Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Those who had gone for worship in a temple could not have anticipated the tragedy that had be fallen on them, as in a killing spree that followed thereafter, while three were gunned down, those who survived, became eye-witnesses of the incident. Precisely, the case of the prosecution was that on fateful day of 30th June, 1994, Bipin Bihari Yadav (PW 2), Sudhir Kumar Yadav (PW 3) and Putul Kumar Yadav (PW 6) had gone in the company of the three deceased, namely, Brahmanand Yadav, Kunj Bihari Yadav and Kapildeo Yadav for worship in a temple and during their return, when they came at the outskirt of village Makaspur, they noticed appellants and others emerging from a place, below the bridge holding arms and, when they pounced upon them, they ran for safety. It was alleged that on exhortation made by Manager Yadav and Dhananjay Yadav, Dhananjay Yadav shot dead Brahmanand Yadav on apprehension by Mutuk Yadav and Udai Yadav, pursuant thereto, Dilip Yadav allegedly shot dead Kunj Bihari Yadav on his apprehension by Prakash Yadav and Mantu Yadav and similar accusations were attributed to Manager Yadav for apprehending Kapildeo Yadav, who was shot dead by Lallan Yadav. Those who witnessed gruesome killing of their companions, ran to the village to narrate their woes, and after they again came to the place of occurrence, noticed dead bodies lying there. 2. Police Officer shortly, within two hours of the incident, happened to reach the place of occurrence, when fardbeyan of Sudhir Kumar Yadav (PW 3) had been recorded there and investigation followed, in course of which, Police Officer prepared inquest report over the dead bodies of the deceased, collected empty shells of cartridges, noticed marks of blood at the place of occurrence, sent dead bodies to mortuary, recorded statement of Bipin Bihari Yadav, Putul Kumar Yadav, Surya Narain Yadav, Ram Pravesh Yadav and Bulbul Yadav on the following day of the incident itself, took steps for apprehension of the appellants and others, who were absconding, and eventually laid charge-sheet before the Court. A good number of witnesses, both on behalf of the State and the defence had been examined at trial, and documents too which are quite large in numbers were placed on the record on behalf of the defence, ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to the appellants and others. 3. A good number of witnesses, both on behalf of the State and the defence had been examined at trial, and documents too which are quite large in numbers were placed on the record on behalf of the defence, ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to the appellants and others. 3. Defence of the appellants had been that many a persons of the adjoining villages were hostile to the deceased, they having criminal antecedents, for their, teasing female members during their visit at Gonudham. However, trial Court minutely considered every details and considering their defence, while acquitted Pappu Yadav alias Ashwani Yadav and Bijay Yadav, also recorded yerdict of acquittal against Uday Yadav, and Manager Yadav, considering their plea of alibi and also recorded finding of acquittal also against Mantu Yadav, Prakash Yadav and Matuk Yadav, due to insufficiency of evidence operating adverse to them, and it is how that the appellants alone out of ten persons, who were put on trial, suffered conviction, who were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the trial Court which have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. 4. Since manifold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the findings recorded by the Court below, lest we do not loose sight of them, we consider it proper to discuss narratives of the witnesses which are not in much details. Reiterating his earliest version about appellants and others pouncing upon them, when he along with Bipin Bihari Yadav, Putul Kumar Yadav and three deceased had reached at outskirt of village Makaspur, Sudhir Kumar Yadav (PW 3) states that shortly thereafter Dhananjay Yadav had shot Brahmanand Yadav on his apprehension by Uday Yadav and Mutuk Yadav. Narration quite in terms of his earliest version was made by him about Dilip Yadav having shot dead Kunj Bihari Yadav on his apprehension by Prakash Yadav and Mantu Yadav and similar accusations were attributed to Manager Yadav for apprehending Kapil Yadav who was shot dead by Lallan Yadav. Narration quite in terms of his earliest version was made by him about Dilip Yadav having shot dead Kunj Bihari Yadav on his apprehension by Prakash Yadav and Mantu Yadav and similar accusations were attributed to Manager Yadav for apprehending Kapil Yadav who was shot dead by Lallan Yadav. The trial Court has broadly classified material witnesses who are on the incident, in two sets, as while Suraj Narain Yadav (PW 1) and Bulbul Yadav (PW 7) happen to be witness about appellants and others speedily going towards place of occurrence carrying arms with them, Ram Pravesh Yadav (PW 4) happens to be witness about their retreat from the place of occurrence carrying arms with them. We may mention Bulbul Yadav (PW 7) who states that while he was sowing seeds in the field, he noticed appellants and others going towards Gonudham with firearms and shortly thereafter, after 45 minutes he had heard sounds of firing. We may notice narratives of Surya Narain Yadav (PW 1), who says that while he was working in the field which is a bahiyar in village Makaspur, he noticed appellants and others speedily going to south with firearms, and shortly thereafter he heard sounds of firing and noticed these persons retreating with firearms. He being scared came to village and learnt about killing of Brahmanand Yadav, Kunj Bihari Yadav and Kapil Yadav. He too ran to the place of occurrence where they lay dead. As for Ram Pravesh Yadav (PW 4), at a distance of about 500 yards east to the bridge, where the appellants and others had emerged holding arms, he was grazing cattle when he noticed appellants and others going towards east in haste carrying firearms with them. They were talking about having accomplished some work that day, and he could know about the incident only when he came to his house with cattle, some times darkness had set in. 5. Other set of witnesses are on material particulars of the incident and they happen to be Bipin Bihari Yadav (PW 2) and Putul Kumar Yadav (PW 6). We may notice their evidence to consider merit and also their credibility which had been seriously questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Other set of witnesses are on material particulars of the incident and they happen to be Bipin Bihari Yadav (PW 2) and Putul Kumar Yadav (PW 6). We may notice their evidence to consider merit and also their credibility which had been seriously questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants. Without burdening the judgment we may say that similar narrations, as that of PW 3, were made by Bipin Bihari Yadav (PW 2) also about complicity of appellants and others in ghastly killing of three deceased in course of their return to village from Gonudham where they had been to a temple. 6. Almost similar had been the evidence of Putul Kumar Yadav (PW 6) also that he along with Bipin Bihari Yadav and Sudhir Kumar Yadav and three deceased had been to Gonudham for worship in a temple and while they were returning along the railway track, appellants and others emerged from a place below the bridge holding arms when on exhortation made by Dhananjay Yadav and Manager Yadav, they pounced upon them. Though they made endeavours for their escape, Dhananjay Yadav shot dead Brahmanand Yadav on his apprehension by Uday Yadav and Matuk Yadav, Dilip Yadav shot dead Kunj Bihari Yadav on apprehension of the latter by Prakash Yadav and Mantu Yadav, and as for complicity of Lallan Yadav, witness states that he shot dead Kapil Yadav on apprehension of the latter by Manager Yadav. Then they rushed to their village and again came to the place of occurrence in the company of the villagers and found Brahmanand Yadav, Kunj Bihari Yadav and Kapil Yadav lying dead. 7. Nand Kishore Shrivastava (PW 9), who was Investigating Officer, stated to have recorded entry in station diary about telephonic message, he received about killing of three persons near village Makaspur Railway track when he rushed there. He noticed two dead bodies there and recorded fardbeyan of Sudhir Kumar at 00.30 hours, in the night on 1.7.1994. He prepared inquest report, seized three empty shells of cartridges found marks of blood, sent dead bodies to mortuary for post-mortem examination, recorded statement of Bipin Bihari Yadav, Putul Kumar Yadav, Sudhir Kumar Yadav, Ram Pravesh Yadav, and Bulbul Yadav on the following day of the incident. He stated to have taken steps for apprehension of the appellants and others who were absconding. 8. He stated to have taken steps for apprehension of the appellants and others who were absconding. 8. Now we may advert to the positive finding recorded by the doctor who held autopsy over the dead bodies and he happens to be Dr. H.L. Ansari (PW 8), Without going in details, we notice that the doctor noticed entry wounds oh chest, on temporal area, on head of dead body of Kunj Bihari Yadav whose skull bone was fractured into several pieces. As for Brahmanand Yadav, the doctor noticed entry wounds on left side of forehead, right scapular region and right side lateral and back of abdomen and skull bone too was found fractured. As for dead body of Kapildeo Yadav, the other deceased, there was entry wound on left side of temporal area of head and left forearm, and in his case too the doctor noticed skull bone broken in several pieces. All injuries on the deceased were sufficient in estimation of the doctor to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 9. Though there are other witnesses too examined by State and defence, we do not consider it essential to reiterate them as while home of the witnesses are on preparation of inquest report, others are formal, and as for defence too, a good number of witnesses were examined for alibi of some of other accused and also appellant Dhananjay Yadav, who were put on trial. 10. Now, some of the lucid submissions on behalf of the appellants can be noticed. Contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants that though several infirmities rendered the prosecution version vulnerable, the trial Court lost sight of these vital factors. It was inter alia submitted that the conduct of PWs 2, 3 and 6 who allegedly accompanied the deceased in course of their gruesome killing, in not coming for their rescue or raising alarm, was rather most unusual. As for PW 3 sub-mission is that his conduct was contrary to human instinct, as notwithstanding PW 2 and PW 3 being brothers of Kunj Bihari Yadav, they had not taken pains even to accompany the dead body to the mortuary. As for PW 3 sub-mission is that his conduct was contrary to human instinct, as notwithstanding PW 2 and PW 3 being brothers of Kunj Bihari Yadav, they had not taken pains even to accompany the dead body to the mortuary. In quick succession submissions are made that accepting narration made by these three eye-witnesses to be true on face value, their evidences on other score to merits rejection, as on their own showing they had not even informed the family members of the deceased persons after they returned to the village, and that apart, even though information about ghastly killing of three persons were shown to have been given to Deokumar and Sandeo, none of them were examined by the State. Submission is that even Satrughan Yadav, who was a witness about deceased and the three witnesses going towards Gonudham for worship had not been examined which makes the prosecution case a mystery. However, submission made on behalf of the appellants, can be repelled for the simple reason that for inaction of PWs 2, 3, and 6 in not coming for rescue of the deceased, we may take into consideration that they were quite unarmed and bare handed, whereas assailants were armed with deadly weapons, and that apart, how a person would react in a situation like this cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. It would depend on many factors like in the present case, where witnesses are unarmed but the assailants are armed with deadly weapon. In a given case instinct of self preservance can be the dominant factor. So far other limb or argument was concerned, witnesses state that after they returned from the village, a number of villagers had accompanied them to the place of occurrence and it is quite unlikely that family members of the deceased would not have accompanied them. 11. Submission is that though there had been defence of alibi on behalf of Uday Yadav, Manager Yadav and also Dhananjay Yadav, while alibi of Uday Yadav and Manager Yadav on same set of evidence had been accepted by trial Court, deferice of alibi of Dhananjay Yadav had been disbelieved, which did not show proper appreciation of evidences the trial Court. Submission is that though there had been defence of alibi on behalf of Uday Yadav, Manager Yadav and also Dhananjay Yadav, while alibi of Uday Yadav and Manager Yadav on same set of evidence had been accepted by trial Court, deferice of alibi of Dhananjay Yadav had been disbelieved, which did not show proper appreciation of evidences the trial Court. Yet it is urged that though incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. conduct of three eye-witnesses was rather unusual in view of the fact that they would stay in village for two hours even though they had witnessed gruesome killing of their companions, but this argument too can be negatived for the reason that village Koili Khutaha lies at a distance of 2-1/2 Kms. from outskirt of village Makaspur where the incident had taken place. These three witnesses had gone on foot to the village and shortly thereafter they had returned to place of occurrence in company of other villagers. If they are to be believed, they returned to the place of occurrence at about 8 p.m. within two hours of the incident when Police Officer too had arrived there along with superior Police Officer who had supervised the investigation. There appears to be nothing unusual in conduct of eye-witnesses to discredit their credibility. 12. Other submission is that in backdrop of explicit evidence of eye-witnesses that the deceased had suffered injuries on their persons in course of their chase by appellants and other companions, it was reasonably expected that injuries would be on back part of their bodies, but, as has been the finding of the doctor, all the injuries were on front part of the body of the deceased. However, we may notice the positive findings of the doctor and also his view about posture of the deceased when they sustained injuries, as for Brahmanand Yadav the deceased, opinion of the doctor was that while there was an injury on forehead, rest two injuries were possible from sides, and in case of Kunj Bihari Yadav and Kapil Dev, too the doctor has not completely ruled out infliction of injuries from sides. Submission can be negatived for other reasons too, as, if a man is shot in moving posture, it is not unlikely that he may sustain injury on front part of the body, and we may profitably refer to a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 6 SCC 240 : 1998 (2) East Cr C 1101 (SC), State of Bihar V/s. Ram Padarath Singh and others. Though their object to visit Gonudham for worship had been questioned, we find that suggestions were given to Bipin Bihari Yadav (PW 2) that as Brahmanand Yadav had purchased revolver, they had gone to Gonudham to celebrate the purchase, and in view of these suggestions we feel that prosecution version about deceased and three eye-witnesses having gone to Gonudham had been accepted by the defence, though for other object. Though the defence of the appellant had been about killing of the three deceased by thought persons who were hostile to them due to their criminal antecedent, the defence had not chosen to examine witness to strengthen their defence. 13. Though attention of witnesses had been drawn, neither they are on material particulars of the incident, nor Investigating Officer was confronted with those questions to make the witnesses incredible. While evaluating probative value of evidence of witnesses, the trial Court disbelieved Surya Narain Yadav (PW 1), Ram Pravesh Yadav (PW 4), and also Bulbul Yadav (PW 7) considering them chance witnesses and though in case of Surya Narain Yadav, we too endorse findings of the Court below, for there being no occasion for him to witness assailants and others he residing outside. We have noticed that evidence of Ram Pravesh Yadav (PW 4} and Bulbul Yadav (PW 7), which of course was of ancillary nature, did not suffer infirmity for rejection of their evidence. Simply because Ram Pravesh Yadav had enmity with witnesses in case of murder of Ranjit Yadav, that was not a valid ground for rejection of his evidence. This witness hails from village Koili Kothaha and he witnessed assailants going with arms. His statement too was recorded by police on following day of the incident, and similar was the case with evidence of Bulbul Yadav (PW 7) too, who hails from village Kutaha. This witness hails from village Koili Kothaha and he witnessed assailants going with arms. His statement too was recorded by police on following day of the incident, and similar was the case with evidence of Bulbul Yadav (PW 7) too, who hails from village Kutaha. This witness too was disbelieved by the trial Court, as Shankar Yadav, Jalandhar Yadav and Manchu Yadav to whom incident was narrated the following day, had not come to lend assurance to the prosecution case. In our view, this witness, however, deserves credence for narration made by him, about part of the incident. 14. Other criticism was that since major part of the incident has been disbelieved by the trial Court, and good number of accused were acquitted, there does not appear to be good evidence on record to fasten guilt against appellants. We have noticed that the trial Court too noticed that there was mixture of truth and falsehood in the prosecution version and we are of the view that even if major portion of evidence is found to be doubtful, in case of residue, if it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, notwithstanding acquittal of others, order of conviction can be maintained and that apart maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has neither received general acceptance nor the maxim has come to occupy the status of law. We are of the view that when it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grains and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation, an alternatively, new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by prosecution, completely from the context, then only available course to be made is to discard evidence in toto, and reliance can be placed on decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 1962 , Bulaka Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab. The trial Court while evaluating credibility of witnesses had taken into consideration also voluminous documents that were placed on the record to suggest enmity between the parties, but on that score too we are of the view that witnesses cannot be disbelieved, in case they were found credible on essential particulars of the incident. The trial Court while evaluating credibility of witnesses had taken into consideration also voluminous documents that were placed on the record to suggest enmity between the parties, but on that score too we are of the view that witnesses cannot be disbelieved, in case they were found credible on essential particulars of the incident. The trial Court had taken all care and precaution for separation of grain from the chaff and had minutely considered all the details while recording verdict of guilt against the appellants. 15. Learned counsel for the informant in Cr. Rev. No. 174 of 1998 was heard who assailed finding of the Court below in recording verdict of acquittal against rest of the accused persons and submission is that when on same set of evidence conviction has been recorded against appellants, no valid reason can be assigned for recording verdict of acquittal against rest. We have given our serious consideration to this aspect of the matter, and on meticulous appreciation of evidence we find no good reason to upset finding of acquittal and that apart for setting aside the order of acquittal in revision, it has been reiterated by Courts on more than one occasion that there must be manifest irregularity in the judgment of the Court below or there must be grave miscarriage of justice. High Court would not be justified even on wrong view of law taken by the Sessions Court or even if there is misappreciation of evidence, and reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 707 , Mahendra Pratap Singh V/s. Sarju Singh. Reference can also be had to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2002 (3) East Cr C 119 (SC) : (2002) 4 PLJR (SC) 65, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar in which observations were made by the Apex Court that mere reaching a different conclusion by High Court, there would not be justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal, and that apart, this fact cannot be lost sight of that witnesses in their endeavour cannot help in giving embroidery to the story but what is to be considered by the Court is the truth. 16. 16. Having given our anxious and deepest consideration to evidences on the record, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there being no merit, both the appeals and revision are dismissed. SACHCHIDANAND JHA, J. 17 I agree.