JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 20/99 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months SI 2. It may be stated here that by the same judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-appellant the offence u/ss. 302/34 and 323 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also acquitted the accused-Pintu for the offence u/ss. 302, 302/34 IPC, but convicted him for the offence u/s. 323 IPC, but for that offence, he was released on probation. The learned Sessions Judge also acquitted the accused-Kishan @ Kishanlal of all the charges framed against him i.e. for the offence u/ss. 302, 302/34 & 323 IPC. 3. It arises in the following circumstances : On 1.7.1998 at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, PW-10 Murari lodged a written report Ex.P/10 with the police station Sapotara District Karauli before PW-11 Lekhraj Singh, who was at that time SHO of that Police Station stating inter alia that on 30.6.1998 at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening in the village Berunda, his father Sugniya (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased') was going to jungle to satisfy the nature's call and when he was going on the way, the accused-appellant, another acquitted accused-Kishan and Pintu and some other persons encircled deceased and at that time, accused-appellant was armed with sword and another acquitted accused- Kishan was also armed with sword and the accused-appellant gave a sword blow the head of the deceased and the second sword blow was given by acquitted accused-Kishan on the neck of the deceased and on hearing cries, PW-8 Rishikesh, who was grand-son of the deceased, reached on the spot and when PW-8 Rishikesh intervened in the matter, accused-Pintu gave a kulhari blow on his left leg and all accused persons treating that the deceased had died, had run away from the place of occurrence. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/10 by PW-10 Murari that the above facts were narrated to him by PW-8 Rishikesh, who, according to him, was present on the spot and when the deceased was being taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. On this report Ex.P/10, PW-11 Lekhraj Singh registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/11 and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex./3 was got prepared by PW-11 Lekhraj Singh and the accused-appellant was got arrested by PW-11 Lekhraj Singh on 2.7.1998 through arrest memo Ex.P/1. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW-4 Dr. Puranmal Verma and the post-mortem report is Ex.P/5 where it was opined that the cause of death of the deceased was coma, due to organic brain damage due to fracture of skull bones and brain injury and haemorrhage. PW-8 Rishikesh was also got medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Puranmal Verma and his injury report is Ex.P/6, which shows that he received only one injury. The accused-appellant was also got medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Puranmal Verma and his injury report is Ex.P/4, which shows that he received three injuries. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the present accused-appellant and another acquitted accused-Kishan and Pintu for the offence u/ss. 302, 302/34 & 323 IPC in the Court of Magistrate and from where, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 26.2.1996, the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli framed charges for the offence u/s. 302 alternatively 302/34 & 323 IPC against the accused-appellant and another acquitted accused-Kishan and Pintu and the charges was read over and explained to them. They denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited several documents and thereafter, statements of the accused-appellant and another acquitted accused- Kishan and Pintu u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No evidence was led in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli through impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia:- (i) That deceased died because of the head injury. No evidence was led in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli through impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia:- (i) That deceased died because of the head injury. (ii) That PW-8 Rishikesh received only one injury at the hands of another accused-Pintu and thus, the learned trial Judge found the case for the offence u/s. 323 IPC proved against accused-Pintu. (iii) That PW-8 Rishikesh was treated as sole eye-witness of the occurrence. (iv) That PW-8 Rishikesh was grand-son of the deceased and his evidence was found reliable and trustworthy by the learned trial Judge and the plea that since he was interested and relative witness, his evidence should be discarded, was rejected by the learned trial Judge. (v) That since PW-8 Rishikesh was an injured witness, therefore, his presence on the spot was found natural one by the learned trial Judge. (vi) That the fact that accused-appellant received injuries at the hands of the deceased had not been found proved and established. (vii) That no doubt PW-8 Rishikesh, sole eye-witness of the occurrence, had not explained the injuries of the accused- appellant, but for that, the case of the prosecution was not found doubtful by the learned trial Judge and further, these injuries of accused-appellant were found trivial in nature and thus, the learned trial Judge came to the. conclusion that these injuries had not affected the case of the prosecution in any manner. (viii) That injury No. 1 of the post-mortem report Ex.P/5, which was on head of the deceased, was caused by the present accused-appellant by sword. (ix) That since the injury on head had affected the brain of the deceased, therefore, the plea of the accused-appellant that the case for the offence u/s. 304 IPC was made out, was rejected by the learned trial Judge. (x) That witnesses PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan reached on the spot, after the incident had taken place, but prior to them, PW-8 Rishikesh had already reached on the place of occurrence. (xi) That accused-Pintu had not caused any injury to the deceased. (x) That witnesses PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan reached on the spot, after the incident had taken place, but prior to them, PW-8 Rishikesh had already reached on the place of occurrence. (xi) That accused-Pintu had not caused any injury to the deceased. (xii) That since PW-8 Rishikesh was contradicted with his police statement Ex.D/1 in which he has not mentioned the name of the acquitted accused-Kishan, therefore, statement of PW-8 Rishikesh recorded in Court in which he had stated that acquitted accused-Kishan also gave sword blow on neck of the deceased, was not found truthful version by the learned trial judge and thus, the learned trial Judge carne to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that acquitted accused-Kishan gave sword blow on neck of the deceased and the learned trial Judge further came to the conclusion that so far as the present accused-appellant was concerned, he gave only one blow on the head of the deceased with sword. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant : (i) That learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and thus, from the evidence on record, PW-8 Rishikesh should have not been treated as an eye-witness of the occurrence because of the following reasons : (a) That he was interested witness being grand son of the deceased; (b) That he reached on the spot after the occurrence had taken place; (c) That in the site plan Ex.P/3, his residence has not been shown; (d) That since there was darkness at the time of alleged occurrence, therefore, there was no possibility to see the occurrence by him. (ii) That since injuries of the accused-appellant have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, from that point of view also, the case of the prosecution comes under the shadow of doubt and the accused-appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt. (ii) That since injuries of the accused-appellant have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, from that point of view also, the case of the prosecution comes under the shadow of doubt and the accused-appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt. (iii) That since deceased had received two injuries; one on head and another on neck by 'sharp-edged weapon and since only head injury had been attributed to the accused-appellant and for another neck injury, the so-called accused-Kishan had been acquitted by the learned trial Judge therefore, in such circumstances, since co-accused-Kishan has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, therefore, on the same evidence, the accused- appellant should also have been acquitted or for one head injury, the accused-appellant should have not been convicted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and at the most, the act of accused- appellant causing one injury on head of deceased would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s. 304 Part II IPC and for the offence u/s. 304 Part II IPC, if the accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, it would meet the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of the case. 7. Before proceeding further, first we would like to see the medical evidence of this case.Post-mortem report Ex.P15 of the deceased 8. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P/5 and to prove the same, the prosecution has produced PW-4 Dr. Puranmal Verma. 9. PW-4 Dr. Puranmal Verma in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 1.7.1998 he was Medical Officer in Sapotara hospital and on that day, he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on his body : (i) Incised wound 12cm x 2cm x 3cm depth inside brain cavity on right side of scalp between right parietal prominence and mid line of scalp. (ii) Incised wound 3cm x 1/2cm x 1/2cm on right side anterior chest wall over clavical. (ii) Incised wound 3cm x 1/2cm x 1/2cm on right side anterior chest wall over clavical. He has further stated that both the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the same were caused by sharp weapon and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further stated that the cause of death of the deceased was coma, due to organic brain damage due to fracture of skull bones and brain injury and haemorrhage. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/5. 10. Thus, from the statement of PW-4 Dr. Puranmal Verma, it appears that the deceased received two injuries as mentioned above one on head and another on neck and both injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp weapon and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the cause of death of the deceased was coma, due to organic brain damage due to fracture of skull bones and brain injury and haemorrhage. Hence, the death of the deceased can be classified as homicidal one.Injury report Ex.P16 of PW-8 Rishikesh 11. The injury report of PW-8 Rishikesh is Ex.P/6 and to prove the same, the prosecution has produced PW-4 Dr. Puranmal. 12. PW-4 Dr. Puranmal has further stated that on 1.7.1998, he also medically examined PW-8 Rishikesh and found the following injury on his person:- "Lacerated wound 2cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm, anterior aspect left leg. He has further stated that the above injury was simple in nature and. caused by blunt object. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/6. 13. Thus, from the statement of PW-4 Dr. Puranmal, it is clear that PW-8 Rishikesh received one lacerated wound on left leg and the same was simple in nature and caused by blunt object.Injuries of accused-appellant 14. In this case, the accused-appellant was got medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Puranmal and his injury report is Ex.P/4. 15. PW-4 Dr. Puranmal has further stated that on 2.7.1998 he also medically examined accused-appellant and found the following injuries on his person : (i) Lacerated wound 1 1/2cm x 1/2cm x 1/2cm on occipital region. (ii) Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on right leg just below knee joint. (iii) Abrasion 1cm x 1cm on right hand. He has further stated that the above injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/4. 16. (ii) Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on right leg just below knee joint. (iii) Abrasion 1cm x 1cm on right hand. He has further stated that the above injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/4. 16. Thus, from the statement of PW-4 Dr. Puranmal, it is clear that the accused-appellant received three simple injuries caused by blunt object. 17. What would be the effect of the above injuries, which were received by the accused-appellant, it would be discussed later on at appropriate place. 18. In this case, the report Ex.P/10 was lodged by PW-10 Murari, who was son of the deceased, on 1.7.1998 at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, though the incident had taken place in the evening of 30.6.1998 and a bare perusal of the report Ex.P/10 reveals that PW-10 Murari was not eye-witness of the occurrence and he was narrated the whole incident by PW-8 Rishikesh, who was grand son of the deceased and injured witness and according to the report Ex.P/10, PW-8 Rishikesh was the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. 19. The question for consideration is whether PW-8 Rishikesh, who was grand-son of deceased and injured witness, should be treated as an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence or not or whether the findings of the learned trial Judge treating PW-8 Rishikesh as eye-witness of the occurrence should be confirmed or not. 20. Before proceeding further, something should be said about the position of law with respect to appreciation of evidence of related witness, interested witness, eye-witness and injured witness.On related witness and interested witness 21. It may be stated here that close relationship with the victim is not a ground for disbelieving a witness. The fact that witness is a relation of the complainant is no ground for rejecting the evidence. But his evidence has to be construed very carefully. 22. In Brathi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 318 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no doubt criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses, who are closely related to the victim and the Court must be careful in evaluating their evidence, but mechanical rejection of the evidence on the sole ground that the witness being related to the victim is an interested witness would invariably lead to miscarriage of justice. 23. 23. A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an `interested witness', as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 . 24. The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the Court. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel, AIR 1983 SC 839 may be seen. 25. It is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded on the sole ground of interestedness, but their evidence should be subjected to a close scrutiny. Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses. Evidence of interested witness cannot be equated with that of a tainted witness. There is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. 26. Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 . 27. There is no rule of law that a Court cannot act on the evidence of interested witnesses. The only thing is that a Court should be careful and cautious in accepting that evidence and if after due scrutiny it is found that their evidence does not suffer from any infirmities, in that case, there is no reason why a conviction should not follow on that evidence also. On eye witness 28. Whether a particular witness is an eye-witness or not, the Court has to adhere to the following two principles as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Noorie, AIR 1996 SC 3073 :- (i) Whether it was possible for witnesses to be present, and (ii) Whether there was anything inherently improbable or unreliable. 29. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. 30. 29. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. 30. The testimony of the eye-witnesses, who are the natural witnesses of the occurrence and whom one would expect to have seen the occurrence, cannot be doubted only because they happen to be the relatives of the deceased. Simply because an eye-witness happens to be the son or grand-son of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable. On injured witness 31. In murder case the value of injured witness has been kept on a high pedal. For, it is generally accepted that injured witness would not in a case substitute a wrong person for his actual assailant. 32. Witness injured at the same occurrence is one whose presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted and on his evidence conviction can be supported. 33. Keeping the above principles in mind, the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh, who was grand son of deceased and injured and material witness as on the basis of his information, the report Ex.P/10 was lodged by PW-18 Murari, is being examined. 34. It may be stated here that since PW-8 Rishikesh is an injured witness, therefore, his presence on the place of occurrence should not be doubted in any manner. 35. PW-8 Rishikesh in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on the fateful day at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening, deceased was going to jungle to satisfy nature's call and when deceased was passing through the house of the accused-appellant, the accused-appellant and other accused persons encircled deceased and at that time, accused-appellant.was armed with sword and he gave sword blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which deceased fell down on the earth and thereafter, acquitted accused-Kishan gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased and when he tried to save deceased, another accused-Pintu gave kulhari blow from its back side on his left leg, as a result of which he also fell down. He has further stated that after hearing cries, PW-9 Haryana and PW-3 Joriya also reached on the spot and thereafter, all accused persons had run away from the scene.This witness was cross-examined and he has admitted the following facts in his cross-examination : (i) That he narrated the whole story to PW-10 Murari and when he narrated the whole story to PW-10 Murari, PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan had already come there. (ii) That he did not see any injury on the person of the accused-appellant. 36. Thus, from the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh, the following facts have emerged : (i) That the accused-appellant gave sword blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down. (ii) That thereafter, acquitted accused-Kishan gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased. (iii) That another accused-Pintu gave kulhari blow on the leg of PW-8 Rishikesh. (iv) That PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan also reached on the spot. (v) That PW-8 Rishikesh narrated the whole story to PW-10 Murari. (vi) That PW-8 Rishikesh did not see any injury on the person of the accused-appellant. 37. PW-3 Joriya in his statement recorded in Court has clearly stated that when he reached on the spot, he was told by PW-8 Rishikesh that the accused- appellant gave sword blow on the head of the deceased and acquitted accused- Kishan gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased. 38. Similar is the statement of PW-9 Hargyan. 39. Thus, PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan reached on the spot just after the occurrence and whole story, which was narrated by PW-8 Rishikesh to PW-10 Murari, was also narrated to them by PW-8 Rishikesh and that is why, they have corroborated the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh in the manner that accused-appellant gave sword blow on the head of the deceased while acquitted accused-Kishan gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased. 40. Therefore, the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh on the point that accused- appellant caused injury on the head of the deceased by sword and acquitted accused-Kishan caused injury on the neck of deceased by sword stands corroborated from the statements of PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan. 41. Furthermore, the post-mortem report Ex.P/5 reveals that deceased received two injuries one on head and another on neck by sharp edged weapon and therefore, the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh stands further corroborated from medical evidence. 41. Furthermore, the post-mortem report Ex.P/5 reveals that deceased received two injuries one on head and another on neck by sharp edged weapon and therefore, the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh stands further corroborated from medical evidence. 42. Thus, in our considered opinion, the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh appears to be straight forward, reliable and trustworthy and his statement on the point that accused-appellant caused injury on the head of deceased by sword and acquitted accused-Kishan caused injury on the neck of deceased by sword is further corroborated from the statements of PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan and also from medical evidence. Apart from this, his statement has further to be believed because he is an injured witness and his presence on the place of occurrence appears to be natural one. 43. Thus, the learned trial Judge has rightly treated PW-8 Rishikesh as eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on corrected appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity. 44. Thus, simply because PW-8 Rishikesh happens to be the grand son of deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded as his presence on the scene appears to be natural one and he is an injured witness and his evidence does not suffer from any basic infirmity and rather fully corroborated by medical evidence and also from other prosecution witnesses PW-3 Joriya and PW-9 Hargyan. 45. Merely because the house of PW-8 Rishikesh was not mentioned in the site plan Ex.P/3, it would not make his presence on the scene doubtful because his house was just near to the place of occurrence. 46. The plea that since there was darkness at the time of alleged occurrence, therefore, there was no possibility to see the occurrence by PW-8 Rishikesh also cannot be accepted because of the reasons mentioned above as he is an eye-witness of the occurrence and apart from this, in the month of June, there remains sufficient light at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening. 47. 47. No doubt PW-8 Rishikesh has not explained the injuries found on the person of the accused-appellant, but since the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh appears to be trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence and he is injured witness and his presence on the scene appears to be natural one and furthermore, since the injuries of the accused-appellant were simple and trivial in nature and caused by blunt object, therefore, non-explanation of injuries of the accused-appellant by PW-8 Rishikesh would not affect the prosecution case. 48. Apart from this, there is no hard and fast rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the person of the accused, their evidence should be discarded. From this point of view also, since in the present case the injuries, which were found on the person of the accused-appellant, were simple and trivial in nature caused by blunt object, therefore, non-explanation of injuries of the accused-appellant by PW-8 Rishikesh would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons while coming to the conclusion that non-explanation of the injuries of the accused-appellant by prosecution witnesses would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. 49. For the reasons stated above, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that PW-8 Rishikesh should have not been treated as eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and further, non-explanation of injuries of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses affects the prosecution case, stand rejected. 50. It may be stated here that PW-8 Rishikesh has clearly stated that the acquitted accused-Kishan also gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased and this fact is also found in the report Ex.P/10 lodged by PW-10 Murari and also in the post-mortem report Ex.P/5. However, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused-Kishan merely on the ground that in police statement Ex.D/1 of PW-8 Rishikesh, the fact that acquitted accused-Kishan gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased was not found. 51. However, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused-Kishan merely on the ground that in police statement Ex.D/1 of PW-8 Rishikesh, the fact that acquitted accused-Kishan gave sword blow on the neck of the deceased was not found. 51. This Court while dealing with the case of the present accused appellant would not like to comment on the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge against accused-Kishan as State has not filed any appeal against acquittal of accused-Kishan, but it is well proved and established from the statement of PW-8 Rishikesh that present accused-appellant gave only one blow on the head of the deceased and the second blow on the neck of the deceased might have been cause by acquitted accused-Kishan. 52. From medical evidence also, it is well proved that deceased received two injuries by sharp-edged weapon one on head and another on neck, but in the present case, head injury has been attributed to the present accused-appellant. 53. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that in a murder trial where the accused is charged with commission of an offence punishable with death or of life imprisonment, the Court must be careful, circumspect and cautious. The Court should scrupulously examine and consider all the relevant and material circumstances before recording a conviction. 