M. C. JAIN, J. This appeal has been preferred by three appellants, namely, Jagat Singh, Bileshwar and Lajja Ram against the judgment and order dated 23-4-1980 passed by Sri O. N. Asthana, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in S. T. No. 524 of 1979. Bileshwar and Lajja Ram were real brothers being the sons of Deshraj, Lajja Ram died during the pendency of the appeal and as regards him the appeal abated under order dated 24- 3-2003. There was another accused Kishan Pal who preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 1981. He also died and that appeal also abated. 2. Presently, the Court is concerned with appellants Jagat Singh and Bileshwar. Bileshwar is represented by Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate. However, the other appellant Jagat Singh absconded and despite best efforts, he could not be laid hands on. Under the circumstances, we appointed Sri Imran Ullah, Advocate as amicus curiae to argue out the appeal on his behalf. 3. We have heard the said amicus curiae for the appellant Jagat Singh, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Bileshwar and learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Bhatt from the side of the State. 4. The brief facts may be set forth for proper appraisal of the matter. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the judgment impugned. The incident had taken place in between the night of 8/9-8-1979 at about 2. 00 O clock in Nagla Bankh Hamlet of village Ratibhanpur, Police Station Barnahal, District Mainpuri. The murder of Tukman Singh was allegedly committed by the appellants. The FIR was lodged on 9-8-1979 at 8. 20 a. m. by Kanauji Lal (not examined ). Jagat Singh was allegedly armed with kanta and Baleshwar had a spear (Bhala ). Lajja Ram (who died during pendency of the appeal) was allegedly armed with a country made pistol and Kishan Lal appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 1981 was allegedly armed with a spear. 5. On 30-6-1978 Tukman Singh, Sher Singh, Jagannath (brother-in- law of vendor Asharfi) purchased 15 Bighas of land from Asarfi uncle of the accused Jagat Singh. The purchasers applied to the revenue authorities for mutation of their names on the agricultural plots purchased by them. 5. On 30-6-1978 Tukman Singh, Sher Singh, Jagannath (brother-in- law of vendor Asharfi) purchased 15 Bighas of land from Asarfi uncle of the accused Jagat Singh. The purchasers applied to the revenue authorities for mutation of their names on the agricultural plots purchased by them. Jagat Singh, Bileshwar, Lajja Ram and Kishan Pal filed objections against the mutation application of the purchasers. They were very much annoyed on account of the land having been purchased by Tukman Singh and others from their family-man, Asharfi. This was the motive behind the murder. 6. In between the fateful night Tukman Singh, his son Koli Charan PW 1 and Akbar Singh arrived at the tube-well of one of them Tukman Singh to look after their maize crop ready for harvesting. Later, Tukman Singh, Kali Charan and Akbar Singh slept in the open by the side of tube-well where there was also a Chhappar on a wall. At about 2. 00 Oclock in the night Jagat Singh armed with Kanta, Baleshwar and Kishan Pal armed with Bhalas and Lajja Ram armed with country made pistol arrived at the tube- well of Tukman Singh. They pulled up Tukman Singh from his cot and started dragging him. Kali Charan and Akbar Singh also woke. Jagat Singh held out that he would teach him (Tukman Singh) a lesson for purchasing the land of his uncle. Akbar Singh and Kali Charan raised shouts for help. Hearing their call for help, Sher Singh PW 2, Dafadar PW 3, Lal Singh, Surendra and Kanauji Lal rushed from their houses situated at the southern end of the abadi of hamlet Bankh. They arrived at the place where accused persons were assaulting Tukman Singh in the usar of Gandharv Singh (situated in the east of Rasta), after dragging him for a distance of 50-55 paces. Dafadar, Lal Singh, Kali Charan, Kanauji Lal, etc. had torches with them. Kali Charan lighted his torch and saw Jagat Singh, Lajja Ram, Baleshwar and Kishan Pal dragging his father away from the tube-well towards eastern side. He also observed that these persons were armed with Kanta, Bhalas and country-made pistol. It was a full moonlit night. After assaulting Tukman Singh with Bhalas and Kanta, the accused-persons left him lying on ground with bleeding injuries and ran away towards village Bhagpur. Kali Charan son of Tukman Singh found the condition of his father to be very serious. He also observed that these persons were armed with Kanta, Bhalas and country-made pistol. It was a full moonlit night. After assaulting Tukman Singh with Bhalas and Kanta, the accused-persons left him lying on ground with bleeding injuries and ran away towards village Bhagpur. Kali Charan son of Tukman Singh found the condition of his father to be very serious. He rushed to arrange cot and tractor to carry him to Mainpuri Hospital for treatment. He brought him to Mainpuri hospital situated at a distance of 8 miles and got his father admitted at 4. 30 a. m. in the morning. While he was bringing his father to hospital, he told his brother Kanauji Lal in the village that he should go to the Police Station to lodge the report. Kanauji Lal prepared the report and took it to the Police Station situated 35 Kms. away. He lodged it there at 8. 20 a. m. A case was registered under Section 307 IPC (subsequently converted under Section 302 IPC on the death of Tukan Singh in the hospital at 5. 15 a. m. ). 7. Dr. R. K. Jain PW 5 was on emergency duty in the hospital when Tukman Singh was taken there. He noted in the brief injury report prepared by him that he found multiple incised wounds on the whole of his head and lacerated wounds on head, face, neck and back lift shoulder. Due to the serious condition of the patient, he did not prepare the long chart of injuries and gave immediate medical treatment to the patient. He, however, died at 5. 15 a. m. as stated earlier. An information was sent to Kotwali Police Station at 5. 50 a. m. S. I. Kripal Singh PW 8 arrived in the hospital from Kotwali and he prepared the inquest report of the dead-body which was sent for post-mortem after completion of formalities. It was Dr. J. P. Gupta PW 6 who performed autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased Tukman Singh on 9-8- 1979 at 3. 00 p. m. He was aged about 65 years. 8. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Tukman Singh : (1) Eight incised wounds in an area of 13 cm x 10 cm over the top of head in various directions respectively of following sizes 3 cm x 0. 00 p. m. He was aged about 65 years. 8. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Tukman Singh : (1) Eight incised wounds in an area of 13 cm x 10 cm over the top of head in various directions respectively of following sizes 3 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep, 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep, 4 cm x. 5 cm x scalp deep, 5 cm x 0. 7 cm x scalp deep, 6 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep, 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep, 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep and 4 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep, margins sharply cut. (2) Leniar stitched wound 9 cm long, extending from left nostril to left side of forehead containing 6 stitches. (3) Leniar stitched wound 5 cm long on the left side of chin, containing 4 stitches. (4) Leniar stitched wound 5 cm long at the middle of chin, containing 4 stitches with underneath mandible cut. (5) Leniar stitched wound 4 cm long over left temple, just near the outer angle of left eye. (6) Leniar stitched wound 9 cm long over the left side of forehead 1 cm over the left eye-brow, containing 8 stitches. (7) Transverse stitched wound 4. 5 cm on the left side of forehead 4 cm above the left eye brow, containing 3 stitches with underneath cut of forntal bone and depressed trachea. (8) Oblique stitched wound 5 cm on the left side of head, 3 cm above injury No. 7, containing 4 stitches. (9) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep, just below the left ear. (10) Abrasion 9 cm x 1 cm on the front of chest middle. (11) Abrasion 2. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm on the left side of neck, 4 cm below the left ear. (12) Incised wound 4 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep with top and back of left shoulder. (13) Abrasion 6 cm x 0. 5 cm on the back of right shoulder. (14) Three small abrasions in an area of 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of chest right side, 4 cm below the left angle of right scapula. The death had occurred due to coma caused by head injuries. (13) Abrasion 6 cm x 0. 5 cm on the back of right shoulder. (14) Three small abrasions in an area of 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of chest right side, 4 cm below the left angle of right scapula. The death had occurred due to coma caused by head injuries. Investigation was conducted by S. O. D. P. Singh PW 4. 9. At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Kali Charan PW 1, Sher Singh PW 2 and Dafadar PW 3 as eye- witnesses in addition to the evidence relating to the medical aspect and investigation of the case. The defence was of denial. 10. The prosecution evidence found favour with the trial Court resulting in the recording of the impugned judgment. 11. We take up the case of appellant Bileshwar first. In respect of him, the argument of Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate is that as per the prosecution case he was armed with spear (Bhala), but the deceased did not receive any punctured wound capable of being caused by spear (Bhala ). He made reference to the victims injuries found by Dr. R. K. Jain PW 5 who was on emergency duty in the hospital and before whom the victim Tukman Singh was first produced. He had found multiple incised and lacerated wounds on his head, face, neck and back left shoulder. Though due to serious condition of the injured, a meticulous chart of injuries was not prepared by him, but the above is the broad description of the injuries that had been found by him on his person. Post-mortem report of the deceased prepared by Dr. J. P. Gupta PW 6 on 9-6-1979 at 3. 00 p. m. records as many as 14 injuries having been found on his person, but none of them was a punctured wound. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant Bileshwar has substantial force and cannot be brushed aside lightly. It goes without saying that the weapon would ordinarily be put to its natural use, meaning thereby that a spear would usually cause a punctured wound. That is not the case here, though the prosecution case is that the appellant Bileshwar and another assailant Kishan Pal had spears and wielded the same in causing injuries to the victim. It goes without saying that the weapon would ordinarily be put to its natural use, meaning thereby that a spear would usually cause a punctured wound. That is not the case here, though the prosecution case is that the appellant Bileshwar and another assailant Kishan Pal had spears and wielded the same in causing injuries to the victim. It has been so stated by Kali Charan PW 1, Sher Singh PW 2 and Dafadar PW 3. So, the ocular version as regards the part allegedly played by Bileshwar in causing injuries to the victim is in clear conflict with the medical evidence. We note from the judgment of the lower Court that the trial Judge did not address himself to this aspect of clear conflict between ocular and medical evidence so far as the weapon allegedly used by Bileshwar is concerned. Learned A. G. A. could not make any reply to the absence of punctured wound (s) on the person of the deceased despite Bhalas having been used by two accused- persons. One of them allegedly was appellant-Bileshwar. He only urged that Bhala might have been used from the other side-blunt side. There is no foundation for this supposition, because it has not been so stated by the eye-witnesses. In the absence of punctured wound (s) on the person of the deceased, the participation of Bileshwar (to whom Bhala has been attributed) is rendered doubtful. He, therefore, deserves to be afforded the benefit of doubt. The appeal shall be allowed respecting him. 12. The case of the other accused-appellant Jagat Singh is taken up now for whom arguments have been advanced by amicus curiae Sri Imran Ullah. It has first been argued for him that he, too, had filed objection to the mutation application of the purchasers inclusive of the deceased Tukman Singh concerning 15 Bighas of land purchased by him with Sher Singh etc. from Asarfi-uncle of the accused Jagat Singh. Therefore, Kali Charan PW 1, Kanauji Lal-scribe of the FIR another son of Tukman Singh and Sher Singh PW 2 (who too was the co-purchaser of land with Tukman Singh) could be actuated to implicate him falsely. As is well known, enmity, ill-will or grudge is a double edged weapon. It may from foundation for false implication and at the same time inspire the commission of a crime. As is well known, enmity, ill-will or grudge is a double edged weapon. It may from foundation for false implication and at the same time inspire the commission of a crime. In the present case, it is there in the testimony of Kali Charan PW 1 (son of the deceased Tukman Singh) that it was his father who was doing pairvi in the mutation case. Therefore, it was probable that Jagat Singh and others chose to put him to eternal sleep by committing his murder so as to down the spirits of his sons and other purchasers, thinking that after the death of Tukman Singh, they would come to terms with objectors. What we wish to lay stress on is that the prosecution case and the evidence cannot be thrown overboard on the premise that Kali Charan, Kanauji Lal and Sher Singh could falsely implicate Jagat Singh. Of course, it is of utmost necessity that the evidence should be cautiously and carefully scrutinized. 13. Another argument of learned amicus curiae for Jagat Singh is that the prosecution did not examine the informant Kanauji Lal and also did not examine another eye-witness Akbar Singh who was allegedly sleeping with Tukman Singh in the fateful night. We do not think that non-examination of this witness can cause any ripple affecting the prosecution case. Kanauji Lal was another son of Tukman Singh. The prosecution is not required to multiply the evidence. Had Kanauji Lal been examined, the argument to criticize his testimony could be that he too was from the family of the deceased. Kali Charan sleeping with his father on the tube-well having seen the whole of the occurrence could be supposed to be better witness than Kanauji Lal. The prosecution case cannot be castigated that the informant was not examined. So far as non-examination of Akbar is concerned, he was also the kinsman of Tukman Singh. Moreover, Kali Charan PW 1 stated on oath that he was not willing to state the truth having been won over by the accused-persons. It is the quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity. The fate of the case depends only on the evidence adduced and not on a negative approach of non- examination of other witnesses. We, therefore, do not attach any importance to the non-examination of Kanauji Lal and Akbar by the prosecution. 14. It is the quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity. The fate of the case depends only on the evidence adduced and not on a negative approach of non- examination of other witnesses. We, therefore, do not attach any importance to the non-examination of Kanauji Lal and Akbar by the prosecution. 14. The witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution, namely, Kali Charan PW 1, Sher Singh PW 2 and Dafadar PW 3 clinchingly proved the participation of accused-appellant Jagat Singh in the commission of this crime. He was allegedly armed with a Kanta and the deceased did sustain a number of incised wounds capable of being caused by the weapon wielded by him. In other words, the ocular version is consistent with the medical evidence so far as his participation in the crime is concerned. Jagat Singh was one of the objectors to the mutation application made by Tukman Singh and other purchasers in respect of the land purchased by them from Asarfi and thus had a strong motive to eliminate Tukman Singh (who was mainly doing pairvi in the mutation case) to weaken and demoralise the whole body of the purchasers of the land. The three eye-witnesses named above fell in the category of natural and probable witnesses. The houses of Sher Singh PW 2 and Dafadar PW 3 were in the south of the abadi of the village Bankh and they were adjacent to the house of Tukman Singh just nearby tube-well. They recognized the voice of shouts for help made by Kali Charan and Akbar Singh. They came out of their houses including other neighbours. The two witnesses quickly rushed and arrived at the scene of the occurrence. They witnessed the incident from a distance of 8-10 paces. Sher Singh and Dafadar had arrived at the Chak-road situate in the north of usar of Gandharva Singh. The deceased had been made to get up from the cot by the assailants and dragged to usar of tube-well of Gandharv Singh at a distance of 50-55 paces where he was assaulted. Kali Charan PW 1 had a torch. It has come in the testimony that it was a moonlit night otherwise too. Sher Singh PW 2 also had a torch. Kali Charan PW 1 had a torch. It has come in the testimony that it was a moonlit night otherwise too. Sher Singh PW 2 also had a torch. The eye- witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to cast cloud on their testimony as to the participation of the appellant Jagat Singh wielding Kanta blows on the deceased. 15. The learned amicus curiae then argued that Kali Charan PW 1 admitted that Sher Singh and Dafadar were his khandani. Sher Singh was also one of the purchasers of the land from Asarfi. Kali Charan was the own son of the deceased. Thus all the witnesses were relatives and Sher Singh PW 2 was hostile too because of litigation in mutation proceedings. True, the witnesses were interested, but that could not justify the rejection of their testimony, particularly when there testimonial assertions were tested by gruelling cross-examination. If a witness is related to the deceased, he would naturally be interested in ensuring that real culprit is punished and not screened. It was a night incident. Kali Charan PW 1 was sleeping nearby the deceased where from he was made to get up and dragged to the nearly usar of Gandharv Singh. His presence was natural. Sher Singh PW 2 and Dafadar PW 3, on being attracted on the shouts emanating from the scene of the incident, could also reach in no time from their houses which were quite nearby. The interestedness of the eye-witnesses, in our opinion, does not cause any ripple in the prosecution case so far as the accused- appellant Jagat Singh is concerned. 16. It has lastly been argued by learned amicus curiae that the same evidence being disbelieved against Bileshwar accused-appellant cannot form basis for finding the guilt to be proved as against accused- appellant Jagat Singh. The argument is not acceptable at all. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in our country. Benefit of doubt can be afforded only to that accused whose participation is found to be doubtful. In the instant case, this doubt arises in respect of accused- appellant Bileshwar and it grows from the conflict between the ocular testimony and medical evidence. Bileshwar allegedly wielded Bhala, but the deceased did not receive any punctured wound. Benefit of doubt can be afforded only to that accused whose participation is found to be doubtful. In the instant case, this doubt arises in respect of accused- appellant Bileshwar and it grows from the conflict between the ocular testimony and medical evidence. Bileshwar allegedly wielded Bhala, but the deceased did not receive any punctured wound. The eye- witnesses are not being believed as against Bileshwar because his participation sounds to be doubtful on apparent conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence. The benefit would go only to him and not to Jagat Singh whose participation in this crime is established to the hilt. Doubtless, Jagat Singh was accompanied by certain other, but it is doubtful that Bileshwar was one of them. From the place of sleeping, the victim Tukman Singh was dragged to the nearby usar of Gandharv Singh and it necessarily involved more than one person. One alone could not do so. 17. The testimony of the eye-witnesses is well worthy of acceptance as against Jagat Singh, it being in harmony with medical evidence, too, so far as part played by him is concerned. 18. In the final result, we partly allow this appeal. The conviction and sentence passed against accused- appellant Bileshwar is set aside. But the appeal is dismissed so far as the accused-appellant Jagat Singh is concerned. His conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with sentence of life imprisonment is upheld. He has been reported to be absconding. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri shall make all out efforts to get him arrested and lodged in Jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment. . 20. Sri Imran Ullah, learned amicus curiae, who argued out the appeal for appellant Jagat Singh, shall get Rs. 1,000 as his fee. 21. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for reporting compliance to this Court within two months. Appeal partly allowed. .