Judgment A.L. Dave, J.—An incident occurred on 26.11.1998, at about 9.15 p.m. at Daudpor faliya of Village Gangadia, where it is alleged that a group of about twenty persons attacked the house of Ratanbhai Jivanbhai Dhodia Patel. They forcibly broke-upon the entrance to the house and trespassed into the house. They dragged Ratanbhai Jivanbhai Dhodia Patel out of the house and took him away. After sometime, they brought him back in front of the house and assaulted him with bamboo stick, indiscriminately. Because of the assault, Ratanbhai suffered multiple injury, which also damaged stomach and intestines, and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. In the course of the transaction, persons, who tried to intervene, namely Dahyabhai Jivanbhai, Tulsiben Dahyabhai and Ramilaben Shankarbhai, were also attacked and hurt was caused to all of them with bamboo sticks. Dahyabhai Jivanbhai, brother of Ratanbhai, the deceased, lodged an FIR in the next morning with Anaval outpost, falling under Mahuva police station. On basis of that FIR, offence was registered and investigated. Upon investigation, it was found that the twenty assailants named by the witnesses were; 1. Kanubhai Jinabhai Patel 2. Arjunbhai Vallabhbhai Patel 3. Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Patel 4. Dhansukhbhai Surjibhai Dhodia Patel 5. Gamanbhai Seemabhai Dhodia Patel 6. Vallabhbhai Premabhai Dhodia Patel 7. Narottambhai Chaylabhai Dhodia Patel 8. Girishbhai Ravjibhai Dhodia Patel 9. Nareshbhai Mohanbhai Dhodia Patel 10. Anilbhai Thakorbhai Dhodia Patel 11. Balubhai Chotubhai Dhodia Patel 12. Bhagubhai Gurjibhai Dhodia Patel 13. Somabhai Chotubhai Dhodia Patel 14. Khandubhai Mangubhai Dhodia Patel 15. Thakorbhai Chotubhai Dhodia Patel 16. Gambhirbhai Mohanbhai Dhodia Patel 17. Khandubhai Maganbhai Dhodia Patel 18. Mohanbhai Premabhai Dhodia Patel 19. Jayesh @ Paklo @ Prakash Ramanbhai Dhodia Patel 20. Bhaylo @ Arvind Ramanbhai Dhodia Patel Therefore, a chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Bardoli, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Surat at Vyara and Sessions Case No. 134 of 1999 came to be registered. 1.1. The trial Court framed charge against the accused persons at Exhibit 14 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 452, 427 read with Section 149 and Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 302 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, for short), so also Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and they claimed to be tried. 1.2. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and they claimed to be tried. 1.2. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving charges against original accused Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10 and 12, namely Arjunbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, Nareshbhai Mohanbhai Dhodia Patel, Anilbhai Thakorebhai Dhodia Patel and Bhagubhai Gurjibhai Dhodia Patel respectively. The trial Court also found that charge against rest of the accused persons were not proved. It may be noted that during the course of trial, original accused No. 11 Balubhai Chotubhai Dhodia Patel had expired and case against him got abated. 1.3. The trial Court found that the prosecution was successful in proving charge for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC against original accused Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10 and 12 and convicted them. Therefore, the trial Court sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to undergo S.I for one month. The judgment was delivered on 28.8.2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment, all five convicts have preferred this appeal. 2. It is brought to our notice that appellant No. 5 Bhagubhai Gurjibhai Dhodia Patel is absconding since 20.2.2007. Our attention is drawn to the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahendra Bhogilal Tadvi vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 (1) GLR 91 , by learned APP. However, in our view, that judgment may not be applicable for the facts of the present case, for the reason that the absconding appellant is only one of the appellants and the appeal of rest of the appellants cannot be dismissed for fault on part of appellant No. 5, nor can the appeal of appellant No. 5 be segregated. Under the circumstances, since in this case, there is plurality of appellants, the judgment will not be applicable to the present case. Virtually, the facts, the evidence, and reasons for conviction and lastly the grounds for assailing the judgment are common and so inextricably mixed together that they cannot be separated and, therefore, the appeal is to be decided on merits. So far as the abscondence part is concerned, it would be open for the authorities concerned, to take action against the absconding appellant for his abscondence. 3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. So far as the abscondence part is concerned, it would be open for the authorities concerned, to take action against the absconding appellant for his abscondence. 3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. D.A. Chaudhary appearing for Mr. R.J.Goswami for the appellants. He submitted that the trial Court has erred in relying on evidence of first informant Dahyabhai Jivanbhai, P.W. 7, Tulsiben Dahyabhai, P.W. 8 and Ramilaben Shankarbhai, P.W. 9 and Bharatbhai Dahyabhai, P.W. 10. He submitted that all these witnesses, they claim to be eye-witnesses, but, if their evidence is seen, the first informant says that upon seeing the crowd, he took shelter in a cupboard and shut the door, obviously, he could not have seen the incident. Mr. Chaudhary submitted further that apart from this, if the evidence of all these four eye-witnesses is seen, they suffer from the defect of improvements and omissions. The trial Court could not have relied upon their evidence. 3.1. Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the trial Court has committed a serious error of relying on police statement of Shakuben, who has not been examined as witness. 3.2. Mr. Chaudhary submitted that all these witnesses are relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses as well. It is further contention of learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary that the evidence in form of discovery of weapon, suffers from the defect of not being supported by independent panch witness. Mr. Chaudhary also submitted that none of the witnesses attributes any specific role or overt act to any of the accused persons. And last but not the least, by way of an alternative submissions, Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the case cannot be considered as a case of murder, because, all the injuries suffered by the deceased were simple in nature, as per the evidence of the Doctor. Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants, on basis of same evidence on basis of which the trial Court acquitted the remaining fourteen accused persons. Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the incident and the evidence is common, so far as all the accused persons were concerned. It could not have been believed for some of the accused and disbelieved for some of the accused persons. The evidence is so mixed-up that it cannot be separated or segregated vis-a-vis each of the accused and, therefore, the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence. It could not have been believed for some of the accused and disbelieved for some of the accused persons. The evidence is so mixed-up that it cannot be separated or segregated vis-a-vis each of the accused and, therefore, the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC may be set-aside and the appellants may be acquitted of charges levelled against them. 4. Learned APP Mr. Mengdey submitted that if the evidence is seen, it is clear that the parties were at daggers drawn. They had been disputing over a piece of land and in recent past of the incident, a decision was rendered by Revenue authorities in favour of the deceased, which provided the motive for the appellants to commit the crime. Mr. Mengdey submitted that apart from motive, there is direct evidence in form of depositions of four eye-witnesses, who have strongly supported the prosecution case and have remained unshaken during the course of cross-examination. Mr. Mengdey submitted that in recent past of the incident, original accused No. 1 had lodged a complaint against the deceased, which would also reflect that he had some grievance against the deceased. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants. The appeal may, therefore, be dismissed. 5. We have examined the record and proceedings in context of the submissions made before us by rival sides. There is no dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death. He was badly injured with rupture of stomach and intestines, and there were as many as nine injuries found by the Doctor and the Doctor has certified the cause of death to be shock due to multiple injuries on body, combined with injury to vital organs like stomach and intestines. It also emerges from evidence that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. We, therefore, conclude that the deceased died a homicidal death. 6. Now comes the question, as to who caused the homicidal death of deceased Ratanbhai Jivanbhai Dhodia Patel . In this regard, the prosecution has examined four witnesses, who claim to be eye-witnesses. P.W. 7 Dahyabhai Jivanbhai is examined at Exhibit 87, he happens to be the first informant. We, therefore, conclude that the deceased died a homicidal death. 6. Now comes the question, as to who caused the homicidal death of deceased Ratanbhai Jivanbhai Dhodia Patel . In this regard, the prosecution has examined four witnesses, who claim to be eye-witnesses. P.W. 7 Dahyabhai Jivanbhai is examined at Exhibit 87, he happens to be the first informant. If his deposition is seen, he states that one Khandubhai Maganbhai, original accused No. 17 came near the house of Ratanbhai Jivanbhai and challenged and started giving abuses and then asked Dahyabhai, Ratanbhai and Shankarbhai to come out of the house. The witness says that he, therefore, told him that there is no dispute between the two and why is he giving abuses. Therefore, accused Khandubhai blew a whistle and raised shouts, as a result of which about twenty persons rushed to the spot. Seeing them, the witness along with Ratanbhai, rushed into the house and closed the door. The crowd of twenty persons, therefore, broke-open the door and rushed into the house and dragged Ratanbhai out of the house. Then they cordoned him in front of the