JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The appeal and the revision arising out of a common JUDGMENT dated 25.2.195 passed by the 1st Add!. Sessions Judge, Puri convicting the Appellant Brahmachari Jena u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section (b) of the Indian Explosives Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and further R.I. for one year and acquitting the other accused-opp. arties under different charges were heard together and are disposed of hereunder. 2. The scenario of the prosecution story as portrayed in course of trial is as follows: On 27.8.1988 in the afternoon the deceased Dhruba Charan Sahu while playing cards with the other prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.2. Indramani Sahu, P.W.7 Ratnakar Jena and P.W.10 Kartik Samantaray on the verandah of P.W.10 in presence of P.W.1, the informant Rama Chandra Sahu, the Appellant Brahmachari Jena with others was engaged in holding a meeting in the house of one Padma Charan Sahu. On the same day at about 3.00 P.M. the Appellant came near the verandah of P.W.10 in a challenging mood and hurled slang and intemperate language at the deceased and the other wiliness, by standing from a vacant plot of land belonging to one Charan Sahu. On being protested by P.W.2 Jaladhar Sahu, the Appellant called his other associates and threatened P.W.2 to burn the playing cards. On hearing such hue and cry raised by the Appellant, the other accused persons assembled at the spot having been armed with different deadly weapons. At this, the accused Padma Charan Sahu handed over a live bomb to the Appellant exhorting him to exterminable the deceased from the scene. Accordingly, the Appellant hurled the bomb at the deceased which struck his head and he instantaneously died. Since the other co-accused Dasarathi Harichandan exhorted Jaladhar Sahu to throw a live bomb at P.W.7 Ratnakar Jena, the latter went into action resulting in serious injuries on P.W.7 Ratnakar Jena. P.W.1, who was present at the spot, lodged a written report at 5.30 P.M. at village Kaudikhani before the 1.0., P.W.13, who was camping there being engaged in investigation of another case. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of complete denial and he claimed to have been falsely implicated. P.W.1, who was present at the spot, lodged a written report at 5.30 P.M. at village Kaudikhani before the 1.0., P.W.13, who was camping there being engaged in investigation of another case. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of complete denial and he claimed to have been falsely implicated. He further stated that he along with his wife sustained burn injuries on account of throwing of a bomb by the prosecution party out of previous enmity for which he lodged a separate F.I.R. vide Ext.A. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the Appellant and the other co-accused had examined 12 witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 and 10 had claimed to be eye witnesses while P.Ws. 11 and 12 were the Medical Officers and P.W.13 was the 1.0. No charge-sheet was initially filed against the co-accused Padma Charan Harichandan, but he was subsequently implicated on an application by the prosecution as a co-accused u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P. Ws. 9 and 10, who were not shown as the charge-sheet witnesses, however, were examined on the prayer of the prosecution. 5. The trial Court on an elaborate resume of the evidence led by the prosecution, however; recorded a finding that it could not establish the charges under Sections 148 and 149, I.P.C.. Consequently all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges. The learned trial Court has further held that there were practically no evidence whatsoever against co-accused Padma Charan Harichandan, Dasarathi Harichandan and laladhar Sahu, therefore, they were acquitted. It is inter alia observed that in course of investigation it could however be gathered that accused Padma Charan Harichandan who was working as a teacher was not present at the spot. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution was disbelieved to the effect that he exhorted the Appellant for commission of the crime. 6. On a proper and meticulous scanning of the evidence of P.W.2 and 5 as embodied in the judgment it is seen that they claimed to have not seen the occurrence, therefore, they have not stated in course of investigation, but the trial Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 1,4, 6,7,8,9 and 10 is not only credible but also trust inspiring. Therefore, the Appellant was convicted u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. 7. 1,4, 6,7,8,9 and 10 is not only credible but also trust inspiring. Therefore, the Appellant was convicted u/s 302, I.P.C. read with Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. 7. The testimony of P.W.2 was found incredible in as much as he unequivocally admitted that he was not present at the spot by the time the bomb exploded and that he had not seen the occurrence, but narrated whatever he heard from P.W.l Rama Chandra Sahu. It is unnecessary to again delve into such evidence particularly when the trial Court has discussed his evidence at length and disbelieved that he was present at the spot. Similarly, P.W.7 Ratanakar Jena does not also speak about the presence of P.W.2 at the spot. His evidence is inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses. He has not implicated any other accused person excepting the Appellant. He portrayed a different picture in the trial Court than what he stated during investigation. But now turning to the evidence of P.W.1, who was the brother of the deceased, it appears that on 27th August, 1988 at about 3.00 P.M. on the 'Rakhi Purnima' day while he was engaged in playing cards with other witnesses, he found a meeting was convened among the accused persons. The Appellant all on a sudden rushed towards them and threatened as to how they had uprooted the temporary barricade prepared from dry coconut leaves of Charan Sahu and hurled slang abuses. While P.W.1 protested, he raised hue and cry as a reason whereof other accused persons arrived at the spot. 8. He found the Appellant throwing a bomb towards his deceased brother Dhruba Ch. Sahu as a result of which his brother sustained severe bleeding injuries on the right side of his head near the ear. His brother Dhruba no sooner did he receive the injury than he fell on the ground and immediately collapsed. He has also presented the part played by other accused persons. But the trial Court did not place much emphasis on other statement. He has admitted in his evidence that there were two groups in the village - one such group was headed by the accused Padma Charan Harichandan. In this background the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be closely and scrupulously examined. While evaluating their evidence, care and circumspection has to be exercised to sift the grain from the chaff. He has admitted in his evidence that there were two groups in the village - one such group was headed by the accused Padma Charan Harichandan. In this background the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be closely and scrupulously examined. While evaluating their evidence, care and circumspection has to be exercised to sift the grain from the chaff. But it would be unrealistic and improper to comprehend that merely because they belong to adversary party, their entire testimony should be jettisoned. 9. In this case the deceased was the brother of P.W.1. It is the normal human conduct to assume that P.W.1 being a close relation of the deceased would never leave the real culprit to escape. He may exaggerate and embroider the prosecution story so as to implicate few others in the crime, but he would never make, any attempt to leave the real culprit scot-free. P.W.1 within hours of occurrence had lodged F.I.R. before the I.O. who immediately swung into action and had taken up investigation. In this regard we rely upon a SC judgment reported in AIR 2002 S.C.W. 4338 in the case of G.Laxmana and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it has been held: The High Court has mainly relied upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 and has found their evidence to be reliable and convincing. We had noticed that the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is fully corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws. 4,5 and 11, though the High Court has not discussed their evidence. Since the High Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to be sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution, it did not consider it necessary to discuss the evidence of the other eye-witnesses. With the assistance of counsel appearing for the parties we have gone through the evidence on record but we find no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are injured witnesses. P.W.1 is the first informant who lodged the report immediately after the occurrence. There was no scope for fabricating a false case having regard to promptitude with which the First Information Report was lodged.The witnesses are natural witnesses as they all belong to the same family and were working together in the same field. 2 and 3 are injured witnesses. P.W.1 is the first informant who lodged the report immediately after the occurrence. There was no scope for fabricating a false case having regard to promptitude with which the First Information Report was lodged.The witnesses are natural witnesses as they all belong to the same family and were working together in the same field. The accused had a strong motive for the commission of the offence because it is not disputed that accused No. 13 and Ors. were being tried for the murder of the father and two uncles of P.W.1. The case of the prosecution is that they were pressurising the members of the prosecution party to settle the dispute out of Court while the prosecution witnesses were not willing to do so having regard to the fact that three of their family members had been murdered. 10. P.W.4 has also corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. P.W.4 was the cousin brother of the deceased. In his evidence, as we have closely observed, he improved the version that the other accused Padma Charan Harichandan handed over a bomb to the Appellant investigating him to throw at deceased Dhruba. P.W.1 who too was an eye witness did not narrate that Padma Charan Harichandan exhorted the Appellant to hurl the bomb at the deceased. A question has therefore appeared before us whether by such improvement made by the witnesses, the prosecution story has to be thrown out to the ground or a duty has been cast upon the Court to sift the deposition of a witness and accept a part thereof while rejecting other. In this regard we rely on a judgment. reported in S.G.P. Committee Vs. M.P. Dass Chela (Dead) by LRS. wherein it has been held: The Appellant relied on the evidence that the Guru Granth Sahib is worshipped. That circumstance alone is not helpful to the Appellant. It is contended by the Appellant that the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the Respondent were disbelieved on some points by Yadav, J. and they ought to have been disbelieved completely. There is no substance in the contention. It is open to any Court to sift the deposition of any witness and accept a part thereof while rejecting the other part. 11. There is no substance in the contention. It is open to any Court to sift the deposition of any witness and accept a part thereof while rejecting the other part. 11. The witnesses more often than not make improvement to their earlier version at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case albeit foolishly. But that does not mean that falsity of testimony in one material particular would ruin it from beginning to end. On the other hand, the circumstance will be a good reason merely for the Court to be put on guard and sift the evidence with extraordinary caution and to accept those portions of it which appear fully trustworthy either intrinsically or by reason of corroboration from other trustworthy sources. 12. A comparative study of the evidence of P.Ws. I and 2 it appeared that both are consistent so fire as the Appellant throwing a bomb at the deceased resulting in his death. Therefore, there was no reason as to why the testimony of P.W. 4 shall not be accepted. Similarly, P.Ws. 5,6,8,9 and 10 who were present at the spot and some of them received injuries in course of the incident have corroborated the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4. We find, therefore, no reason to disagree with the trial Court's findings that the Appellant Brahmachari Jena had thrown a bomb resulting in death of the deceased Dhruba Charan Sahu. 13. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has strongly urged that since the trial court acquitted the co-accused Padma Charan Harichandan, who is alleged to have handed over the live bomb to the Appellant, then how the Appellant can be said to have committed an offence of murder of Dhruba Charan Sahu without the live bomb being supplied to him. We are unable to appreciate his contention. 14. In this case, as discussed above, during investigation it was unearthed that the accused Padma Charan Harichandan, who was a school teacher, attended the school on the date of incident. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand as to why Padma Charan Haichandan will supply a bomb to the present Appellant asking him to throw it at the deceased and why he could not do the same job. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand as to why Padma Charan Haichandan will supply a bomb to the present Appellant asking him to throw it at the deceased and why he could not do the same job. Thus, this portion of the prosecution story introduced in course of trial having appeared to be doubtful, the learned trial court has, therefore, acquitted Padma Charan Harichandan of the charges. Such acquittal of Padma Charan Harichandan will not, however, deter the prosecution story as unreal. 15. Mr. Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant had further advanced an ingenious argument by stating that since the genesis of the prosecution story presented in trial has been twisted, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution on that account should be effaced to the ground. It is submitted that Appellant and his wife had received injuries during the course of the same incident. The prosecution had suppressed the origin and the genesis of the prosecution story and had come up with a distorted version. 16. Therefore, as there was a dent in the prosecution story, the trial Court should have disbelieved even to the main. While examining the contention of Mr. Panda we have carefully gone into the aforesaid contention in Ext. A, the F.I.R. purported to have been lodged by the Appellant. It is stated that the incident had taken place at 7.00 A.M. n 27.8.88 on his verandah, but in the First Information Report of the present case it is stated that the incident had taken place at 3.00 P.M. Thus, it can be said in no uncertain term that both the incidents are separate and distinct and one had no nexus with the other. Thus the prosecution had no obligation to explain the injuries. It is stated that a separate case was registered against some of the prosecution witnesses, but neither party could be able to apprise us as to what was the outcome of the said case. Merely because a report was lodged against the deceased and few other associates alleging some other offence, by no stretch of imagination the present prosecution case can be discarded if the main is credible and trust-reposing. 17. The Medical Officer, P.W. 12 who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries: 1. Merely because a report was lodged against the deceased and few other associates alleging some other offence, by no stretch of imagination the present prosecution case can be discarded if the main is credible and trust-reposing. 17. The Medical Officer, P.W. 12 who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries: 1. Excessive degree of burn injuries over the lateral portion of the right head and half portion of the right head is out of forehead with laceration including the bones. The tissue is dark and charred. Some glass particles Sutuli and earth is found inside the injured portion. The brain matter. is destroyed. 2. Burn and lacerated injuries over the right palm in the flexor aspects and the right elbow joint 3" x 2" with bleeding clots and 2" x1" respectively. 3. Abrasion over the right lateral knee 1" x 1/2" with bleeding clots. From the post-mortem report it is seen that the death was due to some explosive substance on the vital part, i.e. head and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 18. On evaluation of the evidence of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 coupled with the evidence of P.W. 12 we are, however, unable to find out any factual or legal infirmities to arrive at a different conclusion other than upholding the conviction and sentence of the Appellant Brahmachari Jena. 19. Mr. Kar, learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has fervently pleaded before us to re-evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and to hold the other co-accused persons guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 148, 326 and 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and u/s 9 (b) of the Indian Explosives Act. But we are aware of the limitations being a provisional Court. He was unable to persuade us as to how the judgment arrived at by he learned trial Court suffers from absurdities and perversity. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the revisional application. 20. Since there has been no application for leave to appeal, we are constrained to uphold the order of acquittal of the other accused persons. 21. In the result, the appeal as well as the revisional application are dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed