Rajes Kumar, J.— By means of these two Criminal Appeals arising out of Session Trials No. 222 of 1979, the appellants are assailing the judgment and order of III Additional District Judge, Budaun, dated 30.6.1981, holding the appellants guilty of offence under Section 460 IPC and awarding them five years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case against the accused-appellants is that the appellants in the mid night of 28th February and 1st March, 1979, the appellants barged into the house of Suresh Baboo situated in Mohalla Shahbazpur mentioned above comitted murder of Smt. Nankoo mother of said Suresh Baboo and took away Rs.4200. The allegations is that there was a marriage of the daughter of one Hemraj, brother in law of Suresh Baboo (PW-1) on 28.2.1979, whose house was infront of the house of Suresh Baboo at a short distance. The marriage party was already reached there. Suresh Babo alongwith his sisters went to the house of Hemraj to attend the marriage ceremony at about 8:00 P.M. and remained there. At about 11:00 P.M., Heera Singh (PW-3, saw that all the accused were present near the Bhatti of Triveni Halwai, which was situated near the house of Suresh Baboo and again at about 11:30 P.M., saw that the accused were entering in the lane in the backyard of the house of Suresh Babu. Though, he was acquainted with the appellants, but was not acquainted with the other accused persons, Faheem, Laddan and Dalda. Thereafter, Rajvir (PW-3) saw the accused were coming down from the roof of the house of Suresh Baboo from its back side. At about midnight, that is, 12:00 P.M., the younger sister of Suresh Baboo went to the house when she pushed the door to open it and entered inside, she saw her mother Smt. Nankee lying on the Charpai in inured condition. There was injury on the neck of Smt. Nankee and it was bleeding. Her legs were hanging down from the cot. The articles of the house were lying here and there. Sister of Suresh Baboo called the neighbourers and others. Smt. Nankee was found unconscious in injured condition. She was breathing slowly. A Sirhi (Ladder) was kept in the court yard of the house and near the Sirhi blood stained Baniyan was lying. There were marks of blood shoes etc. on the roof where the sirhi was kept with the wall. Sister of Suresh Baboo called the neighbourers and others. Smt. Nankee was found unconscious in injured condition. She was breathing slowly. A Sirhi (Ladder) was kept in the court yard of the house and near the Sirhi blood stained Baniyan was lying. There were marks of blood shoes etc. on the roof where the sirhi was kept with the wall. The articles in the room were found scattered here and there and Rs.4200/= kept in a hand bag hanging on a peg in the room above the said room were also found missing. Suresh Baboo with the help of his neighbours took her mother to the Hospital, but she died before reaching the hospital. Suresh Baboo lodged a written complaint (Exy. Ka-1) about the incident at Police Station Kotwali in the same night at about 2:15 P.M. naming Teepu and Tanni with the allegations that they were involved in the incident. On the arrest of the accused Teepu on 2.3.1978, blood stained pant (Mat Ext. 1) and shirt (Mat.Ext.2) were recovered from a box inside the house and after the arrest of another accused Laddan on 3.3.1979, blood stained knife (Mat. Ext.3) was recovered from his fuel wood stall on his information. It was claimed that at the time of the incident, Teepu was wearing said pant and shirt and the knife recovered was used in the attack on Smt. Nankee. After the arrest, accused, Faheem, Laddan and Mohd. Swaeb were put to identification test. Rajveer (P.W.3) identified all the three accurately and Heera Singh (P.W.2) identified accused Laddan and Mohd. Soweb, but he committed a mistake in identification of accused Faheem. On Chemical examination, the paint, shirt and knife and certain other cloths of the deceased were found stained in blood. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet (Ext. Ka.5) against the accused on 24.3.1979 In order to prove the prosecution case and to prove the charges levelled, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 32 documents marked as Ext. Ka.1 to Ka 32 were produced apart from Material Ext. 1 to 15. The main witnesses who were examined are P.W.-1 Suresh Baboo, P.W.-2- Heera Singh, PW-3- Rajveer Singh, PW-10- Inspector- Ved Pal Singh and PW-5-Tota Ram. Ka.1 to Ka 32 were produced apart from Material Ext. 1 to 15. The main witnesses who were examined are P.W.-1 Suresh Baboo, P.W.-2- Heera Singh, PW-3- Rajveer Singh, PW-10- Inspector- Ved Pal Singh and PW-5-Tota Ram. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses and the materials on record, the Trial court has held the appellants alongwith other accused guilty of offence under Section 460 IPC and awarded five years rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved, both the appellants, preferred present Appeals. Heard Sri S.M. Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel for the appellant, Teepu @ Itkhar, in Criminal Appeal no. 1481 of 1981 and Sri G.S. Bisaria, learned A.G.A. Since, no one appeared on behalf of Tanni @ Rajiv, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1714 of 1981, therefore, by the order dated 9.10.2012, Sri S.M. Nazar Bokhari has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the eye witness of the occurrence. The appellants were implicated mainly on the basis of the statement of PW-2, Heera singh and PW-3, Rajveer Singh. Both these witnesses are the residents of the same locality in which the appellants reside. Heera Singh in his statement has only stated that he has seen both the appellants along with other persons were standing at the Bhatti of Triveni Halwai at about 11 O' Clock. He further stated that he has also seen the appellants entering in lane, which is behind the house of Suresh Baboo at about 11:30 P.M. He was not knowing the other persons accompanying the appellants, but had seen their faces in the light of the street light. Rajveer Singh in his statement stated that at about 11:30 P.M., when he alongwith Mitthu Lal went to call other persons of the locality for food, he was having a Torch with him and when he went on the lane behind the house of Suresh Baboo to call Shakil, he seen Teepu and Tanni alongwith three other persons going on terrace of Suresh Baboo's house. On a query being made by the Counsel, Rajveer Singh stated that his statement was taken at 9 O' Clock by the Head Constable and before that he had a talk with Heera Singh and he told Heera Singh that he has seen that Teepu and Tanni alongwith three other persons were coming down on the terrace. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this statement shows that Rajveer Singh had a pre talk before making the statement. He submitted that both, Heera Singh and Rajveer Singh had an old enmity with the appellants for various reasons. He submitted that there could not be any intent to kill the mother of Suresh Baboo and if this would have been the intent, there was no need of five persons going inside the house of Suresh Baboo, particularly, on the day when the marriage was going on infront of the house of Suresh Baboo. He also submitted that though Rajveer Singh in his statement has stated that he has seen all the accused going down on the terrace of Suresh Baboo through ladder, but it is not the case of the prosecution that any ladder (Sirhi) was found on the spot. He submitted that due to old enmity, the appellants have been implicated. The other three accused are dead. Tanni is not traceable and only Teepu is traceable. The entire case of the prosecution is based on suspicion without any specific testimony establishing involvement of the appellants. Learned A.G.A. Submitted that both the appellants alongwith three other accused made a plan to commit theft at the residence of Suresh Baboo, choosing the date of occurrence, knowingly that Suresh Baboo and his family members would be busy in the marriage of the daughter of his brother in law, which would be solemnised infront of the house. Since the marriage of the daughter of brother in law of Suresh Baboo was being solemnised infront of his house, they entered inside the house of Suresh Babo from the backside. It was a dense locality where the houses are so closely constructed that one can cross over to other's terrace from one's house. However, the accused were not aware that the mother of Suresh Baboo would be present in the house. It was a dense locality where the houses are so closely constructed that one can cross over to other's terrace from one's house. However, the accused were not aware that the mother of Suresh Baboo would be present in the house. When they entered inside the house with the view to commit theft, the deceased was present and she witnesses all the accused, therefore, to remove any evidence, they killed her and committed theft. Both, Heera Singh and Rajveer Singh, in their statement, stated that they were only knowing Tanni and Teepur and not three other persons. However, other three accused persons were identified by them in the identification test. If the other three accused persons, namely, Fahim, Laddan and Mohd. Soeb were not known to Heera Singh and Rajveer Singh, there was no occasion to identify them. It was not the case of Fahim, Laddan and Mohd. Soeb that the appellants, Teepu and Tanni were not there alongwith them. After the occurrence, blood stained pant and shirt were also recovered from the house of Teepu from a Tin Box. On 3.3.1979, on the arrest of Laddan, one knife by which he has admitted to have committed murder of the lady was also recovered from a wooden stall on his information. It clearly goes to establish the murder by a knife by Laddan and involvement of the appellants alongwith other accused persons. I have considered rival submissions and perused the evidences on record. The incident occurred in the midnight of 28th February-1st March, 1979 when Smt. Nankee, mother of Suresh Baboo was found murdered in his house. The first information report was lodged by Suresh Baboo at about 2:15 a.m., naming both the appellants alongwith other persons. The first information report was lodged without any delay. On the arrest of accused, Teepu on 2nd March, 1979, blood stained pant and shirt were recovered from a tin box from his house and after the arrest of another accused, Laddan, on 3rd March, 1979, blood stained knife was recovered from his wooden stall on his information. After the arrest of accused Faheem, Laddan and Mohd. Soeb, they were put to identification test in which these accused persons have been identified by PW-2, Heera Singh and PW-3, Rajveer Singh. On the chemical examination of pant, shirt, knife and certain other articles belonging to accused persons, blood stains were found. After the arrest of accused Faheem, Laddan and Mohd. Soeb, they were put to identification test in which these accused persons have been identified by PW-2, Heera Singh and PW-3, Rajveer Singh. On the chemical examination of pant, shirt, knife and certain other articles belonging to accused persons, blood stains were found. PW-2, Heera Singh, has deposed that he has seen both the appellants