JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - FIR No. 174 under Section 307, 326, 325, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), was recorded at 4.30 P.M. on 12.5.1991 by Gurnam Singh ASI of Police Station, Sadar, Jalalabad on the statement of Waryam Singh son of Jiwan Singh. While describing the inflicting of injuries on Prem Singh, Smt. Veero and upon himself he stated as under :- " I am a resident of Dhani Qadim and do cultivation. I, my brothers Prem Singh and Dewan Singh are residing in the field, after constructing a Dhani. Today at about 6 A.M., I and my brother Prem Singh were sowing fodder in our field. The field of Tehal Singh son of Sohan Singh adjoins our field. When we after sowing the fodder were going to release the bullock, Mohinder Singh son of Tehal Singh armed with a Dang, Amir Singh & Angrej Singh sons of Tehal Singh armed with Tambas, Tehal Singh son of Sohan Singh, Mal Singh son of Nihal Singh who were also armed with Tambas, residents of Dhandi Khurd and Harbans Singh son of Gulzar Singh, Rai Sikh, resident of Jarrian, Police Station, Guru Har Sahai, who had a gandasa after conspiring together were sitting in the land of Tehal Singh. They by hurling abuses grappled with us saying "we are going to teach you a lesson for ploughing the land". Immediately on arrival, Mal Singh gave a Tamba blow on the head of Prem Singh, Mohinder Singh gave a Dang blow hitting Prem Singh on his left arm. Harbans Singh gave gandasa blow hitting Prem Singh on the back side of his head. Prem Singh while raising Raula, fell down. On hearing Raula, my brothers wife Veero came there to rescue us. Tehal Singh, Amir Singh and Angrej Singh gave Tamba blows to me, hitting me near the elbow of left arm, right shoulder blade and on the left jaw. I also fell down. Harbans Singh gave a Gandasa blow to my brothers wife Veero, hitting on her left hand thumb. Mal Singh gave a Dang blow on the right arm of Veero. We continued raising alarm. All of them after inflicting injuries ran away towards the Tubewell alongwith their respective weapons. I also fell down. Harbans Singh gave a Gandasa blow to my brothers wife Veero, hitting on her left hand thumb. Mal Singh gave a Dang blow on the right arm of Veero. We continued raising alarm. All of them after inflicting injuries ran away towards the Tubewell alongwith their respective weapons. The cause of quarrel is that we have joint Khata of the land and out of that Khata Tehal Singh has purchased the share of land or one co-sharer. We have sown fodder in that land. Tehal Singh wanted to take possession of that land from us. I after making an arrangement of the conveyance, got admitted Prem Singh, Veero and myself in the hospital. Tehal Singh etc. after conspiring together have inflicted injuries. I am the complainant. Action may be taken. I have heard the statement which is correct." 2. However, subsequent to the recording to the FIR at about 0.30 A.M. on 13.5.1991 Prem Singh succumbed to his injuries and the offence was converted from Section 307 to Section 302 of the Code. The body of the deceased was sent to the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Fazilka under the escort of HC Devinder Singh and constable Balwinder Singh and Hukam Chand, for post- mortem examination vide Ex. PH. Dr. K.L. Chawla who examined in Court as PW 2, conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Prem Singh and had given his report Ex. PF. Dr. K.L. Chawla PW 2 while describing the injuries on the body of the deceased he also expressed his opinion as to the cause of death as under :- I. found the following injuries :- 1. A stitched wound 4 cms in size present on the mid line of the scalp, would was transversely placed over the left parietal region. 2. A stitched wound 2 cms in size present on the right occipital region. On dissection under injury No. 1, haematoma was found present underneath the scalp, underlying left parietal bone was fractured. On further opening the cranial cavity, a sub-dural haematoma measuring 9 cms x 5 cms in size was present on the brain in the left parieto-temporal region. Brain matter was congested. Under injury No. 2, haematoma was present underneath the scalp in the right occipital region. 3. There was deformity of the lower 1/3rd of the left forearm. On further opening the cranial cavity, a sub-dural haematoma measuring 9 cms x 5 cms in size was present on the brain in the left parieto-temporal region. Brain matter was congested. Under injury No. 2, haematoma was present underneath the scalp in the right occipital region. 3. There was deformity of the lower 1/3rd of the left forearm. On dissection underlying sub-cutaneous tissues were congested underlying radius bone was fractured. All other organs were healthy. In my opinion the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury due to injury No. 1, which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. 3. PW 1 Dr. Gurdeep Singh SMO, Civil Hospital, Jalalabad conducted the medico-legal examination on the body of all the three prior to the death of Prem Singh deceased. The injuries were described as under :- On 12.5.1991 at 12 AM (Noon), 1 medico-legally examined Prem Singh son of Jiwan Singh aged 45 years resident of Dhandi Khurd and found following injuries on his person :- 1. There was angular deformity with defused swelling creptitus on lower radial eminance on the left fore arm. There was fracture of lower end of the left radius. Acute tenderness was also present. 2. Lacerated wound 4 cms x 1 cm scalp deep in the min fine. Fresh bleeding was present. The wound was transversely placed. 3. Incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm on the right occipital region. X-ray was advised. Patient was semi-conscious. There was no history of fits. Both Pupils were normally reacting with respiration rate was 18 PM. Pulse rate was 150 PM, his systolic B.P. was 120 MM Hg. The patient was vomiting. General condition of the patient was uncertain. Injury No. 1 was declared as grievous while other were subject to X-ray examination. All the injuries were caused within 6 hours and injuries No 1 & 2 were the result of blunt weapon while injury No. 3 was the result of sharp edged weapon. Ex. PA is the correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report and Ex. PA/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. All the injuries were caused within 6 hours and injuries No 1 & 2 were the result of blunt weapon while injury No. 3 was the result of sharp edged weapon. Ex. PA is the correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report and Ex. PA/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. On the same day, at 12.30 P.M., I also examined Veero Bai wife of Dewan Singh aged 38 years, Rai Sikh, resident of Dhandi Khurd and found the following injuries on her person :- 1. An incised wound on the terminal phalanx 2 cms x .5 cm. Nail of the left thumb was peeled off. There was fracture of the terminal phalanx. 2. An area of tenderness on the lateral aspect of right forearm, just below the elbow joint. Injury No. 1 was declared grievous, while injury No. 2 was simple. Duration of the injuries was within six hours. Injury No. 1 was cause by sharp edged weapon while No. 2 was the result of blunt weapon. Ex.PB is the correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report and Ex. PB/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. On the same day at 1 PM, I also examined Waryam Singh son of Jiwan Singh aged 38 years, resident of Dhandi Khurd and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. A diffused swelling on the back of the left elbow. Movements were restricted. Marked tenderness was present. Advised x-ray. 2. A contusion 9 cms x .25 cms on the right side of the back of the chest. 3. A tender swelling 4 cms x 4 cms on the left parotid region. X-ray was advised. Injuries No. 1 and 3 were subject to x-ray examination while No. 2 was found to be simple in nature. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon within probable duration of six hours. Ex.PC is the correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report and Ex.PC/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, which was supported by eye witnesses PW 3 and PW4, the injuries were caused by Harbans Singh, Mal Singh and Mohinder Singh. Ex.PC is the correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report and Ex.PC/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, which was supported by eye witnesses PW 3 and PW4, the injuries were caused by Harbans Singh, Mal Singh and Mohinder Singh. The investigating officer had prepared the inquest report ExPG and after examining and recording the statements of the witnesses concerned under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, presented the challan against all the accused for the above mentioned offences. 5. The learned Magistrate committed the case for the accused to stand trial in the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 17.10.1991 charge-sheeted all the accused i.e. Tehal Singh, Mohinder Singh, Amir Singh, Angrej Singh, Mal Singh and Harbans Singh. 6. The prosecution had examined six witnesses in support of its case including the Investigating Officer Harcharan Singh. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 14.10.1994 by the Court. Accused Tehal Singh while denying the prosecution evidence put to him in his statement, in an answer to the question whether he had anything else to say, stated as under :- "I have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant has sold his land and did not own even a marla of land near his dhani. On 8.4.1991, the complainant Waryam Singh tried to cut the wheat crop of mine and I had stopped him and also moved an application to SHO, P.S. Jalalabad. On the alleged day of occurrence at about 5 PM, the complainant and his brother came in my field where I and my brother Kashmir Singh were sleeping and keeping watch of the cut wheat crop. The complainant and his brother Prem Singh at that time tried to forcibly take away the bundles of wheat and when I and my brother Kashmir Singh obstructed them from doing so and they attacked me with dangs and in self defence of the person and property caused injuries with gandasa using it both sides. PWs were not present at the spot and they fabricated the injuries to make them stamp witnesses. The other accused were not present at the spot and they have been falsely implicated in this case." 7. PWs were not present at the spot and they fabricated the injuries to make them stamp witnesses. The other accused were not present at the spot and they have been falsely implicated in this case." 7. At this stage we may notice that all other accused did not make the statement similar to Tehal Singh and took up the stand that they were falsely implicated in the case and they were not even present at the site. The accused also examined DW1 Krishan Lal, Patwari, and the defence evidence was closed. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence on record found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, held all the accused guilty of an offence under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code. Tehal Singh, Amir Singh and Angrej Singh accused were also found guilty under Section 323 of the Code and accused Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Mal Singh under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Code. Harbans Singh accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 326 of the Code while giving him benefit of doubt. Accused Tehal Singh, Mohinder Singh, Mal Singh, Amir Singh and Angrej Singh were also acquitted of the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Code. After hearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, they were sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgment and decree dated 14.11.1995, as under :- Tehal Singh, Amir Singh, Angrej Singh, Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Mal Singh. U/s 148 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months each. Tehal Singh, Amir Singh, Angrej Singh, Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Mal Singh. U/s 302/149 Indian Penal Code To undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for four months each. Tehal Singh, Amir Singh and Angrej Singh U/s 323 Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Mal Singh. U/s 323/149 Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 8. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 9. Tehal Singh, Amir Singh and Angrej Singh U/s 323 Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Mal Singh. U/s 323/149 Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 8. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 9. All the appellants have challenged their conviction for the respective offences mentioned therein and the order of sentence in the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that the Court has partly believed and partly disbelieved PW 4 Veero Bai injured, which is not permissible in law. Either the witness should be wholly believed or entirely disbelieved. According to him the statement of Waryam Singh complainant PW 3 cannot be made the basis of conviction of the accused as he himself was an interested witness being relation of the deceased. There was no motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased and in fact the motive stated by the prosecution is without any basis as the deceased and the complainant had no land as per the statement of Krishan Lal Patwari DW 1 over which there could be a dispute. Lastly, it was contended that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the fact that it was a sudden provocation, at best the accused are liable to be convicted only under Section 304 Part-II of the Code. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The plea of right of self defence taken by Tehal Singh is without any basis. None of the accused including Tehal Singh had suffered any injuries. 11. We have examined the entire evidence on record. Waryam Singh complainant PW 3 is an eye witness and injured in the occurrence. According to him the deceased Prem Singh was his brother and name of their other brother was Dewan Singh. PW 3 and Prem Singh were residing at farm house (Dhani), situated in the area of village Dhani Quadim. Veero PW 4 is wife of Dewan Singh i.e. sister-in-law of the deceased. According to this witness on the day of occurrence at about 8.00 A.M. they were sowing fodder in the land. After completing sowing they were going to release the bullocks while the accused present in Court were sitting in the field of Tehal Singh. Veero PW 4 is wife of Dewan Singh i.e. sister-in-law of the deceased. According to this witness on the day of occurrence at about 8.00 A.M. they were sowing fodder in the land. After completing sowing they were going to release the bullocks while the accused present in Court were sitting in the field of Tehal Singh. They came towards them while abusing. Mohinder Singh accused was armed with a Dang, Amir Singh, Angrej Singh, Tehal Singh and Mal Singh were armed with Tamba each. Harbans Singh was armed with Gandasa. Mal Singh accused gave a tamba blow on the head of Prem Singh. Accused Harbans Singh gave a gandasa blow from the sharp side on the back side of the head of Prem Singh. After receiving the above injuries, Prem Singh fell down on the ground while crying. In the meantime, Veero PW 4 also reached the site of the incident on hearing the alarm of Prem Singh. Accused Tehal Singh, Amir Singh and Angrej Singh gave tamba blow to Waryam Singh and he received one tamba blow on the left elbow of his arm, second tamba blow was received on the right scapular region and third tamba blow was received on the left jaw. He also fell down after receiving the aforesaid injuries while crying. Harbans Singh accused gave a gandasa blow from the sharp side hitting on the thumb of the left hand of Veero. Mal Singh accused gave a tamba blow on the right arm of Veero PW 4 and thereafter, accused left the site of incident with their respective weapons towards the fields of Tehal Singh accused. Thereafter this witness i.e. Waryam Singh PW.3 arranged for the bullock cart and took Prem Singh and Veero Bai in the cart to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, where they were examined. This witness has specifically stated that his father was a co-sharer in the agricultural land and Tehal Singh accused had purchased a share of one co-sharer in the joint Khata. Tehal Singh wanted to take possession of the share of the land purchased by him. There was civil litigation pending between the parties and they were not permitting Tehal Singh to take possession. Thus, the accused has a grudge against them and a motive to commit the crime. Tehal Singh wanted to take possession of the share of the land purchased by him. There was civil litigation pending between the parties and they were not permitting Tehal Singh to take possession. Thus, the accused has a grudge against them and a motive to commit the crime. In his cross- examination no suggestion was made that no litigation in regard to the land was pending in the Civil Court. On the contrary it has specifically come in the cross-examination of this witness that Tehal Singh had made a complaint to the police regarding theft to wheat etc. and Prem Singh, Dewan Singh and the witnesses were summoned to the police station which was vaguely denied by the witnesses. Nothing material could come on record during detailed cross- examination of this witnesses. 12. PW 4 Veero is the sister-in-law of the deceased and injured in the present cases. She was also examined and cross-examined at length. She by and large stood to the case of the prosecution. 13. The learned trial Court felt that the injuries on the person of Veero could be caused by a friendly hand as per medical evidence and as such disbelieved this witness i.e. Veero Bai to the extent of causing her a grievous hurt. However, held that her present at the place of occurrence was in no way doubtful and she could be present there and her testimony to that extent could safely be relied upon. The learned trial Court in this regard held as under :- "The statement of Dr. Gurdip SIngh (PW 1) accords and is in consonance with what has been observed by this court while up-raising and appreciating the nature of injuries on the person of Veero Bai seems to have been self-suffered or got inflicted through friendly hands as it seems to this court just because of her over-anxiety to convince the court that she was present at the time of occurrence. This court do not entertain any doubt that Veero Bai who is the wife of Diwan Singh brother of Waryam Singh complainant and Prem Singh (deceased) was present at the time of occurrence because the Dhani where she and other members of her family reside is quite near the place of occurrence. This court do not entertain any doubt that Veero Bai who is the wife of Diwan Singh brother of Waryam Singh complainant and Prem Singh (deceased) was present at the time of occurrence because the Dhani where she and other members of her family reside is quite near the place of occurrence. The presence of Veero Bai at the time of occurrence is quite natural and her statement cannot be brushed aside with suspicion because she reacted in her own way to remove the suspicion with regard to her natural presence at the time of occurrence. Some fringes or an embroidery of untruth that attaches to the statement of Veero Bai injured (PW 4) by herself suffering, two injuries on non-vital parts of her body do not show that her statement that she witnessed the occurrence is not true regarding the main aspect of the case." 14. While discussing the entire evidence including the site plan and finding the accused guilty of the offence including recovery of the weapons, the Court held as under :- "Scaled site plan Ex. PX prepared by Ranjit Singh Patwari with regard to the place of occurrence placed on the record shows that it was tendered into evidence by the learned Addl.P.P. and at time when this document was tendered on 17.8.1994 the court has recorded the remarks that mode of proof of this document was not objected to. This shows that place of occurrence as depicted and shown in the site plan Ex. PX prepared by Ranjit Singh Patwari has not been questioned on behalf of the accused. Affidavit Ex. PY of Dalwinder Singh constable, affidavit Ex. PZ of Tarsem Lal constable, affidavit Ex. PAA of MHC Surinder Singh and affidavit Ex. PBB of Darshan Singh constable were also tendered into evidence by the learned Addl. P.P. on 17.8.1994 and on that day the learned defence counsel made a statement that he did not want to cross- examine the witnesses of affidavits. Then we have on the record report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PY/1, a perusal of which shows that sample of blood stained earth was examined by the Chemical Examiner to Govt. Punjab, Patiala and human blood was found on this exhibit. The affidavits Ex.PY, Ex.PZ, Ex. PAA and Ex. Then we have on the record report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PY/1, a perusal of which shows that sample of blood stained earth was examined by the Chemical Examiner to Govt. Punjab, Patiala and human blood was found on this exhibit. The affidavits Ex.PY, Ex.PZ, Ex. PAA and Ex. PBB of Dalwinder Singh constable, Tarsem Lal constable, Surinder Singh MHC and Darshan Singh constable respectively prove on the record that parcel of blood stained earth did reach the office of Chemical Examiner to Govt. Punjab, Patiala with seals intact. This link evidence of the prosecution proves and establishes the prosecution case that the death of human being i.e. Prem Singh has actually taken place in this case. The recovery of dang Ex.P1 from Mohinder Singh accused, Gandasa Ex. P2 from Harbans Singh accused and Tamba Ex. P3 from the conscious possession of Mal Singh accused have been proved by Harcharan Singh Inspector (PW6) and Gurnam Singh ASI (PW5). The recovery of weapons of offence from the conscious possession of the accused Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Mal Singh proves their participation in the occurrence. 15. It is no rule of evidence that statement of a witness must be relied upon or rejected by the Court below. It is quite possible that part of the statement of the witness may be true in regard to a particular fact and is fully corroborated by other evidence on record while some part of her statement with regard to another fact may not be fully reliable particularly when such two portions are severable and can be looked into and appreciated by the Court in conjunction with the other evidence on record fully and finally. Such principle of severability is not any way an ingnuinity in the field of criminal jurisprudence. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is a well accepted maixm for appreciation of evidence even in administration of criminal justice. Thus, it will not be appropriate to reject or disbelieve the entire testimony of Veero Bai PW 4 as her presence at the place of occurrence appears to be quite natural but may be she did not suffer injuries as a result of assault by the accused persons. Thus, it will not be appropriate to reject or disbelieve the entire testimony of Veero Bai PW 4 as her presence at the place of occurrence appears to be quite natural but may be she did not suffer injuries as a result of assault by the accused persons. In view of this settled principle we will fully accept the finding recorded by the learned trial Court inasmuch as her presence at the site is fully corroborated by statement of Waryam Singh PW 3 as well as it is quite natural that she would be present at the site as they were living just nearby to the place of occurrence. 16. With regard to motive on the part of the accused, it is an admitted case that there was dispute between the parties in regard to the land. Civil litigation was pending between the parties. According to the accused they were in possession of the land and Tehal Singh alone caused injuries on the deceased in right of self-defence while according to the prosecution and the complainant, they were sowing fodder on their land and after they had completed the work, they were attacked by the accused. In other words, the occurrence is hardly in dispute as well as the pendency of civil litigation and parties asserting their rights forcefully on the land in question. 17. Death of Prem Singh is a fact. Motive per se is not a ground for conviction of an accused and absence thereof no reason for acquittal. The prosecution evidence has certainly been able to show existence of a material motive having relevance to the offence committed by the accused. All the other accused except Tehal Singh have taken a stand of false implication and that they were never present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. We have already referred and reproduced the relevant part of the statement of Tehal Singh accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code There is no evidence to show and none led by the defence that Tehal Singh had caused injuries upon the deceased and Waryam Singh PW 3 in exercise of his right of self defence. According to him Waryam Singh and Prem Singh were trying to forcibly take away their wheat bundles and then he and his bother Kashmir Singh after obstructing them had caused injuries using both sides of the gandasa. According to him Waryam Singh and Prem Singh were trying to forcibly take away their wheat bundles and then he and his bother Kashmir Singh after obstructing them had caused injuries using both sides of the gandasa. This statement of the accused Tehal Singh provides full credence to the case of the prosecution that Waryam Singh and Prem Singh were present at the site and that they were inflicted injuries. It was for the accused to establish the circumstances justifying right of self-defence. The accused themselves examined DW 1 Krishan Lal Patwari from that Halqa, but no question was asked to the said witness whether at the relevant time there were wheat bundles lying on the site in question and that they belonged to the accused party. It is for the defence to establish this part of its case which it had set up and show it to be probable. DW 1 stated in his cross-examination that the land had been allotted to Prem Singh son of Jiwan Singh i.e. the deceased and that land was at a distance of one killa from the house of Prem Singh and Jiwan Singh. The case of the prosecution as it originates from the FIR Ex. PZ/2 and as supported by PW 3 and partly PW 4 is fully supported by the medical evidence of PW 1 and PW 2. The site plan Ex. PX duly indicates the land of the complainant and deceased which is quite adjacent to the land of the accused. This site plan was never questioned by the accused while cross-examining the relevant witness. The version put forward by Tehal Singh in his statement is quite improbable inasmuch as it will be very difficult for one person to cause serious injuries to the other party who were three in number, particularly when Tehal Singh himself is quite an aged person of nearly 70 years at the time when the charge was framed. 18. It is a settled principle of law that statement of an accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code can be looked into by the Court and would be a relevant evidence to be taken into consideration insofar as it lends support substantially to the case of the prosecution. However, such a statement cannot be itself be made the ground for conviction of accused. However, such a statement cannot be itself be made the ground for conviction of accused. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Lakhmi, JT 1998(1) SC 679. For the reasons detailed above, we are of the considered view that the learned trial court has neither fallen in error of law nor has committed any palpable error in appreciation of prosecution evidence in concluding that the prosecution had proved it case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the learned trial Court in regard to conviction and sentence both. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the accused is, thus, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.