JUDGMENT T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19/6/2007 passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.). Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 351/2005 whereby and where under after holding the Appellants guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Suresh in sharing common intention convicted the Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 3 months to each. Appellant Sandeep Yadav was also convicted under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/'-. in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of the Appellants, Courts below has convicted and sentenced the Appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on fateful day of 18/8/2005 at about 3:45 P.M. both the Appellants caused fatal injury by knife to Suresh. He was lying in injured condition at Ashok Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur. Her mother PW1 Kantibai took him along with Ramkhilawan to Police Station Gudhiyari where she lodged First Information Report vide Ex. P-1. Suresh also made dying declaration before PW1 Kantibai and Ramkhilawan that present Appellants have caused fatal injury to him. Requisition was prepared vide Ex. P-25 and intimation relating to death was recorded vide Ex. P-24. Doctor intimated to Police Station the fact that dead body was brought to the hospital. Marg was recorded vide Exs. P-16 & P-17. After summoning the witnesses, inquest over the dead body of Suresh was prepared vide Ex. P-19. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Medical College Hospital, Raipur vide Ex. P-7. PW9 S.N. Manjhi conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-8 and found following injuries: (i) One stab wound over left buttock of 2.7 x 0.8 cm. depth was 13.5 cm. (ii) Common iliac artery, common iliac vein was found cut. (iii) Incised wound over left forearm of 2.9 x 0.8 x 0.5 cm. (iv) Incised wound over left wrist of 5 x 0.5 cm. (v) Incised wound over left wrist of 2 x 0.2 cm. depth was 13.5 cm. (ii) Common iliac artery, common iliac vein was found cut. (iii) Incised wound over left forearm of 2.9 x 0.8 x 0.5 cm. (iv) Incised wound over left wrist of 5 x 0.5 cm. (v) Incised wound over left wrist of 2 x 0.2 cm. (vi) Abrasion over left forearm of 5 x 0.1 cm. (vii) Abrasion over frontal region of 1.5 x 0.3 cm. (viii) Abrasion over left frontal region of 0.5 cm. (ix) Injury over knee of 0.5 cm. diameter was found, (x) Injury over left knee of 0.5 x 0.1 cm. and also upon left thumb of 0.3 cm. diameter, (xi) Abrasion over back, chest and abdomen, (xii) Abrasion over right chin of 1 cm. diameter. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. 4. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-2. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-5. During course of investigation, Appellant Sandeep Yadav was taken into custody. He made discloser statement of knife (Kattar) vide Ex. P-6. same was recovered at the instance of Appellant Sandeep Yadav vide Ex. P-4. Blood stained cloths of Appellant Sanjay Yadav was recovered vide Ex. P-9. Blood stained cloths of Appellant Sandeep Yadav was recovered vide Ex. P-10. During course of incident, Appellants assaulted one Ganesh who was examined by doctor and one abrasion was found. Sealed cloths and viscera of deceased were seized vide Exs. P-22 & P-23. Spot map was also prepared vide Ex. P-26. Sealed articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-21. Presence of blood over knife and cloths seized from Appellants were confirmed vide Ex. P-30. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Raipur from where learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) has received the case on transfer for trial. 6. in order to prove the guilt of the Appellants prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing against them, innocency and false implication in crime in question is claimed. 7. 6. in order to prove the guilt of the Appellants prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing against them, innocency and false implication in crime in question is claimed. 7. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the Appellants as aforementioned. 8. Mr. Sudhir Verma with Mr. S.B. Patel, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. Madhu Nisha Singh, P.L. for the State/Respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing an inference that Appellants have caused culpable homicide amounting to murder of Suresh that too in sharing common intention. Prosecution has not adduced evidence to show that Appellant Sanjay Yadav has caused any injury to deceased Suresh in sharing common intention therefore, conviction and sentence of the Appellant Sanjay Yadav with the help of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable under the law. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further argued that evidence of PW2 Ganesh Yadav, PW4 Khedu Das, PW5 Dular Das & PW10 Rohit alias Sanjay Yadav alleged eyewitnesses does not inspire confidence and trustworthy, they are inimical and interested witnesses and they are chance witnesses. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that on account of trifle dispute Appellant Sandeep Yadav has suddenly caused injury that too over the buttock of the deceased Suresh shows that he has not caused any injury with intent to cause death of Suresh therefore, if the evidence of prosecution is admitted in its face value then same is not sufficient for drawing an inference that present Appellants have committed culpable homicide amounting to murder of Suresh. 11. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the State/Respondent opposed the appeal and argued that firstly, Appellants restained PW2 Ganesh Yadav, they were abusing him at the same time, Suresh (since deceased) came near the place of incident and he stopped the Appellants for using filthy words thereafter both the Appellants assaulted Suresh. Appellant Sanjay Yadav went to his house and came with knife, thereafter he assaulted deceased Suresh by knife. Appellant Sanjay Yadav went to his house and came with knife, thereafter he assaulted deceased Suresh by knife. Appellant Sandeep Yadav also assaulted by knife to PW2 Ganesh Yadav and chased him then he fled from the spot. These evidence are sufficient for drawing an inference that both the Appellants have caused homicidal death with intent to cause death of Suresh in sharing common intention. Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced that Appellants as aforementioned. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 13. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injury found over the body of Suresh has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the Appellants on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of PW9 Dr. S.N. Manjhi and autopsy report Ex. P-8 and death was homicidal in nature. 14. As regard the complicity of Appellants in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of PW2 Ganesh Yadav, PW3 Ramkhilawan Yadav, PW4 Khedu Das, PW5 Dular Das & PW10 Rohit alias Sanjay Yadav. As per their evidence, they have seen the incident and they are eyewitnesses. PW2 Ganesh Yadav has deposed in his evidence that at the time of incident he was going to his house from Durga Mandir, he was stopped by Appellants, they abused him at the same time, his cousin brother Suresh (since deceased) came to the spot. He opposed the Appellants for using abusive language then both the Appellants assaulted Suresh. Then Appellant Sanjay Yadav rushed towards his house, he came with knife and assaulted Suresh by knife. Appellant Sandeep Yadav assaulted this witness by knife over his waist then he rushed, Appellants chased him thereafter he came to know his cousin brother Suresh is in injured condition and other persons are taking him to Police Station, he also went to the Police Station and Hospital. 15. PW3 Ramkhilawan Yadav has substantially corroborated the evidence of PW2 Ganesh Yadav who has deposed that he came to know that Suresh has been injured. 15. PW3 Ramkhilawan Yadav has substantially corroborated the evidence of PW2 Ganesh Yadav who has deposed that he came to know that Suresh has been injured. PW4 Khedu Das has substantially corroborated the evidence of PW2 Ganesh Yadav and has specifically deposed that Appellant Sanjay Yadav came with knife from his house and caused injury by knife over the back of Suresh then Suresh tried to rush from the spot then Appellant Sanjay Yadav caught hold him and Appellant Sandeep Yadav after snatching the knife from Sanjay Yadav has repeatedly assaulted by knife upon the abdomen of Suresh. when Ganesh Yadav tried to rescue him, Sandeep Yadav also assaulted Ganesh Yadav over his waist by knife. Appellant Sandeep Yadav also chased Ganesh Yadav and after 20-25 minutes, Police came to the spot. PW5 Dular Das has supported the evidence of PW4 Khedu Das. PW10 Rohit alias Sanjay Yadav has also supported the evidence of PW3 Ramkhilawan Yadav & PW4 Khedu Das. 16. PW1 Kantibai, mother of deceased Suresh has deposed in her evidence that while she was taking injured Suresh to hospital then being asked Suresh told her that Appellants Sandeep Yadav and Sanjay Yadav assaulted him by knife then she went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P-1. While she was taking to his son Suresh to hospital he died in a way. PW3 Ramkhilawan Yadav has also corroborated the evidence of PWI Kantibai relating to dying declaration made by deceased Suresh in Auto-Rikshaw. but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that while they were taking injured Suresh in Auto-Rikshaw he was unconscious and was not in position to talk. His evidence reveals that firstly, PWI Kantibai, mother of injured Suresh was taking his son Suresh went to the Police Station and Hospital in Auto-Rikshaw then he also accompanied in a way at that time, Suresh made dying declaration thereafter he become unconscious then he did not gain conscious. 17. Defence has cross-examined PW2 Ganesh Yadav, PW4 Khedu Das. PW5 Dular Das & PW10 Rohit alias Sanjay Yadav at length. There is some discrepancy, contradiction and omission in their police statement specially relating to the fact that Appellant Sanjay Yadav caught hold Suresh thereafter Sandeep Yadav assaulted Suresh by knife. As per statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of PW4 Khedu Das vide Ex. D-3, PW5 Dular Das vide Ex. There is some discrepancy, contradiction and omission in their police statement specially relating to the fact that Appellant Sanjay Yadav caught hold Suresh thereafter Sandeep Yadav assaulted Suresh by knife. As per statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of PW4 Khedu Das vide Ex. D-3, PW5 Dular Das vide Ex. D-4 at the lime of incident, both the Appellants quarreled with Suresh then Appellant Sanjay Yadav went to his house and came with knife then he assaulted Suresh by knife thereafter Appellant Sandeep Yadav snatched the knife from Appellant Sanjay Yadav and chased PW2 Ganesh Yadav and caused injury to him. Entire evidence of these witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground of exaggeration, contradiction and omission. 18. While dealing with the question of reliability of the evidence of the person who has exaggerated and patiently given false statement up to some extent, the Supreme Court in the matter of Laxman and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 308 has held that witnesses cannot be branded as liars in toto and their testimony rejected outright even if parts of their statements are demonstrable incorrect or doubtful. Relevant portion reads as under: Before we discuss the evidence further, we may observe that Professor Munsterberg in a book called "On the Witness Stand" (p-51). "Law and the Modern Mind" (see: 1949 ed. P. 106) gives instances of experiments conducted by enacting sudden unexpected preplanned episodes before persons who were then asked to write down, soon afterwards, what they had seen and heard. The astounding result was: Words were put into the mouths of men who had been silent spectators during the whole short episode; actions were attributed to the chief participants of which not the slightest trace existed; and essential parts of the tragic-comedy were completely eliminated from the memory of a number of witnesses. Hence, the Professor concluded: "We never know, or imagine". Witnesses can not, 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 or 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. 19. 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. 19. In the present case, as per evidence of PW1 Kantibai, PW2 Ganesh Yadav, PW3 Ramkhilawan Yadav, PW4 Khedu Das, PW5 Dular Das, & PWIO Rohit alias Sanjay Yadav that initially both the Appellants quarreled with Suresh thereafter Appellant Sanjay Yadav went to his house and came with knife and assaulted Suresh by knife on his back. PW4 Khedu Das & PW5 Dular Das have further deposed that after causing injury to Suresh, Appellant Sanjay Yadav caught hold Suresh and Appellant Sandeep Yadav assaulted Suresh by knife after snatching the knife Appellant Sanjay Yadav but this part of the evidence does not find supports from their previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code Exs. D-3 & D-4 interalia their evidence reveal that Appellant Sandeep Yadav snatched the knife and chased the witness PW2 Ganesh Yadav who rushed from the spot. Autopsy report reveals that injury found over the buttock of Suresh was fatal in nature and that injury was cause of death of Suresh. Evidence of aforesaid witnesses supported by their previous statements are separable from other exaggerated evidence and are safe to rely. Evidence of aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing an inference that initially both the Appellants quarreled with PW2 Ganesh Yadav when same was objected by deceased Suresh who came later on then they also quarreled with Suresh. During course of quarrel, Appellant Sanjay Yadav went to his house and came with knife then he assaulted Suresh and caused fatal injury resulting into his death. Evidence relating to holding of Suresh by Appellant Sanjay Yadav and causing injury by Appellant Sandeep Yadav has not supported by the previous statement of the witnesses and this part of the evidence is not safe to rely. Aforesaid evidence are sufficient for drawing an inference that Appellant Sanjay Yadav has caused homicidal death of Suresh and was in possession of prohibited Arm. 20. Aforesaid evidence are sufficient for drawing an inference that Appellant Sanjay Yadav has caused homicidal death of Suresh and was in possession of prohibited Arm. 20. As regard the question of motive and causing homicidal death in sharing common intention is concerned, although the incident took place during quarrel, it was not intended by the Appellants who caused injury to Suresh, even who was initially not present on the spot, they were quarreling with PW2 Ganesh Yadav and same was objected by Suresh, when Suresh came to the spot then they quarreled with Suresh but at the time of quarreling, Appellant Sanjay Yadav has not caused any injury by hands or fits or objects lying near the place of incident but Appellant Sanjay Yadav went to his house and came with knife and assaulted Suresh by knife upon his buttock but the depth of stab wound of 13.5 cm. resulting into cutting of main artery and vein shows that Appellant Sanjay Yadav has caused fatal injury resulting into death of Suresh. This is not a case where all of sudden Appellant Sanjay Yadav has caused such injury but the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing an inference that at the time of bringing knife by Appellant Sanjay Yadav and causing injury to Suresh, Appellant Sandeep Yadav who was not having any weapon was having knowledge that Appellant Sanjay Yadav will bring the knife from his house and will cause fatal injury to Suresh therefore, it is difficult to hold that Appellant Sandeep Yadav has shared his common intention for causing homicidal death of Suresh with Appellant Sanjay Yadav. Subsequently, knife has been recovered at the instance of Appellant Sandeep Yadav vide Ex. P-4 which was of prohibited dimension. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing an inference that Appellant Sanjay Yadav has caused homicidal death of Suresh with intent to cause his death but the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing an inference that co-accused Sandeep Yadav has shared common intention in causing such homicidal death of Suresh but subsequently, he was found in possession of the prohibited Arm i.e. knife. 21. 21. While convicting the Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) has not considered the evidence of aforesaid witnesses in the light of their previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code and thereby committed an illegality. 22. For the foregoing reasons, criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the Appellant Sandeep Yadav under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959 is hereby maintained. Conviction of the Appellant Sanjay Yadav under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is altered into under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-. Conviction and sentence of the Appellant Sandeep Yadav under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set-aside. He has completed sentence imposed under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959, Appellant Sandeep Yadav be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.