Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Having been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No.610 of 1978 by Sri Y.S. Raizada learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, vide judgment and order dated 27.11.1981, five accused appellants, namely, ( 1) Raghubar ( 2) Jodha ( 3) Shanker ( 4) Nanak ( Manak) and ( 5) Omvir alias Balister had preferred instant appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. All the accused appellants along with one Naubat ( who was acquitted by the Trial Court by the impugned judgment) were charged under Section 399 and 402 IPC and accused appellants Raghubar, Jodha, Shankar and Manak were further charged under Section 25 Arms Act and were committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. The trial court on appraisal of evidence found the charges proved against appellants and convicted and sentenced them to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment ( R.I.) under Section 399 IPC and five years' R.I. under Section 402 IPC. Accused appellants Raghubar, Jodha, Shankar and Manak were further convicted under Section 25 , Arms Act and sentenced to 1½ year's R.I. 3. As per report dated 5.7.2006 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, appellant no. 3 Shankar son of Sunhari ( Sumeri), has already died about 14 years ago. There is an order dated 11.10.2006 of this Court requiring Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr to record statement of witnesses having personal knowledge about death of appellant Shanker son of Sunahari and thereafter examine the correctness thereof and submit his report afresh. Thereafter another order dated 16.11.2006 was passed whereby relying on earlier report of C.J.M., Bulandshahr dated 05.07.2006, the Court directed that appellant no.3 Shanker having died, appeal filed on his behalf stood abated. Thus, the appeal survives only in respect of appellants no. 1,2, 4 and 5. So far as the appellant no. 2 is concerned, his bail was cancelled on 16.11.2006 and C.J.M. has reported that despite efforts his whereabouts is not known. 4. Thus, the appeal survives only in respect of appellants no. 1,2, 4 and 5. So far as the appellant no. 2 is concerned, his bail was cancelled on 16.11.2006 and C.J.M. has reported that despite efforts his whereabouts is not known. 4. The prosecution story emerging from FIR and testimony of witnesses, in brief, is that on 26.8.1978, at 8.10 P.M., on receipt of information at Police Station, Anoop Shahr, District Bulandshahr to the effect that near the grove of Chandan Jatav in village Telia Nangla, certain dacoits would assemble, PW 1, SI Dhiraj Singh along with other police personnel, after forming three parties/groups and taking certain independent public witnesses, at about 10 PM, lay in ambush in nearby fields, by three sides of the grove except western side to enable dacoits to enter the grove. After some time, from western side, along the Nali, three dacoits came and sat beneath mango trees. Short while thereafter two more miscreants joined them and started talking. In the meantime two more dacoits appeared from north side Chak Road and also joined the gang. They were talking about absence of their other accomplices whereupon one of them said that they were enough in number to accomplish the job; now it was the time apt for committing dacoity and they would get hefty booty at the house of Pradhan Dharam Singh. They also uttered that anybody if raises resistance, would be shot dead. 5. While they were ready to depart, S.O. Dhiraj Singh challenged them to surrender having been surrounded by police, and if, anybody tried to escape, would be shot down. All the police parties pounced upon the bandits. Resultantly, five miscreants were caught red handed at the spot itself but two dacoits managed to escape. One countrymade pistol and four cartridges were recovered from possession of each of the accused appellants Raghubar, Manak ( Nanak) and Shanker, while Jodha was having a countrymade pistol and five cartridges. A sharp edged weapon, Pharsa was recovered from the possession of Omvir. One of the miscreants, who had succeeded in making his escape good, was identified as Naubat. Thereafter recovery memos were prepared by Station Officer Dhiraj Singh who alongwith arrested accused and recovered articles reached the Police Station in the night intervening 26/27th August 1978, at 2.10 PM. A sharp edged weapon, Pharsa was recovered from the possession of Omvir. One of the miscreants, who had succeeded in making his escape good, was identified as Naubat. Thereafter recovery memos were prepared by Station Officer Dhiraj Singh who alongwith arrested accused and recovered articles reached the Police Station in the night intervening 26/27th August 1978, at 2.10 PM. Report of the incident was lodged and entry to that effect was made in the General Diary at serial no.2; recovered items were kept in Malkhana and accused were detained in lock up. 6. Accused Naubat could be arrested on 29.8.1978 by H.C. Jaipal Singh, Constables Rajeshwar Prasad and Insaf Ali. He was made Baparda and was lodged in jail. Later on he was subjected to identification on 17.10. 1978, in presence of Special Executive Magistrate, Sri Shyam Lal. In identification parade, he ( Naubat accused) was correctly identified by S.I. R.P. Sharma, Constables Jamil Ahmad, Chaman Singh, Brij Pal Singh, Ved Pal and public witness PW 2 Imam Khan. 7. Investigation was undertaken by PW 4 S.I. Harish Chandra Singh who concluded investigation and after obtaining requisite sanction from District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, for prosecuting the accused under Section 25 , Arms Act, submitted chargesheet in Court. 8. The accused appellants and Naubat stood trial under Section 399 /402 IPC as also under section 25 of Arms Act. The prosecution examined six witnesses, i.e., PW 1, Dhiraj Singh, S.O. who headed the raiding team, PW 2, Imam Khan, and PW 3, Puran Singh, both public witnesses to commission of crime, PW 4, Investigating Officer, Harish Chandra Singh, PW 5, Constable Chandra Jeet Singh, Scribe, who made entries in GD and PW 6 Sri Shyam Lal Sharma, Special Executive Magistrate, in whose presence Test Identification Parade was conducted. Constable Insaf Ali, who had arrested Naubat and sent him Baparda to jail tendered his testimony through affidavit. 9. Defence of all the accused was of denial and false implication. Defence put forth by accused appellant Raghubar was that he used to be in service of Lallu Pradhan, who was a Police Informer. The said Lallu Pradhan got annoyed when he demanded his wages from him and therefore got him arrested. Accused Jodha and Nanak/Manak claimed to have been arrested by police from their village. Defence put forth by accused appellant Raghubar was that he used to be in service of Lallu Pradhan, who was a Police Informer. The said Lallu Pradhan got annoyed when he demanded his wages from him and therefore got him arrested. Accused Jodha and Nanak/Manak claimed to have been arrested by police from their village. Accused Shanker claimed to have been arrested from village market, Makhena, on account of demand of wages made by him from a police constable for shaving. Omvir in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was got arrested for asking payment of wages towards repairing of motor from Puran, also a police informer. Accused Naubat stated that he had a quarrel with Imam Khan PW 2 in connection with some dispute over a plot of Manohar Lal Sharma of Telia Nangla at whose house, he ( accused Naubat) was a servant. Accused also examined in their defence DW 1 Manohar Lal Sharma. 10. After appraisal of evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as above. 11. Appellants 1, 4 and 5 are represented by Sri Jai Singh Chandel, Advocate. 12. I have heard Sri J.S. Chandel for the appellants and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for State. 13. Sri J.S. Chandel, learned counsel contended that prosecution story is unbelievable. The recovery memos show that from pocket of shirt of appellant no. 2, Jodha, five cartridges of 12 Bore were recovered. He said that it is not possible at all to keep five 12 Bore cartridges in a shirt's pocket and this itself makes the story improbable and fictitious. He read the statement of PW-1 Dheeraj Singh, the then Station Officer, Anoopshahar, that on three sides of the field, police parties had taken position. He contended that it is wholly improbable that all the alleged members of so called dacoit gang, having no knowledge of presence of police party would have come from the side left open by police party. He also pointed out, had the story set up by police been correct, some of the persons implicated in the case must have reached the place of occurrence/gathering from the side( s) the police parties lay in ambush and having noticed them, the dacoits would have either run away or would not have joined other members of the gang assembled in the grove. The site scene as depicted, itself, makes the entire story, ex facie, unnatural, imaginary and fictitious having more improbabilities than possibilities. He further contended that despite place of occurrence surrounded on three sides by police parties, two miscreants still could escape from the spot which indicates an apparent fallacy in prosecution case. Further, pointing out to the statement of PW-1 Dhiraj Singh where he has deposed that he prepared memo ( fard) at the site of occurrence and sealed recovered items thereat, Sri Chandel, learned counsel submitted that in the open field and that too, in mid night, having no proper arrangement to read and write, how so many documents could be prepared by PW-1 thereat. This also shows that all these documents were actually prepared at police station and his ( PW 1's) statement is apparently false. The entire prosecution case is based on a series of co-incidence which is apparently illogical. Referring to statement of PW-2 Imam Khan, the alleged independent witness, that, none tried to chase the two persons who escaped from place of occurrence, learned counsel argued that it shows that there was no actual incident as claimed by prosecution and all the witnesses are tutored and compelled to depose against appellants on account of enmity and various other reasons. 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra on the contrary said that the entire prosecution case is consistent and minor variations making no substantial difference will not have the effect of dislodging entire prosecution story. The Trial Court has considered and assessed evidence very logically, reasonably, and justifiably. 15. From the record, the case of prosecution is that five accused were caught in the night of 26/27.08.1978 from the mango grove of Chandan Jatav outside village Telianangla, PS Anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr. Two accused ran away from the aforesaid place of occurrence but one of them, namely, Naubat was subsequently arrested on 29.08.1788. They were planning to commit dacoity. 16. Since, Naubat has been acquitted by Trial Court and no appeal has come to this Court against his acquittal, this Court is confined to the case relating to appellants in question. 17. In respect of the appellants all the prosecution witnesses are consistent about their presence in the night of 26.08.1978 at the place of occurrence and about their arrest from the site of incident. 17. In respect of the appellants all the prosecution witnesses are consistent about their presence in the night of 26.08.1978 at the place of occurrence and about their arrest from the site of incident. Besides the witnesses, members of police party in raid, an independent public witness, namely, Imam Khan, PW-2 has also corroborated the above statements. 18. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellants relating to reaching of dacoits from three sides where the raiding police personnel were lying in trap is concerned, it has come in testimony of independent witness PW 2 Sri Imam Khan that one of the parties lay in ambush in a sugarcane field, others in maize field, near the grove. Moreover, even in an open field, in the night, police personnel could have hidden themselves, lying flat on the ground, at some distance from the pathway so as not to be noticed by dacoits. The dacoits being unaware of plan of police, would have concentrated in their objective and hurried in reaching the grove to join accomplices. There appears to be no improbability if the dacoits would have reached the grove ( as argued by learned counsel for the appellants) through the sides where raiding parties were lying in trap and they ( dacoits) did not notice the police party. To my mind, submission of learned counsel on this aspect has no substance at all. 19. With respect to two accused who could succeed in making their escape good from the place of occurrence, it is pertinent to mention when raiding police parties challenged the bandits and pounced upon them, first expected step of surprised and stunned dacoits must have been to flee away from the spot and they, due to sudden access of police, would have run in different directions. All out efforts of raiding parties would have been to overpower and arrest maximum number of miscreants without any bloodshed. The accused were evidently armed with lethal weapons and could have put serious resistance to their arrest. In the circumstances, if five accused could successfully be arrested without any injury on both the sides, the mere fact that two had succeeded in fleeing away, would not create any improbability in prosecution story. In such operations, the spot decision of those involving action is of utmost importance. None can anticipate as to how criminal would act and react. In the circumstances, if five accused could successfully be arrested without any injury on both the sides, the mere fact that two had succeeded in fleeing away, would not create any improbability in prosecution story. In such operations, the spot decision of those involving action is of utmost importance. None can anticipate as to how criminal would act and react. Sitting in a cosy atmosphere with ease, many things may be pondered and said where one has no limitation of time to to ponder over the matter but while in action, it is split second's decision which leads the people in action. They have no time to think what would be good and what may not be good. and the argument of learned counsel shatters down on this count also being founded on more fancy instead of hard ground reality. 20. Coming to the submission about absence of light on the spot at the time of preparation of Fard ( recovery memos), I find from the record that the police personnel were possessed with torches. Moreover, it is beyond comprehension that so many police personnel, well prepared for executing a raid of dacoits, would not have taken torches or other means of light with them. This fact is categorically mentioned in the FIR itself. Preparation of recovery memos in the light of torches or battery operated lamp is not impossible. On this aspect, I have also gone through the cross examinations of the witnesses. No question has been put from the side of defence to any of witnesses in cross examination about source of light at the spot while preparing the Phard. In absence of any evidence negativing the prosecution version regarding source of light, the argument of Sri Chandel has to be rejected. 21. Sri Chandel also tried to explode the deposition of PW-2 Imam Khan stating that he has said that Kallu ( Lallu) and he both accompanied the police party, whereas PW-1, Dhiraj Singh has said that first he ( Lallu) went to his house to collect his gun and might have taken about ten minutes for this purpose and then accompanied the police team. I have gone through the statement of PW-2 very carefully but do not find any scope of such discrepancy for the reason that in the examination-in-chief, PW 2 has said that he was sitting with Lalloo Pradhan when police party came to him and then both of them accompanied the police party. It does not appear that with regard to taking gun by Lallu from his house or at what time it was taken, any question was asked from this witness. PW 2 thus had no occasion to explain on this aspect. Though PW 1 has given chain of incidents in much elaborated manner, which is quite natural for the reason that he was the Officer In Charge to conduct the entire operation/raid, after receiving information about assembling/meeting of dacoits at the aforesaid place i.e., the grove near village Telia Nangla. 22. Even otherwise, each and every minor discrepancy in the statement of witnesses is not to be looked into, to believe or not to believe, unless the discrepancy is substantial and may dislodge the case itself making it improbable. The statements of all the witnesses of facts when recorded after a space of time cannot be expected to tally like a computerised memory programme. All human weaknesses are bound to result in some or other minor discrepancies. The duty of the Court is to separate the grain from chaff and find out the truth from the evidence placed before it. The Court is not to be guided by one fact here and another fact there which makes no substantial difference. 23. The possibility of recovery of five cartridges of 12 Bore from a shirt's pocket cannot be doubted at this stage without having any further details about the kind of shirt the accused was wearing and the size, shape and design of its pocket and all other details. There is a lot of variations in designs of clothes and in absence of any material on this aspect, on mere conjectures and surmises, the otherwise consistent evidence of various witnesses of fact cannot be disbelieved. Further, while examining statement of witnesses it is not every I's, T's and dots which have to be seen and considered with mathematical accuracy nor that any minor, ineffective or insignificant difference would make the statement of witnesses unbelievable. 24. This Court in State of U.P. Vs. Further, while examining statement of witnesses it is not every I's, T's and dots which have to be seen and considered with mathematical accuracy nor that any minor, ineffective or insignificant difference would make the statement of witnesses unbelievable. 24. This Court in State of U.P. Vs. Babu and others 2007( 9)ADJ, 107 ( DB) has observed that it is not every word and sentence of different prosecution witnesses which would render their statement liable to be brushed aside but the duty of Court is to find out the truth and do justice after going through the evidence in its entirety. In paragraphs no. 31, 32 and 33 of the judgment, the Court said: "31. No doubt, in long run examination of witnesses that too after long interval from the date of incident, some discrepancies are likely to occur in such deposition. But in such matters, the duty of the Court is to find out the truth and do justice accordingly. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses can neither be brushed aside on mere existence of some discrepancies or on the ground of other factors, namely, relationship, lack of independent witnesses etc. but the entire evidence has to be considered, appreciated and adjudged in wholesome manner. The duty of the Court of law is heavy in the sense that it should ensure that no innocent should be punished but simultaneously it is also under an obligation to see that no guilty person should escape from the clutches of law by taking advantage of so-called technicalities as this will not only lead to further serious threats to the entire society but may also shake the confidence of public at large in the system of dispensation of justice. Our experience has shown that exonerating a guilty person due to any reason whatsoever has caused more damage to the society since it has multiplied the occurrence of crime as well as has also produced more criminals attracting them to commit crime since easy acquittal has resulted in encouraging them to break law with impunity. It will be useful to remind with the words of caution as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court ( Krishna Ayer J.) in Shiva Ji Sahabrao Bobade ( supra) emphasizing to keep balance between the individual liberty and evil of acquitting guilty persons. It will be useful to remind with the words of caution as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court ( Krishna Ayer J.) in Shiva Ji Sahabrao Bobade ( supra) emphasizing to keep balance between the individual liberty and evil of acquitting guilty persons. The Court observed that we should remind ourselves of necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The Courts having duty of judicial review owe the public accountability of such system. The golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumption against indicted persons and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. Miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of innocent. 32. What was observed and apprehended about 30 years back is to be reiterated having been proved by the time and fact that law and order in society is on continuous deterioration and law enforcing machinery is finding itself in great difficulty to control. On the contrary, time and again the instances are being highlighted where despite broad daylight crimes the accused are being acquitted and wandering fearlessly in the society with greater boldness. The fear of legal proceedings has vanished. 33. On the contrary, time and again the instances are being highlighted where despite broad daylight crimes the accused are being acquitted and wandering fearlessly in the society with greater boldness. The fear of legal proceedings has vanished. 