JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J. These are appeals against the judgment dated 28-11-1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 64/96, thereby finding the appellants excepting accused Suresingh guilty of the offence u/s 148, Indian Penal Code and the accused Suresingh guilty of the offence u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and all the 13 accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced all the accused persons excepting accused Suresingh to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- . And in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for three months each and accused Suresingh is sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for three months and all the 13 accused persons have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life u/s 302/149, Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for two years. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants Prahladsingh, Meharbansingh and Kamal Singh have filed Cri. A. No. 1050/96, appellants Bahadursingh and Umraosingh preferred Cri. A. No. 1081/96 and appellants Banesingh, Umraosingh, Mangusingh, Bahadursingh, Umraosingh s/o Motisingh, Prahladsingh, Meharbansingh, Kamalsingh, Nensingh, Parvatsingh, Mansingh and Bherusingh have jointly preferred Cri.A. No. 21/97. Appellant No. 8 Kamalsingh in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1997 and No. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 1996 has expired and vide order dated 20-3-2003 his name was directed to be deleted from the cause-title. By this common judgment, all the aforesaid three appeals are being decided since they arise out of the one and the same judgment. The prosecution case in nut shell as unfolded before the trial Court was that the complainant PW-1 Sohansingh is the son of deceased Babu. He lodged the report Ex. By this common judgment, all the aforesaid three appeals are being decided since they arise out of the one and the same judgment. The prosecution case in nut shell as unfolded before the trial Court was that the complainant PW-1 Sohansingh is the son of deceased Babu. He lodged the report Ex. P/1 on 9-8-1995 at 10.00 PM at Police Station Raghvi District Ujjain recorded by PW-13 Satnamsingh Sub Inspector to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. 9-8-1995 the accused ex-Sarpanch Suresingh resident of village Raju Nipania came to his house and told his father that the appellants were roaming for committing his murder and suggested the deceased Babu to come to him at village Raju Nipania so that he could get the dispute resolved. On this proposal, Babu along with himself and accused Sohansingh reached to village Raju Nipania. In village Kheda Khajuriya, his father was busy in chit chatting with Suresingh and he went to the school. Thereafter, his father and he himself after purchasing sugar were returning back to their village Dhanodia on the way they met PW-10 Balu Chamar. They smoke Beedi and thereafter they proceeded towards the village. At that juncture from the bushes which were standing by the side of the road, all the accused persons 12 in number resident of village Dhanodia, emerged all of a sudden. Banesingh, Mangusingh, Bahadursingh and Prahladsingh were having "Kalpewali Lakdi". Meharbansingh and Bherusingh were having Farsis with wooden handle and Mansingh was possessing axe. The remaining accused persons were having lathis. On seeing all these persons, his father ran towards the village Raju Nipania but fell down on the embankment of the field of one Kamlabai where all the accused assaulted him by sharp edged weapons and other weapons. The appellant Suresingh, while standing on the embankment of nearby field, exhorted the remaining accused persons that today the deceased must be finished and he should not be allowed to go. All the appellants, after assaulting his father went away. Sohansingh reached near his father and saw that the right leg of his father was completely chopped of from the calves area left palm was almost all cut from wrist joint. His father was having cut injuries on right hand, left leg and other parts of his body and was also crying. Sohansingh reached near his father and saw that the right leg of his father was completely chopped of from the calves area left palm was almost all cut from wrist joint. His father was having cut injuries on right hand, left leg and other parts of his body and was also crying. He (Sohansingh) and Balu Chamar anyhow by hook and crook, hiding themselves, reached to their houses and this witness narrated the incident to his uncle Umraosingh. Thereafter they brought the deceased in a bullock-cart to village Kheda Khajuriya and from Kheda Khajuriya to Police Station Raghvi in a tempo where the First Information Report Ex. P/1 was lodged. Body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was performed by PW-8 Dr. Mahesh Kumar. He has proved his report Ex. P/10. After arresting the appellants, recovery of weapons was made. After completing the investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against 13 accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 302, Indian Penal Code. On being charged, the appellants pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they were put to trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and adduced sixty documents to prove its case whereas the appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court finding the appellants guilty convicted and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri Jaisingh assisted by Shri Vikas Yadav Advocate as well as Shri Ahsan Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Girish Desai, Dy. Advocate General for the State in all the aforesaid three appeals. The names of the appellants of Cri. A. No. 1050/96 and 1081/96 also find place in Cri. A. No. 21/97, which has been filed later in point of time. We have also gone through the entire record carefully. It emerged from the record that the conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of eye witnesses PW-1 Sohansingh son of the deceased and Balu Chamar (PW-10), PW-2 Rukmabai, PW-3 Geetabai and PW-8 Dr. Mahesh Kumar and the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-13 Satnamsingh. Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that the eye-witness PW-1 Sohansingh being a child witness and the son of the deceased, could not have been relied upon and his testimony has not been corroborated by any independent material particulars. Mahesh Kumar and the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-13 Satnamsingh. Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that the eye-witness PW-1 Sohansingh being a child witness and the son of the deceased, could not have been relied upon and his testimony has not been corroborated by any independent material particulars. Learned Counsel also submitted that the reason for the presence of PW-1 Sohansingh has not been established by the prosecution. Because of this also he is not a reliable witness. According to the Learned Counsel nobody had witnessed the incident. The deceased was assaulted by unknown persons, but after his death on the basis of previous enmity and village groupism the appellants have been falsely implicated. On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General Shri G. Desai has submitted that the eye-witness PW-1 Sohansingh was aged about 15 years and he could not be termed as child witness. He was administered oath and his whole statement is clearly showing that he was able to understand and explain the events. Learned State counsel has also submitted that PW-10 Balu though declared hostile by the prosecution, but admitted his own presence and the presence of PW-1 Sohansingh at the time of incident on the spot. The presence of PW-1 Sohansingh is fully established on the basis of the evidence of PW-10 Balusingh and his immediate conduct of narrating the incident to PW-2 Rukmabai, his aunt and mother PW-3 Geetabai. The report was also lodged the same day and the distance of the Police Station was also 12 kilometres. Over and all the learned State counsel has supported the judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. PW-1 Sohansingh being son of the deceased is alleged to be an interested witness and therefore, his testimony is being scrutinized and appreciated cautiously. Learned Counsel for the appellants have not disputed the homicidal death of deceased Babusingh. Otherwise also, in view of the evidence of medical expert Dr. PW-8 Mahesh Kumar and the post-mortem report Ex. P/10, the deceased sustained following external injuries: EXTERNAL INJURIES: 1. Cut wound lower ? left forearm attached only by skin. Incised wound 3 cm x ? cm x ? cm left arm. Incised wound 3 cm x ? cm x ? cm left arm. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm left leg upper ?. P/10, the deceased sustained following external injuries: EXTERNAL INJURIES: 1. Cut wound lower ? left forearm attached only by skin. Incised wound 3 cm x ? cm x ? cm left arm. Incised wound 3 cm x ? cm x ? cm left arm. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm left leg upper ?. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x ? cm lower ? left leg. Cut wound middle of right leg. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm upper end right leg, bone cut. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x ? cm right forearm. In the opinion of Dr. Maheshkumar deceased died due to shock as a result of excessive bleeding from the injuries. The injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and they were ante mortem in nature. The injuries were also sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The deceased died within 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination on 10-8-1995 at 8.15 AM. The moot question for consideration is whether PW-1 Sohansingh, an eye-witness and son of the deceased aged about 15 years is a reliable witness or not. This witness has testified that he was knowing all the appellants by name and by face. In the lower Court, the appellants have not disputed the identity and their counsel had submitted an application to this effect. These facts are mentioned in para 1 of the statement of this witness. According to this witness, on 9-8-1995 he and his father were in the house. At that moment, appellant Suresingh came to his father and told that other 12 appellants are roaming for committing his murder. He proposed to his father to go with him to village Raju Nipania for the purposes of compromise on which, his father and he himself went along with the appellant Suresingh to village Raju Nipania at 12.00 in the noon. He further stated that he was studying in the school at Raju Nipania and he went there leaving his father and Suresingh who were chit-chatting. He returned from the school at 3.00 PM and found his father at the house of appellant Suresingh. Thereafter he and his father purchased sugar and proceeded to return to their villate Dhanodia. It was 3.30 PM. On the way, they met Balu Chamar. He returned from the school at 3.00 PM and found his father at the house of appellant Suresingh. Thereafter he and his father purchased sugar and proceeded to return to their villate Dhanodia. It was 3.30 PM. On the way, they met Balu Chamar. His father and Balu Chamar smoke Beedi and thereafter proceeded towards the village. When they walked upto some distance, the appellants all of a sudden appeared from the bushes standing by the sides of the road. The appellants Banesingh, Mangusingh, Prahladsingh, Bahadursingh were having Kalpewali Lakadi. Appellants Meharbansingh and Bherusingh were possessing Farsis having wooden handle and appellants Mansingh and Suresingh were carrying axes and rest of the appellants were having lathis. His father, seeing the appellants turned towards village Raju Nipania and started running away, but unfortunately fell down on the embankment of the field of Kamlabai. At that moment all the appellants jointly assaulted his father. After assaulting his father, the appellants went ahead some paces and sat down. Thereafter he reached near his father and saw that his right leg was chopped off from the calves area. There was a cut of right arm as well as left arm from wrist joint. He had also seen injuries on other parts of his body. According to this witness, both the legs and hands of his father were completely damaged and during the course of incident, the appellant Suresingh was exhorting the remaining appellants that his father should not escape today. All the appellants feeling that the deceased (his father) had died disappeared from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter this witness and PW-10 Balu because of fear some how or the other hiding themselves reached to their house and this witness Sohansingh (PW-1) disclosed about the incident to his mother (PW-3) Geetabai and uncle Umraosingh. Thereafter, he and his uncle and mother took the deceased in a bullock cart to village Kheda Khajuriya and from Kheda Khajuriya, in a tempo took him to Police Station Raghvi. His father was not in a condition to speak. The FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged by this witness. This witness PW-1 Sohansingh has further testified that his father had took the field of appellant Kamal for harvesting the crops on contract and because of this the appellant Umraosingh and Mangusingh were keeping grudge. He has also admitted his signatures on the spot map prepared by Police Ex. The FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged by this witness. This witness PW-1 Sohansingh has further testified that his father had took the field of appellant Kamal for harvesting the crops on contract and because of this the appellant Umraosingh and Mangusingh were keeping grudge. He has also admitted his signatures on the spot map prepared by Police Ex. P/2 and the map prepared by Patwari Ex. P/3. Learned Counsel for the appellants tried to impeach the testimony of this witness on the ground that in his case diary statement Ex. D/1, it is mentioned that on the date of incident, this witness was admitted in the school, but this witness has denied this fact when confronted with the same in cross-examination para 12. We have considered this aspect and we are of the opinion that merely because of this omission or contradiction, the testimony of this witness as eye-witness would not corrode especially when his conduct while witnessing the incident and thereafter immediately reaching the house and narrating the same to his mother and lodging the report at the Police Station, presence of this witness has also been admitted by PW-10 Balu who is an independent witness. Though this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution because in his examination-in-chief he has named only three persons assaulting the deceased i.e. Mangusingh, Prahladsingh and Bahadursingh by lathi. The law is well settled that part of the statement of hostile witness, if it is relevant and stands to test of credit can be relied upon. See : Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, para 51. We have perused the statement of PW-10 Balu and in his examination-in-chief para 1, the unambiguous say of this witness is that he was returning from village Kheda Kataria and going towards village Dhanodia in the noon between 2.00 and 3.00 PM. At that juncture, the deceased Babu and his son met him. He and Babu smoke Beedi and thereafter proceeded towards village Dhanodia. On the way Babu was assaulted by three persons and he ran away from the spot and reached at his house. He has also stated that he informed the inhabitants of the house, of the deceased Babu that quarrel was going on. He