JUDGMENT Daya Chaudhary, J.:-The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 15.5.2007 and 21.5.2007, respectively, passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions Case No. 38 of 25.7.2006, whereby, the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case as put up by the prosecution are that on 22.3.2006, Ram Bhaj-complainant met Jagphul Singh, ASI on G.T., Road, Behlaba turn and made his statement to the effect that he was an agriculturist. He had an elder brother namely Ajmer Singh, who was doing the job of installation of tubewells besides agriculture work. About 1-1/2 years ago, an altercation took place between them and Chhattar Singh’s family but the matter was compromised. However, the family of Chhattar Singh was having a grudge in their mind. On 21.3.2006, his brother Ajmer Singh went to his fields to instal a tubewell but did not return till 10.00 p.m. He searched for his brother Ajmer Singh, and while searching, he reached at the shop of Krishan son of Chhattar Singh, he noticed that Krishan was burning his clothes. Complainant asked Krishan about the whereabouts of his brother on which he threatened him to run away saying that he did not know about the whereabouts of his brother. On 22.3.2006, at about 8.00 a.m., complainant came to know that the dead body of his brother Ajmer Singh was lying in the plot of Kanwar Son of Tek Chand. There were injury marks on the face of deceased-Ajmer Singh and the face was smudged with blood. There were abrasions on his hands, abdomen and feet. There were dragging marks between the place where the dead body of deceased-Ajmer Singh was lying and the shop of accused-Krishan. There were injury marks on the face of deceased-Ajmer Singh and the face was smudged with blood. There were abrasions on his hands, abdomen and feet. There were dragging marks between the place where the dead body of deceased-Ajmer Singh was lying and the shop of accused-Krishan. Complainant further stated in his statement that he had suspicion that accused-Krishan had committed murder of his brother Ajmer Singh and thereafter threw away his dead body in the plot of Kanwar after dragging the same from his shop. 3. After recording the FIR Ex. P-19 by Phul Kanwar, ASI, special report was sent to Area Magistrate and other higher police officials. FSL team, Dog Squad team and photographer was also informed about the occurrence. ASI Jagphul Singh then visited the place where the dead body of Ajmer Singh was lying. He got the place photographed, lifted blood stained earth from the spot and prepared rough site plan of that place. Then he went to the shop of accused-Krishan, inspected it and prepared its rough site plan. Photograph of the shop of accused-Krishan was also taken. He also lifted a blood stained 5 kilogram weight and blood stained earth from there. Chappals of the deceased were also taken into possession from the shop of accused-Krishan. Separate sealed parcels of the aforesaid articles were prepared and were taken into possession vide memo Exhibits P-28 and P-29. ASI Jagphul Singh conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of deceased-Ajmer Singh and sent the same for autopsy through Constable Surinder Singh. On return to the police station, Jagphul Singh, ASI deposited the case property with the MHC. 4. After getting conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased-Ajmer Singh on 23.3.2006, Constable Surinder Singh handed over four sealed parcels, one containing clothes of the deceased, one having viscera, another having blood sample and the fourth a sealed envelope to ASI Jagphul Singh, who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.P2. 5. On 26.3.2006, ASI Jagphul Singh arrested accused-appellant from village Kharkhara and was interrogated on 27.3.2006. During interrogation, accused-appellant made a disclosure statement, on the basis of which, a screw driver and blood stained baniyan were recovered from his house. 6. On competition of investigation, challan was put in the Court for trial. After supply of copies, the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. During interrogation, accused-appellant made a disclosure statement, on the basis of which, a screw driver and blood stained baniyan were recovered from his house. 6. On competition of investigation, challan was put in the Court for trial. After supply of copies, the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. On 25.7.2006 accused was charged under Sections 302/201 IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Head Constable Kulbir Singh (PW-1), Constable Surinder Singh (PW-2) and Constable Samit Kumar (PW-3) are formal witnesses. Head Constable Vijay Pal (PW-4) is a photographer, who took the photographs of the place of occurrence as well as the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. EHC Ajmer Singh (PW-5) had delivered the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other higher police officers. He also tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex. P17 in support of his statement. He specifically deposed that he had delivered the special report without any inordinate delay. ASI Phul Kumar (PW-6) recorded the formal FIR Ex. P19. Bhisham (PW-7) is also a formal witness, who deposited the sealed parcels with the FSL and tendered his affidavit Ex.P20 in support of his statement. Rajbir (PW-8), cousin of deceased- Ajmer Singh identified his dead body but did not support the remaining part of the prosecution story by stating that he had never seen the accusedappellant in the company of Ajmer Singh. Lateron, he was declared hostile by the public prosecutor. Ram Bhaj (PW-9), is the complainant, has also not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. 8. Dr. Sushma Jain (PW-10), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rohtak, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased-Ajmer Singh and observed as under:- “The length of the dead body was 165 cms. It was well built and well nourished dead body of young male wearing firoji shirt full sleeves smeared with blood and mud, brown pant smeared with blood and mud, blue underwear slightly smeared with blood and mud. All the clothes were initialled by her and were made into a sealed parcel and were handed over to the police. Eyes and mouth were closed. Rigor mortis was present in all the limbs. Face was smeared with blood. Postmortem staining was present on the back.” 9. All the clothes were initialled by her and were made into a sealed parcel and were handed over to the police. Eyes and mouth were closed. Rigor mortis was present in all the limbs. Face was smeared with blood. Postmortem staining was present on the back.” 9. The doctor on examination of the dead body observed following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 1.5 cms x .3 cm at the level of lateral end of right eye brow. 2. An incised wound 1 cm x .3 cm at a distance of 5 cms from mid line on right chin. 3. Contused abrasion of the size 9 cm x 7 cm on right side of chest 2 cm below right nipple and one cms right to midline. 4. Contused abrasion on left side of chest of the size 8 cm x 5 cm just below left nipple, 1.5 cm left to midline. 5. Diffused reddish contusion of size 7 cm x 5 cm over right parieto temporal region of scalp just above pinna. 6. Reddish contusion 6 cm x 3 cm over right frontal region 2 cms above supra orbital margin and 3 cm away from midline. 7. Lacerated wound of the size 3 cm x 2 cm over medial aspect of left elbow 3 cm x 2 cm in size in its upper part. On exploration 1. Scalp layers at the site of external injury No.1 ecchymosed and corresponding part of orbital margin fractured. Fractured end showing peticheal hemorrhages. Infiltration of blood present in whole of the right orbit. 2. Soft tissue at the site of external injury No.2 was ecchymosed. 3. Soft tissue and inter coastal muscles at the site of injuries No.3 and 4 were ecchymosed and congested. 4. Diffused sub dural hemorrhage present to both cerebral hemisphere (involving parieto temporal frontal Iobe on both side) and base of brain. 5. Scalp layers at the site of external injuries No.5 and 6 were ecchymosed and deep infiltration of blood was seen in pericranium and bones of right side of skull. 6. On exploration of injury No.7, underlying tissue was ecchymosed. 10. As per opinion of the doctor, the stomach of the deceased- Ajmer Singh contained semi digested food material near about 700 to 800 cc. Small intestine contained chyme. Large intestine contained fecal matters. Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. 6. On exploration of injury No.7, underlying tissue was ecchymosed. 10. As per opinion of the doctor, the stomach of the deceased- Ajmer Singh contained semi digested food material near about 700 to 800 cc. Small intestine contained chyme. Large intestine contained fecal matters. Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. Stomach, small intestine, large intestine, liver, spleen and kidney were sent for chemical examination. Right side of the heart contained blood. She further opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of time. 11. Chander Singh (PW-11), who is the uncle of the deceased has also not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Head Constable Ram Niwas (PW-12) stated that on 27.3.2006, while he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station, Meham, he was associated in the investigation of the present case by ASI Jagphul Singh and in his presence accused-Krishan was interrogated, who made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a screw driver and a blood stained Baniyan in his house under the stair case. He further stated that recovery was also effected in his presence. ASI Jagphul Singh (PW-13) is the Investigating Officer of the case, who deposed that on 22.3.2006, while posted as ASI in Police Station Meham, he along with other police officials was present on G.T. Road, Balambha turn, in connection with patrolling duty, the complainant came and got recorded his statement Ex. P18, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P19 was registered. He further stated that on the same day, he along with complainant and Ram Niwas, Head Constable went to the spot, inspected the same, prepared its rough site plan Ex. P35, lifted blood stained earth in a tin box and made the same into a sealed parcel sealed with seal VS. He further stated that he got the place of occurrence photographed and then went to the shop of accused- Krishan, inspected it and prepared its rough site plan Ex. P36. Thereafter he conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased- Ajmer Singh, which was lying in abandoned plot and then handed over the same to Head Constable Ram Niwas. The case property was deposited with MHC of the police station by him. P36. Thereafter he conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased- Ajmer Singh, which was lying in abandoned plot and then handed over the same to Head Constable Ram Niwas. The case property was deposited with MHC of the police station by him. He further stated that he took into possession four sealed parcels, one containing clothes of the deceased, one containing viscera, another having sample of the blood and the fourth one sealed envelope which were handed over by the Medical Officer after postmortem. The accused was interrogated by him and during interrogation, he made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a screw driver and blood stained baniyan under the stairs of his house, which was got recovered by him from the place mentioned by the accused-appellant. He further stated that he prepared rough sketch Ex. P31 of the screw driver and separately sealed the screw driver and the Baniyan and took them into possession vide recovery Ex. P32. 12. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, he denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The accused-appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence. 13. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 302/201 IPC, as mentioned in first paragraph of the judgment, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 14. Mr. Vikram Punia, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of prosecution story is not complete as vital links are missing. Mr. Punia further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive as all the prosecution witnesses, namely, Rajbir (PW-8), Ram Bhaj (PW-9) and Chander Singh (PW-11) turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Rajbir (PW-8), cousin of deceased-Ajmer Singh, who identified the dead body of the deceased stated that he had never seen the accused-appellant in the company of deceased-Ajmer Singh. He further stated that he did not know how Ajmer Singh had died. Ram Bhaj (PW-9), real brother of the deceased also turned hostile. Rajbir (PW-8), cousin of deceased-Ajmer Singh, who identified the dead body of the deceased stated that he had never seen the accused-appellant in the company of deceased-Ajmer Singh. He further stated that he did not know how Ajmer Singh had died. Ram Bhaj (PW-9), real brother of the deceased also turned hostile. He even deposed that the accused had not murdered his brother Ajmer Singh and accused was not named by him before the police. Chander Singh (PW-11), is the uncle of the deceased and stated that the accused had not murdered his nephew Ajmer Singh and the police had not conducted any proceedings in his presence and obtained his signatures on blank paper. 15. Mr. Punia further argued that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by medical evidence and the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per opinion of Dr. Sushma Jain (PW-10), possibility of injuries found on the body of the deceased on account of a fall from the height with head side down against the hard surface could not be ruled out. 16. Mr. Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana argued that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. He further argued that the prosecution has proved the motive as some altercation took place between complainant party and the family of father of the accused. The accused also made a disclosure statement on the basis of which screw driver and blood stained baniyan were recovered. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record carefully. 18. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has believed the version of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances, last scene evidence and the recovery got effected on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused-appellant. The trial Court has also relied upon the motive put up by the prosecution that Ram Bhaj-complainant had stated in his statement Ex.P-18 that about 1-1/2 years ago, an altercation took place between complainant party and Chhattar Singh’s family. Although the matter was got compromised with the intervention of the Panchayat but the family of Chhattar Singh was having grudge in their mind and because of that accused-appellant Krishan had murdered the brother of complainant, namely, Ajmer Singh. 19. Although the matter was got compromised with the intervention of the Panchayat but the family of Chhattar Singh was having grudge in their mind and because of that accused-appellant Krishan had murdered the brother of complainant, namely, Ajmer Singh. 19. The trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, chain of which is not complete and some vital links are missing. FSL report, Ex.1 (weight), Ex.2 (blood stained earth), Ex. 3 (blood stained earth), Ex.4 (banian), Ex. 5 (screw driver), Ex. 6 (swab), Ex.7A (shirt), Ex. 7B (pant), Ex. 7C (kachha) and Ex. 8 (blood) etc. on which the prosecution has mainly relied upon, could not be connected with deceased as the blood group was found to be inconclusive and no blood was detected on Ex.5 (screw driver) i.e. weapon of offence. As far as the evidence of last scene is concerned, Rajbir (PW-8), who is the witness of last scene has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Ram Bhaj (PW-9) complainant and brother of the deceased and Chander Singh (PW-11) uncle of the deceased also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. The motive put forth by the prosecution has also not been proved. 20. Now the question arises whether the evidence of hostile witnesses is liable to be totally rejected? The Supreme Court in several judgments held that evidence of hostile witnesses should not be totally rejected, if given in favour of the prosecution or accused and should be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence, which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. In Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294, Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act held that when a witness is examined and subsequently contradicted, his evidence cannot be discarded as a whole. It is for the Judge to consider whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. It is for the Judge to consider whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. It has further been held that if a Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering evidence of the witness as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony, which he finds to be creditworthy. If the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge, as a matter of prudence must discard his evidence in toto. This view has further been supported by the judgment of Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orrisa AIR 1977 SC 1970, wherein, it has been held that whenever a witness called by a party is sought to be cross-examined, the Court must exercise its discretion judiciously. Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is the only provision under which a party calling its own witnesses may claim permission of the Court to cross-examine them. 21. It has also been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of judgments that theory of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India. It means, therefore, that if a witness is found unreliable on a particular aspect the remaining portion of his statement can be relied upon if it is found truthful. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rizan and another Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 662 (SC) as under:- “It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or 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 liar. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status or rule of law. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status or rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence.” 22. In the present case material witnesses i.e. Rajbir (PW-8), Ram Bhaj (PW-9) and Chander Singh (PW-11) have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Moreover, it was a case of blind murder as the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the abandoned plot of Kanwar Singh. The prosecution has tried to establish its case on the basis of statements made by the witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The evidence of last scene has also been relied upon. 23. After careful scrutiny of the statement of prosecution witnesses and circumstances, we are of the view that all the chain of prosecution case is not complete and link evidence is missing. The accused-appellant cannot be held guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced. If the statement of all witnesses along with circumstances are considered together then the prosecution story seems to be suspicious. 24. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the considered view that admittedly it was a blind murder and the prosecution has not established its version on the basis of statement of witnesses, circumstantial evidence but the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence by mentioning that circumstances are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. Rajbir (PW-8), Ram Bhaj (PW-9) and Chander Singh (PW-11), initially supported the prosecution case but lateron turned hostile and denied factum of involvement of the accused-appellant in the murder of Ajmer Singh. In our view, the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused-appellant guilty for the alleged offence. beyond reasonable doubt. 25. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. In our view, the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused-appellant guilty for the alleged offence. beyond reasonable doubt. 25. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.5.2007 and 21.5.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak, are set aside and the accused is hereby acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The appellant who is in custody shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. ------------------------