U. S. TRIPATHI, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21-9-1981 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Baduan, in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 1979, convicting the appellant Chandra Pal Singh under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that Mohar Singh (PW 1) is father of Brij Pal Singh (PW 2) and Vikram Singh deceased while Omvir Singh (PW 4) is son of Brij Pal Singh (PW 2), Lakhan Singh, father of Chandra Pal Singh appellant was real brother of Mohar Singh (PW 1 ). Hakim Singh, father of Girvar and Mahendra accused (acquitted by trial Court) was cousin brother of Mohar Singh (PW 1 ). Chandra Pal Singh appellant had instituted a suit for partition of joint ancestral properties against Mohar Singh (PW 1) and others who had filed objection (written statement) against the claim of the appellant. Appellant Chandra Pal Singh was pressuring Mohar Singh (PW 1) and other to file compromise in the suit to which Mohar Singh (PW 1) told that it would be settled by deliberations. 3. On 8-6-1979 at about 11. 00 a. m. Mohar Singh (PW 1), Brij Pal Singh (PW 2), Vikram Singh deceased, Surendra Pal Singh and appellant Chandra Pal Singh as well accused Girvar and Mahendra were discussing about joint land. Hot exchanges and altercations took place in the discussion. The appellant and other two accused left the talk and went towards their house saying that they would get the partition done in a short moment. Mohar Singh (PW 1) and his sons also came to their house. After a short while (at about 11. 30 a. m.) Chandra Pal Singh appellant armed with licensed gun, Girvar armed with country made pistol and Mahendra armed with country made gun came on the roof of Baithak, situate towards west of house of Mohar Singh and started firing towards house of Mohar Singh. Mohar Singh (PW 1) and his sons closed the doors. Omvir (PW 4) was outside the house. Vikram Singh deceased was collecting she buffalo dung inside the house. When Vikram Singh deceased opened the door to make Omvir (PW 1) in, the appellant and the two accused fired on him (Vikram ). He sustained injuries, fell down on the door and died. Omvir (PW 4) was outside the house. Vikram Singh deceased was collecting she buffalo dung inside the house. When Vikram Singh deceased opened the door to make Omvir (PW 1) in, the appellant and the two accused fired on him (Vikram ). He sustained injuries, fell down on the door and died. Mohar Singh (PW 1) and others saw the occurrence from the ventilator of middle door. Kanhai Chaukidar and other persons of the village also witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter the appellant and other accused left the spot. 4. Mohar Singh got prepared report (Ext. Ka-1) from his son Surendra Singh and came to police station Qadar Chawk where he lodged report at 2 p. m. On the basis of which a case was registered against the appellant Chandra Pal as well as Girvar and Mahendra. Investigation of the case was done by Sri K. C. Sharma, I. O. (PW 5) who interrogated Mohar Singh (PW 1) at the police station, came to the spot, conducted inquest of the dead body of deceased, sent the sealed dead body for post-mortem, visited the place of occurrence, recovered blood stained and simple earth, observed pellet marks on the door and interrogated other witnesses. 5. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 9-6-1979 by Dr. Hamid Ullah (PW 3) who found following ante mortem injuries: - (1) Contusion 7 x 5 cm on right side of fore head and right temple. (2) Multiple abrasions in an area of 18 x 4 cm on left leg anterior side. (3) Abrasion 6 x 5 cm on right upper leg, below knee joint. (4) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on right elbow lateral side. (5) 11 (sic 1) gun shot wounds of entries with inverted margins scattered on right side scalp, right anterior shoulder, right middle left side of anterior chest wall, left anterior shoulder and on lower part of anterior side of neck. No blackening and tattooing present around these wounds. Dispersement about 5 inches. (6) Contusion 2 x 3 cm on right fore-arm. 6. One small pellet was recovered from scalp two small pellets were covered from left thoracic cavity, one pellet was recovered from right thoracic cavity and one pellet was recovered from left anterior shoulder muscle. 7. Internal examination showed sub-coetaneous haemorrhage below injury Nos. 1 and 5. Pleura both lungs and pericardium were lacerated. 6. One small pellet was recovered from scalp two small pellets were covered from left thoracic cavity, one pellet was recovered from right thoracic cavity and one pellet was recovered from left anterior shoulder muscle. 7. Internal examination showed sub-coetaneous haemorrhage below injury Nos. 1 and 5. Pleura both lungs and pericardium were lacerated. Abdominal wall and peritoneum were slightly distended. Stomach contained semi digested food. Cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante- mortem injuries. 8. The I. O. on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against appellant and Girvar and Mahendra. 9. The appellant alongwith Girvar and Mahendra was tried for offence punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication on account enmity. 10. Prosecution examined Mohar Singh (PW 1), Brij Pal Singh (PW 2), Omvir (PW 4) as witnesses of fact, besides Dr. Hamid Ullah (PW 3) and K. C. Sharma (PW 5) as formal witnesses. 11. The learned Sessions Judge on considering evidence of prosecution held that evidence of ocular witnesses was credit worthy, but since it was a case of one shot only three persons could not be held guilty and therefore, charge of murder was brought home against Chandra Pal who had filed suit for partition. With these findings he acquitted Girvar and Mahendra, but convicted and sentenced Chandra Pal Singh appellant as mentioned above. 12. Aggrieved with his above conviction and sentence the appellant has come up in this appeal. 13. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on record. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that all the witnesses of fact are close relatives and there is no independent corroboration of their evidence. That medical evidence is in clear contradiction with the oral evidence and there is no explanation for injuries 1 to 4 and 6 that the case of the appellant is not distinguishable from other two accused who were acquitted by the trial Court and, therefore, the appellant could also not be convicted. 15. It is true that Mohar Singh (PW 1) is father of Vikram deceased, while Brij Pal (PW 2) is his real brother and Omvir (PW 4) is his nephew. 15. It is true that Mohar Singh (PW 1) is father of Vikram deceased, while Brij Pal (PW 2) is his real brother and Omvir (PW 4) is his nephew. It is also true that in the F. I. R. it is mentioned that Kanhai Chaukidar was grazing his pigs near the Baithak and he alongwith several other persons of the village had seen the occurrence. Relationship is not the sole ground for discarding testimony of ocular witness. Moreover, at the time of the occurrence the deceased was inside his house. No doubt the appellant and other two accused fired from the roof of Baithak and it was also stated by Mohar Singh (PW 1) that Kanhai Chaukidar, Radhey Shyam, Ram Charan, Lalla Miyan and others had seen the occurrence. Mohar Singh (PW 1) and Brij Pal Singh (PW 2) were inside the house and the occurrence had also taken place at the door. Omvir (PW 4) was outside the house and, therefore, the presence of these witnesses cannot be doubted and their testimony cannot be discarded simply on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased, provided these witnesses are otherwise found truthful. 16. The consistent version of the ocular witnesses Mohar Singh (PW 1), Brij Pal (PW 2) and Omvir (PW 4) was that the appellant armed with licensed gun alongwith Girvar armed with country made pistol and Mahendra armed with country made gun came on the room of the Baithak and all of them started firing towards his house. Brij Pal (PW 2) and Omvir (PW 4) also gave same version. But the medical evidence disclosed that the deceased sustained only one gun shot wound of entry scattered on right side scalp, right anterior shoulder, right middle and left side of anterior chest wall, left anterior shoulder and lower part of anterior side of neck. Other injuries sustained by the deceased were contusions and abrasions. It is true that except fire arm no other weapon was assigned to the appellant and other accused and it was clearly admitted by Mohar Singh (PW 1) that none had caused any blunt object injury on the deceased. The evidence on record shows that at the time of sustaining fire arm injury the deceased was on his door and he fell down sustaining fire arm injury. The evidence on record shows that at the time of sustaining fire arm injury the deceased was on his door and he fell down sustaining fire arm injury. Injury No. 1 was contusion on right side of fore head and right temple. Injury No. 2 was on left leg anterior side. Injury No. 3 was on right upper leg below knee joint. Injury No. 4 was non right elbow lateral side and injury No. 6 was on right fore arm. These injuries could easily be caused by fall. Injury No. 1, 3, 4 and 6 are on right side of the body. No doubt injury No. 2 was on left leg but it could also be caused in the course of falling down of the deceased. Thus, from the medical evidence it is borne out that the deceased sustained only one gun shot injury. 17. The trial Court tried to distinguish the case of appellant from the case of other two accused and held as below: - "since it was a case of one shot only three persons could not be held guilty. Chandra Pal Singh was the person who had filed suit for partition and even if other accused were present during exchange of hot words there was no reason to believe that they must have also come forward with unlicensed fire arms. . . . . . Since the death was caused by single fire, there was no scope for the Court to hold that others participated in the commission of murder in prosecution of the common intention. On this ground also, for want of common intention the two accused other than Chandra Pal Singh shall be acquitted. " 18. The ground for distinction of the case of the appellant with other accused who were acquired by the trial Court does not appear correct. The consistent case of the prosecution from the beginning was that all the three accused fired on the deceased. Mohar Singh (PW 1) no doubt stated that the pellets also hit on the middle door of his house but the I. O. had not found any pellet marks on the middle door and marks of pellets were only found at the place shown in the site plan with cross marks i. e. on southern door. The absence of pellet marks on the middle door rules out the firing on the said door. The absence of pellet marks on the middle door rules out the firing on the said door. The two accused namely Girvar and Mahendra who were also assigned active role of firing on the deceased were acquitted by the trial Court and the State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. It is settled law that if the evidence is exaggerated and it is mixed with truth and falsehood, the entire testimony of a witness cannot be discharged as the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India, as it is normal tendency of the witnesses to exaggerate the things in order to make their testimony truthful. The duty of the Court is to find out grains of truth from the heap of chaff of falsehood, but if the truth and falsehood is so inter mixed that it cannot be separated it is not safe to rely on the testimony of such witnesses. In the instant case all the three ocular witnesses consistently stated that all the three accused fired on the deceased and there is nothing on record to find out as the shot fired by which of the accused hit the deceased. As mentioned above the above version of the ocular witnesses is neither supported with medical evidence nor by physical evidence of the Investigating Officer. The manner in which the trial Court distinguished the case of the appellant is not acceptable. This shows that two innocent persons were falsely implicated from the very beginning and the prosecution had not come with a clean hand. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is not decipherable as to who was the real assailant. The possibility that the assailant was among those two accused who were acquitted cannot be easily ruled out. In these circumstances we are of the view that appellant Chandra Pal Singh is also entitled to benefit of doubt and, therefore, his conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 19. Thus, the appeal succeeds. 20. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Chandra Pal Singh is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .