JUDGMENT Dwivedi, J. -- 1. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under sections 374(2) of CrPC feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.5.2002 passed by X Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in ST No.326/91; whereby appellants have been found guilty under section 326 of IPC and each of the appellants have been sentenced to one year's RI with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine further ordered to suffer 6 months imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 19.9.1990 real uncle of the appellants-accused namely Jeevanlal had been murdered by real brother of the complainant in this case by means of some firearm for which the necessary case had been registered against one Raju s/o Havaldar for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. The dead body of the deceased Jeevanlal was sent for post-mortem examination, due to annoyance with this, incident took place on 19.9.1990 on the next day it is alleged that the present appellants Ashok and Narendra together with third accused Devendra came at the house belonging to the complainant Mahendra and set the house on fire. Thereafter, both the present appellants also poured kerosene on the complainant Mahendra Singh and thereafter it is alleged that third accused Devendra set on fire by matchstick on the complainant Mahendra, due to which fire the complainant Mahendra sustained burn injury. The matter had immediately been reported to the police. The police had registered two different cases, one for mischief by fire for damaging the house against the appellants-accused and second for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, sent the injured Mahendra for medical examination to the hospital where his dying declaration had also been recorded by the doctor concerned and the doctor found 50 per cent burn injuries on the body of the complainant Mahendra Singh. During investigation, the police had recorded the statement of the various witnesses, arrested the present appellants together with third accused Devendra and after investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed. 3. All the three accused person abjured the guilt and their defence was of false implication in this case due to conviction of Raju in the murder case of one Jeevanlal. The accused had also examined two defence witnesses before the trial Court. 3. All the three accused person abjured the guilt and their defence was of false implication in this case due to conviction of Raju in the murder case of one Jeevanlal. The accused had also examined two defence witnesses before the trial Court. Learned trial Court after appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence acquitted the third accused Devendra from the charge under section 307 of IPC and also acquitted the present appellants from the offence under section 307 of IPC, but held the present appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record and impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the initial dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate of the complainant Mahendra Singh, he had not named third accused Devendra as the person who had thrown burnt matchstick on the complainant with intention to cause burn injuries to him. Similarly, in his earlier statement also, he had not named third accused Devendra, recorded by the police during investigation and in view of this material omission with regard to the third accused Devendra, he had been acquitted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. Similarly, it is also submitted that independent witness had also not supported the statement of injured complainant Mahendra (PS5) that the appellants had poured kerosene on him with intention to cause burn injury to him. It is also on record that near about 40-50 persons assembled in front of the house of .the complainant Mahendra, they were abusing the complainant because of the murder of Jeevanlal, the real uncle of the appellants-accused and due to some mischief by the crowd, this burn injuries had been caused to the complainant Mahendra and he had falsely implicated the present appellants in this case for which there is no independent corroboration on record and in view of that, the trial Court has wrongly believed the sole statement of Mahendra (PW5) and wrongly held the appellants-accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. 6. In reply, learned public prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that Mahendra (PW5) is an injured witness. The incident took place at about 11-12 at Noon in the market. He specifically named the present appellants as the persons who had poured the kerosene on him and also set him on fire. Though, the trial Court has disbelieved the statement of complainant with regard to the involvement of third accused Devendra but by that itself, the whole statement of Mahendra complainant cannot be thrown out and cannot be wholly disbelieved. The statement of complainant has got further support by the medical evidence wherein 50 percent burn injuries have been found on his body by the concerning Dr. Y.K. Diwan (PW6) and this has got further support by promptly lodged first information report. The motive of accused is also apparent that on the previous day, the brother of the complainant namely Raju had murdered real uncle of the 'accused persons, due to annoyed with this previous incident, for taking revenge from the complainant, this incident took place in the broad day light and this cannot be believed that the complainant has named wrong person and tried to save real person who had actually caused the burn injuries to him and in such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly believed the sole testimony of complainant-injured Mahendra (PW5) and rightly held the appellants-accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. 