house and started inflicting blows with the bamboo sticks, indiscriminately. The witness says that the deceased requested the crowd to leave him, as his family would be ruined. The witness says that thereafter, he climbed down the otta, and on seeing him, accused Paklo, Narottam, Girish, Soma and Dhansukh run after him. He, therefore, ran into the house and took shelter in the cupboard. Those persons chased him into the house, but, as they did not find the witness, they asked the wife of the witness Tulsiben, and because she did not show where the witness was, Paklo gave a stick blow on her head, Narottam inflicted a push-blow on the left-side chest of her, because of which Tulsiben bent down and, thereafter, Girish, Soma and Dhansukh gave stick blows. The witness says that he saw this, while sitting in the cupboard from the slot. The witness is cross-examined at length. 7. So far as another eye-witness Tulsiben Dahyabhai, P.W. 8, Exhibit 102 is concerned, she is wife of the first informant, and she also deposed to the same effect. 8. Next eye-witness, P.W. 9, Exhibit 104 is Ramilaben Shankarbhai, she happens to be the wife of brother of the first informant and she also sails in the same boat. 9. 7. So far as another eye-witness Tulsiben Dahyabhai, P.W. 8, Exhibit 102 is concerned, she is wife of the first informant, and she also deposed to the same effect. 8. Next eye-witness, P.W. 9, Exhibit 104 is Ramilaben Shankarbhai, she happens to be the wife of brother of the first informant and she also sails in the same boat. 9. Bharatbhai Dahyabhai, fourth eye-witness, P.W. 10, Exhibit 105, he is son of the first informant and his deposition is also on the same lines. 10. These depositions, on a first blush, would give an impression that they had seen the incident occurring. However, if their cross-examination is read, along with evidence of Dy. S.P. Mr. Patel, P.W. 12, who is examined at Exhibit 117, particularly paragraphs 11, 13, 14 and 15 of his cross-examination, it becomes very clear that all these witnesses have given a go-by to their original versions, before the police, and have improved their story in a manner, so as to suit the requirement of the prosecution and connect the accused persons with the offence. The FIR is on record, which is at Exhibit 92. If paragraph 11 of the deposition of Dy. S.P. Mr. Patel and FIR, Exhibit 92 are read in context with the examination-in-chief of the first informant Dahyabhai, it is clear that he did not state in his FIR, that he saw Ratanbhai requesting for leaving him or else his family would be ruined. Therefore, this witness climbed down the otta and on seeing him, Paklo, Girish, Narottam, Somo, Dhansukh turned on him. He, therefore, rushed into the house and took shelter in the cupboard. He has also not stated that, therefore, Paklo, Narottam, Girish, Soma and Dhansukh came into his house, and on not finding him, asked his wife Tulsiben, as to where the first informant has gone, and as his wife Tulsiben did not show him, Paklo inflicted a stick blow on the head of Tulsiben, Narottam gave push-blow with stick on her chest, as a result, Tulsiben bent down and, thereafter, Girish, Soma and Dhansukh inflicted stick blow on her back, and above all that, he noticed this, while sitting in cupboard, from the slot in the cupboard. It also appears that he had not stated in the FIR about the crowd, rushing into the house of Ratanbhai by breaking open the door, with the help of bricks and stones. It also appears that he had not stated in the FIR about the crowd, rushing into the house of Ratanbhai by breaking open the door, with the help of bricks and stones. 10.1. Similarly, Tulsiben has also improved her version. She did not state before the police that on seeing these twenty persons, she got frightened and rushed into the house and locked the door from inside, and the accused persons broke open the door with the help of bricks, stones etc. and rushed into the house. She has also not stated that the accused persons dragged Ratanbhai out of the house in front of the house and, thereafter, took him in the hind of courtyard of the house. She has not stated that on hearing Ratanbhai requesting Mohanbhai to leave him, her husband climbed down from the otta, and at that time, Paklo, Girish, Dhansukh, Narottam, Soma ran after her husband and that her husband, thereafter, rushed in the house and took shelter in a cupboard. She has also not stated that Narottam, Paklo, Girish, Dhansukh, Soma asked her to present first informant Dahyabhai or else she would be done to death. She has also not stated that Ramilaben was assaulted upon by Soma with stick. It emerges from cross-examination of Dy. S.P. that she had given an altogether different version, in her statement to the effect that she learnt from her husband and brother-in-law that Mohan Prema, Paklo, Bhailo, Khandu Magan, Soma Chotu, Balu Chotu and others had come with sticks in their hands and had done the act. She, therefore, could not have witnessed the incident. It also emerges that she had stated in her police statement that on seeing the crowd, she rushed towards the house of Shakuben and took shelter in her field, where there was a standing crop of sugarcane. 10.2. So far as Ramilaben is concerned, her version is identical to version of Tulsiben, and we need not go into the minute details, but, fact remains that she has also improved upon her version, only to convert herself into an eye-witness. 10.3. So far as Bharat Dahyabhai is concerned, he had stated before police that on hearing the shouts, he was frightened and he, therefore, rushed towards the house of Shakuben and then went away on motorcycle with Kamleshbhai towards Anaval, therefore also, he could not have seen the incident. 11. 10.3. So far as Bharat Dahyabhai is concerned, he had stated before police that on hearing the shouts, he was frightened and he, therefore, rushed towards the house of Shakuben and then went away on motorcycle with Kamleshbhai towards Anaval, therefore also, he could not have seen the incident. 11. What emerges from foregoing discussion is that the four witnesses, who are projected as eye-witnesses, could not have been eye-witnesses. They have improved upon their original version, so as to support the prosecution case against the accused and, therefore, cannot be believed. 12. That apart, if these witnesses were found to be not reliable by the trial Court, for accepting their version against fourteen acquitted accused persons, their version vis-a-vis the appellants, could not have been accepted by the trial Court. As is clear from the foregoing discussion, their evidence is common vis-a-vis all the twenty assailants. The incident is common, allegations are common and, therefore, the facts are so mixed-up, that they cannot be separated from each other, and where it is not possible to separate facts vis-a-vis one or more accused from the remaining one or more accused, they cannot be accepted or rejected against one set of accused or another set of accused. In such situation, the principle of falsus-in-uno-falsus-in-omnibus would apply, and not the principle that the Court has to sift truth from untruth and accept only the truthful part of the evidence. In the instant case, as discussed earlier, the entire deposition of all four witnesses is found to be untrustworthy, and if their depositions are removed from the evidence provided on record, nothing remains against the appellants to connect them with the offence. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the trial Court erred in relying on evidence of these witnesses and convicting the appellants. 13. The trial Court erred further in relying on the police statement of Shakuben, who is not examined as a witness. This is impermissible in law and, therefore, conviction on basis of such a statement may be as one of the reasons, cannot be upheld. 14. Reliance is placed by learned advocate Mr. 13. The trial Court erred further in relying on the police statement of Shakuben, who is not examined as a witness. This is impermissible in law and, therefore, conviction on basis of such a statement may be as one of the reasons, cannot be upheld. 14. Reliance is placed by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari on decisions in case of (1975) 4 SCC 511 and (1976) 4 SCC 394 were the Apex Court in the case of 1975 indicated that — “Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the principle that the Court must separate the grain from the chaff cannot apply.” The reference was to the principle that the Court has to sift the truth from untruth and accept the truth. In the case of 1976 also the Court observed in paragraph 17 thus - “This is a case where it is not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the chaff. The truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed together that it is difficult to separate them. Indeed if one tried to do so, it will amount to reconstructing a new case for the prosecution which cannot be done in a criminal case.” 15. In our view, these two judgments relied upon by Mr. Chaudhary, would clearly apply to the facts of the present case. All four witnesses have deposed qua all twenty assailants. Their evidence as to overt act, allegedly committed by them is common, and no specific role is attributed to any of the assailants and, therefore, if the evidence is found not reliable in respect of fourteen acquitted accused, it could not have been accepted in respect of the appellants. We find that the evidence of the witnesses are totally unreliable and, therefore, also their evidence is of no use to the prosecution. The appeals, therefore, has to succeed. 16. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is allowed. We find that the evidence of the witnesses are totally unreliable and, therefore, also their evidence is of no use to the prosecution. The appeals, therefore, has to succeed. 16. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is allowed. Conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vyara in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1999 dated 28.8.2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside. The appellants - accused persons are hereby acquitted. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4, namely Arjunbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, Nareshbhai Mohanbhai Dhodia Patel and Anilbhai Thakorebhai Dhodia Patel are set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, be refunded to them. It would be open for the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against appellant - accused No. 5 Bhagubhai Gurjibhai Dhodia Patel, for his abscondence.