also stated that he informed Umraosingh, brother of the deceased Babu and went with the bullock cart (CHHAKADA). He has also stated that he informed the inhabitants of the house, of the deceased Babu that quarrel was going on. He also stated that he informed Umraosingh, brother of the deceased Babu and went with the bullock cart (CHHAKADA). In cross-examined by the defence, he resiled from his statement in para 7 of the cross-examination. He deposed that it would be incorrect to say that the son of the deceased Babu was not present but in the same breath he again said that on the spot the deceased Babu and he were there and none else was present. If we consider this statement, then, it will go without saying that even the accused persons were not there which is not correct even by own saying of this witness in para 2 naming three appellants as mentioned hereinabove. The learned trial Court put question to clarify the ambiguity and on a specific question that at first instance he stated that PW-1 Sohan was present. The answer of this witness is "He was not knowing'. Again a question was put whether he has given wrong statement about presence of Sohan on the place of incident, he answered in the affirmative. Learned trial Court put a specific question that why he had given incorrect statement, his answer was that he could not understood because of which he deposed like that. On overall assessment of the statement of this witness PW-10 Balu we are of the opinion that he met the deceased PW-1 Sohan on the way. He also claimed to have witnessed the incident, but he has stated only the names of three persons assaulting the deceased by lathi. This version of this witness that Mangusingh Prahladsingh and Bahadursingh were assaulting the deceased by lathi is not corroborated by medical evidence. In the post-mortem report as well as the evidence of Autopsy surgeon Dr. Maheshkumar not a single injury was there on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt object like lathi. Therefore the version of the witness Balu regarding participation of these persons is not dependable, but in our considered opinion it is established that he was present on the scene of occurrence with the deceased and his son. Therefore the presence of PW-1 Sohansingh on the spot is fortified by the evidence of PW-10 Balu. Therefore the version of the witness Balu regarding participation of these persons is not dependable, but in our considered opinion it is established that he was present on the scene of occurrence with the deceased and his son. Therefore the presence of PW-1 Sohansingh on the spot is fortified by the evidence of PW-10 Balu. PW-3 Geetabai wife of the deceased and mother of PW-1 Sohansingh has deposed that on the date of incident in the morning appellant Suresingh had come to their house and her husband had some talks with him. The appellant Suresingh took her husband deceased Babu and her son Sohansingh with him to his village. Her son on the same day had returned back to his house at 4.00 PM along with Balu Chamar and informed her that Suresingh and other ten to twelve persons had assaulted her husband. He also disclosed the names of the appellants. Thereafter they reached on the spot on a bullock-cart. On the spot, she saw her husband in injured condition sustaining injuries on several parts of his body. The immediate conduct of PW-1 Sohansingh in disclosing the names of the assailants to his mother PW-3 Geetabai is also sufficient to lend assurance to his version and we find a ring of truth in his statement about his presence and witnessing the incident. The next facet for consideration before us is whether all the appellants are responsible for commission of murder of deceased or only some of them. One of the appellant Kamalsingh has died during pendency of this appeal and his appeal thus, stood abated. His name, therefore was deleted from the cause title of the appeal by order of this Court dated 30-3-2003. This is well settled legal position that the Court is duty bound to separate the grain from the chaff and if a witness is found unreliable in respect of some accused persons, his whole version cannot be discarded and part statement which finds support from other material particulars, can be relied upon and the conviction can be sustained. The Supreme Court in the case of Seeman @ Veeranam Vs. State, by Inspector of Police, in para 4 held that: It is well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible. The Supreme Court in the case of Seeman @ Veeranam Vs. State, by Inspector of Police, in para 4 held that: It is well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In such a case it is the paramount duty of the Court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is an interested witness. Caution is to be applied by the Court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested sole witness. The Prosecution's non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. It is also to be seen that principle of legal maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" means false in one thing is false in every thing, is not applicable in our country. When we turn to the medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Mahesh Kumar we find that the deceased suffered as many as eight incised injuries. Injury No. 1 incise wound is disclosing that the left forearm was completely cut and it was attached with the remaining part only with the help of skin. Left leg was completely chopped off from calves area and right palm was fully separated from the wrist joint. Rest of the injuries were also, on left and right hand and legs, causing damage to the major blood vessels as well as bones. In view of the medical evidence, the deceased has not suffered even a single injury caused by hard and blunt object or by any piercing or penetrating object. Dr. Rest of the injuries were also, on left and right hand and legs, causing damage to the major blood vessels as well as bones. In view of the medical evidence, the deceased has not suffered even a single injury caused by hard and blunt object or by any piercing or penetrating object. Dr. Mahesh Kumar (PW-8) in para 9 has stated that the police sent to him for examination and his opinion the six Farsis (sharp edged iron weapon) and one axe and on examination, he gave report Ex. P/12. According to his opinion, the injuries sustained by the deceased, could be caused by Farsi and axe. In this view of the matter, the medical evidence is not in line of the eye-witness's account of PW-1 Sohansingh with regard to participation of appellant Umraosingh son of Rugnathsingh, Umraosingh son of Motisingh, Kamalsingh, Nensingh and Parvatsingh against whom, the allegation is that they were having lathis and assaulted the deceased with the lathis and by lathis incised wound chapping wound cannot be caused. Against appellants Banesingh, Mangusingh, Prahladsingh and Bahadursingh were said to be present and participating in the incident of assaulting the deceased by Kalpewali Lakadi. In the statement of the eye-witness as well as the Investigating Officer Satnamsingh no where it is explained that what would be the meaning and what kind of the weapon is Kalpewali Lakadi. The Investigating Officer Satnamsingh in his deposition stated that he seized the lathis, Farsis and axe from the possession of the appellants. He has nowhere stated that he seized any Kalpewali Lakadi. Therefore according to us these appellants are also entitled to get benefit of doubt and, therefore, no case is made out for sustaining their conviction. Presence of appellants Meharbansingh and Bherusingh with Farsi, a sharp edged iron cutting weapon and appellants Mansingh as well as appellant Suresingh armed with axe is fully established on the basis of the eye-witness's account of PW-1 Sohansingh corroborated by PW-10 Balu for presence on the spot, medical evidence of Dr. PW-8 Mahesh Kumar and PW-3 Geetabai. The I.O. PW-13 Satnamsingh on disclosure statement seized Farsi from the possession of appellants Meharbansingh and Bherusingh and axe from Mansingh and Suresingh, but since in the FSL Report no human blood was found on these weapons, therefore, the seizure simpliciter would not be a conclusive evidence against the appellants. PW-8 Mahesh Kumar and PW-3 Geetabai. The I.O. PW-13 Satnamsingh on disclosure statement seized Farsi from the possession of appellants Meharbansingh and Bherusingh and axe from Mansingh and Suresingh, but since in the FSL Report no human blood was found on these weapons, therefore, the seizure simpliciter would not be a conclusive evidence against the appellants. The appellant Suresingh played a vital role right from the beginning of the episode. He took the deceased on a false pretext and thereafter exhorted the other appellants for committing his murder. There is sufficient evidence against him to hold him responsible for the offence u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code. As a result of the discussion as aforesaid, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1050/96 and 1081/96 are allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 21/97 is allowed in part. The appeal of appellants Meharbansingh, Bherusingh, Mansingh and Suresingh is dismissed. Though their conviction u/s 302/149, Indian Penal Code are set aside, instead they are found guilty u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine as awarded by the trial Court is affirmed. The conviction and sentence of these appellants for the offence under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code are set aside. The conviction and sentence of the remaining appellants are hereby set aside. Appellants Mangusingh, Prahladsingh and Bahadursingh are in jail. Learned trial Court is directed to release them forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellants Meharbansingh, Bherusingh, Mansingh and Suresingh are on bail. They are directed to surrender to their bail bonds before the trial Court on 20-9-2006 and the trial Court shall send them to jail for serving out the remainder part of their sentences. In case these appellants do not surrender to their bail and surety bonds on the specified date, the trial Court shall take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law under intimation to this Court. Original judgment is retained in Cr. Appeal No. 1050/1996 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected Cr. Appeal No. 1081/1996 and Cr. Appeal No. 21/1997. Final Result : Allowed