33. Therefore, in a case of the kind which is in hand, the evidence has to be assessed and considered in the light of the facts which are not disputed by the parties and also to find out the evidence which is duly corroborated and once such evidence in respect to certain facts is there, the same should not be ignored merely due to existence of some discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses or other reasons unless the duly corroborated evidence is found to be wholly unreliable." ( Emphasis added) 25. In the present case, the most important and also independent witness of fact is PW 2, Sri Imam Khan who has supported prosecution story substantially and on all material aspects. There is virtually no material inconsistency. It is well conceivable that when three persons witness an incident, their behaviour, reaction and memorisation of incident as well as other things in the vicinity would be different. 26. In Bachittar Singh vs. State of Punjab ( 2002) 8 SCC 125 , the Apex Court commenting upon the human behaviour said that it varies from man to man. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. How a man would behave in a particular situation, can never be predicted. 27. In Appabhai & Another Versus State of Gujarat, JT 1988( 1)SC 249= AIR 1988 SC 696 , the Apex Court cautioned the courts below not to give undue importance to minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness for the reason that witnesses now-a-days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. However, the courts should not dis-believe the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. 28. In Sukhdev Yadav & Others Vs. However, the courts should not dis-believe the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. 28. In Sukhdev Yadav & Others Vs. State of Bihar, JT 2001 ( 7) SC 597, the Court held: "It is indeed necessary however to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment, sometimes there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same and sometimes the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better from the witness-box details out an exaggerated account." 29. In Sucha Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, JT 2003( 6) SC 348, the Court had taken note of its various earlier judgments and held that even if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. 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 witness cannot be branded as a liar. In case this maxim is applied in all the cases it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. 30. Recently in Ramesh Harijan Versus State of U.P. JT 2012 ( 5) SC 240, the Apex Court has made its observations regarding the effect of minor discrepancies or certain exaggerations in deposition of prosecution witnesses and following earlier decisions of Apex Court in Balaka Singh & ors. 30. Recently in Ramesh Harijan Versus State of U.P. JT 2012 ( 5) SC 240, the Apex Court has made its observations regarding the effect of minor discrepancies or certain exaggerations in deposition of prosecution witnesses and following earlier decisions of Apex Court in Balaka Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1975 SC 1962 ) and Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1954 SC 15 ) the Court has said in para 21 as under: "The Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the true is separable from the falsehood. 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, then this principle will not apply." 31. Considering the present case in the light of observations of the Apex Court noticed above, it would not be fair to suggest that after a few years, when the witnesses were deposing their statements, they were expected to tell exact topography of the site and other details minutely with which they were not much concerned at the time of incident since the prime objective at that time was to anyhow capture the dacoits/miscreants. 32. On one hand, the prosecution evidence could not be dislodged by the counsel for the appellants and on the other hand, the defence statements on the face, have not been proved in any manner. Various accused have stated to have been arrested either from their house or from different places and in different circumstances. Except their oral testimony they have not been able to adduce any corroborative evidence to demonstrate that they were not arrested from the place of occurrence as stated by prosecution but from elsewhere. No person having seen their arrest from elsewhere and at different point of time than asserted by the prosecution has been produced. This goes to show that the appellants' defence is absolutely false and shallow. This also, on the contrary corroborates and proves the truth of prosecution case. 33. No person having seen their arrest from elsewhere and at different point of time than asserted by the prosecution has been produced. This goes to show that the appellants' defence is absolutely false and shallow. This also, on the contrary corroborates and proves the truth of prosecution case. 33. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, no argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect but I myself have considered the entire case on this aspect and find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed on the appellant cannot be said to be unreasonable, unjust or excessive 34. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment and order of Trial Court is hereby affirmed. The appeal of accused appellant Shankar has already abated vide order of this Court dated 16.11.2006. 35. The accused appellants Raghubar, Manak ( Nanak) and Omvir alias Balister are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The C.J.M. Bulandshahr shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against them. Accused appellant Jodha shall also be traced out and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence.