Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Sri Gaya Prasad, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, vide judgment and order dated 17.10.1982 convicted the accused appellant Vikrama under Section 436 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3½ years. 2. Prosecution story as set out in the FIR is that the informant Asharfi son of Sudkhdeo, resident of village Madkuri, P.S. Robertsganj, district Mirzapur was a daily labourer at the crusher of one Jagdish and resided there in a thatched house situated by the side of the road. Adjacent to the hut of the informant there were huts of several other labourers namely, Jamuna, Ram Khelawan, Pritlal, Lal Shah, Bangali, Somaria, Katwaru, Reeta, Kallu, Suraj. In the night of 15/16.4.1979, the informant along with Suraj Lal and Kallu was returning to their huts from Dala Bazar after viewing drama. Ahead them at some distance, Vikrama Singh, accused appellant, alongwith another person was going. When the informant alongwith his two companions reached the turn near the huts, they began to talk among themselves. A truck was also standing there. Driver and Cleaner of the truck were also standing there. Meanwhile they ( informant and his friends) saw that accused appellant who had reached near the huts of informant and others, cast a sight all around and taking out match stick from his pocket, lighted the same, and threw it at the hut of Ram Subhag. At that time wind was blowing fast. As soon as the thatched huts caught fire, truck driver also flashed his torch light upon the miscreants and at the same time accused appellant ran towards south. He was chased by informant and other persons who caught hold of him at a distance of about half a furlong from the huts. From the fist of his right hand a match box was recovered. Thatched houses of informant, Suraj Lal, Ram Bali, Ram Subhag, Hari Charan, Sone Shah, Hira Lal reduced to ashes. Burnt items included eatables, household goods, foodgrains, utensils and hen. At least damage of about Rs.5000/- had been caused. Vikrama alongwith match box was brought to the police station. 3. Constable Ram Dayal Yadav prepared chick report of the incident on the basis of written report and made entry in G.D. Of the crime at Serial No.20. Burnt items included eatables, household goods, foodgrains, utensils and hen. At least damage of about Rs.5000/- had been caused. Vikrama alongwith match box was brought to the police station. 3. Constable Ram Dayal Yadav prepared chick report of the incident on the basis of written report and made entry in G.D. Of the crime at Serial No.20. Investigation of the case was entrusted to SI, Shashi Bhushan Dwivedi, who submitted chargesheet against accused after conclusion of investigation. 4. Prosecution examined informant Asharfi Lal as PW 1 and Kallu as PW 2. Both are the witnesses of fact. 5. Defence of accused appellant was of denial and false implication. It was also stated that Rs. 1000/- of the accused was due to Jagdish. In order to usurp that money, report was falsely lodged and he was called from his house and implicated in the case. Only huts were constructed and nobody used to dwell therein. All the witnesses have given affidavit in the Court. 6. On appraisal of evidence, the Sessions Court found guilt proved against accused appellant under Section 436 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. 7. I have heard Sri P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Apul Misra and Sri Amit Rana, holding brief of Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 8. Sri P.N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that no enmity has been alleged or proved between the accused and the complainant. Identification of accused is also alleged in the torchlight. This itself makes the entire prosecution story improbable and hence, conviction of the appellant is unjust and illegal. He also pointed out that the alleged prosecution witnesses are only chance witnesses and the reasons shown by them justifying their presence on the spot are concocted and imaginary. Driver of the vehicle whose torch is said to have been used for alleged identification of accused, has not been examined and all this makes the entire prosecution story wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. 9. Placing reliance on Apex Court's decisions in Durbal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( 2011) 2 SCC 676 and Kapildeo Mandal & Ors. Vs. Driver of the vehicle whose torch is said to have been used for alleged identification of accused, has not been examined and all this makes the entire prosecution story wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. 9. Placing reliance on Apex Court's decisions in Durbal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( 2011) 2 SCC 676 and Kapildeo Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2008 ( SC) 533 =2007( 13) JT 202, it is contended that the kind of evidence which has been relied on by trial court in convicting appellant is wholly improbable and in the realm of conjectures and surmises, therefore, the judgement convicting the appellant is unsustainable and must be quashed. 10. Presence of PW 1 Asharfi and PW 2 Kallu is not unusual inasmuch as, Asharfi was employed as labourer at the crusher of Jagdish Singh situated in Village Bari, P.S. Chopan, District Mirzapur whereat accused-appellant Vikrama was employed as Muneem and in the course of said working there, accused appellant must be known well to PW 1 Asharfi. Asharfi was also residing near the said crusher and this fact has not been shown incorrect or false, by any piece of evidence. The incident said to have occurred in the midnight, i.e., around 1:45 A.M. Accuracy of time in such matter cannot be expected particularly when prosecution's star witness is well acquainted with the accused. Such person can identify each other even in dim light if well acquainted from before. There is no allegation of enmity against PW 1 also why he would drag accused appellant in this matter if had not seen him committing the crime for which the accused has been convicted and punished. Moreover, the accused was immediately chased and caught near the place of incident. Even this fact has been proved otherwise. 11. It is true that alleged truck driver whose torch said to have been taken help to identify has not been examined but that by itself would not render otherwise trustworthy and reliable evidence of prosecution, unbelievable, particularly when in cross-examination, no material contradiction has been shown. The decision in Kapildeo Mandal ( supra), I find, does not help the appellant in any manner for the reason that the Court found that four witnesses namely, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 9 therein were closely related to deceased and had strained relations with the accused appellant. The decision in Kapildeo Mandal ( supra), I find, does not help the appellant in any manner for the reason that the Court found that four witnesses namely, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 9 therein were closely related to deceased and had strained relations with the accused appellant. The Court though observed that such witnesses may not completely be disbelieved as a rule of thumb but observed that in respect of such witnesses, the Court is supposed to carefully scrutinise the matter and find out if there is scope for taking view whereby the Court can reach a conclusion that it is a case of false implication. The Court observed that credibility of a witness cannot be judged merely on the basis of his close relation with deceased, as such cannot be a ground to discard his testimony if it otherwise inspires confidence, particularly, when it is corroborated by independent and injured witnesses. Proposition of law is unexceptionable. Whenever there is an element of enmitynimosity, the deposition of such witness/evidence has to be scrutinised with due care and caution and wherever available, in the light of medical evidence, and, other surrounding circumstances. Animosity is a double edged sword and can cut both sides. It can be ground for false implication as also a ground for assault. If a witness is a relative or otherwise interested, his deposition must be examined with deeper scrutiny to find out whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason to hold it a biased evidence. Mere factum of relationship inter se etc. cannot justify to discard evidence in its entirety but it only throws a stringent and onerous burden on the Court to examine with much more care and caution. In Kapildeo Mandal ( supra) torch light version was not accepted by the Court for the reason that torch light or lantern was alleged to be present in the house of witness but was not recovered or seized by Investigating Officer during investigation nor produced before the Court. It is in the circumstances of that case that Court had to disbelieve identification in torchlight or lantern light. It is not the rule of thumb that in every case it must be disbelieved unless torch or lantern said to have been used for identification is seized or produced before the Court otherwise it should always be disbelieved. 12. It is in the circumstances of that case that Court had to disbelieve identification in torchlight or lantern light. It is not the rule of thumb that in every case it must be disbelieved unless torch or lantern said to have been used for identification is seized or produced before the Court otherwise it should always be disbelieved. 12. Similarly, in Durbal Vs. State of UP ( Supra) also the Court found certain serious defects in prosecution story justifying unreliability or untrustworthiness of their deposition. 13. In such matters, each and every case on the basis of its own facts have to be dealt with separately and one particular observation in the context of totality of facts and circumstances of a particular case cannot be treated and be constituted an exposition of law or a judicial precedence or a rule of thumb, to be applied in all other cases, bereft of distinguishing facts and circumstances of that or other cases. No judgment or observation made therein has to be read as a statute. It is well established that even a slight difference in facts and circumstances makes a wide change or different exposition of law law or conclusion in a particular case. One minor deviation may result in a wide angled inference. Therefore, the Courts have to examine the matter in totality of facts and circumstances instead of being guided by inference and conclusion drawn from a set of different facts and circumstances in another case. 14. Moreover 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. 15. 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. 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. 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 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. 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) 16. 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. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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." 19. 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. 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. 20. 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." 21. In the present case, the trial court has discussed prosecution evidence in detail and has found nothing to disbelieve the reliability and trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses despite long drawn cross-examination of those witnesses. Having gone through the record, I also find no such inconsistency in the statement of prosecution witnesses which have been relied by the trial court to hold the appellant guilty of offence under Section 436 IPC to convict him and punish. 22. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, I 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 23. 22. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, I 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 23. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment and order of Trial Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby affirmed. The appellant is on bail. His personal bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The C.J.M. Mirzapur shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against him. 24. Certify the judgment to the lower court immediately.