7. To bring home the charge as levelled against the appellants; the prosecution had examined the complainant-injured Mahendra (PW5) who clearly stated that on the previous day in the some incident real uncle of accused namely Jeevanlal had been murdered and for which a case under section 302 of IPC had been registered against the brother of the complainant namely Raju and in that murder case, Raju had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court, due to this annoyance because of the murder of the real uncle of the accused persons on the next day on 20.9.1990 both the accused-appellants together with third accused entered into the room of the complainant and thereafter accused Narendra who had a can in his hand poured kerosene on the complainant and thereafter set him on fire by means of a matchstick, due to which, he sustained burn injuries. He immediately came out of the room and laid down on the ground to save himself by this fire. Before the trial Court, the complainant had also shown the burn injuries marks on various parts of the body which had been noticed by the trial Court in para 4 of the examination of the complainant. He was immediately taken up to the hospital for necessary treatment. The Executive Magistrate had also recorded the statement as dying declaration wherein also he had specifically named the present appellants Narendra and Ashok who came in the room and poured kerosene on him and set him on fire by means of matchstick. In detailed cross-examination of the complainant, he only stated that he had not named third accused Devendra in his previous statement EX.D-l recorded by the police. On the basis of this material omission with regard to the involvement of third accused Devendra, the trial Court had acquitted third accused Devendra from the aforesaid charge. 8. The Statement of injured-complainant Mahendra (PW5) has got further support by the statement of medical witness Dr. Y.K. Diwan (PW6) who had examined the complainant and found 50 per cent burn injuries on various parts of the body of the complainant Mahendra. He also proved smell of kerosene on the injury concerned and proved the report Ex.P-4. 9. 8. The Statement of injured-complainant Mahendra (PW5) has got further support by the statement of medical witness Dr. Y.K. Diwan (PW6) who had examined the complainant and found 50 per cent burn injuries on various parts of the body of the complainant Mahendra. He also proved smell of kerosene on the injury concerned and proved the report Ex.P-4. 9. The statement of injured Mahendra has got further support by promptly lodged first information report Ex.P-8 which had been recorded by the police officer in the hospital concerned where the complainant was• being admitted for treatment. In that FIR also, the complainant had specifically mentioned the name of accused Narendra and Ashok who entered into the room and they brought 5 litre can of kerosene and poured kerosene on him and thereafter one of the accused thrown a burning matchstick on him. due to which, he sustained burn injuries. This report had been lodged within a short span of time in the hospital that also support the story narrated by the complainant Mahendra against the present two appellants. 10. It is true that the other witnesses Sitaram (PW2), Laxman Singh (PW4), In-charge of the fire brigade and Ravindra Singh (PW7) had not supported the statement of the complainant and had not stated that they had seen the present appellants causing burn injuries to the complainant Mahendra. All these witnesses came on the spot after the incident taken place, therefore, their statement appears to be natural that none of them had seen the accused persons pouring kerosene on Mahendra Singh-complainant. On the basis of their statement, they had been declared hostile by the prosecution. 11. Now the case fully rests upon the sole testimony of injured Mahendra (PW5) who specifically stated that both these appellants entered into the room and poured the kerosene on him and thereafter one of the accused the younger brother of these accused had thrown a burning matchstick on him, due to which, he sustained burn injuries. 11. Now the case fully rests upon the sole testimony of injured Mahendra (PW5) who specifically stated that both these appellants entered into the room and poured the kerosene on him and thereafter one of the accused the younger brother of these accused had thrown a burning matchstick on him, due to which, he sustained burn injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants strongly argued that as the statement of Mahendra Singh (PW5) has been disbelived by the trial Court for involvement of third accused Devendra and Devendra has been acquitted, therefore, there is no guarantee about truthfulnesses of the statement of Mahendra that he had stated true about the involvement of remaining two appellants Ashok and Narendra and in such circumstance, his whole statement ought to be disbelieved and trial Court has wrongly held appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC only on the basis of statement of whole statement of complainant. 12. As stated hereinabove it is true that trial Court has disbelieved the part of statement of complainant Mahendra (PW5) with regard to the involvement of third accused Devendra but in India there is no rule that if a witness disbelieved on a particular fact should be disbelieved for remaining whole statement also given on oath before the trial Court. It is settled principle of law that the maxim "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus" is not acceptable as a sound principle in our country, meaning thereby that a person can be disbelieved on a particular part of his statement may not be disbelieved for rest of his statement. 13. For this preposition, we can profitably be relied on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Bhe Ram v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1980 SC 957 ], wherein it is laid down as under: "The High Court has also rightly pointed out that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply to criminal trials and it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff instead of rejecting the prosecution case on general grounds. We are of the opinion that the High Court has made an absolutely correct approach to these cases." 14. We are of the opinion that the High Court has made an absolutely correct approach to these cases." 14. The same principle has also been laid down by the apex Court in the case of Laxman and others v. The State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1974 SC 308 ], wherein it has been held as under: "We never know whether we remember, perceive, or imagine. Witnesses cannot, therefore, be branded as liars in toto and their testimony rejected outright even if parts of their statements are demonstrably incorrect or doubtful. The astute judge can separate the grains of acceptable truth from the chaff of exaggerations and improbabilities which cannot be safely or prudently accepted and acted upon. It is sound commonsense to refuse to apply mechanically, in assessing the worth of necessarily imperfect human testimony, the maxim: 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'." 15. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the apex Court, on perusal of the statement given by complainant Mahendra Singh with regard to the involvement of the present appellants in this incident that they had poured kerosene and set him on fire cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he had made a false improvement against third accused Devendra to whom he had not named in his previous statement. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court reported in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1989 CAR 53 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that in a case of murder two eye-witnesses had not supported the prosecution version and third witness improved his statement from earlier statement given by him in the FIR as well as before the police and in such circumstances, the statement of third witness who is said to be an eyewitness cannot be belied. 17. The facts of the aforesaid case are different to the facts of the present case, therefore, the principle laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the present case. The injured Mahendra himself clearly stated about the involvement of the present two appellants; which has got full support by the promptly lodged first information report. In such circumstances, the testimony of complainant with regard to the involvement of these two appellants cannot be thrown out. 18. The injured Mahendra himself clearly stated about the involvement of the present two appellants; which has got full support by the promptly lodged first information report. In such circumstances, the testimony of complainant with regard to the involvement of these two appellants cannot be thrown out. 18. With regard to the defence witnesses are concerned, appellants-accused had also examined two witnesses Sushil Kumar Bansal (DW I) and Sudama (DW2) who also proved the facts that appellants' real uncle had been murdered by the brother of the complainant Mahendra and his dead body was kept in the post-mortem room of the hospital concerned. They had only stated in the previous statement and not proved anything with regard to the present incident which had been occurred by causing injury to the complainant Mahendra, therefore, their statement cannot be benefited by anyone of the act of the appellants. 19. Thus, on over all re-appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly held these two appellants guilty for the offence under section 326 of IPC. Therefore, the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 20. With regard to the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has already taken lenient view and acquitted the appellants from the charge under section 307 of IPC and only held them guilty under section 326 of IPC and sentenced them for one year's RI with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained to complainant Mahendra i.e. 50 per cent burn injuries on the body of the complainant, the sentence of one year's RI with a fine of Rs.2,000/- does not appear to be excessive and no mitigating circumstances are available for any reduction in the aforesaid jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. 21. Resultantly, appeal preferred by the appellants being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. The appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender themselves before the trial Court within 15 days, failing which the trial Court may take necessary step and they be sent to jail for serving the remaining part of the jail sentence awarded to them by the trial Court. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.