound was 4.5 cms x 1 cm in size and was going in the abdomen. (7) Stitched wound 4 cm long present 8.5 cms below and 4 cms lateral to Xipisternum on right side was present. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised and the wound was 4.5 cms x 1 cm in size and was going in the abdomen. (8) Stitched wound on the left side of the abdomen 2 cms above and 3 cms lateral on left side. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised and the size was 1 cm x.3 cm and the wound was muscle deep only. (9) Stitched wound 2 cms long present on the left side of the abdomen, 6 cms below umblicus and 7 cms laterally. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised and the wound was going into the abdomen. (10) Stitched wound on the middle of the right thigh laterally 3 cms long. (11) Stitched wound on the right knee laterally 1 cm long. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised. (12) Stitched wound just below the right knee 8 mm. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised. (13) Stitched wound on the right lower limb below the knee, 3.5 cms below and 4 cms lateral of the size of 4 cms. On removing the stitches, the margins were incised. (14) Stitched wound on the back in the middle of the lumber region 6 cms long horizontal, muscle deep and margins were incised. (15)There was a longitudinal incision in the mid line starting 3 cms below the Xipisternum. It was 13 cms long (post operative having stitches). 5. The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was injuries to vital organs, i.e. lungs and liver leading to haemorrhage, shock and death. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex. PF is the copy of the post mortem report. 6. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PK/1 the clothes of the deceased were stained with human blood and traces of blood too small for Serological tests were detected on the knife. 7. At the trial, Ram Chander appellant took up the plea that the parties had old enmity and he was involved falsely in this case. He claimed that he was hardly 17 years of age at the time of occurrence. 7. At the trial, Ram Chander appellant took up the plea that the parties had old enmity and he was involved falsely in this case. He claimed that he was hardly 17 years of age at the time of occurrence. Ram Chander claimed that he was not present on the scene of occurrence and had gone to village Budhakhera, district Jind. The learned trial Judge did not place reliance on the evidence of alibi adduced by Ram Chander and believing the prosecution version to be correct convicted both the appellants Ram Chander and Ramesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 8. Against the conviction and sentence both the appellants filed Crl. A. No. 519-DB of 1999, Ramesh appellant has also filed separate Crl. A.No. 526-DB of 1999 and Om Singh filed Crl. R.No. 39 of 2000 and the same are being disposed of by this judgment. 9. Assailing the conviction of the appellants, the learned counsel has led us through the statements of DSP Mohinder Singh DW1, SI Zile Singh DW2 as well as the statement of another Mohinder Singh DW3. These witnesses verified that Ram Chander appellant was not present on the scene of occurrence and rather was not even present in his village and was away to village Budha Khera. Mohinder Singh DW3 was supposed to be a witness of the prosecution but he claimed that his land was at a distance of about 10 Acres from the agricultural land of Rajinder Singh Sarpanch. So the police officers verified about the fact that Ram Chander was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. A suggestion was put to the witnesses Om Singh, P.W.6 and Puran Lal P.W.8 though they denied the suggestion about the absence of Ram Chander but the only role attributed to this appellant has been that he caught hold of the deceased. However, these eye witnesses had described that Ram Chander had taken the deceased in his arms from his back. However, these eye witnesses had described that Ram Chander had taken the deceased in his arms from his back. However, if such had been the situation, it would not have been possible that the knife blows could safely be given to the deceased without any danger that even the father of Ramesh i.e. Ram Chander also might have been injured in the event. So the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is not applicable in this country. Even a part of the statement of a witness can be relied upon while another part of the statement may be doubtful. So in the given case, we are of the considered opinion that in the face of the defence evidence and the situation explained by the prosecution witnesses, it appears that Ram Chander could not have participated in the occurrence. 10. Coming to the remaining part of the version of Om Singh P.W.6, it may be stated that the witnesses appears to be partly truthful and his version that the knife blows were given in quick succession one after the other on the person of his deceased brother cannot be ignored easily. He frankly admitted that his father Gopi had not actually witnessed the occurrence and he came just after the incident had taken place. They waited for a tractor trolley. He even did not remember as to whose tractor trolley was brought. The tractor trolley driver did not charge any fare from them. They brought the deceased from Smalkcha to Panipat and then hired a taxi. Instead of going to the Police Station they went to Civil Hospital. They had also taken the patient to Prem Nursing Home at Panipat. They were referred to Government Hospital, Panipat and then to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Similar is the version of Puran Lal P.W.8, another real brother of the deceased. So in such circumstances to raise an argument that these brothers did not intervene physically anal did not attack Ramesh appellant made the case doubtful or that they delayed the lodging of the first information report or that the appellant Ramesh did not inflict any injury on the person of the deceased, would be out of place. The relations of the injured in such a situation would be first concerned to save the injured rather than to lodge the report immediately. The relations of the injured in such a situation would be first concerned to save the injured rather than to lodge the report immediately. There is no doubt that the Police Station has been at a very close distance but if the state of mind of the witness as attendants of the patient is imagined, it would be obvious that they were being sent from place to place to get the profusely bleeding patient treated. In such circumstances it is very difficult for the real brothers to abandon the patient with such serious injuries and to run to the Police Station. The statements made by the two real brothers appear to be natural, consistent and truthful. The witness being close relations of the deceased have no disqualification with them to be disbelieved. Rather they were naturally with the deceased when they had gone to irrigate the land. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of Ramesh appellant and appeal qua him in dismissed while the appeal qua Ram chander is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The revision filed by Om Singh is dismissed.