Judgment V.K. Bali, J. — Whether testimony of Rashid, the injured eye witness, should be believed, wholly or in part, is the sole but significant question involved in the present case. Before, however, we take into consideration the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, on the question framed above, it would be appropriate to give relevant facts culminating in filing of the present criminal appeal bearing No. 77/2002 and Revision No. 561/2002. 2. The occurrence leading to death of Mazid, as per the prosecution version, had taken place on 22.02.1999 at 4 p.m. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Rashid (PW.3) on the same very day at 6.45 p.m. Special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate on 23.02.1999. 3. While unfolding the prosecution version, Rashid who himself got injured in the same very incident leading to the death of Mazid, stated that on the day of occurrence at about 4 in the evening, he and his brother Mazid were coming back in a bus after attending hearing of a case. They were going to their house but when the bus reached Chhatarpur, Munshi, Deena, Sahabla, Jackom and Khursheed, belonging to their village, came in a tractor. They got the bus stopped and told the passengers to get down from the bus. Thereafter, they fired three rounds from the fire arms. Mazid received a gun shot injury in his eye. He and his brother were also asked to get down from the bus and were given beatings with Farsi. Police reached at the spot upon which these persons ran away. They had old enmity between each other. 4. In its endeavour to bring home the guilt against the appellants and two others namely Juharu and Nihala who were tried alongwith the appellants but have since been acquitted, the prosecution brought on record medico legal report (Exhibit P-12) which would show that Mazid was medico legally examined at 9 a.m. on 22.02.1999. The doctor who conducted medical examination of Mazid found following injuries on his person: "1. Incised wound with red clotted blood 1O x 6 cm on Rt. eye & Rt. side face. Rt. eye lost. 2. Incised wound 11 x 4 cm deep Lt. Parietal skull. 3. Incised wound 7x2 cm/deep with red clotted blood, Lt. side skull. 4. Incised wound 3x2x1 cm Lt. forearm. 5. Incised wound with red clotted blood 1O x 6 cm on Rt. eye & Rt. side face. Rt. eye lost. 2. Incised wound 11 x 4 cm deep Lt. Parietal skull. 3. Incised wound 7x2 cm/deep with red clotted blood, Lt. side skull. 4. Incised wound 3x2x1 cm Lt. forearm. 5. Three incised wound with red clotted blood, 5x2 cm, 6 x 2 cm and 4x2 cm. 6. Three incised wound Lt. Knee, Lt. Leg, 10 x 4 cm, 8 x 4 cm and 7x4 cm. 7. Incised wound 4 x 2 cm and 5 x 2 cm with red clotted blood. Rt. Leg. 8. Incised wound 10 x 8 cm traversely placed. 9. Incised wound 8x4 cm. Rt. hand. 10. Abrasion on each finger 3 x 1/2 cm on each finger." 5. Rashid was medico legally examined on 22.02.1999 at 9.30 p.m. Doctor found following seven injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 6 x 1 cm deep with red clotted blood. 2. Incised wound two 2x1 cm V Finger Rt. hand 4 x 1 cm IV finger Rt. hand. 3. Incised wound 4 x 1 x 1/2 cm Rt. side face. 4. Incised wounds 7 x 1 cm / deep Rt. leg two with red clotted 4 x 1 cm blood. 5. Incised wound 4x1 x 1/2 cm Rt. ankle with red clotted blood. 6. Incised wound 9 x 4 cm post Lt. elbow. 7. Two incised wounds 10 x 8 cm Lt. Thigh, 6x4 cm. 6. Dr. Amar Singh Rathore, who was examined as PW. 11, stated that on 22.02.1999 he was holding the post of Medical Jurist and was posted at Alwar. He had conducted medical examination of Rashid on that day and found on his person, injuries already mentioned above. He stated that all injuries sustained by him were caused by sharp edged weapon and were caused within a duration of 24 hours. Injuries No. 6 and 7 were grievous in nature whereas other injuries were simple. On the same day, he had medico-legally examined Mazid and found injuries on his person as already mentioned above. The doctor stated that all injuries sustained by Mazid had been caused by sharp edged weapon and were within duration of 24 hours. Injury No. 1 was declared to be grievous whereas with regard to rest of the injuries the patient was referred for X-ray examination. The doctor stated that all injuries sustained by Mazid had been caused by sharp edged weapon and were within duration of 24 hours. Injury No. 1 was declared to be grievous whereas with regard to rest of the injuries the patient was referred for X-ray examination. Injuries sustained by Mazid were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor further stated that on 23.02.1999, Mazid had died and, therefore, he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mazid on the said day. Cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was comma and head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor also deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by Sher Mohd. (PW. 12) and Ali Mohd. (PW. 4) but there is no need to make a mention of the injuries sustained by these witnesses at this stage as their testimony has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. 7. Ali Mohd. and Sher Mohd., we may, however, mention, were examined as PW. 4 and PW. 12 respectively. Rashid an important and star witness of the prosecution was examined as PW. 3. While appearing as a witness, he while substantiating his version but for the first time, stated that Deena, Sahabla and Khursheed were armed with guns whereas rest of the accused were armed with Farsi. He also introduced accused other than named by him in the FIR and as mentioned above, Juhuru and Nihala who were named by him after lodging the FIR have since been acquitted. We have been informed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that he had introduced yet another person namely Jamshed who was tried separately but he too has since been acquitted. The witness also stated that other accused i.e., other than Deena, Sahabla and Khursheed, were armed with Farsi and those armed with fire arms, had used the same whereas others who were armed with Farsi, they had caused injuries with their respective weapons. Ram Narayan and Daulat Ram Sharma, ASIs examined as PW. 17 and PW. 18 respectively deposed with regard to the steps that they had taken while investigating the case. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants while denying the incriminating material put to them, further stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. Ram Narayan and Daulat Ram Sharma, ASIs examined as PW. 17 and PW. 18 respectively deposed with regard to the steps that they had taken while investigating the case. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants while denying the incriminating material put to them, further stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. They, however, examined no witness in defence. 9. There is no need to mention further details of the prosecution case in view of the only but significant contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Rashid, the only witness who has been believed, even though partly, by the trial Court, should have been completely disbelieved and in view of the contradictory statements made by him and introducing innocent persons, no reliance could at all be placed upon his statement and, therefore, all the accused should have been acquitted. Mr. Naqvi, learned Counsel representing the complainant, who has filed Criminal Revision No. 561/2002, however contends that there was sufficient material available to believe the testimony of PW. 3 Rashid as also that testimony of PWs 4 and 12, who too were injured witnesses could not be discarded. He further contends that in fact persons who have been acquitted should have also been convicted. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor argues in tune with the contentions raised by Mr. Naqvi. 11. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. 12. A witness may be wholly reliable, partly reliable or wholly unreliable. It is too well settled proposition of law that a witness, whose presence even may be established but who might not have told the whole truth and might thus come in the category of partly reliable witness, his testimony needs to be corroborated. It may be recalled that while lodging the FIR which was lodged promptly within a matter of 2 hours and 45 minutes, he named only five persons, who alone have been convicted by the learned trial Judge and who have filed the present appeal. Later in point of time, he introduced three more persons, two of whom named Nihala and Juhuru were tried with the appellants and as mentioned above, have since been acquitted. Another person Jamshed was tried separately and as mentioned above, has since been acquitted. Later in point of time, he introduced three more persons, two of whom named Nihala and Juhuru were tried with the appellants and as mentioned above, have since been acquitted. Another person Jamshed was tried separately and as mentioned above, has since been acquitted. It does not appear that any appeal against acquittal of Jamshed has been filed by the State. In any case, in so far as accused Nihala and Juhuru are concerned, no State appeal has been filed and it is only the complainant who has filed revision. In the FIR, as mentioned above, not only persons other than appellants were not mentioned but even with regard to the appellants, no specific role was attributed. It was an omnibus statement naming five persons armed with fire arms and Farsis. As to who was armed with fire arm or with Farsi was not mentioned by him. Further, as to who fired a shot and who caused injuries by Farsi was also not mentioned by him. In the statement made before the Court, he endeavoured to fill up missing links by attributing specific role to all the accused i.e., appellants and the three co-accused who have since been acquitted. He stated that Deena, Sahabla and Khursheed were armed with guns whereas other accused were armed with Farsis and those who were armed with fire arms, had used the same. He further stated that Deena fired a shot which hit Mazid on his eye and he fell down in the bus. Mazid was thereafter dragged from the bus and given injuries by Farsi. All these details of the occurrence have not been mentioned by him in the FIR. There is indeed enmity between the parties, as has been stated by the first informant in the FIR itself. 13. We are not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. Naqvi that PW. 4 Ali Mohd. and PW. 12 Sher Mohd. respectively should have been believed by the Court. It is significant to mention that both these witnesses were medico legally examined three days after the occurrence. Both of them are stated to have sustained simple injuries. Injury sustained by one of them is admittedly by a blunt weapon which was not used by any of the accused even as per the prosecution case. It is significant to mention that both these witnesses were medico legally examined three days after the occurrence. Both of them are stated to have sustained simple injuries. Injury sustained by one of them is admittedly by a blunt weapon which was not used by any of the accused even as per the prosecution case. Further, there is no mention of their names in FIR which could not be omitted if they were actually present and had been injured as well. 14. For the reasons as mentioned above, as also for the reasons given by the learned trial Judge, it is not possible to find corroboration to the statement made by Rashid from the statements made by Ali Mohd. and Sher Mohd. and in our view, the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved presence of these two witnesses. So far as Rashid is concerned, he has not only substantially improved the prosecution version but tried to give it colour in such a way that everyone is attributed a particular role which was not described by him while lodging the FIR. He introduced three persons who have since been acquitted and furthermore, his evidence insofar as participation of Deena, Sahabla and Khursheed are concerned, does not find corroboration from medical evidence. It is conceded at all ends that neither the deceased nor the injured received any injury which might be result of fire arm. The injury said to have been sustained by Mazid in the eye is also by a sharp edged weapon as clearly stated by Dr. Amar Singh Rathore who was examined as PW. 11. The statement that fire arms were used by three appellants named above, also does not find corroboration so far investigation conducted by the police officers is concerned. If fire arms were used and shots fired from the gun had not hit anyone, it would not have been difficult for the police to trace out the bullets or pellets, as the case may be. No empties were even recovered from the scene of occurrence. The only corroboration to the statement made by PW. 3 Rashid that emanates from the medical evidence is with regard to the participation of other two accused i.e., Munshi and Jackom. Rashid is the stamp witness being himself injured in the occurrence leading to the death of Mazid. No empties were even recovered from the scene of occurrence. The only corroboration to the statement made by PW. 3 Rashid that emanates from the medical evidence is with regard to the participation of other two accused i.e., Munshi and Jackom. Rashid is the stamp witness being himself injured in the occurrence leading to the death of Mazid. To the extent his statement is corroborated by medical evidence, it has to be believed. Accused Munshi and Jackom, who as per prosecution version from its very inception, were armed with Farsi need alone be convicted in facts and circumstances of the case as from medical evidence, it is made out that Mazid had died due to injuries inflicted upon him by sharp edged weapon as also that Rashid received injuries again by sharp edged weapon. 15. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, whereas we find that the prosecution was able to bring home the offences against Munshi and Jackom beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, appellants Deena, Sahabala and Khursheed need be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Whereas appeal filed on behalf of Deena, Sahabla and Khursheed succeeds, thus resulting in setting aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 19.09,2001, the same deserves to be dismissed in so far as appellants Munshi and Jackom are concerned. Ordered accordingly. Deena, Sahabala and Khursheed are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 17. Criminal Revision No. 561/2002 in view of partial success of the appeal, has no merit whatsoever and the same is dismissed.