U. S. TRIPATHI, J. The above two appeals have been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24-5-1980 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1978 convicting the appellants Rajendra (since dead), Deomani, Indramani, Chhabinath, Kashinath and Lakhan Bhar (since dead) under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life, convicting above appellants under Sections 307 read with 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for a period of 5 years, convicting above appellants under Sections 324/149 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and further convicting them under Section 452 IPC and sentencing each of them to R. I. for a period of one year. The appellants Rajendra and Chhabinath were further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to one year R. I. each and appellants Deoman alias Deomani, Indramani, Kashinath and Lakhan Bhar were further convicted under Section 147 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six months. Accused respondent Amrit Lal was acquitted. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that appellants Rajendra, Deomani and Indramani are real brothers. Appellants Lakhan and Kanhai accused (died during trial) were servants of appellant Rajendra, while appellants Chhabinath and accused Rambali (died during trial) were pattidars of Rajendra. Accused Amrit Lal was son of appellant Rajendra. All the appellants and accused persons as well as complainant Adya Prasad (PW1) were residents of same village. There was enmity between the parties regarding flow of Nabdan of appellant Rajendra. Altercations had taken place several times on account of it and relations between the parties were strained. On 4-5-1977 quarrel had taken place between the children of the parties. On account of above quarrel both the parties had assaulted each other. Cross reports were lodged from both the sides at the police station and criminal cases were pending. 3. On the night of 14/15-6-1977 Adya Prasad (PW1) along with some other members of his family was sleeping on the roof of Baithaka. His brothers Taluka (PW3), Ram Anuj deceased, Smt. Durgawati (PW4), wife of Ram Anuj and other ladies of the family were sleeping inside the house. At about 00. 3. On the night of 14/15-6-1977 Adya Prasad (PW1) along with some other members of his family was sleeping on the roof of Baithaka. His brothers Taluka (PW3), Ram Anuj deceased, Smt. Durgawati (PW4), wife of Ram Anuj and other ladies of the family were sleeping inside the house. At about 00. 30 in the night appellant Rajendra armed with Gandasa, Indramani armed with lathi, Deomani, Rambali and Lakhan armed with Lathis, Chhabinath and Amrit Lal armed with country made pistols and Kanhai armed with pistol and came to the main door of the house of Adya Prasad (PW1) and knocked the door. When the door was not opened, they broke open the door by a pipe of tube well. After breaking open the main door, the above appellants and accused persons entered into the house. Hearing the sound of breaking open of the door, Adya Prasad (PW1) came down of the roof, entered into the house and stood near the female house besides heap of fodder. There was electric light inside the house and Court yard. Appellant Rajendra exhorted that Taluka (PW3) be killed. Saying it, he inflicted Gandasa blow on Taluka, who raised alarm and ran to save his life. Hearing his alarm Ram Anuj deceased came out of the room to rescue him (Taluka ). In the meantime, Rajendra appellant again exhorted and appellant Amrit Lal and Chhabinath fired on Ram Anuj with their pistols. Sustaining injuries Ram Anuj fell down in the Angan (Courtyard ). When Taluka (PW3) tried to go inside the room, Kanhai fired pistol shot on him. Smt. Durgawati (PW5), wife of Ram Anuj tried to save her husband and Amrit Lal and Chhabinath fired on her. Appellant Kashinath and Deomani also inflicted Lathi blows on Taluka (PW3 ). The other accused had surrounded the ladies of the family. Hearing the cries Bindwasini (PW4) came to his roof and started throwing pieces of khaprail on the appellants. Amrit Lal and Chhabinath also fired on Bindwasini. When the villagers rushed to the spot, the appellants and accused persons ran away saying that they had killed two persons and their object had been fulfilled. Ram Anuj succumbed to his injuries. 4. Adya Prasad (PW1) took the injuried Taluka (PW3) and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) as well as dead body of Ram Anuj to Nai Bazar, where Taluka was given first aid. Ram Anuj succumbed to his injuries. 4. Adya Prasad (PW1) took the injuried Taluka (PW3) and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) as well as dead body of Ram Anuj to Nai Bazar, where Taluka was given first aid. Thereafter, a tractor was arranged and dead body of Ram Anuj as well as injured Taluka (PW3)and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) were taken to police station Rampur, where Adya Prasad (PW1) prepared a written report and lodged the same at the 5. 30 a. m. 5. On the basis of written report chik, F. I. R. was prepared by Head Constable Beni Madhav (PW 8) and a case was registered against appellants and other accused. 6. Investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Kapil Deo Misra, I. O. (PW7), who conducted inquest of the dead body of Ram Anuj at the police station. He scaled the dead body of (sic and) sent for post mortem. Injured Taluka (PW3) and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) were sent to Primary Health Centre, Rampur for medical examination, where Smt. Durgawati (PW5) was medically examined by Dr. O. P. Pandey (PW11) at 7 a. m. on 15-6-1977, who found following injuries on her person : 7. One lacerated wound of entry 0. 3 cm in diameter on the dorsum of proximal phalynx of middle finger. Total depth not probed. Advised X-ray of the region for presence of foreign body. No tattooing no charring, simple in nature, duration about 1/4 day. 8. Taluka (PW3) was medically examined by Dr. R. N. Bhargawa (PW6) on 15-6-1977 at 11. 45 a. m. who found following injuries on his person: (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side head 9 cm above right ear. (2) Multiple gun shot entry wound present in area of 1. 5 cm x 14 cm on right arm just above right elbow, size 0. 2 to 0. 3 cm x 0. 2 to 0. 3 cm x muscle deep. (3) Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on front and inner side of right arm. 15 cm above right elbow. (4) Gun shot wound of entry 8 in number in an area of 12 cm x 9 cm on right side chest below nipple. Size 0. 2 cm to 0. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin to muscle deep. 15 cm above right elbow. (4) Gun shot wound of entry 8 in number in an area of 12 cm x 9 cm on right side chest below nipple. Size 0. 2 cm to 0. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin to muscle deep. (5) Gun shot wound of entry 4 in number in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm on right upper part of abdomen, size 0. 2 to 0. 2 x 0. 2 to 0. 2 x abdomen. (6) Two gun shot wounds of entry size 0. 2 x 0. 2 x skin deep on left side abdomen 7 cm outer to umbilicus. Injury Nos. 5 and 2 are kept under observation. Advised X-ray. Rest simple caused by blunt object. Injury Nos. 1 and 3 caused by fire arm. Duration about 1/2 day. 9. The I. O. interrogated Adya Prasad (PW 1) at the police station and thereafter came to Primary Health Centre, Rampur where he interrogated Smt. Durgawati (PW5), and Bindwasini (PW4 ). Thereafter, he came to spot, inspected place of occurrence and apprehended appellant Rajendra, Deomani, Rambali and Kashinath near river Varuna, towards west of the village and interrogated them. He interrogated other witnesses, inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan. The I. O. recovered pieces of Khaprail and one Lathi from the Angan of the complainant. He also took into possession the broken pieces of the door of kunda of the door. He also noticed pellet marks on the western and southern wall of the complainant and recovered blood stained earth from the spot. 10. Autopsy on the dead body of Ram Anuj deceased was conducted on 16-6-1977 by Dr. Udai Singh (PW2), who found following ante mortem injuries on his person: (1) Multiple fire arm wound of entry over front of abdomen in an area of 40 cm x 40 cm. Margins lacerated and inverted, size 0. 25 cm x 0. 25 cm x 0. 25 cm x few abdominal deep few abdominal cavity deep. No tattooing, no blackening present. (2) Multiple fire arm wound of entry over front of right thigh in an area of 26 cm x 24 cm. Margins lacerated and inverted. Size 0. 25 cm x 0. 25 cm x muscle deep. No blackening and no tattooing present. 25 cm x few abdominal deep few abdominal cavity deep. No tattooing, no blackening present. (2) Multiple fire arm wound of entry over front of right thigh in an area of 26 cm x 24 cm. Margins lacerated and inverted. Size 0. 25 cm x 0. 25 cm x muscle deep. No blackening and no tattooing present. (3) Multiple fire arm wound of entry over front of left thigh in an area of 30 cm x 24 cm. Margins lacerated and inverted. Size 0. 25 cm x 0. 25 cm x muscle deep. No blackening, no tattooing present. (4) Abrasion front of right knee 2 cm x 2 cm. (5) Abrasion front of right leg mid part 2 cm x 1. 5 cm. (6) Single fire arm wound of entry present over back of right elbow. Margins lacerated and inverted. Size 0. 25 cm x 0. 25 cm x back deep. No blackening, no tattooing present. 11. Internal examination showed that brain had started liquefying. Peritoneum was perforated at multiple places. Chest cavity contained blood. Stomach contained about 8 ounce of dark coloured watery fluid. Mid and terminal part of ilium perforated at ten places size 0. 25 cm c 0. 2 cm x luner deep. Mesenting of sundi bewa perforated at multiple places and haematomma present. Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. 14 gun shots were removed from the body. 12. The I. O. completed remaining investigation and submitted charge sheets against the appellants and other accused. 13. The accused Rambali and Kanhai died during pendency of the trial. 14. The appellants as well as accused Amrit Lal were tried for different offences as mentioned above. 15. The prosecution in support of its case examined Adya Prasad (PW1), Dr. Udai Singh (PW2), 1 Taluka (PW3), Bindwasini (PW4), Smt. Durgawati (PW5), Dr. R. N. Bhargava (PW6), Kapil Deo Misra (PW7), Head Constable Beni Madheo Pandey (PW8), Vishwanath Singh (P. W9), Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW10) and Dr. O. P. Pandey (PW11), Adya Prasad (PW1), Taluka (PW3), Bindwasini (PW4) and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) were witnesses of fact, while the evidence of remaining witnesses was formal in nature. 16. The appellants examined Dr. Umesh Chandra Gupta (DW1), Dr. Shyam Prasad Gupta (DW2), Dr. A. K. Bajpai (DW3), Rama Shanker Singh (DW4), Gulab Hub Narain Shukla (DW5) and Shyam Kant Bind (DW6 ). 17. 16. The appellants examined Dr. Umesh Chandra Gupta (DW1), Dr. Shyam Prasad Gupta (DW2), Dr. A. K. Bajpai (DW3), Rama Shanker Singh (DW4), Gulab Hub Narain Shukla (DW5) and Shyam Kant Bind (DW6 ). 17. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of the prosecution and accused held that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of appellants Rajendra, Deomani, Indramani, Chhabinath, Kashinath, Lakhan Bhar and could not establish the complicity of accused Amrit Lal, who succeeded in proving his alibi. With these findings the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above and Amrit Lal accused was acquitted. 18. Aggrieved with their above conviction and sentence the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 1194 of 1980 and State of U. P. filed Government Appeal No. 1953 of 1980 against the acquittal of accused Amrit Lal. Appellants Rajendra and Lakhan Bhar died during pendency of the appeal and the appeal preferred by them stood abated. 19. We have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellants Deomani, Indramani, Chhabinath, Kashinath and have gone through the evidence on record. 20. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that there was enmity between the parties and on 4-5- 1977 a riot had taken place between the parties, regarding which reports were lodged from both the sides. In his evidence Adya Prasad (PW1) stated that there was enmity between the parties regarding flow of Nabdan and on account of it, altercations have taken place. On 4-5-1977 Rejendra appellant had assaulted his son near mango tree brought him before him and complained. Altercations took place in that regard, in which the appellants had extended threat. That thereafter, his brother Taluka (PW3) was going to his Khalihan and Rajendra and others assaulted him near Pokhara. Ram Anuj deceased had lodged report of the said occurrence and Rejendra appellant had also lodged report in which both the parties were challaned and cross cases were initiated. He further stated that on 28-5-1977 Rajendra appellant extended threats to Ram Anuj deceased that in case he would not get the case compromised, he would be killed. A Report of the said occurrence was lodged at the police station on 29-5-1977. He further stated that on 28-5-1977 Rajendra appellant extended threats to Ram Anuj deceased that in case he would not get the case compromised, he would be killed. A Report of the said occurrence was lodged at the police station on 29-5-1977. The above motive does not appear so strong that the appellants would commit such a dare devil act on account of it because such sort of incidents often take place in villages and it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants were hardened criminals or hazardous persons that they to committed the heinous crime on account of above motive. It is true that in case where the prosecution relies on ocular testimony of witnesses, the motive does not play an important role and the case has to be decided on the strength of oral evidence. But when the prosecution alleges that the occurrence took place on account of a particular motive, the Court has to consider whether the above motive was sufficient to give rise to such an incident. So, the motive assigned by the prosecution is weak and tenuous. 21. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 14/15-6- 1977 when Adya Prasad (PW1) was sleeping on the roof of his house and his brothers Taluka (PW3) and Ram Anuj deceased alongwith other family members were sleeping inside the house, at about 12. 30 night, all the appellants and other accused came to his door and attempted to get the main door opened. When the door was not opened, the appellants and other accused broke open the door with the help of pipe of tube well and thereafter Rajendra appellant caused Gandasa injuries on Taluka, who ran inside the room to save his life and when Ram Anuj deceased came to his rescue, shots were fired on him by Amrit Lal and Chhabinath, who were having country made pistols. Smt. Durgawati (PW5) also came to save her husband, Ram Anuj deceased and she was also shot at. That hearing shrieks of the family members of Adya Prasad (PW1), the villagers including Bindwasini (PW4) came to the spot and they threw pieces of khaprail and brick bats on the appellants and other accused and on the pressure of villagers they took to their heels. 22. Undisputedly the appellants are residents of the same village. That hearing shrieks of the family members of Adya Prasad (PW1), the villagers including Bindwasini (PW4) came to the spot and they threw pieces of khaprail and brick bats on the appellants and other accused and on the pressure of villagers they took to their heels. 22. Undisputedly the appellants are residents of the same village. Rajendra, Deomani and Indramani were real brothers and Adya Prasad had alleged enmity with Rajendra and his brothers. Amrit Lal, acquitted by the Trial Court, was son of Rajendra. The other appellants and accused namely Lakhan and Kanhai were servants of Rajendra and Ram Bali and Chhabinath were his pattidars. Chhabinath had his house adjacent towards south of the house of Adya Prasad (PW2) and Ram Bali had also his house near the house of Adya Prasad. Rajendra and his brothers were next door neighbours of Adya Prasad (PW1 ). In case, the appellants had common object to eliminate Ram Anuj, who had lodged report against Rejendra regarding incident of 4-5-1977 and was not ready to compromise the criminal case pending against him and others, the appellants had several occasions to eliminate him in some other manner. In order to take revenge of simple case of marpit, it was not expected from the accused persons to form an unlawful assembly and commit the offence in such a way i. e. by assembling in the mid night breaking open the main door of the house of Ram Anuj deceased with tube well pipe by giving so much opportunity to the witnesses to see their revengeful act. The deceased and injured were easily available to the appellants in the village and also in the field side outside the abadi and they could murder him at such places without being taking a risk of being seen by entire village people and taking risk that they could be assaulted or murdered by the villagers treating them dacoits. As mentioned above, it is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had criminal history and were hazardous persons or hardened criminals that they wanted to commit such a dare devil act by show of force. As mentioned above, it is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had criminal history and were hazardous persons or hardened criminals that they wanted to commit such a dare devil act by show of force. The manner of occurrence as set up by the prosecution and the intrinsic evidence of the ocular witnesses go to show that in fact a dacoity had taken place in the house of Adya Prasad (PW1) in the mid night in which Ram Anuj lost his life and Taluka (PW3) and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) sustained injuries and the local police pressurized the ocular witnesses to make it a case of murder instead of dacoity with murder. 23. It is also clear from the evidence of ocular witnesses that role of committing murder and causing injuries has been assigned only to Kanhai, Chhabinath and Amrit Lal, who were having country made pistols. Though, it was stated by the ocular witnesses that Rajendra appellant was armed with Gandasa and caused Gandasa injuries to Taluka (PW3), but no Gandasa injury was found on his person and all the injuries of Taluka (PW3) and Ram Anuj deceased were fire arm injuries and abrasions, which were also possible due to fire arm or fall. No specific role has been assigned to accused having Lathis. This aspect of the case also creates doubt in the participation of Rajendra, Deomani, Indramani, Kashinath, Lakhan and Ram Bali. Accused Amrit Lal was also assigned role of causing fire arm injuries on the deceased and the injured, but the Trial Court had believed the plea of alibi set up by him and had acquitted him. The State of U. P. has filed appeal against acquittal of Amrit Lal. We have considered the evidence of alibi adduced by Amrit Lal. Gulab Hub Narain Shukla (DW5) stated that he was Advocate and practicing at Bombay. That on 14-6-1977 Amrit Lal had sworn an affidavit before Notary Bombay and he had identified him before the Public Notary. He also stated that he had prepared affidavit and thereafter got it typed and produced before the Public Notary. There is nothing in the cross examination of the witness to show that he prepared a false plea of alibi. That on 14-6-1977 Amrit Lal had sworn an affidavit before Notary Bombay and he had identified him before the Public Notary. He also stated that he had prepared affidavit and thereafter got it typed and produced before the Public Notary. There is nothing in the cross examination of the witness to show that he prepared a false plea of alibi. Therefore, we find no wrong with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that on 14-6-1977 Amrit Lal was present at Bombay and therefore he could not come to the village of occurrence in District Jaunpur within such short time. Therefore, Amrit Lal accused had established his alibi and it is clear that he had not participated in the offence. 24. It is true that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded as it is not believable in respect of an accused, as the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India and if the evidence is separable regarding truth and falsehood, the Court can accept the truth in the evidence of ocular witnesses. But it is also settled that if the truth and false hood are so intermixed that they cannot be separated, the other accused should also be given benefit of doubt. All the ocular witnesses have assigned active role to Amrit Lal, while he was not present in the village on the night of occurrence and thus it leads to infer that the attempt of ocular witnesses was to implicate all adult members of the family of Rajendra and his well wishers on account of previous enmity. 25. The case of Rajendra was that he was ill and was under treatment of doctors of Varanasi. Dr. Umesh Chandra Gupta, C. M. O. of Marwari Hindu Hospital, Varanasi and Dr. Shyam Prakash Gupta (DW2) stated that Rajendra Upadhyay was admitted in his hospital on 3-6-1977 and was under treatment till 7-6-1977 and thereafter was referred to Institute of Medical Sciences, B. H. U. , Varanasi for treatment of cornic amoelysis, as his condition became serious and there was no improvement of the treatment given at the Hospital. Dr. A. K. Bajpai (DW3) Medical Officer, District Jail, Jaunpur also stated that Rajendra was admitted in District Jail Hospital from 22-6-1977 to 13-7-1977, as he was suffering from loss of blood due to cornic class of disease. Dr. A. K. Bajpai (DW3) Medical Officer, District Jail, Jaunpur also stated that Rajendra was admitted in District Jail Hospital from 22-6-1977 to 13-7-1977, as he was suffering from loss of blood due to cornic class of disease. The above evidence shows that Rajendra was not having good health and in such circumstances he was not possibly in a position to actively participate in such a heinous crime taking the risk of his life. His role in the occurrence also appear doubtful, as he was assigned causing pharsa injuries to Taluka (PW3) but no pharsa injury was found on his person. 26. Adya Prasad (PW1), Taluka (PW3) and Smt. Durgawati (PW5) are the witnesses of same family and admittedly had enmity with Rajendra and his family members. Bindwasini (PW4) is no doubt next door neighbour of Adya Prasad and he allegedly saw the occurrence from the roof of Khaprail of his house, but it is in the evidence of Adya Prasad (PW 1) that shot was also fired towards Bindwasini, but he did not sustain any injury. There is no other physical evidence, either to back the alleged firing on the roof where Bindwasini claimed being of to be. No independent witness of the village has been examined. It is true that examination of independent witnesses is not incumbent from the prosecution and it is also true that testimony of ocular witnesses cannot be discarded simply because they are close relatives of the deceased, but in order to accept the evidence of a witness, his testimony be tested on the anvil of probability and intrinsic value and if the testimony of ocular witnesses is tested in such perspective, it appears that they have given twisted and exaggerated version of the prosecution story; which does not fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is not expected to blindly rely on the narration given by a witness and the evidence has to satisfy the test of reliability, such as probability, human conduct etc. If the evidence of ocular witnesses is tested on such tests it shows that their testimony does not satisfy the test and is full of improbability and exaggeration. The prosecution has not come with clean hands and came with a twisted version and the evidence of ocular witnesses is so intermixed with falsehood and truth that it is not possible to spare out the truth. The prosecution has not come with clean hands and came with a twisted version and the evidence of ocular witnesses is so intermixed with falsehood and truth that it is not possible to spare out the truth. 27. In view of our above discussions and observations, we find that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 1194 of 1980 succeeds and Government Appeal No. 1953 of 1980 fails. Criminal Appeal No. 1194 of 1980 is, accordingly, allowed. Conviction and sentence of Deoman alias Deomani, Indramani, Chhabinath and Kashinath is set aside and they are acquitted of the offences for which they were tried. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal preferred by Rajendra and Lakhan Bhar has already stood abated. Government Appeal No. 1953 of 1980 is dismissed and acquittal of respondent Amrit Lal is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. Appeal No. 1194 allowed & G. A. 1953 dismissed.