Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–The appellants, seven in number, were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Kota in Sessions Case No. 65/2001. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated October 3, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:– Ram Bharos, Sher Singh Chaturbhuj, Ram Prasad, Mangi Lal, Ram Laxman and Sanjay @ Sanju: U/s. 302/149 IPC : Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:– On March 28, 1997 at 9.45 AM informant Ganesh (Pw. 10) submitted a written report (Ex.P-21) at MBS Hospital Kota to Rafiq Ahmed, ASI Police Station Kaithoon (Pw. 9) stating therein that around 7.30 AM on the said day while he was taking bath at the bank of the river, his younger brother Hanuman (now deceased) proceeded towards the bushes to attend the call of nature. After taking bath when the informant was coming back he saw Sanju and Ram Laxman armed with Gupti and sword near the bank of river. Sanju and Ram Laxman proceeded towards the bushes where Hanuman had gone. The informant followed them and found that Seru s/o Mohan Lal Dhakad, Ram Kalyan s/o Laxmi Narain Dhakad, Chaturbhuj s/o Durga Shankar Brahmin, Ram Bharos s/o Ram Nath Dhakad, Mangi Lal s/o Udai Lal Chobdar and Ram Prasad s/o Ratan Lal Nayak were inflicting blows on the person of Hanuman with Sword, Spear, Gandasi and Gupti. Sanju and Ram Laxman also started causing injuries to Hanuman with Gupti and Sword. Ram Kalyan, Chaturbhuj and Seru inflicted sword blows on the head of Hanuman with Sword, whereas Ram Prasad caused injury with Spear. After Hanuman had fallen, Ram Laxman inflicted Sword blow on the left side of neck and shoulder of Hanuman, Sanju gave blow with Gupti on the abdomen of Hanuman. Ram Bharos and Mangi Lal gave Gandasi blows on his right palm. The informant who was at a distance, shouted for help. Chhitar and Suresh, who were at the bank of river came rushing. The assailants on seeing them, fled away. Hanuman had died on the spot. The informant with the help of Chhitar and Suresh took the dead body to MBS Hospital. The informant who was at a distance, shouted for help. Chhitar and Suresh, who were at the bank of river came rushing. The assailants on seeing them, fled away. Hanuman had died on the spot. The informant with the help of Chhitar and Suresh took the dead body to MBS Hospital. On the basis of the report a case under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Kota. Charges under sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence and one witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). Death of Hanuman was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per autopsy report (Ex.P-20) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:– 1. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on dorsum of Right arm and metacorpal. 2. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on dorsum of Rt. hand. 3. Stab wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1" vessel on Middle & Left arm of Lt. upper side. 4. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" on dorsum of lt. hand. 5. Abrasion 3 2" x 1/2" on Lt. shoulder. 6. Incised wound 4" x 2" x 1" Tranum on left side neck 3/4 blow Lt. ear cutting vessel and nerves. 7. Lac wound 1" x 3/4" x 1/4" on Lt. Parietal region of scalp. 8. Lac wound 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" logitude on Head Lt. Parietal region. 9. Incised wound 6" x 5" x 2" on Rt. Frontal and parietal region breaking bone and Brain Matter is badly cut and coming out. 10. Stab wound 3/4" 1/4" x cavity deep vessel on Lt. hypochondrim 1" Lt. mid line. 11. Stab wound 1/2" 1/4" x cavity deep on Hypochondrim 1" Rt. Mid line. In the opinion of Dr. Y.K. Sharma (Pw. 7) cause of death was coma as a result of head injury. (4). 10. Stab wound 3/4" 1/4" x cavity deep vessel on Lt. hypochondrim 1" Lt. mid line. 11. Stab wound 1/2" 1/4" x cavity deep on Hypochondrim 1" Rt. Mid line. In the opinion of Dr. Y.K. Sharma (Pw. 7) cause of death was coma as a result of head injury. (4). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material on record. (5). Taking conspectus of the prosecution evidence we notice that informant Ganesh (Pw. 10), Chhitar Lal (Pw. 2) and Suresh Kumar (Pw. 11) are the three eye witnesses of the occurrence. Chhitar Lal and Suresh Kumar did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Testimony of Ganesh, real brother of deceased, has been relied upon by the learned trial Judge in convicting and sentencing the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants made attempt to shatter the evidence of Ganesh and raised following contentions:– (i) Ganesh is the chance witness and his presence at the time of incident is highly doubtful. (ii) Conduct of Ganesh in not protecting his real brother Hanuman from the assailants is highly doubtful. (iii) Ganesh admitted in his statement that he visited jail and had discussion with the appellants and offered to change his statement in consideration of money. (iv) In another trial bearing Sessions Case No. 42/2000 arises of the same incident, Ganesh changed his statement on account of which co-accused Ram Kalyan was acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Kota vide judgment dated August 16, 2002. Certified copy of the judgment has been placed for our perusal. (6). A bare look at the statement of Ganesh reveals that he had initially named Sanju and Ram Laxman who were armed with Gupti and Sword and proceeded towards Hanuman. Ganesh further stated that thereafter he saw Ram Kalyan, Sheru, Chaturbhuj. Ram Bharos, Ram Prasad and Mangi Lal over standing having Swords, Gandasi and Spear. Ram Kalyan then inflicted sword on the head of Hanuman and others also started inflicting blows. After having stated that Ram Kalyan, Sheru, Chaturbhuj and Ram Prasad inflicted blows on the person of Hanuman. This witness deposed that Ram Laxman inflicted sword blow on the shoulder and neck of Hanuman, whereas Sanju caused 4-5 blows with Gupti on the abdomen. In the cross examination Ganesh deposed that his statement was not recorded by police. After having stated that Ram Kalyan, Sheru, Chaturbhuj and Ram Prasad inflicted blows on the person of Hanuman. This witness deposed that Ram Laxman inflicted sword blow on the shoulder and neck of Hanuman, whereas Sanju caused 4-5 blows with Gupti on the abdomen. In the cross examination Ganesh deposed that his statement was not recorded by police. He further stated that he did not intervene because of fear. (7). Admittedly in the trial of co-accused Ram Kalyan which arose out of the same incident, Ganesh was declared hostile because he deposed that he did not see co-accused Ram Kalyan at the place of incident. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Kota vide judgment dated August 16, 2002 acquitted co-accused Ram Kalyan of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC and issued direction to initiate proceeding against Ganesh under Section 193 PC. In the instant case Ganesh deposed at the trial that he had gone to jail to meet accused Ram Bharos. In the cross examination Ganesh stated thus:– ^^jkeHkjksl ds HkkbZ jksMw us eqÖkls dgk Fkk fd rw ikWp&ipkl gtkj :i;s ys ys vkSj jke Hkjksl dks NwMok ns ftlls eSa tSy ij eqfYTke ls feyus x;k FkkA** Ganesh also stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and report Ex.P-21 was dictated by him to his brother and he did not read the report. In this back drop of the factual situation, we have to consider as to whether exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments made by a witness in his statement, smash the substratum of the prosecution ? (8). Considering the maxim `falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ugar Ahir vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1965 SC 277 ) held that 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 scrutinise 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 scrutinise 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. (9). It is contended on behalf of the appellants that conduct of informant Ganesh in not coming forward for rescue of Hanuman is highly unnatural, therefore the evidence of informant Ganesh should be discarded. We find no merit in the contention in view of the fact that Ganesh was unarmed and his inaction to rescue the deceased cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence. The Honble Supreme Court in Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab (2003 Cr.L.J. 3876) = RLW 2003(4) SC 484 indicated thus : (Para 23) ``so far as inaction of Pws. 9 and 10 in not coming to rescue of deceased is concerned, it has been noted by the Trial Court and the High Court that both of them were unarmed and bare handed and the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons. How a person would react in a situation like this cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. It would depend on many factors like in the present case where witnesses are unarmed, but the assailants are armed with deadly weapons. In a given case instinct of self preservation can be the dominant instinct. That being the position, their inaction in not coming to rescue of the deceased cannot be a ground for discarding their evidence. (10). Factors related to `Human behaviour were considered by the Honble Apex Court in State of UP vs. Devendra Singh ( AIR 2004 SC 3690 ) as under:– ``Human behaviour varies from person to person. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and started walling. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and started walling. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Some may remain tight lipped overawed either on account of the antecedents of the assailant or threats given by him. Each one reacts in his special way even in similar circumstances, leave alone, the varying nature depending upon variety of circumstances. There is o set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. (11). In Mainpal vs. State of Haryana ( AIR 2004 SC 2158 ) it was held that merely because the evidence of father of deceased shows that he acted in an unnatural manner i.e. he left spot seeing his son being attacked and did not return for long period is per se not a determinative factor to throw out otherwise cogent prosecution evidence. If eye-witnesss version is truthful and credible, it cannot be rejected on ground of being relative. (12). In so far as relevancy of judgment dated August 16, 2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Kota in Sessions Case No. 42/2000 is concerned, we find that co-accused Ram Kalyan was acquitted on the ground that Ganesh did not support the prosecution case and deposed that Ram Kalyan was not present at the time of incident. We are of the view that the verdict reached on the basis of different evidence in another trial amounts to no more than evidence on the opinion of the trial Judge. The accused could properly be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence even though the co-accused had been acquitted. Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Zabbar vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 (4) RLW 2395] indicated in para 8 thus:– ``In our opinion a person could be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence even though the principal offender had been acquitted on the same evidence in the earlier trial. Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Zabbar vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 (4) RLW 2395] indicated in para 8 thus:– ``In our opinion a person could be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence even though the principal offender had been acquitted on the same evidence in the earlier trial. The outcome of an earlier trial is irrelevant and inadmissible since it is the opinion of another judge in a different trial. In Hui Chi ming vs. R (1991) 3 All England Law Reports 897) it was held that in the absence of some exceptional feature, such as the effect of an acquittal on the credibility of a confession or the evidence of a prosecution witness, evidence of the outcome of an earlier trial arising out of the same transaction was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible since the verdict reached by a different jury, whether on the same or different evidence, in the earlier trial amounted to no more than evidence of the opinion of that jury. Moreover, a person could properly be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence even though the principal offender had been acquitted. Accordingly the trial judge had rightly excluded the evidence of the principal offenders acquittal of murder and conviction of manslaughter. (13). Having carefully analysed the evidence of Ganesh we are of the opinion that prosecution is succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording a finding of conviction against Ram Laxman and Sanju. The injuries attributed to Ram Laxman and Sanju are corroborated by the postmortem report. It is also established that the assailants were more than five in number but possibility of over implication of appellant Ram Bharos, Sher Singh, Chaturbhuj, Ram Prasad and Mangi Lal cannot be ruled out. The informant Ganesh had enough time to introduce after-thought, coloured and exaggerated version. It is thus established that the charges under sections 302/149 and 148 IPC are established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants Ram Laxman and Sanju. (14). For these reasons, we dispose of instant appeal in the following terms:– (i) Appeal of appellants Ram Bharos, Sher Singh, Chaturbhuj, Ram Prasad and Mangi Lal is allowed and their conviction under sections 302/149 and 148 IPC stands set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges. They are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. They are acquitted of the said charges. They are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (ii) Appeal of appellants Ram Laxman and Sanjay @ Sanju is dismissed and their conviction and sentence under sections 302/149 and 148 IPC is confirmed. Appellant Sanjay @ Sanju is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken in custody forthwith. (iii) The impugned judgment is modified as indicated herein above.