54. There is no uniform method of arriving at correct conclusion upon veracity of versions placed before the Court which can be applied in all cases. It is the duty of the Court to attempt to separate the chaff from the grain in every case. The Court cannot abandon this attempt on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is so confusing or conflicting that the process cannot reasonably be carried out.Acquittal of co-accused and its effect 55. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that since co-accused-Kishan has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, therefore, on the same evidence, the present accused-appellant should also have been acquitted or case of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC should have not been found proved against the accused-appellant. 56. Before proceeding further, the principle if some accused are acquitted and some are convicted in one trial may be enumerated here : (i) That acquittal of some of the accused does not necessarily result in acquittal of the rest. 56. Before proceeding further, the principle if some accused are acquitted and some are convicted in one trial may be enumerated here : (i) That acquittal of some of the accused does not necessarily result in acquittal of the rest. (ii) That there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits certain accused on the evidence of a witness finding it to be open to some doubt with regard to them for definite reasons, other accused against whom there is positive evidence must also be acquitted. (iii) That acquittal of some of the accused, however, calls for a closer scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the Court must feel assured that it is safe to rely upon evidence of the witnesses for conviction of the remaining accused. (iv) That where the evidence of the accused is not severable from the acquitted accused the entire prosecution case must be discarded. Their acquittal does not in any way militate against the conviction of the other accused whose complicity in the crime has been amply established. (v) That it is well settled that the mere fact that out of many accused some are acquitted is not sufficient to entitle rejection of the entire prosecution case and for that, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 may be referred to. (vi) That the evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly as a learned author Glanville Williams in "Proof of Guilt" has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmeritted acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn lead to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated "persons" and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. 57. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. 57. Thus, in view of the above principles, the argument that since co-accused-Kishan has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, therefore, on the same evidence, the present accused-appellant should also have been acquitted cannot be accepted because deceased received two injuries one on head and another on neck by sharp edged weapon and there is positive evidence of the prosecution that out of these two injuries, one injury, which was on head of deceased, was caused by the accused- appellant with sword and therefore, the act of the accused-appellant is severable from the acquitted accused-Kishan. 58. The next question for consideration is whether by giving one sword blow on the hand of the deceased, the accused-appellant has committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC as held by the learned trial Judge or not. 59. As already stated above, deceased received two injuries; one on head and another on neck and there is positive evidence on record that injury on head of deceased was caused by the accused-appellant by sword and PW-4 Dr. Puranmal has stated that cause of death of deceased was coma due to organic brain damage due to fracture of skull bones and brain injury and haemorrhage, but he has further stated that both the aforesaid injuries of deceased one on head and another on neck were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death meaning thereby injury No. 2 on neck, which might have been caused by acquitted accused-Kishan, had also some role to play in causing death of the deceased. 60. Thus, in our considered opinion, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since deceased did succumb to the injuries caused collectively by accused-appellant and acquitted accused-Kishan and since PW-4 Dr. Puranmal has clearly stated that both injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, therefore, in these circumstances, the accused-appellant cannot alone be held guilty of committing culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 IPC, but in such a case, he could be held guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s. 304 Part II IPC as the act of causing injury on head of deceased could. be said to have been committed by the accused-appellant with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 61. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting the accused-appellant for the offence u/s. 302 IPC cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be altered in the manner that instead of 302 IPC, the accused-appellant is to be convicted for the offence u/s. 304 Part-II IPC as the offence committed by him was culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s. 304 Part-II IPC.On point of sentence 62. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that the accused-appellant be sentenced to the period already under gone by him. 63. In our considered opinion, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for sentencing the accused-appellant to the period already undergone does not appear to be reasonable, but ends of justice would be met if for the offence u/s. 304 Part-II IPC, the accused-appellant is sentenced to undergo eight years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused-appellant-Prakash @ Om Prakash is partly allowed in the following manner : (i) That the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence u/s. 302 IPC as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli through impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 is modified to the extent that in place of 302 IPC, he is convicted u/s. 304 Part II IPC. (ii) That for the offence u/s. 304 Part Pt. II IPC, the accused-appellant is sentenced to undergo eight years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. (iii) That the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli stand modified accordingly to the above extent. Appeal partly allowed. *******