N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by accused Gopal, Ramnivas and Jagdish who all have been convicted under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for both the with additional sentence of fine Rs. 10,000. 00 for the former offence and Rs. 5,000. 00 for the latter, by lind Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, vide impugned judgment dated 25/5/1996 in Session Trial No. 192/1995. ( 2 ) THE incident took place around 12. 00 Oclock in the noon on 30th May, 1995, at village Sunthi, when it is said that deceased Bapulal had gone in the fields of the village to answer the natural call and was assaulted by accused appellants by means of axe, knife and iron rod. Accused Jagdish, it is alleged, dealt with axe blows chopping off both the hands of the deceased, while accused Ramnivas and Gopal assaulted the deceased by means of iron rod and knife, respectively. Another co-accused Bherulal (since acquitted) also accompanied the appellants and, it is said, that he was keeping watch so as to prevent any intervention. Dakhubai (PW 2), the widow of the deceased, on seeing assault on her husband, rushed to the spot and tried to save the latter. She was also assaulted by the accused persons causing servere injuries to her. ( 3 ) THE police, on receipt of information about the incident, reached the spot and recorded FIR (Ex. P/3) at the instance of Dakhubai, the same day at 7. 00 p. m. Later on, a crime was registered at P. S. Nahargarh the same evening and the investigation followed. Dakhubai was examined and treated for her injuries the same evening at District Hospital, Mandsaur, vide report Ex. P/2 1. Inquest as to the cause of death of the deceased was conducted by the police and the autopsy of the body of the deceased was also got performed the next morning, vide post mortem report Ex. P131. Accused persons were arrested on 14/7/1995 and the arms used by them in the incident were also recovered in the wake of information given by them in police custody. After other necessary investigation they all were charge sheeted for trial. ( 4 ) AT the trial all the accused persons abjured their guilt and denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. After other necessary investigation they all were charge sheeted for trial. ( 4 ) AT the trial all the accused persons abjured their guilt and denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. No evidence was, however, led by them in defence. The court below on evaluation of evidence led by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the present appellants, as aforesaid, acquitting said co-accused Bherulal. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed before us that deceased Bapulal died a homicidal death as a result of cutting and other injuries caused to him on 30/5/1995. This, besides being deposed by his wife Dakhubai, is borne out fully from the medical evidence of Dr. A. V. Gwaliorkar who conducted post mortem examination of the body of the deceased on 31/5/1995 and found that his both hands were chopped off from below the elbow joints and that he had a lacerated wound with underlying fracture of tibia and fibula bones on his right leg besides some abrasions all over his body, as detailed in the report Ex. P131. According to Dr. Gwaliorkar, the deceased had died due to excessive haemorrhage resulting from the aforesaid cutting wounds which had also cut major blood vessels of both the arms. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY, the factum of infliction of injuries to Dakhubai in the same incident also could not be disputed. The same besides being deposed, is borne out fully from the medical evidence of Dr. S. P. Mehta (PW 11) and Dr. S. K. Rathore (PW 9 ). Dr. Mehta had examined Dakhubai the same evening after the incident and found that she had two incised wounds one on left upper arm and the one on the right knee joint besides three lacerated wounds on right forearm and right leg, vide report Ex. P/21. On X-Ray examination by Dr. Rathore, fractures of right ulna and right tibia fibula bones fibula bones were also detected, vide report Ex. P/is. ( 7 ) THE question, thus, arises is as to who did the deceased to death and caused injuries to Dakhubai. ( 8 ) DAKHUBAI (PW 2), the widow of the deceased is the main witness in the case rather she is the sole eyewitness of the incident and the impugned conviction is also based mainly on here evidence. P/is. ( 7 ) THE question, thus, arises is as to who did the deceased to death and caused injuries to Dakhubai. ( 8 ) DAKHUBAI (PW 2), the widow of the deceased is the main witness in the case rather she is the sole eyewitness of the incident and the impugned conviction is also based mainly on here evidence. She has narrated the entire incident and testified that all the three accused appellants Gopal, Ramnivas and Jagdish assaulted her deceased husband. Jagdish dealt with axe blows chopping both of his hands while accused Ramnivas and Gopal assaulted him by means of iron rod and knife, respectively. She further stated that she was also assaulted by these accused persons. According to her accused Jagdish delivered an axe blow on her left hand, Gopal stabbed her in her right hand while Ramnivas broke her right leg by means of iron rod. ( 9 ) MR. Jaisingh, learned counsel for appellants has severely criticized her evidence and submitted that besides being an interested witness, her testimony is not in tune with the medical evidence on record. He dealt with her evidence almost threadbare in his endeavour to show that the learned trial Judge was altogether wrong in basing the impugned conviction on her solitary testimony. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, it would be unreasonable be discarded only on the ground that it is the evidence of a partisan or interested witness. As cautioned by the apex court in Jagir Singh1 , the mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. Moreover a close relative who is otherwise a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. On the other hand, a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person [see: Dallp Singh] ( 11 ) IN the instant case, Dakhubai, though a close relative of the deceased, was herself a victim of the said assault and received extensive injuries in the same incident. Her presence on the spot cannot be, therefore, doubted. All that is required is to analyse her evidence with due caution and particularly in the light of medical evidence available on record. Her presence on the spot cannot be, therefore, doubted. All that is required is to analyse her evidence with due caution and particularly in the light of medical evidence available on record. ( 12 ) THAT accused - appellant Jagdish assaulted the deceased by means of an axe cutting his both hands, is borne out fully from the medical evidence of Dr. A. V. Gwaliorkar (PW 13) and the post mortem report Ex. P/3 1. In fact both the hands of the deceased were chopped of from below the elbow joints. Obviously both these injuries were caused by a heavy cutting weapon like axe and, as deposed by Dakhubai, could safely be attributed to appellant Jagdish. The deceased also had a lacerated wound with underlying fracture of tibia and fibula bones on his right leg besides several abrasions on other parts of his body. These injuries caused by some hard and blunt object can, therefore, be attributed to appellant Ramnivas who, according to Dakhubai, was carrying and had used an iron rod in assaulting her deceased husband as also herself. As against these two accused persons Jagdish and Ramnivas, her testimony finds full conoboration from the medical evidence on record and there is nothing in her cross examination to discredit her testimony in this regard. ( 13 ) AS regards accused appellant Gopal, it is however, seen that no penetrating or stab wound which could be caused by a weapon like knife was found either on the person of the deceased or on the person of Dakhubai. Deceased had only two cutting wounds on both of his hands which could not be caused by a knife particularly a small knife shown to have been recovered from appellant Gopal. Similarly, Dakhubai herself had two incised wounds and there lacerated wounds, as detailed in the report Ex. P/21 and proved duly by Dr. Mehta. Two incised wounds found on her person were quite long in size (5 cm to 8 cm) and neither of them could be termed as penetrating or stab wound. The other three injuries were lacerated wounds which could be caused only by a hard and blunt object. Her injuries can also be, therefore, attributed to appellant Jagdish and Ramnivas only not to Gopal as neither of those injuries appeared to had been caused by a knife. The other three injuries were lacerated wounds which could be caused only by a hard and blunt object. Her injuries can also be, therefore, attributed to appellant Jagdish and Ramnivas only not to Gopal as neither of those injuries appeared to had been caused by a knife. A careful analysis of her evidence would thus, show that it were the accused Jagdish and Ramnivas who had assaulted the deceased as also this witness Dakhubai causing death of the former and injuring severely the latter. Complicity of appellant Gopal, however, remains doubtful. ( 14 ) IT is open for this court to believe or disbelieve a witness in part. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ugar Ahir3 is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. When we scrutinise the evidence of Dakhabai carefully and in terms of felitious metaphor, it becomes evident that accused appellant Jagdish and Ramnivas were the assassins of late Bapulal and were also responsible for assaulting Dakhabai. Appellant Gopal, at any rate is entitled to benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. ( 15 ) THE question still remains as to for what offences appellants Jagdish and Ramnivas can be held guilty. Mr. Jaisingh, learned counsel for appellants strenuously contended that no injury was inflicted to the deceased on any of his vital parts of the body. Similarly, the attack on Dakhabai was also on nonvital parts of her body i. e. , the upper and lower limbs. The intention of the accused appellants, it is further contended, was thus, not to kill any of these two persons but only to dismember them. We feel persuaded by the argument. It is true that chopping of hands of the deceased was a serious thing but the very fact that no such injury on head or other vital part of the body was caused, clearly goes to show that the intention of the appellant was no to kill the deceased, but only to brake or severe his limbs. It is significant to note that accused Ramnivas also directed his assault mainly on the lower limbs fracturing his right leg. However, these two appellants can certainly be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which they had inflicted were likely to cause death of the deceased. It is significant to note that accused Ramnivas also directed his assault mainly on the lower limbs fracturing his right leg. However, these two appellants can certainly be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which they had inflicted were likely to cause death of the deceased. Their act, therefore, fell short of murder as defined under Section 300 of IPC, but did constite culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. ( 16 ) AS regards the charge under Section 307, again it is seen that the attack on Dakhabai was not with intention to kill her. Nevertheless, grievous hurt was caused to her by means of a cutting weapon i. e. , axe as also by a blunt object the iron rod. Both the accused were, therefore, guilty under Section 326/34 of IPC, but not under Section 307 of IPC. ( 17 ) AS regards the sentence, imprisonment for ten years RI for the offence under Section 304 Part I and sentence of three years RI for the offence under Section 326 of IPC to appellant Jagdish will, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice. However, appellant Ramnivas deserves a little lenient view in the matter and a sentence of five and two years RI for the said offences would be sufficient. ( 18 ) IN the result the appeal succeeds in part and to the extent aforestated. While the conviction and sentence passed against appellant Gopal are setaside in toto and he is acquitted of all the charges, the conviction of appellants Jagdish and Ramnivas is altered from Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC to Sections 304 Part-I and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Appellant Jagdish is sentenced to ten years and three years RI, while appellant Ramnivas is sentenced to five and two years RI for the said offences, respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal allowed partly. .