JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.6.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, Dist. Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Arjun and Phool Chand : Under Section 302 IPC to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of three months in default thereof. Banshi, Jagdish @ Jagga, Heera Lal and Navratan @ Naurata: Under Section 302/149 1PC to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of three months in default thereof. Jagdish @ Jagga and Heera Lal: Under Section 323 1PC to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment. Arjun, Phool Chand, Banshi, and Navratan @ Naurata : Under Section 323/149 1PC to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment. Arjun, Phool Chand, Banshi, Jagdish, Heera Lal and Navratan @ Naurata: Under Section 148 1PC to undergo a simple imprisonment of two years. All the accused persons were, however, acquitted of charges under Section 452 IPC. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, 25 they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24.9.2000, around 8.45 PM, one Ghuna (PW. 16) submitted a written report (Ex.P.22) before the Police Station, Pragpura, Dist. Jaipur wherein he stated that "around 6.30 in the evening his father and he were sitting inside their house and enjoying 'Hukka'. His mother, Ambari Devi and his sister, Gothi were cutting the vegetables. Suddenly, Arjun who had a Kulhari (axe) in his hand, Jagdish who had a bamboo stick (`Lathi') in his hand. Phoolram who had a "Kulhari" (axe) in his hand, Heera, Naurata, Badri, Cheetar, Sohan, Shiv Lal, Banshi, Umrao, and their wives Dholi, Goodi, Santi carrying bamboo sticks ('lathis) entered 5 their house and started assaulting them. Arjun hit my father with a Kulhari, Jagdish hit my mother on her head with a 'lathi', Phoolram hit my sister on her head, Hira hit my elbow. There is animosity and dispute between us over our land. 4. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 309/2000 (Ex.P23) was registered for offences under 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 IPC. There is animosity and dispute between us over our land. 4. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 309/2000 (Ex.P23) was registered for offences under 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 IPC. However, with the death of Narayan, the father of the complainant, on the next day, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Although fourteen persons were named in the FIR, the police submitted charge sheet against only six persons the appellants in these cases. Subsequently, the learned trial 15 framed the charges against the appellants Phool Chand and Arjun for offences under Section 148, 452, 323/149 and 302 IPC, against the appellants Banshi and Navratan for offences under Sections 148, 452, 323/149, 302/149 IPC and against Jagdish and Heera Lal for offences under Sections 148, 452, 323 and 302/149 IPC. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and submitted thirty-seven documents. The defence did not examine any witness, but did submit eight documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, these two appeals before this. 5. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised a number of contentions before this : firstly, the prosecution has changed the place of the occurrence. According to Ghuna, the complainant, the occurrence had taken place inside the house. However, according to the Site Plan (Ex.P.4), no blood was discovered inside the house of the complainant. 30 Blood was discovered outside the house and in an open place. Thus, from the very beginning of the story, the prosecution has hidden the place of occurrence. This throws doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Secondly, all the witnesses produced by the prosecution are related to the deceased. Hence, they are interested witnesses. Their testimony is doubtful, 35 as there is a clear-cut contradiction between their testimonies and the medical evidence. According to the complainant, Ghuna (P.W. 16) and Smt. Amari (P.W. 17), Arjun Singh and Phool Chand had struck the deceased with axes ("Kulhari") over his head. Yet, according to the Narayan's injury report (Ex.P. 7) he had suffered two lacerated wounds on his head. These two 40 injuries were caused by blunt weapons and not by sharp edged weapons. According to the complainant, Ghuna (P.W. 16) and Smt. Amari (P.W. 17), Arjun Singh and Phool Chand had struck the deceased with axes ("Kulhari") over his head. Yet, according to the Narayan's injury report (Ex.P. 7) he had suffered two lacerated wounds on his head. These two 40 injuries were caused by blunt weapons and not by sharp edged weapons. Thirdly, once the learned Judge had concluded that the blunt side of the axe indeed caused the injuries on the head of the deceased, then the case does not fall under Section 302 IPC. 6. On the other and, Mr. Shyam Arya, the learned Public Prosecutor, 45 has countered by claiming that shifting of the place of occurrence would not be fatal to the prosecution. For, the crux of the prosecution story is borne out by the evidence submitted before the learned trial . Secondly, Ghuna (P.W. 16) and Smt. Amari (P.W. 17) both are injured witnesses. Therefore, their presence at the scene of the crime cannot be 50 doubted. Hence, their testimony is reliable. Hence, the appellants have I been rightly convicted on the basis of their testimony. He has, thus, supported the impugned judgment. 7. We have heard both the learned counsels, have perused the impugned judgment and have examined the record. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has meticulously discussed the evidence on the record. After a thorough examination of the record, the learned Judge has rightly concluded that the witnesses have not revealed the actual place of occurrence. However, the change of place is not to the extent that it would to be fatal to the prosecution. According to the complainant, Ghuna (P.W. 16) and Smt. Amari (P.W. 17), the occurrence took place inside their house. But, according to the Site Plan (Ex.P.4), the occurrence took place opposite the house, in an open place but in a place surrounded by the house and other extensions owned by the deceased. Blood has been found on two 15 spotsone on the road in front of the house and secondly in the open space in front of the enclosure where the goats were kept. Such a slight shifting of the place of occurrence would not destroy the credibility of the witnesses. 9. In the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Ano., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Cri. Such a slight shifting of the place of occurrence would not destroy the credibility of the witnesses. 9. In the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Ano., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 698 : (2003) 7 SCC 749 , the Hon'ble zo Supreme has held as under : It is the duty of the to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. 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 the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is 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 considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. 10. The fact remains that both the complainant Ghuna (P.W. 16) and Smt. Amari (P.W. 17) were injured in the same incident. Their injury reports (Ex.P9) and (Ex.P8) respectively further corroborates their presence at the time and place of the occurrence. Their presence is, thus, proved. They have to consistently testified that Arjun had hit the deceased with an axe. As observed by the learned Judge, Arjun had hit the deceased not with the sharp side of the axe, but with its handle. The Injury Report of the deceased, Narayan (Ex.P. 7) also reveals that the deceased had suffered two injuries by blunt weapon. However, as the blunt side of the weapon caused the injuries, 45 obviously an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. This is more so when Arjun is said to have caused only a single injury on the head. 11. However, as the blunt side of the weapon caused the injuries, 45 obviously an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. This is more so when Arjun is said to have caused only a single injury on the head. 11. For these reasons, we dispose of instant matters in the following terms : (i) We partly allow the appeal of appellant Arjun @ Leela Ram and instead of Section 302 we convict him under Section 304, Part II 1PC. Looking to the fact that the appellant has already undergone confinement for a period more than 6 years, the end of justice -I would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. We, however, acquit him of the charges under Section 148 and 323/149 IPC. The appellant Arjun @ Leela Ram, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to 5 be detained in any other case. (ii) We allow the appeals of appellants Phool Chand @ Phoolaram, Banshi, Jagdish @ Jagga, Heera Lal, and Navratan @ Naurta and acquit them of the respective charges under Sections 302, 302/149, 148, 323, 323/149 IPC. The appellants 10 Phool Chand @ Phoolaram, Banshi, Jagdish @ Jagga, Heera Lal and Navratan @ Naurata are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (iii) The impugned judgment of learned trial stands modified as indicated above. Appeal of a partly and of others allowed in full. *******