JUDGMENT 1. - On the allegation of murder of three persons (Hari Singh, Amar Singh and Dharam Pal) three accused viz. Liladhar, Daya Ram and Smt. Daya Kaur were charge sheeted. Thereafter learned trial Judge took cognizance u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. against Sube Singh, Sumer Singh, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Vimla. Thus as many as seven accused persons were indicted before the learned trial Judge (Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu) in Sessions Case No. 36/2000 (Case No. 1 of 1997) who vide judgment dated January 7, 2001 convicted and sentenced the accused Liladhar @ Lila Ram and Daya Ram u/s. 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further suffer six month's rigorous imprisonment. The other accused persons Smt. Dayakaur, Sube Singh, Sumer Singh, Smt. Kamla, and Smt. Vimla however stood acquitted from the charges u/ss 302 IPC, 302/149, 323, 323/149 IPC. The convicted accused and the State of Rajasthan have preferred the instant appeals assailing the aforesaid finding of the learned trial Judge. 2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on July 30, 1995 some unknown persons telephonically informed Police Station Singhana that a serious incident had taken place at village Muradpur. On receiving the information Bhismraj Arya, Station House Officer, along with other police persons reached at the spot where informant Mahendra Singh submitted a written report with the averments that on the fateful day he (Mahendra Singh), Amar Singh, Hari Singh, Dharampal, Brahmanand and Jai Prakash were digging well in the field of Liladhar. The work got started at 7.00 a.m. but stopped at 1.00 p.m. on account of Teej Festival. Only Brahmanand and Jai Prakash had left the field with their she-camel and the persons who remained in Dhani, started smoking Hukka. Sumer Singh then gave Rs. 100/- to informant Mahendra Singh for bringing five bottles of wine, who brought wine which was consumed by all. Sumer Singh and Daya Ram went out for a while and came back along with Liladhar, Dayakaur, Kamla, Bimla and Sube Singh. All of them armed with Axe, Jelly with iron horns, Kassia and lathi. Sumar Singh and Daya Ram inflicted Axe blows on the head of Dharampal. Liladharr, inflicted Jelly blow on the head of Amar Singh. Daya Kaur inflicted axe blow on the head of informant. Sube Singh. All of them armed with Axe, Jelly with iron horns, Kassia and lathi. Sumar Singh and Daya Ram inflicted Axe blows on the head of Dharampal. Liladharr, inflicted Jelly blow on the head of Amar Singh. Daya Kaur inflicted axe blow on the head of informant. Sube Singh. Kamal and Bimla dragged Hari Singh out and inflicted Kasia blows on his person. Hari Singh, Ainar Singh and Dharam Pal died at the spot. The informant some how escaped and ran towards village. On the basis of said report a case u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. As already stated, on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed only against Liladhar @ Lila Ram, Daya Ram and Dayakaur. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, who framed charges u/s. 302, 302/34, 323 and 323/34 IPC against them. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The cognizance was taken against the other accused and charges were also framed against them. They also denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 59 documents. In the explanation u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused claimed innocence. Two witnesses were examined by the accused in defence. The learned trial judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced two accused persons as indicated hereinabove. 3. The prosecution case is based on the sole testimony of witness Mahendra Singh PW-8 who was found reliable by the learned trial Judge. In addition of many submissions advanced before us, the main contention was that Mahendra Singh was not a truthful witness and his version as to the incident was a garbled one therefore no reliance could have been placed on the testimony of such a witness. We thus find that in the instant appeals following two questions require our consideration: (i) Under what circumstances the testimony of single witness can be acted upon for the purpose of convicting a person ? (ii) How and under what circumstances while scanning the testimony of a witness, the Court can separate truth from the false- hood ? 4. Before appreciating the rival submissions, we find it appropriate at this juncture to refer to the post-mortem reports of the three deceased as well as the injury report of informant Mahendra Singh. (ii) How and under what circumstances while scanning the testimony of a witness, the Court can separate truth from the false- hood ? 4. Before appreciating the rival submissions, we find it appropriate at this juncture to refer to the post-mortem reports of the three deceased as well as the injury report of informant Mahendra Singh. As per post-mortem reports Ex.P/22, Ex.P/23 and Ex.P/24 deceased-Hari Singh, Amar Singh and Dharampal sustained following ante-mortem injuries: Hari Singh: (i) Lacerated wound 8cm x 4cm. Rt. parietal Region; (ii) Lacerated Wound 8cm x 3cm over frontal Region; (iii) Depressed # Occipital bone; (iv) Lacerated Wound 6cm x 2cm over Rt. Temporal Region; (v) Incised Wound 6cm x 1cm x soft tissue deep nape of neck; (vi) Lacerated Wound 6cm x 2cm over Rt. cheek of face; (vii) Lacerated Wound 4cm x 2cm over angle of mandible. Multiple Lacerated Wounds & contusion & abrasion all over body; (viii) Led leg bones Rt. The cause of death was shock resulting from enormous number of severe extensive injuries inflicted over head & chest mainly head region of body. Amar Singh : (i) Lacerated Wound frontal region 8cm x 4cm (ii) Lacerated Wound 10cm x 4cm Lt. Tempo parietal Region - depressed # temperor parietal; (iii) Lacerated Wound 4cm x 2cm over vertex; (iv) Lacerated Wound 6cm x 2cm over