A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30-6-1992 passed by third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions trial No. 143/86 convicting him under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, has filed this appeal under Section 374 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) PROSECUTIONS story as per First information Report is that one Karu lodged the F. I. R. at Police Station amayan, district Bhind on 3-5-1986 at about 9 a. m. that in the last night of 2nd and 3rd May, 1986 he was sleeping at his bran (Khalihan ). His son Ramfal was sleeping nearby him and Bhure Khan was also sleeping near them on a cot. In the night at about 12 p. m. he heard the noise of fire and he had seen that appellant mehboob Khan shot at Bhurekhan by a katta. Bhure Khan was lying on a cot and struggling for life, Seeing it when he cried, Mehboob Khan threatened him that he will also kill him; whereupon Karu and his son Ramfal ran away from there. Thereafter, they came to the village and informed the villagers and thereafter went to lodge the report. The distance of police station is about 7 kms. from the place of occurrence. It was further reported that Bhurekhan was all alone. He was not married and he had no issue and was residing with Karu for last 30 years. Mehboob Khan is the son of Jinnekhan, who is the husband of Rupe, who is the niece of deceased Bhurekhah. It was also written in the F. I. R. that Bhurekhan was having lot of property and around 7 years before he had given 7 bighas of land to Karu, therefore, Jinnekhan was keeping enmity with him as well as with Bhurekhan. It was also alleged in the F. I. R. that 4 years before jinnekhan got executed one forged saledeed for 12 bighas of land of deceased in his favour, litigation of which was pending in Bhind Court and due to this junnekhan got murdered Bhurekhan through his son Mehboob Khan. After the f. I. R. lodged by Karu, the matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against three persons - appellant, his mother Smt. Rupabai and father jianekhan. ( 3 ) IN defence, appellant and other co-accused persons abjured their guilt. After the f. I. R. lodged by Karu, the matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against three persons - appellant, his mother Smt. Rupabai and father jianekhan. ( 3 ) IN defence, appellant and other co-accused persons abjured their guilt. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and in defence appellant also examined 6 witnesses. Their defence was that the dispute between the appellant and his parents and bhurekhan was compromised and Karu was not happy with this compromise, therefore, it is Karu who murdered bhurekhan. D. W. 6 Rupabai has stated that in the morning at 5 o' clock Karu had told her that he has murdered bhurekhan and D. W. 3 Shyamli and D. W. 4 Jhinguri have stated that they both had seen Karu murdering the deceased. The trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence acquitted two co-accused persons, mst. Rupabai and Jinnekhan, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against which the appellant has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri J. P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, instructed by shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri M. P. S. Bhadoriya, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State. ( 5 ) SHRI Gupta vehemently argued and submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in placing reliance on the evidence of P. W. 7 Ramfal and p. W. 8 Karu. Their evidence is not at all reliable. It is full of contradictions and omissions and on the same set of evidence the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused persons. The prosecution has failed to seize the weapon of offence from the appellant and the defence version appears to be reliable and appellant is entitled for acquittal, as two gunshot wounds were found on the body of the deceased and their relations were inimical. ( 6 ) SHIR M. P. S. Bhadoriya, learned public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State supported the judgment and submitted that the evidence of P. W. 7 and P. W. 8 is reliable. The Katta could not be recovered because it was concealed by Mst. Rupabai and Jinnekhan. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. ( 7 ) WE have examined the prosecution as well as defence evidence on record. ( 8 ) RAJKUMAR (P. W. 1), who was the witness of arrest memos (Ex. The Katta could not be recovered because it was concealed by Mst. Rupabai and Jinnekhan. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. ( 7 ) WE have examined the prosecution as well as defence evidence on record. ( 8 ) RAJKUMAR (P. W. 1), who was the witness of arrest memos (Ex. P/1 and P/ 2) and Amar Singh (P. W. 3), who was cited as eye-witness, have not supported the prosecution story and they were declared hostile. Jagmohan Singh (P. W. 2) is the witness of spot-map Ex. P/6 and seizure memo of clothes Ex. P/7. He has deposed that deceased Bhurekhan was residing with Karu. Karu was looking after his property. He has further deposed that deceased was having inimical relations with the accused persons. Rupa got the forged sale-deed of the land of Bhurekhan executed in her favour. In the cross-examination he has stated that Karu had come to him at about 4 clock in the morning and till that time he had not lodged the report. Ramkhilona Srivastav (P. W. 4) is Patwari, who had prepared the map of Ex. P/10. Udaipratap Singh (P. W. 5) is the Head Constable of Amayan Police Station, who had seized one sealed packet of clothes by seizure memo Ex. P/11. Lakhan (P. W. 6) is the witness of seizure of memo Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/12. D. R. Roniya (P. W. 9) was Station Officer of Police Station Amayan and he had investigated the matter. He had prepared memo ex. P/14 of Jinnekhan on 30-8-1986, who was absconding and he had recorded the statements of witnesses and referred the seized articles for examination to Sagar. Badshah Singh Rathore (P. W. 11) was incharge Police Station. He had also partly investigated the matter. He is the witness of Panchayatnama Lash Ex. P/9. He had also prepared spot map Ex. P/6 and seized clothes by seizures memo Ex. P/7 and also seized plain and bloodstained soil and the cot by seizure memo ex. P/12. He had recorded the statement of Karu and referred the dead body for postmortem by Ex. P/16 and P/17. He had also prepared arrest memos Ex. P/18, P/19 and P/20. He had also seized some judgments of civil case and copy of the plaint by Ex. P/21 and P/22. P/12. He had recorded the statement of Karu and referred the dead body for postmortem by Ex. P/16 and P/17. He had also prepared arrest memos Ex. P/18, P/19 and P/20. He had also seized some judgments of civil case and copy of the plaint by Ex. P/21 and P/22. He had also recorded the statement of the accused/appellant Mehboob Khan but there was no recovery from him and F. S. L. report is ex. P/23 and P/24. ( 9 ) DR. G. D. Rawat (P. W. 10) had performed the autopsy of the deadbody. He had examined the injuries on the person of the deceased. He had found lacerated wound which was 3-1/2x 2 cm. below the thumb of left hand and exit wound in size of 2-1/2x 2 cm. on the palm, one entry wound on the chest in size of 3-1 /2 x 2 cm. A pellet was found stuck in sixth and seventh rib and seventh rib was found fractured and another pellet was also found near the same rib. The cause of death was gunshot injury on the chest. Post-mortem report is Ex. P/15. In the cross-examination he has clarified that both the injuries were caused by one gunshot fire in a position when a person was lying because the gunshot hit the palm as well as the chest, therefore, both-the injuries may be caused by gunshot. He has clarified that he had seen backening in the wound, therefore, he can say that the fire was made from close distance. He further clarified that the deceased might have taken food 6 to 10 hours before gun shot injury. ( 10 ) RAMFAL (P. W. 7), who is the son of Karu and Karu (P. W. 8) have supported the prosecution version. They both have stated in their examination-in-chief that they were sleeping at Khalihan. Bhurekhan was also sleeping there. In the midnight they heard the noise of gunshot fire. They woke up and had seen that mehboob Khan was standing there with katta. Jinnekhan was also there. Mehboob Khan threatened to kill them also, therefore, they ran away from the spot and came to village and informed the villagers. In the morning, before lodging the report they again went there and had seen the injuries on the body of deceased bhurekhan and found him dead and thereafter lodged the report. Jinnekhan was also there. Mehboob Khan threatened to kill them also, therefore, they ran away from the spot and came to village and informed the villagers. In the morning, before lodging the report they again went there and had seen the injuries on the body of deceased bhurekhan and found him dead and thereafter lodged the report. Ramfal (PW 7) in the cross-examination has stated that he had also informed the Police daroga about the presence of Jinnekhan on spot but why the police has not mentioned his name in his case diary statement, he cannot give any reason, which appears to be the only improvement in his statement. ( 11 ) KARU (PW 8) in his cross-examination has clarified that the moment bhurekhan cried, he woke up and had seen Mehboob firing gunshot why the police has written in the FIR that he woke up after hearing gunshot fire and the same version has been mentioned in his case diary statement. He had seen the assailant from the distance of 10 paces. He had seen Mehboob and Jinnekhan both, why the name of Jinnekhan has not been mentioned in the report, he cannot give any reason whereas he has also informed about his name by lodging the police report. He has also intimated the name of Jinnekhan while recording the case-diary statement but why the police has not mentioned, he cannot give any reason. It was the bright night. He has further clarified that after hearing the noise they ran away towards the village and they had also gone to the house of jagmohan Singh. He has maintained that in the morning they again came to see bhurekhan and thereafter he has lodged the report. From this cross-examination it appears that he has improved his version in the Court and has added the name of Jinnekhan, therefore, due to this omission trial Court gave benefit to the co-accused Jinnekhan and has acquitted him. ( 12 ) SHRI Gupta on the aforesaid improvements in the statements of ramfal (PW 7) and Karu (PW 8) has vehemently argued that the prosecution story is totally false and both the witnesses are telling flat-lie. ( 12 ) SHRI Gupta on the aforesaid improvements in the statements of ramfal (PW 7) and Karu (PW 8) has vehemently argued that the prosecution story is totally false and both the witnesses are telling flat-lie. In fact, Karu is the assailant himself and he himself made gunfire and with a view to save himself he has falsely implicated the appellant, therefore, his whole testimony is not reliable and conviction cannot be maintained on the basis of the aforesaid statement. ( 13 ) IN case of Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, long back the Supreme court has summarized the principle about the FIR a first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under S. 157, Evidence Act, or to contradict it under S. 145 of that Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes as accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witness. The well-known maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in india nor has received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded. ( 14 ) IN case of Ugarahir v. The State of Bihar, Supreme Court has ruled as under :-"the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. " ( 15 ) AGAIN in the case of Sohrab s/o beli Nayata and another v. The State of madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court has held as under :-"where the witnesses tried to embellish and exaggerate and there were discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence, the broad features of the evidence of the prosecution case cannot be doubted on that ground alone. The position of eye-witnesses in relation to the occurrence may have been such that all the details could not have been noticed. Merely because there have been discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some or all of the witnesses does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is only after exercising caution and care and shifting the evidence to separate the truth from un-truth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvement, the court comes to the conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the accused it will convict them. The dictum "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. " ( 16 ) IN the case of Balaka Singh v. The State of Punjab, Supreme Court has held that the Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this can only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court will have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made then this principle will not apply. ( 17 ) RECENTLY in the case of Sucha singh v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court has considered entire case law on the point and His Lordship Pasayat, J. , speaking for the bench has held that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The doctrine is a dangerous one, especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. ( 18 ) ON the question of discrepancies, in the statement of witnesses in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, Supreme Court has discussed that what are material discrepancies and what are minor, insignificant, natural and not material discrepancies and has held that in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, nor errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, nor errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. ( 19 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the whole testimony of aforesaid two witnesses cannot be discarded simply on the ground that they have made improvements in their Court statements and added the name of jinnekhan. Except the aforesaid improvement there are no other improvements or discrepancies in their statements and whatever other discrepancies have been pointed out, they are of very normal nature and cannot be said to be material discrepancies and on the basis of which the whole testimony of the aforesaid tow witnesses cannot be discarded and be treated as unreliable. When the assailant was present on spot with the deadly weapon in his hand and he fired gunshot on the deceased, who was sleeping on the cot, the others present on spot had no option but to run away from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid improvement in their evidence the trial court has already acquitted another co-accused Jinnekhan but so far as the evidence against the appellant Mehboob khan is concerned, the same is reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that on the basis of the aforesaid improvements by the witnesses their entire evidence should be discarded or liable to be rejected. ( 20 ) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses PW 7 and PW 8 is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. G. D. Rawat (PW 10), who had performed autopsy of the deadbody and examined the injuries on the person of the deceased, found gunshot injury below the thumb of left hand and also one entry wound on the chest; a pellet was also found stuck in sixth and seventh rib and seventh rib was found fractured. He has clearly opined that both the injuries were caused by one gunshot fire. He had also seen blackening in the wound and in his opinion the shot was made from a close distance. He has clearly opined that both the injuries were caused by one gunshot fire. He had also seen blackening in the wound and in his opinion the shot was made from a close distance. Both the witnesses PW 7 and PW 8 have stated that the gunshot was made from the distance of 10-15 paces, which further corroborates their evidence. ( 21 ) SHRI Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that FIR is delayed. It was lodged after meeting of mind and no Katta has been seized and the prosecution has not examined the other villagers to prove the first/earlier version of PW 7 and PW 8. The incident took place at about 12 o' clock in the night but the FIR was lodged on the next day morning, therefore, the prosecution story is doubtful. ( 22 ) WE have examined this contention of Shri Gupta and we found that the appellant is not entitled to get any benefit of the same. As per FIR, Ex. P/13, the incident took place in the night at about 12 o' clock and the report of the incident was lodged next day at 9 o' clock in the morning. The distance of police station from the spot is around 7 kms. When the complainant had seen the accused, who was carrying deadly weapon and he killed bhurekhan and under these circumstances both the witnesses had to leave the spot, they went in the village and narrated the story. For that the prosecution has examined PW 2 Jagmohan singh. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that Karu had come to him at 4 a. m. It means that they went to inform the villagers and it has also come in the evidence that they came back on spot and had seen the deadbody of bhurekhan and thereafter lodged the report. If the distance is 7 kms. and the incident took place in the midnight, it cannot be said that the FIR is a delayed fir. The witness has already explained the delay in lodging the FIR. It is true that the article Katta could not be seized but only on the basis of aforesaid infirmity in the prosecution case that the Katta was not seized, the whole prosecution story and the evidence cannot be thrown out. The witness has already explained the delay in lodging the FIR. It is true that the article Katta could not be seized but only on the basis of aforesaid infirmity in the prosecution case that the Katta was not seized, the whole prosecution story and the evidence cannot be thrown out. ( 23 ) IN defence, the appellant has examined 6 witnesses and their contention was that it is Karu (PW 8), who has committed murder of deceased bhurekhan because Bhurekhan was living with him and Bhurekhan was having huge property and Bhurekhan had compromised the case with the accused persons, which was pending about the forged sale-deed and Karu was not happy with that compromise, therefore, he himself killed the deceased. ( 24 ) UDAIVEER (DW 1) is the witness, before whom there was a compromise between the parties. Jaharsingh (DW 2)is also a witness of compromise but in the cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of compromise Bhurekhan had told to Rupe that why she got executed forged sale-deed. Shyamli (DW 3) and Jhinguri (DW 4) both have stated that they both were sleeping in a khalihan. They heard the noise of gunshot. When they went near the cot of bhurekhan, they found that Karu was having a Katta in his hand and Bhurekhan was lying dead. Amarsingh and nathu were also present at the time of incident. They were carrying farsa and they asked them what they have done; he told them to keep mum, otherwise they will also kill them and thereafter in the cross-examination they have admitted that Karu has killed because there was compromise. Though he has also stated that he has told Rupabai that your husband has killed". In the cross-examination Shyamli (DW 3) has admitted that thereafter he had not narrated this incident to anyone else and first time he is narrating it in the Court. Jhinguri (DW 4) has stated that after the incident he went to the village and informed Rupa that Karu has killed her uncle, thereafter Rupa had gone to lodge the report. In the cross-examination Shyamli (DW 3) has admitted that thereafter he had not narrated this incident to anyone else and first time he is narrating it in the Court. Jhinguri (DW 4) has stated that after the incident he went to the village and informed Rupa that Karu has killed her uncle, thereafter Rupa had gone to lodge the report. In the cross-examination he has denied that when Bhurekhan received gunshot fire, karu had reached on spot, Ramdutt Singh, advocate (DW 5) though has stated that he had gone to S. P. Bhind along with mehboob Khan and one lady and had stated that they have been falsely implicated in one criminal case and had given one application and had stated that there should not be any forged recovery from them. In the cross-examination, it was asked from him that the Katta could not be recovered because of his indulgence in the matter which he has denied. Rupa (DW 6) has deposed that there was a civil suit between him and his uncle deceased bhurckhan and thereafter there was compromise between them. She has further stated that on the day of incident kara had come carrying Katta in his hand along with Amarsingh and he had told him at 5 o' clock in the morning that "we have killed your uncle, now you save us, you take our land" and thereafter Shyamli and Jhinguri both also came and had informed her that Karu had killed her uncle. She went to lodge the report but the report was not lodged. Thereafter she gave a written application to S. P. on 31-5-1986, which is Ex. D/1. ( 25 ) WE have carefully examined the aforesaid defence evidence. Ex. D/1 is a written application to the S. P. , which is dated 31-5-1986, which was received by Additional S. P. on 1-6-1986. The incident took place between the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd May, 1986 and this application was filed after a month. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the defence of the appellant Mehboob is that he was not present there and he has been falsely implicated. The incident took place between the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd May, 1986 and this application was filed after a month. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the defence of the appellant Mehboob is that he was not present there and he has been falsely implicated. The defence story is not at all reliable because on the same day when in the morning at about 5 o' clock if Karu had come to the house of rupa along with Amarsingh and had made an extra judicial confession before her that he has killed her uncle Bhurekhan and thereafter Shyamli and Jhinguri also came and had stated that they had seen karu firing gunshot by Katta on her uncle then why she has not gone on the spot to see the deadbody and thereafter why she has not lodged the report. Because the report of Karu was written at 9 a. m. , therefore, Rupa niece of deceased Bhurekhan and mother of appellant, was having sufficient time to lodge the report along with two eye-witnesses but why she has not lodged the report on the same day, no explanation has been furnished. She went to the Addl. S. P. on 1-6-1986, i. e. , after a month, therefore, the defence story appears to be totally false and concocted. This story that there was compromise between the parties is also not reliable. More so, even if there was a compromise between the parties why Karu will kill the deceased, who was living with him and to whom he has already given 7 bighas of land and all other household goods but the prosecution story appears to be more probable and genuine because no written compromise has been produced on record and relations between rupa, her husband and her son Mehboob with the deceased were inimical. A civil suit was pending between them as the accused party got one forged sale deed executed in their favour and deceased bhurekhan was not happy with that sale deed and he had filed a civil suit. Copy of the plant has been seized which is on record, which is Ex. A civil suit was pending between them as the accused party got one forged sale deed executed in their favour and deceased bhurekhan was not happy with that sale deed and he had filed a civil suit. Copy of the plant has been seized which is on record, which is Ex. P/22, in which it was mentioned that he is an old person aged about 70 years and Rupa is his relative and she used to come to his house and she had stolen his Rin Pustika from his house and on the basis of Rin Pustika got one sale deed of his land executed in her favour. The said sale deed is forged and is nullity, as he had not executed the same and prayed that the sale deed be declared null and void. It is not in dispute that the civil suit was pending between them and Burekhan has also given some land to Karu, therefore, the evidence of motive for commission of crime is available against the appellant. Under these circumstances, the prosecution story appears to be more reliable and reasonable. ( 26 ) DURING the course of the argument, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that in that case when Mehboob has taken a plea of alibi and the accused persons made direct allegation against the witnesses that they have not committed the crime but it is the witness, who has committed the crime and produced the evidence against him and if that evidence is found false and if the plea of defence fails, it should be treated as an additional link in favour of the prosecution and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim, in which the Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence the appellant has not explained inculpating circumstance established by the prosecution against him, it would form an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The same view again has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Babudas v. State o/m. P. , in which Supreme Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, a false alibi set up by the accused would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The same view again has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Babudas v. State o/m. P. , in which Supreme Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, a false alibi set up by the accused would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances. ( 27 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-State submitted that in the case of baiju alias Bharosa v. State o/m. P. , in a case of theft, robbery and murders the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the accused justified the presumption that it was he and no one else had committed the murders and the robbery and submitted that when the accused persons have failed to prove the compromise as well as the case against karu, this should also be treated as an additional circumstances against him for his conviction in this case. ( 28 ) IN reply, Shri Gupta submitted that the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and the appellant merely cannot be convicted on the ground that he has failed to prove his defence and the failure of the defence cannot be treated as an additional link and in support of his contention cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of maharashtra, in which it has been held that it is well-settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it "cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court. Before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactory proved, (2) the said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstances is in proximity to the time and situation. If these conditions are fulfilled only when a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise. ( 29 ) SHRI Gupta further cited a decision in the case of Narendra Singh v. State of M. P. , in which it has been held that it is well-known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on prosecution. In case of Jayantibhai Bhenkaarbhai v. State of Gujarat, it has been held that the burden of proving commission of offence by the accused so as to fasten the liability of guilt on him remains on the prosecution and would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused had taken the plea of alibi as defence. The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the burden which lies on the prosecution has been discharged satisfactorily. If the prosecution has failed in discharging its burden of proving the commission of crime by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it may not be necessary to go into the question whether the accused has succeeded in proving the defence of alibi. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden then it is incumbent on the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence. An obligation is cast on the Court to weigh in scales the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proving of the guilt of the accused and the evidence adduced by the accused in proving his defence of alibi. An obligation is cast on the Court to weigh in scales the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proving of the guilt of the accused and the evidence adduced by the accused in proving his defence of alibi. If the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the place and time of occurrence, the court would evaluate the prosecution evidence to see if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution leaves any slot available to fit therein the defence of alibi. The burden of the accused is undoubtedly heavy. This flows from S. 103 of the Evidence Act which provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. However, while weighing the prosecution case and the defence case, pitted against each other, if the balance tilts in favour of the accused, the prosecution would fail and the accused would be entitled to benefit of that reasonable doubt which would emerge in the mind of the Court. ( 30 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion on this point, it is well-settled that firstly the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused by producing reasonable evidence beyond doubt that he is the person, who has committed the crime. In this case, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the defence evidence which is not reliable should be treated as additional link against the accused cannot be accepted because firstly this case is not based on circumstantial evidence but it is a case of direct evidence. If the evidence of Ramfal (PW 7) and Karu (PW 8) is trustworthy and reliable then it is not necessary for the Court to look into the defence evidence and to seek corroboration of the evidence of prosecution from the defence version or from the defence evidence. In this case after appreciating the prosecution evidence, we are of the firmed view that the evidence of Ramfal (PW 7) and Karu (PW 8) is wholly reliable. They were present on spot and they had seen the incident and had also seen mehboob. This evidence is further corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. G. D. Rawat (PW 10 ). In this case after appreciating the prosecution evidence, we are of the firmed view that the evidence of Ramfal (PW 7) and Karu (PW 8) is wholly reliable. They were present on spot and they had seen the incident and had also seen mehboob. This evidence is further corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. G. D. Rawat (PW 10 ). Therefore, it is not necessary to seek any corroboration from the defence evidence. After discussing the defence evidence as we have already held above that the defence evidence is not at all reliable and is not helpful to the appellant. Therefore, considering the prosecution evidence we found that the trial Court has hot committed any illegality in recording the finding of guilt against the appellant. The evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded simply on the ground that there are improvements. ( 31 ) THE last submission of Shri gupta also does not carry weight that two co-accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of the same evidence, therefore, the appellant is also entitled for acquittal. ( 32 ) IN case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the argument and has held that merely because two of the four accused have been acquitted, though the evidence against all of them, so far as the direct testimony went, was the same it does not necessarily follow that the other two must be similarly acquitted. In this case the trial court has already differentiated the evidence against two other co-accused persons those who have been acquitted from the evidence against the present appellant. ( 33 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence on record we found that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellant by producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt and in our opinion no grounds have been made out for interference on merits in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .