Judgment ( 1. ) SINCE both these appeals are arising out of one and same impugned judgment, therefore, decided by this common judgment. ( 2. ) THE appellants have preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment dated 3-8-2000 passed in S. T. No. 45/2000 by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, alirajpur (MP), whereby convicted the appellants as under :-Name of the Appellant/s conviction U/s. Sentence and Fine 1) Tetiya 2) Janiya u/s 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC")Two months S. I to each 1) Tetiya 2) Janiya u/s. 302/34 of "the IPC" life imprisonment to each. 1) Tetiya 2) Janiya u/s 323/34 of "the IPC" two months S. I. to each. Substantive jail sentences of the appellants shall run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 17-12-1999 on eve of Dipawali festival complainant Nagadia, deceased Bhangdia, his brother Mansia and father Khumsingh, along with villagers, had gone at the place of worship situated near rivulet of the village. Villagers had also taken their cattle for pooja. After performance of Pooja, complainant party and villagers were returning to their village situated near the rivulet, complainant party was attacked by appellants. Appellant Janiya was having bow and arrow, and appellant Tetiya possessing Falia (sharp edged heavy iron object ). Appellant tetiya gave a Falia blow but Bhangdia saved himself and snatched Falia, thereafter appellant Janiya shot arrows, which pierced in the body of Bhangdia. Both the appellants, after causing injuries to deceased bhangdia, ran away. Incident was witnessed by Mansia, Nagaria, Khumsingh and Rapsia. The witnesses took Bhangdia in injured conditions to his house; where after some time bhangdia died. First Information Report (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Nagaria (P. W. 1), recorded by P. W. 7 Investigating Officer N. R. Dangi. Shri Dangi reached on the spot and conducted inquest proceeding, vide Ex. P/7. The blood stained and controlled earth were seized from the spot through seizure memo ex. P/1 8. P. W. 1 Nagaria gave blood stained arrow and clothes of deceased Bhangdia, which were seized through seizure memo Ex. P/19, by Shri Dangi. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by P. W. 6 Dr. N. S. Thakur. The postmortem report is Ex. P/3. Injured eye-witness P. W. 3 Khumsingh was medically examined by P. W. 6 Dr. N. S. Thakur, who issued MLC report Ex. P/5. P/19, by Shri Dangi. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by P. W. 6 Dr. N. S. Thakur. The postmortem report is Ex. P/3. Injured eye-witness P. W. 3 Khumsingh was medically examined by P. W. 6 Dr. N. S. Thakur, who issued MLC report Ex. P/5. Seized aricles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory with a covering letter (Ex. P/14 ). On due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for commission of offences under Section 341, 302, 323 read with Section 34 of "the IPC". ( 4. ) APPELLANTS abjured their guilt and their defence was that on account of old enmity the complainant party, with due deliberation, lodged a false report against them. They examined D. W. 1 Balu and D. W. 2 Udlia in their defence. The learned trial Court after examining the prosecution and defence witnesses and hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, we are of the opinion that there is no force in these appeals, therefore, same are liable to be dismissed. ( 6. ) THE prosecution has examined 4 eyewitnesses, P. W. 1 Nagaria, P. W. 2 Magnia, p. W. 3 Khumsingh and P. W. 4 Manjria. P. W. 5 Rusnia alias Roshan has deposed about seeing appellants running away from the scene of occurrence and he reached on the spot, thereafter deceased was taken to his house. P. W. 1 Nagaria lodged the First information Report (Ex. P/1) and his version in Court regarding shotting of arrows by appellant Jania and causing injury by Falia by appellant Tatiya, is fully corroborated by fir (Ex. P/1) and medical evidence of P. W. 6 Dr. N. S. Thakur, who found 5 penetrating wound on abdomen and chest and one incised wound on left thigh. On internal examination, medical expert found penetrating wound on right lower lower of liver and paleness of spleen and kidney. In his opinion, all the external injuries were anti-mortem in nature. Injury Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by sharp and hard penetrating object i. e. arrow and injury No. 6 could be caused by sharp edged weapon i. e. Falia and dharia. Injury No. 1 alone and all the injuries jointly were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by sharp and hard penetrating object i. e. arrow and injury No. 6 could be caused by sharp edged weapon i. e. Falia and dharia. Injury No. 1 alone and all the injuries jointly were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Deceased died becuase of shock due to internal haemorrhage and bleeding from liver injury. ( 7. ) P. W. 6 Dr. N. S. Thakur also medically examined eye-witness P. W. 3 Khumsingh and found an abrasion 3" x on left parietal region. This injury could be caused by hard and blunt object and simple in nature. Dr. Thakur proved MLC report (Ex. P/5 ). ( 8. ) P. W. 1 Nagaria has deposed that on the date of incident, after performing Pooja in the evening at about 5. 00 p. m. they all were at their worship place; where appellants were also present having low, arrow and Falia. After, performance of Pooja, he along with P. W. 2 Magania, P. W. 3 Khum singh, P. W. 4 Manjria and villagers, were returning back to their houses. The villagers were returning back in group and they were stopped near rivulet by appellants. Appellant Janiya shot an arrow and in total he shot 8 arrows, some arrows pierced on different-different parts of chest and abdomen. Bhangdia fell down on the ground, at that moment appellant Tetiya gave a Falia blow causing injury on right side of the waist of deceased. One arrow-shot also caused injury to Magansia and P. W. 3 Khumsingh also sustained injuries by arrows. The further say of this witness is that appellants, after assault, fled away and Bhangdia was brought to the house, where they tried to made him to drink water but Bhangdia died. On the next day in the morning, he lodged report in the Police Station (Ex. P/1 ). In cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that at the time of incident so many persons were present with them. In paragraph 7 of the cross-examination, he deposed that 4 persons Magania, khumsingh, Bhangdia and he were walking together at a close distance on a way. He denied that they were in inebriated condition and they were not attacked by any other person on the way except appellants. In paragraph 8, he denied about old inimical term. In paragraph 7 of the cross-examination, he deposed that 4 persons Magania, khumsingh, Bhangdia and he were walking together at a close distance on a way. He denied that they were in inebriated condition and they were not attacked by any other person on the way except appellants. In paragraph 8, he denied about old inimical term. At the same time, he admitted about a previous incident, in which appellant tetiya shot an arrow causing injury on the leg of Bhangdia, but for the said incident both entered into compromise. He denied that because of old enmity, he had given statement against the appellants. In paragraph 10 of the cross-examination, he was confronted with his report (Ex. P/1) and case diary statement (Ex. D/1), wherein there is omission of shotting 8 arrows for which he could not give any reason and further omission about specific overt act of Tetiya causing injury by Falia on the waist. In our considered view, these are not very material omissions, which also cannot amount to contradiction. If witness has deposed about shotting of 8 arrows in the Court statement and there is some difference in his case diary statement and FIR, on the basis of this difference his entire statement cannot be discarded. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" meaning thereby if a witness is false on one point will be considered as false on all the points, is not applicable In our country. (See : Syed Ibrahim v. State of andhra Pradesh, 2007 SCC (Cri) (1)34) and major Singh v. State of Punjab (2007 Cr LJ 59 ). It is the solem duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff and evaluate the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution for the purposes of final judgment. The statement of P. W. 1 Nagaria is fully corroborated by statement of P. W. 2 eye-witness Magania, injured eye-witness P. W. 3 Khum Singh and witness P. W. 4 Manjria. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Magania is the brother of deceased Bhangdia. P. W. 1 nagaria is also their brother and witness khum Singh (P. W. 3) is their father; they all are interested and partisan witnesses, there-fore, their evidence is not sufficient for maintaining conviction of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Magania is the brother of deceased Bhangdia. P. W. 1 nagaria is also their brother and witness khum Singh (P. W. 3) is their father; they all are interested and partisan witnesses, there-fore, their evidence is not sufficient for maintaining conviction of the appellants. We do not agree with this preposition, it is trite law that testimony of relatives cannot be discarded only on this ground, but Court is required to scrutinize their evidence with care and caution. (See : Thakur v. State of maharashtra, (2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 5821 : (2007 Cri LJ 1168 ). Keeping in view this legal position, we have examined the statement of all the three eye-witnesses P. W. 1 nagaria, P. W. 2 Magania and injured witness P. W. 3 Khum Singh, and do not find any substantial material to discard their testimony. Their presence along with deceased, was natural; they were returning back after performing festival pooja and this was their custom. They alone had not gone to perform pooja but several villagers had gone there and after performing pooja they were returning back with their family members in groups. ( 9. ) P. W. 4 Manjria is an independent witness and has fully corroborated the statements of above mentioned all the three eyewitnesses. He has specifically stated that on the date of incident, after dipawali festival, villagers assembed on the place of their deity and had also taken cattle. After performing pooja in the evening at 5. 00 p. m. they all were returning back. P. W. 3 Khum singh with his sons P. W. 1 Nagaria, deceased son Bhangdia and P. W. 2 Magania, were going to their house and at some distance he and Rusnia (P. W. 5) were going. At that time, both the appellants met on the way, appellant Janiya was having bow and arrow and Tetiya carrying Falia; they intercepted Bhangdia and appellant Janiya shot arrows causing injuries on chest and other parts of the body. Jania shot, in total, 8 arrows and Tetiya gave blow by Falia causing injury on the waist of deceased. In cross-examination paragraph-5, he deposed that he belongs to bhilala community, whereas deceased and appellants belongs to bhil community. Jania shot, in total, 8 arrows and Tetiya gave blow by Falia causing injury on the waist of deceased. In cross-examination paragraph-5, he deposed that he belongs to bhilala community, whereas deceased and appellants belongs to bhil community. In paragraph-6, he denied the defence suggestion that deceased was surrounded by 8 to 10 persons and stated voluntarily that deceased was attacked only by two persons i. e. appellants. He has also denied, in paragraph 9, that he was under the influence of liquor. In paragraph 10, he also denied the defence suggestion about having any kind of dispute will appellants regarding field known as habadia field. In cross-examination, he was confronted with his case diary statement (Ex. P/4), wherein specific number of 8 arrows was not mentioned. As discussed hereinabove, this is not a material omission, which amounts to contradiction. The fact remains that this witness as well as other three eye-witnesses including injured eye-witness Khum Singh, have stated about shotting of number of arrows and medical evidence is also establishing the fact that deceased sustainded 5 penetrating injuries caused by sharp pointed object i. e. arrow, and one incised injury caused by falia, a heavy hard and sharp object. ( 10. ) SO far as specific overt act of appellant Tetiya causing injury by Falia on waist of deceased is concerned, though there was no injury on waist but on thigh incised injury, which could be caused by Falia, was found by autopsy surgeon on the person of deceased, and there is no much difference between waist and thigh. The eye-witnesses must be watching the incident from some distance and after sustaining 5 injuries by arrow shot, deceased must be moving from one place to another to save himself, because of agony and pain under such situation, if some short of difference is found in the statement of eye-witnesses regarding specific overt act of causing injury by a particular weapon on a particular part of the body, the same would not corrode the statement of eye-witness/eye-witnesses. The Supreme court in case of Thaman Kumar v. State of union Territory of Chandigarh (20031 6 SCC page 380 : (2003 Cri LJ 30701. The Supreme court in case of Thaman Kumar v. State of union Territory of Chandigarh (20031 6 SCC page 380 : (2003 Cri LJ 30701. has divided conflicting statements between eye-witnesses account and medical evidence in three category and category No. 1 is sufficient to discard the statement of the prosecution witnesses i. e. if witness has given overt act of accused causing Injury by a particular weapon and there is no such injury found in medical examination, the same would prove fatal to the prosecition. But if witness has given statement of causing injury by a particular weapon on a particular part of the body and Injury was not found on that part of the body but found nearby other part, the same would not be sufficient to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Same is the situation in the instant case, therefore, the statement of eye-witnesses about overt act of the appellant Tetiya causing injury by Falia, cannot be disbelieved because no injury was found on waist but injury was found on thigh. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is overwhelming evidence against the appellants for their involvement. Both the appellants came together having deadly weapons openly and attacked the deceased causing as many as 6 injuries. Appellant Tetiya caused Falia injury after 5 arrow-shot injuries caused by appellant Janiya, is sufficient to establish that they were having common intention to commit murder of deceased bhangdia and in furtherance of their common intention, they acted. ( 12. ) IN the result, we do not find any substance in both the appeals, therefore, same are hereby dismissed. ( 13. ) ORIGINAL judgment is kept in criminal Appeal No. 989/2000, a copy whereof be placed in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 990/2000. Appeal dismissed.