Lt. Side of face; (v) # body of C1-2 Vertebra; (vi) Multiple Lacerated Wound abrasion, contusion all over body; (vii) # F.A. bones (Lt.) (viii) # Shaft femur *(Rt.) The cause of death was shock resulting from severe and extensive injuries in enormous numbers inflicted on head region and cervical spine region of body. Dharampal : (i) Lacerated Wound 8cm x 4cm over Rt. frontal Region; (ii) Lacerated Wound 6cm x 3cm over mid Frontal Region; (iii) Lacerated Wound 10cm x 4cm x bone deep mid Parietal Region of skull; (iv) Lacerated wound 8cm x 4cm over Lt. Parietal Region of skull; (v) Incised Wound 10cm x 1cm x bone deep cutting of Rt. Temporal bone; (vi) Incised Wound cutting piece of Rt. Ear Lobule; (vii) Punctured Wound over Lt. Parietal Region of skull; (v) Incised Wound 10cm x 1cm x bone deep cutting of Rt. Temporal bone; (vi) Incised Wound cutting piece of Rt. Ear Lobule; (vii) Punctured Wound over Lt. Eye penetrating deep into skull; (viii) Lacerated Wound 4cm x 2cm over vertex; (ix) Lacerated Wound 4cm x 2cm over chin; (x) Cump # F.A. bones Rt.; (xi) #S multiple ribs on both sides multiple Lacerated Wounds & abrasions (antemortem in nature) all over body; The cause of death is traumatic shock resulting from several severe and extensive injuries inflicted over head & chest-mainly the enormous injuries inflicted over head region of body. A look at the injury-report (Ex.P/25) goes to show that the informant Mahendra Singh sustained as many as four injuries thus:- 1. Lacerated wound 8cm x 2cm x bone deep over (Lt.) Parietal region of skull. 2. Abrasion (Lt. shoulder) 3. Contusion 8cm x 4cm. (Rt.) Fore arm. 4. Abrasion on back. 5. Mahendra Singh PW-8 the sole eye witness of the case, in his deposition stated that on June 30, 1995 the digging work of well got stopped at 1 p.m. because of Teej festival and he himself, Hari Singh, Dharam Pal and Amar Singh remained there whereas Jai Parakash and Brahmanand went to their house. Informant then brought wine out of the money paid by Sumar Singh. Lila Dhar was making pegs of wine and each of them consumed two page. On the pretext of coming back Leela Dhar, Daya Ram and Sumer Singh went out and came back with Sube Singh; Kamla and Vimla. Daya Ram and Sumer Singh inflicted axe blow on the head of Dharam Pal. Blow with Jeli was given by Leeladhar on the person of Amar Singh. Daya Kaur gave axe blow on the person of informant. Sube Singh and Vimla gave beating to Hari Singh. On receiving axe blow the informant managed to push himself under the Takhat (wooden cot). When Leela Dhar inflicted Jeli blow to the informant, he made hue and cry. Sumer Singh and Daya Ram caused injuries to Dharam Pal and Leeladhar gave Jeli blow to Amar Singh. Daya Kaur inflicted axe blow on the person of informant. The informant then came running to his house and narrated the incident to his father Hava Singh, Jaiprakash and Brahmanand. Sumer Singh and Daya Ram caused injuries to Dharam Pal and Leeladhar gave Jeli blow to Amar Singh. Daya Kaur inflicted axe blow on the person of informant. The informant then came running to his house and narrated the incident to his father Hava Singh, Jaiprakash and Brahmanand. The informant and his father went to police Station Singhana and informed the SHO, who rushed to the place of incident in a jeep. The informant, his father and other police persons also accompanied the SHO. The report got written by Jaiprakash and informant put his signatures. The informant in the cross examination was confronted with his police statement and we find contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the informant. 6. It is contended by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Senior Advocate that witness Mahendra Singh has no sanctity for truth. There are material contradictions, inconsistencies and unnaturalities in his statement. He had improved upon his statement from time to time in the manner most suited to the prosecution. He has falsely implicated number of innocent persons. This witness has not given the correct version of the incident. His conduct during and after the incident is unnatural. Even the learned trial judge disbelieved his evidence qua the co- accused Daya Kaur, Sube Singh, Sumer Singh, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Vimla, therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on the testimony of Mahendra Singh. Learned counsel further canvassed that the prosecution has not come with clean hands. The origin and genesis of the occurrence has been deliberately withheld and a lop sided version has been introduced with an ulterior motive to implicate all the adult family members of the appellants. It is next urged that the trial judge has erred in easily brushing aside the important aspect that no immediate motive has been assigned for committing the crime. In absence of motive the complicity of the appellants with the crime is highly improbable. Conviction of the appellants on the same set of evidence which has been disbelieved qua the co-accused is not legally justified. It is also canvassed that there is inconsistency between ocular and medial evidence and the truth and falsehood in the testimony of Mahendra Singh is so intermingled that it is difficult to separate them therefore the evidence has to be rejected it in its entirety. It is also canvassed that there is inconsistency between ocular and medial evidence and the truth and falsehood in the testimony of Mahendra Singh is so intermingled that it is difficult to separate them therefore the evidence has to be rejected it in its entirety. Reliance is placed on various judicial pronouncements that shall be considered in the later part of this judgment. 7. Section 134 of the Evidence Act rules that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. The Apex Court in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 held (per majority) that credible. evidence of a solitary witness can form the basis of conviction. We have therefore to adjudge as to whether the testimony of Mahendra Singh PW-8 is confidence inspiring and can form the basis of conviction. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the material on record of the instant case we find following peculiar features : (i) Mahendra Singh PW-8 consumed wine just before the incident. (ii) Mahendra Singh's earliest version in the FIR Ex P/4 was that Liladhar had dealt a blow with Jeli studded with iron horns like forks whereas in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) he deposed that Liladhar took out a lathi from Tapri (hut) and dealt a blow on the head of Amar Singh. While at the trial he stated that Liladhar dealt a blow with Jeli on the head of Amar Singh. (iii) In his police statement (Ex.D/1) Mahendra Singh stated that Daya Kaur had dealt a lathi blow whereas at the trial he deposed that Daya Kaur inflicted axe blow on his head. (iv) In his police statement (Ex.D-1) Mahendra Singh stated that his father asked him as to why he used to quarrel after consuming wine but at the trial he denied to have given such statement. (v) There are other improvements and inconsistencies also in the deposition of Mahendra Singh. (vi) Investigating Officer Bhishm Raj (PW-17) in his cross examination deposed that he did not record the statement of Mahendra Singh on July 30, 1995 as he was under the effect of intoxication and perturbed because of death of his three uncles. (vii) Vide injury report (Ex.P/25) Mahendra Singh had sustained one lacerated wound on parietal region, two abrasions on left shoulder and back and one contusion on fore arm. (vii) Vide injury report (Ex.P/25) Mahendra Singh had sustained one lacerated wound on parietal region, two abrasions on left shoulder and back and one contusion on fore arm. (viii) As per site plan of the place of incident Ex.P/5 three dead bodies of the deceased Hari Singh, Amar Singh and Dharam Pal were found lying in the field of appellant-Liladhar. Takhat (wooden cot) was also shown lying on the field. At place `E' the well situated in the field was shown on the north side of which fresh soil came out of the well after digging was seen. (xi) Learned trial judge disbelieved the testimony of Mahendra Singh qua the other co-accused persons. 9. We now proceed to consider the case law cited by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar learned Senior Counsel. In Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cr.L.J. 1717 presence of sole eye witness at the time of incident was found doubtful therefore it was held that conviction cannot be based on evidence of sole eye witness. In Vedivelu v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 it was indicated that if the testimony of sole eye witness is found to be entirely reliable, conviction can be based. Badri v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 560 was the case wherein it was held if the Court is reasonably satisfied it can act upon the testimony of a single witness. In Ramji Surya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 810 it was propounded that if the testimony of single witness is honest and truthful the Court can record the conviction. In Dayabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 it was held that if there are inconsistencies in the deposition of a witness no reliance can be placed on his testimony. Kanbi N. Virji v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1970 SC 219 was the case wherein it was indicated that where truth and falsehood are not separable the evidence has to be rejected in its entirety. In Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962 the exceptions to the principles to separate grain from chaff have been indicated. In Hallu & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1936 it was held that in appeal against acquittal, if two views of evidence are possible, the High Court should not interfere with order of acquittal. In Muluwas & Ors. In Hallu & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1936 it was held that in appeal against acquittal, if two views of evidence are possible, the High Court should not interfere with order of acquittal. In Muluwas & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 989 , it was held that where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one taken by the trial Court and the other reached by the High Court, in the absence of any material irregularity, manifest error or illegality, the High Court in appeal against acquittal should not interfere with the order of acquittal, merely because it thinks that it would, sitting as a trial Court, have taken the other view of the evidence. In Mohar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab , it was held that the witnesses categorically stated that the accused assaulted the deceased with spade but the doctor who held the autopsy of the deceased clearly stated that the injuries could be caused only by a Kassi the accused was given benefit of doubt in view of the glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. In Ram Narain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 prosecution evidence inconsistent with medical evidence and that of ballistic expert, the accused were acquitted. In Awadhesh & Ann v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1158 , it was held that acquittal not to be disturbed unless findings of trial Court are perverse. In Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 , it was held that where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. In Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana . It was held that where the view taken by the trial Court was reasonably possible to be taken, the High Court could not reverse it merely because it was inclined to take a different view of the facts. 10. Distinguishing normal discrepancies from material discrepancies, the Apex Court in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , indicated that only material discrepancies affect the credibility of the case. 10. Distinguishing normal discrepancies from material discrepancies, the Apex Court in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , indicated that only material discrepancies affect the credibility of the case. In Dharmender Singh v. State of Gujrat, (2002) 4 SCC 679 it was held that evidence as a whole should be appreciated. If prosecution evidence as a whole rings true and inspires confidence, then despite the contradictions, conviction can be recorded. In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (supra) their Lordships observed that if the discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the Court should treat (sic tread) upon it, but if the same are boulders, the Court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. 11. The Apex Court in Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234 propounded in para 53 thus: "Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicious and thereby destroy social defence. Justice can not be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused." In para 54 it was observed that: "If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial, if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are peon to error, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guidelines, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take the place of judicial evaluation." 12. It is well settled that testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy and in order of discredit an injured witness, convincing evidence is required. It is absurd to support that an injured person would take recourse to implicate someone against whom there was enmity leaving aside the real assassin. The evidence of witness is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. 13. The evidence of witness is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. 13. Very recently their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rizan v. State of Chhatishgarh, (2003) 2 SCC 661 , after scanning the ratio indicated in all the past decisions gave new interpretation to the principle of FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS thus: "Stress was laid by the accused appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence, a prayer is to apply the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused, persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not run if from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witness can not be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law." 14. Keeping the afore quoted principles in mind when we look at the statement of Mahendra Singh PW-8 we find that in his testimony truth and falsehood are not intermingled. We do not find any difficulty in separating the grain from the chaff. As already noticed that Mahendra Singh in his deposition stated that he himself and the three deceased persons were digging well in the field of appellant Leeladhar. This version of Mahendra Singh stands corroborated from the site plan Ex.P/5 according to which there was a well in the field of Liladhar, on the north side of which, fresh soil dug out of the well, was lying. This version of Mahendra Singh stands corroborated from the site plan Ex.P/5 according to which there was a well in the field of Liladhar, on the north side of which, fresh soil dug out of the well, was lying. All the three deceased were also found lying in the field of Lila Dhar. Mahendra Singh also disposed that on receiving axe blow he managed to push himself under the Takhat (wooden cot). The fact that Takhat was lying in the field of Liladhar gets corroboration from the site plan. Mahendra Singh also sustained injuries in the course of the incident and we find his presence at the place of incident natural. If the learned trial judge found him false qua the other co-accused persons it does not mean that his entire evidence should be discarded. The discrepancies shown in the statement of Mahendra Singh are normal discrepancies and they do not affect the prosecution case qua the appellants Liladhar and Daya Ram. We find the evidence of Mahendra Singh qua the appellants Liladhar and Daya Ram confidence inspiring. Deadbodies of Hari Singh, Amar Singh and Dharam Pal were found lying in the field of appellant Leeladhar and the major part of the evidence of Mahendra Singh is found trustworthy and the basis of prosecution case is found intact. Except two appellants Leeladhar and Daya Ram, version of Mahendra Singh regarding involvement of the remaining accused persons was exaggerated and those accused persons were entitled to benefit of doubt. In Bojoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 the Apex Court observed that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions in this country and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court in cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars, to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to that extent. 15. In the case on hand the substratum of the prosecution case qua the appellants Leeladhar and Daya Ram remains intact and the evidence of Mahendra Singh against these appellants is trustworthy. We therefore find ourselves unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Senior Advocate. 15. In the case on hand the substratum of the prosecution case qua the appellants Leeladhar and Daya Ram remains intact and the evidence of Mahendra Singh against these appellants is trustworthy. We therefore find ourselves unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Senior Advocate. We do not see any infirmity in the findings of the learned trial judge. The appellants Leeladhar and Daya Ram have been rightly convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC. 16. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeals, the same stand dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******