JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - In this Criminal Appeal the order of conviction of the appellant u/s 304, Part-1, I.P.C. has been assailed, inter-alia, on the ground of no satisfactory evidence to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 2. An old woman succumbed to the injury sustained by her on 30.11.1992 in the afternoon. The prosecution case is that the informant/P.W. No. 4 Kusal Murmu Hansda had a quarrel with the accused near the village tank at about 3 P.M. on that day. That quarrel made the accused to chase P.W. No. 4 to assault him. P.W. No. 4 running ahead could escape the attack of the accused and remained confined in his house by closing the door from inside. His mother, i.e., the deceased, who was resting on a 'charpai' in the court-yard however became the victim of the accused. As alleged by the prosecution, accused dealt several blows on the head of that old lady by use of a handle of a spade and when that was broken, by using 'Bala'. The sister of P.W. No. 4 and the daughter of the deceased, namely, Shantilata Murmu (P.W. No. 5) on seeing the assault on her mother wanted to intervene, but she was also assaulted by the accused, for which she sustained some injuries, i.e., simple hurt. According to the prosecution, the occurrence of assault was also witnessed by P.W. No. 4 the Informant and her another sister Sana Murmu (P.W. No. 6). Relating to the homicidal death, prosecution relied on the evidence of Dr. Arjun Das (P.W. No. 10), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found ante-mortem the injuries. P.W. No. 7 Dr. Laxminarayan Singh granted the Injury Certificate (Ext. 6) in favour of P.W. No. 5. The post-mortem report is Ext. 10. 3. On assessment of such evidence besides the evidence of seizure witness and the I.O. and the witnesses to the inquest and dead body chalan, trial Court found that P.Ws. 4 and 6 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He found the evidence of P.W. No. 5 true, trustworthy and credible relating to the assault on the deceased, which resulted in her death and accordingly recorded appellant is the author of the crime. 4 and 6 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He found the evidence of P.W. No. 5 true, trustworthy and credible relating to the assault on the deceased, which resulted in her death and accordingly recorded appellant is the author of the crime. Though charge had been framed for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. for causing homicidal death of the deceased but the trial Court came to the conclusion that when the accused entered into the premises of the deceased, he was in a state of anger and had lost self-control and in that mood he dealt the blows and therefore, that makes out a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the said offence. So far as the injury on P.W. No. 5 is concerned, the trial Court did not believe the prosecution case and therefore acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 323, I.P.C. by granting benefit of doubt. 4. Evidence of doctor (P.W. No. 10) and Ext. 10 clearly prove a case of homicidal death of the deceased inasmuch as the time of post-mortem examination P.W. No. 10 found two lacerated injuries respectively of the size of 1" x 1/2" bone deep on the left side of the forehead and 4" x 2" encircling the left ear with communited fracture of the left temporal bone over an area of 2" x 1" and those two injuries were fatal to cause death of the deceased who died due to intracranial haemorrhage and shock. That being the evidence on record, appellant does not challenge proof of the factum at homicidal death of the deceased. 5. The core contention of the accused-appellant while challenging the order of conviction is that the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are inconsistent and contradictory relating to the occurrence of assault on the deceased and therefore, the benefit arising out of the same should have gone to the accused and that, the trial Court did not properly appreciate that circumstance while recording the order of conviction. On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are inconsistent and contradictory relating to the occurrence of assault on the deceased and therefore, the benefit arising out of the same should have gone to the accused and that, the trial Court did not properly appreciate that circumstance while recording the order of conviction. On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6, this Court concurs with the trial Court that neither of them were eye-witness to the occurrence of actual assault on the deceased, because P.W. No. 4 was inside the house being bolted from inside (being scared of the accused) and therefore, he could not have seen the occurrence. Similarly, while in the process of assaulting the deceased and also P.W. No. 5, P.W. No. 6 arrived at the spot with a jar of water and P.W. No. 5 cautioned her to run away so as to escape any assault from the accused. Under such circumstance, the possibility of P.Ws. 4 and 6 being eye-witnesses to the occurrence of assault has correctly been ruled out by the trial Court. So far as P.W. No. 5 is concerned, her presence in the house at the time of occurrence being not disputed, therefore, she is a natural witness to the occurrence. Though her evidence relating to assault on her by the accused has not been accepted because of some discrepancies in her evidence and injury certificate Ext. 6, but that circumstance alone does not shake her credibility because, as stated above, she was a natural witness to see that occurrence. It is the settled principle of law in this country that 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not a sound principle to be applied in criminal trial. In other words, because a part of the evidence of P.W. No. 5 is not accepted, that does not means that her entire evidence should be scored through or disbelieved. When there is no dispute or contradictions relating to a quarrel between the accused and P.W. No. 4 and P.W. No. 3 witnessing the accused chasing P.W. No. 4 upto the latter's house and P.W. No. 5, whose presence in the house has not been disputed by the appellant, that circumstance read with the evidence of P.W. No. 5 clearly and categorically prove that accused dealt blows to the head of the deceased which resulted in sustaining injuries and consequentially the death. Since P.W. No. 5 is the daughter of the deceased, though under existing normal circumstances, she would not have fastened a false allegation against an innocent person leaving the real culprit to enjoy the benefit, yet her evidence needs careful scrutiny being that of an interested witness. On such careful scrutiny, this Court finds that the trial Court has properly assessed that evidence while relying on that to hold the appellant guilty. This Court, on fresh perusal of that evidence, finds nothing against prosecution or something in favour of the appellant to grant him any benefit. Once this Court finds that the deceased suffered a homicidal death and the accused is the author of the crime, thereafter there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of conviction for the offence u/s 304-1, I.P.C. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed