Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The sole appellant of this appeal has been convicted under Secs. 302 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . For the offence u/s. 302 he has been awarded imprisonment for life. For the offence u/s. 354, two years rigorous imprisonment has been awarded. 2. The cases of the prosecution is that Kauleshwar Mahto a resident of village Parauli Takhat Tola within Basantpur Police Station of Siwan district, his son Baliram Mahto and daughter Munni Kumari were carrying bundles of wheat from the field to their house on 13-5-1998. At about 6.45 p.m. while proceeding to the field for carrying another bundle, Kauleshwar heard Munni Kumari shouting for held. She was 2-2.1/2 Bigha ahead of her father. Kauleshwar Mahto ran towards her. He saw the appellant entering in the adjacent Kaharahi field. Munni Kumari was lying on the ground with knife injuries all over the body. She was smeared with blood and dead. He brought her dead body to his house. Kauleshwar alleged that the appellant wanted to forcibly take Munni Devi to the Kharahi field for illicit purpose. When she resisted he killed her. 3. The fardbdeyan of Kauleshwar Mahto regarding the incident was recorded by SI Rajesh Prasad Rajak of Basantpur PS at his house in the same night at 00.15 hours. Formal FIR giving rise to Basantpur PS case No. 52/98 under Secs. 302 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the next day i.e. on 14-5-1998. Meanwhile SI Rajesh Prasad Rajak had already started investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses in the night itself. As it was a dark night be postponed the inquest and inspection of place on occurrence until morning. Meanwhile he raided the house of the appellant who was found absonding. After the dawn at 5 a.m. he held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem. He inspected the place of occurrence at 6.15 a.m. After completing the investigation, finally, he submitted chargesheet against the appellant and the appellant was thus putt on trail. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. The witnesses on facts are Baliram Mahto, son of the informant and the informant himself being PWs 1 and 3. The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem, namely, Dr. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. The witnesses on facts are Baliram Mahto, son of the informant and the informant himself being PWs 1 and 3. The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem, namely, Dr. Suresh Prasad Sah was examined as PW 2 while the Investigating Officer, namely, SI Rajesh Prasad Rajak was examined as PW 4. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. From the trend of cross-examination however, it appears that apart from the usual bald plea of innocence he tried to project the deceased as a girl of loose character who had affairs with several villagers one of whom killed her. At the an of trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated at the outset. 5. Both Baliram Mahto and Kauleshwar Mahto reiterated the fardbeyan version of the incident. They stated in their respective evidence that they along with Munni Kumari were removing bundles of wheat on the fateful day and time of the occurrence at some distance from each other. Munni Kumari was proceeding to the field. They heard her shouting for help. They saw the appellant running away with knife in his hand. Munni Devi was lying on the ground with her face side down, blood was oozing from parts of her body. Kauleshwar tried to chase the appellant but he managed to escape. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the presence of Baliram Mahto at the place and time of occurrence is doubtful inasmuch as if he too was removing bundles along with his father and sister at short distance from each other he should have been cited as a witness at the very first, instance in the fard beyan. The fardbeyan however, does not Five any indication of his presence. Once the presence of Baliram Mahto is held to be doubtful, it would follow that entire case against the appellant is based on solitary testimony of the informant. But where as per his fardbeyan the informant did not claim to be eye-witness, in his evidence in Court he claimed to have also been the assault which renders his evidence unrliable and thus even if Kauleshewar Mahto too is held to be an eye-witness, his evidence not being wholly reliable, cannot form the basis of appellants conviction. But where as per his fardbeyan the informant did not claim to be eye-witness, in his evidence in Court he claimed to have also been the assault which renders his evidence unrliable and thus even if Kauleshewar Mahto too is held to be an eye-witness, his evidence not being wholly reliable, cannot form the basis of appellants conviction. Counsel also submitted that the circumstances that he was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence at the time of incident with knife in his hand alone is not sufficient to lead to the appellants guilt. 7. Before considering the merit of the submission of the Counsel it is relevant to State that in course of inspection of the place of occurrence in the morning at 6.15 a.m. the Investigating Officer found bundles of wheat at the place. He also found blood there. The condition of the grass and soil suggested resistance to some act. He prepared sketch map of the place showing existence of kharahi field intervened by the field of one Jai Narayan Sao on the south among other things. Reference may also be made to the ante mortem injuries found on the dead body Munni Devi as under: (i) Incised wound on left cheek near nose, 3/4" x 1/4" x bone deep. (ii) Incised wound on the chest below clavicle, 1 x 1/4" x cavity deep. (iii) Incised wound on the chest 1"x 1/4" x cavity deep. (iv) Incised wound on the chest left side 1/2" x 1/4" x cavity deep. (v) incised wound on left arm 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep, (vi) Incised wound on the left side of the back of the abdomen 1/2" x 1/4" x cavity deep. (vii) Incised wound on the left side of the back of the abdomen 1/2" x 1/4" x cavity deep. The doctor opined that the injuries were caused by some sharp cutting penetrating weapon possibly by knife. 8 Adverting to the ocular evidence of PW 1 Batiram Mahto, it is true that his name does not find mention in the fardbeyan, but considering that his 13 year old daughter had been brutally killed a few hours earlier, the omission does not appear to be of much consequence. It is not difficult to visualise the state of mind of a father whose young daughter is killed. It is not difficult to visualise the state of mind of a father whose young daughter is killed. It is to be mentioned that the fardbeyan does not cite the name of any witness. Had the informant named others as witnesses, perhaps, the argument of the Counsel would have carried more weight. It may be recalled that the statement of the witnesses was recorded by the I .O. in the same night. From the Case Diary it appears that the statement of Baliram Mahto was recorded immediately after recording the fardbeyan and the further statement of the informant, vide para 3 of the case Diary. In para 13 of his evidence Baliram Mahto stated that his statement was recorded at 2O clock in the night. From the fact that his attention was not drawn to any contradictory statement made before the police and no corroboration was taken from the Investigating Officer shows that the statement which Baliram Mahto made in the night of the occurrence was same as the one which he made in his evidence in Court, in the circumstances the submission of the Counsel that he was not present at the time and place of occurrence and therefore, had no chance to see the incident does not appear to have any substance. 9. It appears that at the end of the day of harvest of wheat crops the family members including Munni Kumari were removing bundles of wheat from the field to their house. In the villages even younger members of the family in the lower strata help their father in agricultural operations. It is, therefore, no wonder if Munni Kumari of 13 years of age and Baliram Mahto, about 16 years old at the time of incident, were helping their father in removing the bundles of harvested wheat crops from the field. The sequence appears to be that they had already removed some bundles from the field and were going to the field for another round. Munni Kumari was ahead of them at some distance followed by Kauleshwar Mahto and Baliram Mahto respectively. 10. Coming to the evidence of the informant Kauleshwar Mahto, PW 3, it is true that he did not claim to have been the actual assault in his fardbeyan unlike his evidence in Court. It does not however, mean that his evidence should be rejected altogether. 10. Coming to the evidence of the informant Kauleshwar Mahto, PW 3, it is true that he did not claim to have been the actual assault in his fardbeyan unlike his evidence in Court. It does not however, mean that his evidence should be rejected altogether. More often than not, the witnesses make exaggerations in order to strengthen the case which even otherwise without such exaggerations may be a strong case. As the Supreme Court observed in Ugar Ahir V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 , "hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of un-truth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments". Reference may also be made to Sohrab V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 3 SCC 751 and a recant one, Gangadhar Bahera V/s. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , wherein the Court observed as under: "Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be lifted with care. Earlier in the judgment the Court observed that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded liars. The maxim does not have the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it means is that the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The Court has to make an attempt to separate the grain from the chaff. Where it is not feasible to separate the truth from the falsehood, because the grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the Court may discard the evidence in to. 11 In the above view of the matter, even if part of the evidence of the informant relating to his claim of having seen the actual assault is ignored, the fact that he had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place where body of the deceased was found moments after the incident with a knife in his hand is perfectly in accord with his version in the fardbeyan. There is no difficulty in discarding one part and relying on the other. Thus, proceeding on the premise that the informant did not see the actual assault or for that matter PW1 Baliram Mahto also did not see the same, the case of the prosecution that the appellant was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence immediately after the incident admits of no doubt. I am conscious of the fact that if the assault part of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is excluded the case would appear to rest on circumstantial evidence. However, even in a case based on circumstantial evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down about the quantum of circumstances. No doubt, circumstances should be such so as to form themselves into a chain leading to the inference of guilt inconsistent with the innocence of the accused; however, it would depend on the fact and circumstances of the particular case and the weight of circumstances (s) proved rather than the number thereof. 12. In the instant case, as observed above, the evidence on record does not admit of any doubt that the appellant was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence with a knife in his hand. The deceased was found to have suffered knife injuries. The physical features of the place of occurrence suggested some kind of scuffle indicative of some kind of attempt by the appellant and resistance by the victim to such attempt. Not only the appellant was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence, he was also seen before the incident sitting on the read. Apparently having seen the deceased going to and fro from the field to her house carrying bundles of harvested wheat, he planned to outrage her modesty and finding her father and brother at some distance he tried to forcibly take her to the nearby field, Unfortunately for him, and for the victim too, his attempt met with stiff resistance. Apparently having seen the deceased going to and fro from the field to her house carrying bundles of harvested wheat, he planned to outrage her modesty and finding her father and brother at some distance he tried to forcibly take her to the nearby field, Unfortunately for him, and for the victim too, his attempt met with stiff resistance. Apparently, fearing that his misadventure could be reported or in an outburst of frustration, he inflicted knife blows on the deceased which proved fatal. The deceased was merely 13 years old and her frail body could not bear the burden of injuries and died in the field itself. It is unfortunate that an innocent girl should be killed in the prime of her life merely because she refused in satiate the sexual lust of a co-villager. His conviction would not bring her back to life but would certainly do postnumous justice. 13. In State of Bihar V/s. Kare Singh, 2002(4) PUR 103, this Court upheld conviction of the accused on the basis of similar evidence. The Court observed that weight of the fact that immediately after the incident the appellant was seen fleeing away from the place with rifle established his presence and participation in the crime. The Court relied on Pal Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 2000 SCC (Cr) 100. 14. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and his conviction therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant, who is in jail, will serve remainder of the sentence in accordance with law. 16. B.N.P. Singh, J. I agree.