along with other persons standing at the Bhatti of Triveni Halwai at about 11 O' Clock. He further stated that he has also seen the appellants entering in the lane, which is behind the house of Suresh Baboo at about 11:30 P.M. He did not know other persons accompanying the appellants, but had seen their faces in the light of the street light. PW-3, Rajveer Singh, has deposed that at about 11:30 P.M., when he alongwith Mitthu Lal went to call other persons of the locality for food, he was having a Torch with him and when he went on the lane behind the house of Suresh Baboo to call Shakil, he had seen Teepu and Tanni alongwith three other persons going on terrace of Suresh Baboo's house. On a query being made by the Counsel, Rajveer Singh stated that his statement was taken at 9 O' Clock by the Head Constable and before that he had a talk with Heera Singh and he told Heera Singh that he has seen that Teepu and Tanni alongwith three other persons were coming down on the terrace. The appellant, Teepu, in his statement admitted that blood stained pant and shirt Exh. Ka 1 and 2 belong to him and the same were recovered by the Police from him. These cloths were sent for chemical examination alongwith other articles and in the chemical examination, blood stains were found on the pant and shirt as is evident from the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. Ka-31. Ka 1 and 2 belong to him and the same were recovered by the Police from him. These cloths were sent for chemical examination alongwith other articles and in the chemical examination, blood stains were found on the pant and shirt as is evident from the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. Ka-31. Though, it is true that there is no eye witness of the occurrence, but other testimonies, namely, recovery of blood stained pant and shirt from a tin box from the house of Teepu, recovery of blood stained knife at the informed place by the accused Laddan, statement of PW-2, Heera Singh that he has seen Teepu and Tanni alongwith other accused persons at about 11 O' Clock in the night of the incident standing at the Bhatti of Triveni Halvai and thereafter going towards backside of the lane of the house of Suresh Baboo whose statement has been corroborated by the statement of PW-3, Rajveer Singh, that he has seen Teepu and Tanni and other accused persons coming down to the terrace of Suresh Baboo and further identification of other three accused persons, namely, Faheem, Laddan and Mohd. Soeb in the identification test by Heera Singh and Rajveer Singh whom they were not knowing, proved involvement of the appellants beyond doubt in committing the crime. It appears that the appellants and other accused persons have planned to commit theft taking advantage of the situation that there was a marriage of the daughter of brother in law of Suresh Baboo infront of his house and no one would be present in his house. However, when with the intent of committing theft, they entered inside the house of Suresh Baboo, they found his mother was present there, who witnessed them and in order to remove the evidence, they killed her. The entire sequence of events and circumstantial evidence proved involvement of the appellants in the occurrence. Accused, Laddan, in his statement had admitted killing of deceased, Smt. Nankee by a knife which was recovered from the place informed by him. Thus, the involvement of accused, Laddan, in committing crime is beyond doubt. Accused, Laddan, in his statement had no where stated that the other accused persons including appellants were not involved in committing the crime or they were not present. The Apex Court and the High Courts have laid down principles about re-appreciation of the evidences on record. Thus, the involvement of accused, Laddan, in committing crime is beyond doubt. Accused, Laddan, in his statement had no where stated that the other accused persons including appellants were not involved in committing the crime or they were not present. The Apex Court and the High Courts have laid down principles about re-appreciation of the evidences on record. The apex court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 217 paragraph 5 at Page 222 has held as follows: "Such a concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an appeal by special leave unless it is established: (1) that the finding is based on no evidence or (2) that the finding is perverse, it being such as no reasonable person could have arrived at even if the evidence was taken at its face value or (3) the finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence, which evidence, if excluded from vision, would negate the prosecution case or substantially discredit or impair it or (4) some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the convict has been overlooked, disregarded, or wrongly discarded." The apex court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naresh 2011 (4) SCC Pg. 324 in Para 35 held as follows: "Page 35. The instant case is required to be examined in the totality of the circumstances and in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions. The Court has to strike a balance in the interest of all the parties concerned. Thus, there is an obligation on the court neither to give a long latitude to the prosecution, nor construe the law in favour of the accused." The apex court in the case of Lallu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (2) SCC 401 has observed in paragraph 10 as under:- "The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. {See - Vadivelu Thevan etc. v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 }." The apex court in the case of H.S. Wahurwagh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (6) SCC 712 (Paragraph 43) has observed as follows:- "We are also aware of the fact that the evidence in most of these cases is recorded after some delay and that in any case if every witness were to give an identical and parrot like statement, it would smack of tutoring and would lose credibility. Some inconsistencies are thus bound to arise particularly where a large number of victims, witnesses and accused are involved and the incident itself is spread out over a distance and period of time, as in the present case." The apex court in paragraphs 5 and 6 in the case of B.B. Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 has held as follows:- "We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. (8).Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses." The apex court in the case of H.S. Wahurwagh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (6) SCC 712 (Paragraphs 21 to 26), quoted below, held as follows:- "21. Before we embark on an appreciation of the evidence some thoughts come to mind. The criminal justice system as we understand it as of today in our country, is beset with major issues, sometimes unrelated to what happens in court, particularly in cases involving more than one accused. Before we embark on an appreciation of the evidence some thoughts come to mind. The criminal justice system as we understand it as of today in our country, is beset with major issues, sometimes unrelated to what happens in court, particularly in cases involving more than one accused. Fudged and dishonest first information reports, tardy and misdirected investigations and witnesses committing perjury with not the slightest qualm or a quibble make the decision of even the most diligent and focused of judges particularly galling and difficult. Several other factors inhibit the proper conduct of proceedings in a trial. 22. As per "Crimes in India - 1998" a total of 5,42,345 cases under the Indian Penal Code including those carried over from the previous years, and another 6,37,345 criminal cases under Special and Local Laws making a backlog of 11,79,690 cases were pending investigation. It has also been found that the delay in the investigation and disposal of a criminal case makes the possibility of acquittal that much higher as witnesses tend to turn hostile. 23. The Fourth Report of the National Police Commission (1980) Chapter XXVIII gives some alarming statistics inasmuch that a sample study of Sessions cases in a crime infested district revealed that out of 320 cases disposed off in the concerned Sessions court during the 8 months working period in a year, only 29 ended in conviction while 291 ended in acquittal. In conclusion, the Commission observed: "As many as 130 cases, which included 21 murders, 58 attempts at murder, 17 decoities and 9 robberies, took more than 3 years for disposal, reckoning the time from the date of registration of First Information Report. It was also noticed that the longer a case took for disposal the more were the chances of its acquittal. Protracted proceedings in courts followed by acquittal in such heinous crimes tend to generate a feeling of confidence among the hardened criminals that they can continue to commit crimes with impunity and ultimately get away with it all at the end of leisurely and long drawn legal battles in courts which they can allow their defence counsel to take care of. Such a situation is hardly assuring to the law abiding citizens and needs to be immediately corrected by appropriate measures even if they should appear drastic and radical." 24.We hasten to add that these alarming figures are not universally applicable to all districts, but they are undoubtedly indicative of the malaise that afflicts our criminal justice system and paint a grim picture. The Commission also found that one of the primary reasons for the failure of the prosecution was the propensity of prosecution witnesses to turn hostile and several reasons for this trend have been spelt out. 25. The Commission also quoted with approval from a letter of a senior Sessions Judge in which he wrote that: "A prisoner suffers for some act or omission but a witness suffers for no fault of his own. All his troubles arise because he is unfortunate enough to be on the spot when the crime is being committed and at the same time "foolish" enough to remain there till the arrival of the police. It is for these reasons that people do not take the victim of a road accident to hospital or come to the help of a lady whose purse or gold chain is being snatched in front of her eyes. If some person offers help in such cases he is to appear as a witness in a court and has to suffer not only indignities and inconveniences but also has to spend time and money for doing so. Some time the witnesses incur the wrath of hardened criminals and are deprived of their lives or limbs." 26. In this pernicious state of affairs, the judge, gravely handicapped, has to apply his knowledge of the law and his assessment of normal human behaviour to the facts of the case, his sixth sense based on his vast experience as to what must have happened, and then trust to God and good luck that he strikes home to come to a right conclusion. To our mind, the last two are undoubtedly imponderables but they do come into play in negotiating the judicial minefield. This is an undeniable fact whether we admit it or not." In the case of Appabhai and another Vs. To our mind, the last two are undoubtedly imponderables but they do come into play in negotiating the judicial minefield. This is an undeniable fact whether we admit it or not." In the case of Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 (Supp) SCC 241 (Paragraph 13), the Apex Court held as follows: "On the second contention, the learned Counsel highlighted many of the contradictions in the evidence of Devji (PW-4) as against his previous statement ; one recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Exh. 66) and another by the police during the investigation. We have, however, also examined the relevant evidence. It is true that there are many contradictions in the evidence of Devji. He has not attributed overt acts to individual accused in his statement before the police whereas he has attributed such overt acts in his evidence before the court. But that is no ground to reject his entire testimony. It must not be forgotten that he was a victim of the assault. Fortunately he has survived. He must, therefore, be considered as the best eye witness. The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. 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. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jagamohan Reddy, J., speaking for this Court in Sohrab and Anr. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 Crl. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jagamohan Reddy, J., speaking for this Court in Sohrab and Anr. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 Crl. L.J. 1302 at 1396 observed : This Court has held that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered." The same view has been further explained in the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh, 1988 (supp) SCC 686 Paragraphs 15 to 17 in the following words:- "15. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC, the Privy Council had this to say (at 628): That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence. 16. In Abdul Gani v. State of Madya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff. 17. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." In the case of Mani @ Udattu Man and others Vs. State, (2009) 12 SCC 288 (Paragraph 9), the Apex Court held as follows:- "The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated. The present appeal is by A1, A3, A4 and A7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court. State, (2009) 12 SCC 288 (Paragraph 9), the Apex Court held as follows:- "The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated. The present appeal is by A1, A3, A4 and A7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court. "10.........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, or to be not wholly credible. Falsity of 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 or witnesses cannot be branded as liar (s). The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of 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'. (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [ AIR 1957 SC 366 ]. In a given case, it is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1956 SC 460 ]. The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, 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. 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 acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1972 (3) SCC 751 ] and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar [ AIR 1965 SC 277 ]. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1954 SC 15 ] and Balaka Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab [ 1975 (4) SCC 511 ]. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt Kalki and Anr. [ 1981 (2) SCC 752 ], normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Krishna Mochi and Ors. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc. [ 2002 (6) SCC 81 ] and in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab [ 2003 (7) SCC 643 ]. It was further illuminated in the Zahira H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [ 2004 (4) SCC 158 ], Ram Udgar Singh v. State of Bihar [ 2004(10) SCC 443 ], Gorle S. Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2003 (12) SCC 449], Gubbala Venugopalswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ 2004 (10) SCC 120 ] and in Syed Ibahim v. State of A.P. " An injured eyewitness has not to be discarded as easily as at times urged by the defence. The apex court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270 while emphasising the aforesaid aspects has explained particularly with regard to the statement of an injured witness in paragraph 12 thereof which is quoted hereinunder:- "In law testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eye-witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The Court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically deposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witness appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence." The said aspect has been explained in a detailed manner by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and others, 1990 Cr.L.J. Pg. 2531 Paragraph 28 which is extracted hereinunder: "28. In our view, the approach of the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence of injured witnesses is on the face of it illegal and erroneous. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and others, 1990 Cr.L.J. Pg. 2531 Paragraph 28 which is extracted hereinunder: "28. In our view, the approach of the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence of injured witnesses is on the face of it illegal and erroneous. For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that: (1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. (2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons. (3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects. (4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence. (5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereo-type investigation. (6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version. Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story." The aforesaid judgment has been affirmed by the apex court reported in 1995 (5) SCC 602 . An eyewitness who is also described as an interested witness should not be ordinarily discarded as held by the apex court in the case of H.S. Wahurwagh and others Vs. An eyewitness who is also described as an interested witness should not be ordinarily discarded as held by the apex court in the case of H.S. Wahurwagh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (6) SCC 712 Paragraph 41 quoted hereinunder:- "The learned counsel for the State has also brought to our notice some observations in the judgment of this court in Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270 21 with respect to the evaluation of the evidence of an interested or relation witnesses. They are: "12..........When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence." Nonetheless an independent witness even though available if not examined has been considered to be a major discrepancy as held by the apex court in the case of Hem Raj and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (10) SCC 614 Paragraphs 8 and 9 are quoted hereinunder:- 8. The fact that no independent witness - though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case having regard to the indisputable facts of this case. Amongst the independent witnesses, Kapur Singh was one, who was very much in the know of things from the beginning. Kapur singh is alleged to have been in the company of PW5 at a sweet stall and both of them after hearing the cries joined PW4 at Channi Chowk. He was one of those who kept the deceased on a cot and took the deceased to hospital. He was there in the hospital by the time the first I.O.-PW9 went to the hospital. The evidence of the first I.O. reveals that the place of occurrence was pointed out to him by Kapur Singh. He was one of those who kept the deceased on a cot and took the deceased to hospital. He was there in the hospital by the time the first I.O.-PW9 went to the hospital. The evidence of the first I.O. reveals that the place of occurrence was pointed out to him by Kapur Singh. His statement was also recorded, though not immediately but later. The I.O. admitted that Kapur Singh was the eye-witness to the occurrence. In the FIR, he is referred to as the eye-witness along with PW5. Kapur Singh was present in the Court on 6.10.1997. The Addl. Public Prosecutor `gave up' the examination of this witness stating that it was unnecessary. The trial court commented that he was won over by the accused and therefore he was not examined. There is no factual basis for this comment. The approach of the High Court is different. The High Court commented that his examination would only amount to `proliferation' of direct evidence. But, we are unable to endorse this view of the High Court. To put a seal of approval on the prosecution's omission to examine a material witness who is unrelated to the deceased and who is supposed to know every detail of the incident on the ground of `proliferation' of direct evidence is not a correct approach. The corroboration of the testimony of the related witnesses-PWs 4 & 5 by a known independent eye-witness could have strengthened the prosecution case, especially when the incident took place in a public place. 9. Non-examination of independent witness by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness-Kapur Singh, would assume significance. This Court pointed out in Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Others [SCC p. 155 para 19] "[I] if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case, the court ought to scrutinize the worth of the evidence adduced. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Others [SCC p. 155 para 19] "[I] if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case, the court ought to scrutinize the worth of the evidence adduced. The Court of facts must ask itself # whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the Court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the Court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses. In the present case we find that there are at least 5 witnesses whose presence at the place of the incident and whose having seen the incident cannot be doubted at all. It is not even suggested by the defence that they were not present at the place of the incident and did not participate therein." Now coming to the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment. Having regard to the nature of crime committed by the accused-appellants, I do not see any reason that the sentence awarded is excessive. In view of the above, both the appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. Judgment and order of III Additional District Judge, Budaun, dated 30.6.1981, in Session Trials No. 222 of 1979, holding the appellants guilty of offence under Section 460 IPC and awarding them five years' rigorous imprisonment is affirmed. The appellants are on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun is directed to take the appellants into custody and send them to Jail to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. Office is directed to communicate this order to the C.J.M. concerned for compliance within a period of one week _____________