Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.10.1996/2.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which Ram Niwas-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 323/34 IPC. Azad Singh appellant was convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that on 30.10.1993 at about 6 P.M. Roshni Devi complainant was sitting on the tea-stall of her son Gulab. Azad and Ram Niwas appellants alongwith Kuldeep and Krishan came there and enquired about Jaswant. She put off the matter on which they went away. Roshni Devi and her son Gulab Singh also came to their house. After some time, Jaswant Singh came there and the things were narrated to him. Jaswant Singh wanted to go back to his village Ahulana. Then Roshni Devi alongwith her son Gulab Singh and brother Dalbir were proceeding to village Ahulana at about 8.30 P.M. to leave Jaswant Singh there. When they reached near the house of Ram Kumar Kumhar, Ram Niwas (appellant) armed with Gandasi, while Azad (appellant), Kuldeep and Krishan armed with Bamboos came there. Ram Niwas (appellant) gave the Gandasi blow on the head of Dalbir @ Bablu. While Azad (appellant) gave bamboo stick blow. The other co-accused also gave bamboo stick blows to Jaswant Singh. Roshni Devi and her son Gulab Singh raised the alarm and saw the occurrence. Thereafter the injured were removed to Civil Hospital Gohana, but Dalbir succumbed to the injuries on the way, while Jaswant Singh was referred to Medical College, Rohtak. On the receipt of information from Civil Hospital, Gohana, the police reached there and the statement of Roshni Devi as stated above was recorded. 3. On the statement of Roshni Devi, the present case was registered. 4. The charge was framed against all of them under Sections 302, 325/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses. Kuldeep-accused had died during the pendency of the trial. Ram Niwas accused appellant took the plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the has been falsely implicated in this case because of his strained relations with Roshni Devi, Jaswant Singh and Gulab Singh. Similar plea was taken by Azad Singh. Kuldeep-accused had died during the pendency of the trial. Ram Niwas accused appellant took the plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the has been falsely implicated in this case because of his strained relations with Roshni Devi, Jaswant Singh and Gulab Singh. Similar plea was taken by Azad Singh. While Krishan-accused was acquitted for the want of evidence before recording his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 6. The appellants did not lead any evidence. 7. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court convicted Ram Niwas appellant for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, while Azad Singh appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, vide judgment dated 31.10.1996. Ram Niwas appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC while he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months under Section 323 IPC. Similarly, Azad Singh appellant was sentenced to R.I. for a period of six months under Section 323 IPC. 8. Hence the present appeal. 9. We have gone through the evidence on the file. We have also considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. Brijender Dhankar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. 10. As per the prosecution case, Dalbir (now deceased) was given a Gandasi blow by Ram Niwas on his head. The prosecution version is proved by Roshni Devi, who was author of the FIR also. Dr. Krishan Lal Medical Officer PW-2 who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Dalbir on 31.10.1993 had found six injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 caused on the head of Dalbir was proved to be ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that according to Roshni Devi PW-7 the injury was caused on the head of Dalbir by Ram Niwas appellant with a Gandasi but Dr. Krishan Lal PW-2 has admitted in cross- examination that none of the injuries found on the dead-body of Dalbir was caused by sharp edged weapon. Hence it was prayed that there was contradiction in the medical and ocular evidence. 12. We have considered this submission. Krishan Lal PW-2 has admitted in cross- examination that none of the injuries found on the dead-body of Dalbir was caused by sharp edged weapon. Hence it was prayed that there was contradiction in the medical and ocular evidence. 12. We have considered this submission. Roshni Devi has not stated if the Gandasi blow was given by Ram Niwas on the head of Dalbir from its sharp edged side, nor any such minor details can be observed by the eye witness, particularly when the occurrence had taken place at 8.30 P.M. in the months of October 1993 i.e. after the sun-set. 13. Moreover, Dr. Krishan Lal PW-2 has deposed that injury No. 1 found on the dead-body of Dalbir could be caused by any heavy blunt object like a Mogra. The reverse side of a Gandasa is a `heavy blunt object. Therefore, the injury given by Gandasa blow from its reverse side can correspond to injury No. 1 found on the dead-body of Dalbir Singh. It was held by Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 69, that minor variations between ocular and medical evidence are immaterial when other evidence is sufficient for conviction. It was also observed by the Honble Supreme Court that there is no discrepancy in the ocular and medical evidence where both are not irreconcilable (Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and another, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 221 (SC) : 2004 Crl. L.J. 628). 14. We, therefore, have reached the conclusion that there is no irreconcilable discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence. 15. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 30.10.1993 at about 8 P.M. in front of the house of Ram Kumar Kumhar Baroda Road, when Dalbir and Jaswant Singh were assaulted with weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Roshni Devi PW-7, Jaswant Singh PW-8 and Gulab Singh PW-9. The matter was reported to the police by Roshni Devi at 10.15 P.M. on the same day and the FIR had also reached the Magistrate at 11.30 P.M. Therefore, the matter was reported to the police without delay. The prompt lodging of the FIR with the police is a circumstance which lends credence to the prosecution case. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that Jaswant Singh PW-8 and Gulab Singh PW-9 eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case on oath. The prompt lodging of the FIR with the police is a circumstance which lends credence to the prosecution case. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that Jaswant Singh PW-8 and Gulab Singh PW-9 eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case on oath. Hence it was prayed that appellants be acquitted. 17. The prosecution case is supported by Roshni Devi PW-7. The occurrence was also witnessed by Jaswant Singh PW-8 and Gulab Singh PW-9. Jaswant Singh PW-8 deposed that he could not identify the assailants. Similarly Gulab Singh PW-9 also deposed that Dalbir and Jaswant were attacked by 4-5 persons who had emerged at the scene but deposed that assailants could not be identified. 18. We have perused the evidence. We have found the statement of Roshni Devi PW-7 to be reliable piece of evidence. The assailants were her close relatives and she had no reason to falsely implicate them. Dalbir deceased was her real brother and Roshni Devi PW-7 could not have falsely implicated the appellants by giving a go-bye to the real culprits. 19. There can be a possibility of implicating some innocent persons besides the real assailants but the false implication of innocent persons alone and leaving aside the real culprits is not a normal human conduct and therefore, next to impossibility. It was observed by Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Rizan and another v. State of Chattisgarh, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 662 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 946, that more often than not a relative would not conceal a real culprit and make allegations against innocent person. In this judgment their Lordships have quoted with approval the observations made in an earlier judgment (Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364), as under :- "Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty but foundation must be laid for such a cirticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 20. The prelude to the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 30.10.1993 at 6 P.M. when Roshni Devi was sitting at the tea stall of her son Gulab Singh. At that time, Azad and Ram Niwas appellants alongwith Kuldeep and Krishan had come to her shop and had enquired about Jaswant Singh as they wanted to kill him. Even Jaswant Singh PW-8 had also deposed that this fact situation was told to him by Roshni Devi and he had asked her that he should be taken to his village Ahulana and thereafter he is in the company of Roshni Devi, Gulab Singh and Dalbir had left Gohana for proceeding towards his own village Ahulana. He also deposed that when they crossed the house of Ram Kumar Kumhar, they had noticed Ram Niwas, Azad and Kuldeep, who emerged from the saw mill but in the second breath, he deposed that he could not identify the assailants. The occurrence narrated by Jaswant Singh PW-8 lends credence to the statement of Roshni Devi PW-7 that the assailants were noneless that Ram Niwas and Azad (Kuldeep was murdered during the pendency of this case). It has been settled by Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 95 (SC) : 2002 Cri. L.J. 4650, that even the statement of a witness who has gone hostile need not be rejected ipso facto on that account. Their Lordships quoted with approval the observations made in an earlier judgment as under :- "It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is corsistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted." 21. It has also been held by Honble Supreme Court in a number of judgments that theory of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. It has also been held by Honble Supreme Court in a number of judgments that theory of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. It means, therefore, that if a witness is found unreliable on a particular aspect the remaining portion of his statement can be relied upon if it is found truthful. It was observed by Honble Supreme Court in Rizans case (supra) as under :- "It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in onmibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status or rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called `a mandatory rule of evidence". 22. In view of the discussion held above, the conviction of Ram Niwas and Azad Singh appellants is upheld. 23. So far as Azad Singh is concerned, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met if he is awarded sentence under Section 323/34 IPC, which he has already undergone. While the sentence awarded to Ram Niwas does not call for any interference. With this modification, the present appeal is dismissed. 24. Ram Niwas appellant is stated to be on bail. He be re-arrested to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. Necessary steps in that regard be taken immediately.