JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 29.04.2004, passed, in Sessions Case No. 17/2001 (GR case No. 1236/2000), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Karimganj, the accused-Appellants stand convicted Under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. The accused-Appellants stand further convicted Under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case against the accused-appellants, as unfolded at the trial, was as follows: A land dispute existed between Laila Begum (since deceased), who was a spinster, her father, Mohib Ali, and her sister, Khairun Nessa @ Chinu Begum, on the one hand, and the accused-Appellants, on the other. This land dispute became the genesis of the occurrence, which resulted into the death of Laila Begum. On the day of occurrence, i.e., on 18.12.2000, at about 2.30 p.m., when Chinu Begum was present at her father's house, the accused-Appellants, in a group, came to their house and pulled her younger sister, Laila Begum, out of her house, dragged her to the courtyard and, after surrounding her, accused Moinul Haque hacked her on the neck with a dao causing injury on her neck and when, on witnessing the assault, Chinu raised hulla, accused Mainul chased her with the dao in his hand. Though Laila Begum started running towards the house, she fell down near the plinth of her house. Accused persons, then, caught hold of Laila Begum, accused Asma went running inside her house, fetched a dao from there and handed over the same to accused Abdul Latif asking him to finish Laila, whereupon accused Abdul Latif sawed Laila's neck with the dao killing her at the spot. On hearing the cries of Chinu, their neighbour, Hussain Ahmed, came to the courtyard and witnessed the occurrence. When Hussain Ahmed saw the assault on Laila at die hands of accused Mainul and when he saw Asma giving accused Abdul Latif dao, he orally resisted, but the accused paid no heed to the objections raised by Hussain Ahmed and threatened him. When Hussain Ahmed saw the assault on Laila at die hands of accused Mainul and when he saw Asma giving accused Abdul Latif dao, he orally resisted, but the accused paid no heed to the objections raised by Hussain Ahmed and threatened him. On being so threatened, Hussain Ahmed ran away from the place of occurrence to his house and after about 10-15 minutes, when he came back to the place of occurrence, he found outsiders having gathered there and Laila lying dead in the courtyard. Hussain Ahmed informed their Panchayat President, Nilay Paul, about the occurrence over phone. The said Panchayat President, then, tried to contact police, at Badarpur police station, over phone, but as the phone was engaged, he informed, over phone, Tapan Deb, Circle Officer, Badarpur, about the occurrence. The Circle Officer aforementioned, in turn, informed the police station to the effect that Laila Begum had been assaulted seriously by her neighboured and he apprehended that the victim might have succumbed to her injuries. This information was recorded in the form of GD Entry No. 197/2000, dated 08.02.2000, and, on being directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station, SI Kanti Bhusan Deb came to the place of occurrence, held inquest over the said dead body, recorded statements of the witnesses and also prepared sketch-map (Ext. 9) of the place of occurrence. The police also seized from the house of accused Abdul Latif two daos. One of these daos was found kept concealed under the mattress of the bed and this bore blood like substance on its sharp edge. These two daos were also seized. On that very day, at about 9-30 p.m., Chinu Begum lodged a formal written Ejahar (Ext. 1) and treating the same as First Information Report, Badarpur Police Station Case No. 204/2000 was registered against the accused-Appellants Under Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC. On completion of investigation, police laid chargesheet against the accused-Appellants under the penal provisions aforementioned. 3. During trial, all the accused-Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them Under Section 148 IPC and also Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, having found the accused-Appellants guilty of the offences charged with, convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as mentioned hereinabove. 3. During trial, all the accused-Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them Under Section 148 IPC and also Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, having found the accused-Appellants guilty of the offences charged with, convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, the accused-Appellants are before us with the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellants, and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused-Appellants were, then, examined Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and in their examination aforementioned, the accused-appellants denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them. While accused Ainul Haque, Abdul Kayum and Moinul Haque took the plea of alibi, the version of the occurrence as projected by accused Asma Begum and her husband, Abdul Latif, was, in brief, thus: On the day of occurrence, at about 1 p.m., a person from the settlement office came to Laila's house and questioned her husband, Abdul Latif, about some allegations made by Laila. The man from the settlement office asked accused Abdul Latif as to who the owner of the house in which he lived was and, at this stage, Laila came out with a dao in her hand and abused Abdul Latif calling him 'bastard', but when Abdul scolded Laila loudly, she ran away; while so running away, she fell down on the dao and though Abdul Latif caught hold of her, yet on seeing blood on her neck, Abdul Latif let her go. In support of their case, defence adduced evidence by examining four witnesses. 6. Before entering into the merit of the present case, what needs to be noted is that in the present case, there were, admittedly, multiple litigations pending between the parties and there existed enmity between them. It clearly follows that this enmity existing between the parties is really a double-edged weapon. While it could have been the reason for the accused-Appellants to assault Laila Begum, this enmity could also have been a reason to either make false accusations against the accused-Appellants or rope in the innocent persons along with the guilty ones. It clearly follows that this enmity existing between the parties is really a double-edged weapon. While it could have been the reason for the accused-Appellants to assault Laila Begum, this enmity could also have been a reason to either make false accusations against the accused-Appellants or rope in the innocent persons along with the guilty ones. 7. In the present case, two witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have been examined by the prosecution as the eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. 8. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that though the Ejahar (Ext. 1), which was lodged by Chinu Begum, describing the occurrence as an eye witness, on the day of the occurrence, i.e., on 08.12.2000, as late as at 9.30 p.m., and though this Ejahar has been treated as the First Information Report of the case, the evidence on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W. 8, who was In-charge of Badarpur police station, clearly reveals that the said police station received information, over phone, at about 3 p.m., by the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Badarpur, that Laila Begum had been assaulted by her neighboured and it was apprehended that the might have succumbed to her injuries, and, on the basis of this oral information, a general Diary Entry was made at 3 p.m., this General Diary Entry being 197/2000, dated 08.12.2000. Acting on this oral information, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the said dead body, drew a sketch-map of the place of occurrence and also recorded statements of the witnesses and it was, thereafter, that the Ejahar aforementioned was lodged describing the occurrence by P.W. 2 (Chinu Begum). It is, thus, abundantly clear that before the Ejahar was lodged with the police, the police investigation to determine the cause of death of Laila and/or the person (s), who were involved in the alleged occurrence, had made great head-way. Mewed thus, it is abundantly clear that it was the oral information, recorded in the form of the said General Diary Entry and proved as Ext. 12, which is the FIR of the case and the subsequent Ejahar (Ext. 1) is really the statement made before the police by P.W. 1 and is, thus, a statement of P.W. 1 Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. 12, which is the FIR of the case and the subsequent Ejahar (Ext. 1) is really the statement made before the police by P.W. 1 and is, thus, a statement of P.W. 1 Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Bearing in mind the above prominent features of the present case, particularly, the facts that there did exist enmity between the parties concerned and that the initial information received by the police did not reveal the name of the assailants, we, first, turn to the medical evidence on record. On this aspect, we notice that the evidence of P.W. 5 (Dr. S.K. Sen) is that on 09.12.2000, he conducted post-mortem examination ion the dead body of Laila and found as follows: External appearance: An average built Muslim female aged about 24 years whose rigor mortis is present. Eyes half open. Mouth half open. Blood found in the mouth. Their is one extensive cut wound in the anterior neck above the thyroid about 6"x2"x2" cutting the adjoining muscles, vessels, larynx, trachea, pharynx up to cervical vertebrae. Cranium and spinal canal: Scalp, skull, vertebrae, brain and spinal cordpale. Thorax: Walls, ribs, pleurae, larynx, trachea, lungs, pericardium. Heart: Pale and chamber empty. Abdomen: Walls, peritpneum, mouth, pharynx, esophaguspale. Stomach: Pale and empty. Liver, spleen and kidney: Pale. Bladder, Pale and empty. Organ of generation: Pale and uterus nonpregnant. 10. In the opinion of P.W. 5, injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp object. P.W. 5 has also opined that the death was caused as a result of the injuries sustained, Ext. 6 being the post-mortem report in this regard. 11. The findings of P.W. 5 and/or his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the cause of death are not in dispute before us. This apart, we do not find anything inherently improbable and/or incorrect in the evidence given by P.W. 5. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve his evidence and his evidence makes it clear that there was only one cut injury over the anterior upper neck of the said deceased. Nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to show that more than one injury had been sustained by the said deceased. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve his evidence and his evidence makes it clear that there was only one cut injury over the anterior upper neck of the said deceased. Nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to show that more than one injury had been sustained by the said deceased. At the same time, there is nothing elicited by the defence to show that the injury, which the said deceased had sustained on her neck, could have been caused by a mere fall on a dao if the deceased was holding the dao in her hands. What is crucial to note is that this injury was an extensively cut wound above the thyroid, measuring 6" x 2" x 2", and that this injury was caused with such a force that it had cut larynx, trachea and pharynx up to the cervical vertebrae. 12. We may also, at this stage, refer to the inquest report (Ext. 9), which the investigating officer has proved. The correctness of this inquest report is also not in dispute. This inquest report reads thus, "A huge cut would measuring 6 inches long and 4 inches wide is seen in the neck. Blood coming out of the would has spilled on to the ground below". Thus, a careful reading of the inquest report too shows that the said deceased had sustained one only injury and this injury was a huge cut wound on her neck. This inquest report also reveals that the right foot of the said deceased had a 'hawain' chappal and that the left chappal was lying-nearby on the ground. This inquest report further reveals that the said deceased was lying on the ground on her face with her head tilting towards southeast, there was a pool of blood on the ground on the east of the dead body, Abdul Latif's Assam Type house was on the north-west of the house of the said deceased and blood trails were noticed on the ground extending from the northern door of the said house to the place, where the dead body was lying. 13. 13. Keeping in view the above broadly noticeable features of the present case, when we turn to the evidence of P.W. 1 (Chinu Begum), who is said to have seen the incident from its commencement, according to this witness, on the day of occurrence, while she was at her father's house, the accused persons arrived there and pulled her younger sister, Laila Begum, out of the house to the courtyard and surrounded her. Accused Mainul hacked Laila in the neck with a dao causing her injuries. When P.W. 1 raised a shout, accused Ainul chased her with a dao in his hand. Laila tried to move into the southern room, but fell down near the plinth. The accused persons, then, once again, caught hold of her. Accused Asma Begum ran into her house and fetched a dao from there and handed over the dao to accused Latif and told him to finish Laila off. Accused Latif, then, sawed Laila's neck with a dao and Laila died instantly. The name of the accused are Latif, Asma Begum, Abdul Kayum, Mainul Haque, Kamaluddin, Ainul Haque and Sirajuddin and they live in the same house with P.W. 1 and Laila. Accused Asma Begum in Latif s wife. Accused Kamaluddin and Sirajuddin are Abdul Latif s sons. Accused Ainul and Mainul are Kayum's sons. Accused Kayum and Latif had demanded her (P.W. 1) father's property. Latif and her (P.W. 2) father had a dispute with the accused persons over that. The father of P.W. 1 had died one year before Laila's murder. 14. Broadly in tune with the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W. 2 has deposed that on the day of occurrence, i.e., on 08.12.2000, at about 2.30 p.m. which was a Friday, he was proceeding towards his home after saying Namaz and passing through Laila's house, he heard P.W. 1 shouting and on looking towards Laila's house, he saw accused Abdul Latif, Abdul Kayum, Asma Begum, Ainul Haque, Mainul Haque and Kamaluddin dragging Laila out of the southern house. They dragged Laila on to the courtyard. Thereafter, they took her towards the north of the accused Latif s house. There accused Mainul hacked Laila on the front side of her neck with a dao. Pressing her throat, Laila ran towards her house, she fell down, while trying to get in to the house. They dragged Laila on to the courtyard. Thereafter, they took her towards the north of the accused Latif s house. There accused Mainul hacked Laila on the front side of her neck with a dao. Pressing her throat, Laila ran towards her house, she fell down, while trying to get in to the house. The accused persons chased her there, they pressed her down and accused Latif, then, cut Laila in the front side of her neck with a dao. Accused Asma Begum had given Latif the dao. P.W. 2 tried to resist the accused persons, but they did not pay any heed to that. As the accused persons threatened P.W. 2 with daos, he ran away to his house. Thereafter, P.W. 2 returned to the place of occurrence about 10-15 minutes later and he found outsiders gathered there. P.W. 2 also saw Laila lying dead in the courtyard. P.W. 2, then, informed their Panchayat President, Nilay Paul, about the occurrence over phone. Nilay Paul came later to the place of occurrence with police. 15. The two eye witnesses have, thus, categorically named Mainul Haque as the assailant, who gave the first blow on the person of Laila and this finds support from the medical evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, submits that the evidence of these eye witnesses can not be believed in its entirety as their statements regarding further assault by the other accused Appellant, Latif has not been supported by the medical evidence on record, for the doctor found only one injury. In the present case, as stated above, there was a long standing enmity between the parties and as discussed, this enmity was the motive for the assault and this enmity may be motive or reason, on the part of the two eye witnesses, to implicate the other accused persons. In this connection, it will be appropriate to recapitulate the observations of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, reported in AIR 1988 SC1998 which run as below: Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. 16. From the recent trend of the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial, we find that the Court has impressed upon the trial Courts to adopt a rational approach in scrutinizing the evidence. We find that the two eye witnesses have tried to rope in other accused persons by stating that after the first assault, Asma Begum brought out a dao and gave it to Latif, who again assaulted the deceased. This part of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2's evidence might have been resulted from the animus existing between the parties. As we know, the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in our country. This part of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2's evidence might have been resulted from the animus existing between the parties. As we know, the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in our country. In the cash of Ranbir v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1409 , it was held: It is the duty of the Court in the case where an witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars, to scrutinize the rest of his evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remained intact then the Court should have upheld the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. 17. Coming to the evidence of the present case, we find from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that accused-Appellant, Mainul, death the fatal blow on the deceased Laila and the evidence regarding this fatal blow is severable from other part of the evidence on record. This part of the evidence is completely reliable and it has been corroborated by the medical evidence on record. We, therefore, hold that this part of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2's evidence can be safely relied upon. 18. Now, coming to the evidence given by defence, particularly, by accused Mainul, we find that this witness has taken two pleas, namely, (i) that he was a minor at the time of the occurrence and (ii) that he was not present at the place of occurrence, when the occurrence took place, as, at the relevant time, he was working as a salesman in the Mon district, Nagaland, in a cosmetic and stationery shop owned by Asaduddin (D.W. 2). 19. In support of his above two pleas, accused Mainul has examined two witnesses, namely D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. According to D.W. 1, who is a Upper Division Assistant of Shree Gauri High School and who was basically examined for the purpose of proving that accused was minor at the relevant point of time, we notice that D.W. 1 has proved the admission register of the said school, wherein name of the accused Mainul appears. D.W. 1 has deposed that the transfer certificate issued to Mainul was cancelled as per the order of Inspector of Schools concerned. D.W. 1 has deposed that the transfer certificate issued to Mainul was cancelled as per the order of Inspector of Schools concerned. This witness has also deposed that the date of birth of accused Mainul has been shown in the admission register as 03.06.85. However, it transpires from the record that the accused took similar plea in the past too, which was turned down by the learned trial Court as far back as on 26.07.2001 after a regular enquiry and the trial Court came to conclude that the age of the accused would be around 21 years. The finding of the learned trial Court was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 366/2005; but this revision was dismissed by the High Court, on 09.04.2003, directing to proceed with the trial. It also transpires from the order, dated 09.04.2003, aforementioned that the High Court had directed the Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, to prosecute the headmaster of Sree Gauri High School, who had issued the transfer certificate. In this regard, the observations of the Court are relevant, which run thus: During the course of hearing of this revision petition, we find that the Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, vide order dated 9th July, 2001, have cancelled the transfer certificate produced by the Petitioner/accused on the ground that the date of birth was different from that of the school register which shows that the Petitioner was born on 02.04.1981. Thus, we find that the Petitioner was above 16 years of age on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 18.12.2000. 20. The learned trial Court was, therefore, correct in holding that in view of the cancellation of the transfer certificate, which was forged and obtained fraudulently, the said certificate could not have been relied upon nor can the entries in the admission register, particularly, when the perusal of the admission register reveals that the date of birth was originally 02.04.81 and the same was subsequently changed to 03.06.85. The learned trial Court was, therefore, wholly justified in entirely rejecting the plea of the accused Mainul that he was minor at the relevant point of time. 21. The learned trial Court was, therefore, wholly justified in entirely rejecting the plea of the accused Mainul that he was minor at the relevant point of time. 21. Turning to the evidence of D.W. 2, who was the owner of the cosmetic shop in Mon town, Nagaland, where accused Mainul was said to have been working as a salesman, what needs to be noted is that D.W. 1 has deposed that accused Mainul joined his shop in the month of January, 2000, and left the shop on 12.12.2000, i.e. after barely six days of the occurrence. No explanation is offered as to why accused Mainul had left the shop just after six days of the occurrence. This apart, cross-examination of D.W. 1 also reveals that he is a close relative of accused Mainul. In the face of these facts, the learned trial Court was not incorrect in rejecting the evidence of D.W. 2, particularly, when he was a relative of accused Mainul and no reason could be assigned as to why barely six days after the occurrence, accused Mainul, who was claimed to have been working since January, 2000, left the shop on 12.12.2000. 22. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that it was accused Mainul Hoque, who had dealt the single fatal blow on the deceased resulting into her death. Considering the nature of the injury sustained, the intention to cause death is apparent and, hence, the conviction of the accused-Appellant Mainul Hoque Under Section 302 IPC is hereby affirmed. 23. As stated above, the other accused persons, namely, Ainul Hoque, Abdul Qyayum, Abdul Latif, Kamal Uddin and Mst. Asma Begum have been roped in with the help of Section 148 and 149 IPC. We are of the view that no case for unlawful assembly or acting in furtherance of common object is made out and the conviction of the abovementioned accused-Appellants is unwarranted as this is a case of causing of single injury. 24. The accused-Appellant, Mainul Hoque, stands convicted Under Section 302 IPC and he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default, further imprisonment for one month. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by Mainul Hoque stands dismissed. The appeal filed by the other accused-Appellants, namely, Ainul Hoque, Abdul Quayum, Abdul Latif, Kamal Uddin and Mst. 1000/- and, in default, further imprisonment for one month. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by Mainul Hoque stands dismissed. The appeal filed by the other accused-Appellants, namely, Ainul Hoque, Abdul Quayum, Abdul Latif, Kamal Uddin and Mst. Asma Begum stands allowed and their conviction and sentence are set aside, they are acquitted and they shall be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 26. Send down the records. Appeal dismissed