JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgement of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 8.12.1981 convicting and sentencing the appellants Jai Ram, Ram Bilas and Sri Prakash to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. By by the said order, another accused person Parshuram was acquitted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. A Government Appeal No. 645 of 1982 preferred against the acquittal of Parshuram filed which has however been dismissed by another Bench of this Court by an order dated 12.2.2014. 2. We also find that there is a report of the C.J.M. Gorakhpur, dated 3.10.2008 mentioning that Ram Bilas had died 16 years earlier, i.e. around 1992. It may be noted that the age of Ram Bilas was mentioned as 59 years on 31.10.1981 when his 313 Cr. P. C. statement was recorded. Were he alive, Ram Bilas would have been 92 years at present. Therefore, only the appeal of Jai Ram and Sri Prakash survive, who were 25 years old when their 313 Cr.P.C statements were recorded in 1981, and who now after the lapse of 33 years would be about 58 or 59 years in age. 3. We have heard Sri Satish Trivedi assisted by Sri Ajay Pandey for the appellants and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State. The allegations in the instant case mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 1 Suryabhan, son of the deceased Ram Kumar Maurya were that on the previous night of 29/30.10.1979, when the informant Suryabhan Maurya had returned alongwith his father, the deceased Ram Kumar Maurya and relation Ram Gati, after irrigating the deceased and the informant’s fields at about 12.30 a.m. After washing their hands and feet, the informant, his brother Brij Bhan and relation Ram Gati went to sleep in the “Osara.” The deceased was sleeping out side near the cattle trough. At about 1 a.m., the appellant Jai Ram armed with Gandasi, Parshuram armed with a spear, Sri Prakash armed with a lathi and Ram Bilas armed with a pharsa, who are co-villagers arrived. They surrounded the cot of the deceased. At about 1 a.m., the appellant Jai Ram armed with Gandasi, Parshuram armed with a spear, Sri Prakash armed with a lathi and Ram Bilas armed with a pharsa, who are co-villagers arrived. They surrounded the cot of the deceased. Then Ram Bilas gave a pharsa blow on the head of the deceased, whereupon the deceased called out in the local dialect”ka ho Bilas ee ka kaila”, i.e., “Oh Bilas what have you done.” Then the complainant shouted “dauro pancho bachao maar darle” (i.e. Panches run, help, they had been beaten). Thereupon, the villagers Tilak Dhari, Hardwar, P.W. 2 Ram Asre and others arrived there. After receiving the pharsa injury, the deceased had tried to run, but he had fallen down at a distance of 2 or 3 paces from the cot where he was lying. Then Parasu Ram, the acquitted accused, gave a spear blow on the chest of the deceased and Jai Ram gave a gandasa blow on the neck of the deceased. On the cries raised by the witnesses, the accused went away, but before departing, Sri Prakash fired with a country made pistol on the deceased. The witnesses, who were unarmed could not apprehend the accused miscreants out of fear. This incident was witnessed in the moon light and by torch light from a distance of 15-20 paces. Litigation between the parties was the cause for this crime. After the murder, the witnesses ran away towards the south. 4. The informant Surya Bhan Maurya thereafter lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) at P.S. Gola at 2.55 a.m. on 30.10.1979. Head Constable Riyaz Hussain, P.W. 8 prepared the check report (Ext. Ka 24) on the same same day under Section 302 I.P.C. and also made the necessary G.D. entry (Ext. Ka-25). P.W. 3 S.O. Mahima Rai, who was not present at the police station was provided with a copy of the report at 4.30 a.m. by Ramker Yadav. Thereafter the S.O. Mahima Rai immediately reached the place of incident at 5 a.m. He interrogated the informant and prepared the site plan dated 30.10.1979 (Ext. Ka-2). He also conducted inquest (Ext. Ka-3) at 7.30 a.m. on the cadaver of the deceased on the same day and after completing the other formalities dispatched the dead body through Constables Banwari Singh and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 6) to the mortuary in the headquarters, where it reached at 4 p.m. 5. Ka-2). He also conducted inquest (Ext. Ka-3) at 7.30 a.m. on the cadaver of the deceased on the same day and after completing the other formalities dispatched the dead body through Constables Banwari Singh and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 6) to the mortuary in the headquarters, where it reached at 4 p.m. 5. As it had become late, the autopsy could not be conducted on the same day and hence it was carried out the next day, i.e. on 31.10.1979 at 1 p.m. by Dr. A.K. Srivastava, P.W. 7 who prepared the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-23). The age of the deceased was about 60 years and the death according to the doctor had taken place about 1 ½ days earlier. Rigor mortis had passed off from the upper extremities and it was present in the lower extremities. The second cervical vertebra was cut and fractured. Larynx and trachea were cut. Digested Roti, Daal, and vegetables were found present in the stomach. He found the following ante-mortem injuries : (1) Incised wound 8" x 1/2" x bone deep on the middle part of head including the forehead and medial end of the left orbit. The left eye was not present; frontal bone of the skull was cut and fractured. (2) Incised wound 9" x 2" x bone deep on the front and right side neck. All the corresponding internal structures including the 2nd cervical vertebra were clean cut. (3) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the front of the right shoulder. (4) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the front of lower part of neck 1-1/2" above the sternal notch. (5) Incised wound 2-1/2" x 1" x cavity deep on the left side front of chest 4" above the nipple. Left cervical ribs (medial end) 1st and 2nd and left clavicle had clear cuts. 3rd and 4th left cervical ribs fractured. (6) Gun shot wound of entry in an area of 3-1/2" x 2" x cavity deep on the epigastric region present. Five wound of entry size 1/8" x 1/8" each. Blackening present. (7) Gun shot wound of exit in an area of 2" x 2" on the back of right side chest, two in number size 1/4" x1/4" each. 7th rib fractured. 6. In the opinion of the Medical Officer death was caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries. Blackening present. (7) Gun shot wound of exit in an area of 2" x 2" on the back of right side chest, two in number size 1/4" x1/4" each. 7th rib fractured. 6. In the opinion of the Medical Officer death was caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries. The medical officer had also extracted 3 pellets, which were handed over in a sealed bundle to the escorting constable. 7. The accused Ram Bilas and Parasu Ram were arrested on the same day i.e. on 30.10.1979. However, Jai Ram and Sri Prakash could not be apprehended. They surrendered in Court. Thereafter, the I.O. interrogated them on 19.12.1979. The I.O. submitted the charge-sheet on 19.12.1979 against all the four accused persons. 8. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Surya Bhan and P.W. 2 Ram Asre as eye-witnesses. The formal witnesses examined were PW 3 S.O. Mahima Rai, the Investigating officer, PW 6, Constable Suresh Chandra, who escorted the dead body for autopsy, which was carried out by P.W. 7 Dr. A.K. Srivastava, PW 8 Head Constable Riyaz Hussin who prepared the check report and entered the case in the G.D. The prosecution has also examined PW 4 Constable Om Prakash Singh, PW 5 Ali Ahmad, PW 9 Mohd. Islam and PW 10 Budhai Prasad, P.W. 10, a clerk of C.M.O. Office, who were examined to show that the case property (blood stained and plain earth and chadar and gamchha, baniyain and bandi of the deceased), which were found near the dead body, were kept in safe custody. 10. P.W. 1 Surya Bhan deposed that the deceased Ram Kumar was his father. Before his murder, the deceased had filed a criminal case against Ram Bilas, Jai Ram and others. A cross report of this case was also filed against the deceased and others. The accused Jai Ram and Parasu Ram were brothers. They had appropriated three decimals of gram samaj land, which had been objected to by the deceased, who was the Pradhan, and about which the deceased had complained to the Tahsildar. The tahsildar had directed the lekhpal to look into the matter. The accused Jai Ram and Parasu Ram were brothers. They had appropriated three decimals of gram samaj land, which had been objected to by the deceased, who was the Pradhan, and about which the deceased had complained to the Tahsildar. The tahsildar had directed the lekhpal to look into the matter. On the said direction the Lekhpal had carried out the measurement on the land and had placed pillars on the same and the appellants Ram Kumar, Jai Ram and Parasu Ram were forced to vacate the land because of which these appellants had become inimical to the deceased. 11. According to the evidence of the informant, the door of the informant’s house faced east. The houses of Tilakdhari and Raj Bali (who have not been examined) were in front of the house of the complainant. PW 2 Ram Asre’s house was located, to the south of Raj Bali’s house. There was a lane between Raj Bali and Ram Asrey’s houses. 12. PW 1 Suryabhan has further reiterated the other allegations in the F.I.R. regarding has having returned home at 12.30 a.m. from his tube well after irrigating his fields alongwith his father, and his relation Ramgati. The informant, his brother, and Ramgati were sleeping in the osara of their house. His father, the deceased, Ram Kumar was sleeping on a cot to the north of the cattle trough. At about 1 a.m., Ram Bilas carrying a pharsa, Sri Prakash carrying a lathi, Jai Ram carrying a gandaasa, and Parshuram armed with a spear arrived and surrounded his father’s cot. His father questioned Ram Bilas as to what he was doing. After that Ram Bilas assaulted his father on his head with his pharsa. After receiving the blow, his father tried to run but he fell at a distance of 2-3 paces. After the fall Parshuram gave a spear blow, and Jai Ram gave gandsa blows to the deceased. 13. P.W. 2 Ram Asrey has deposed that the deceased was the Pradhan of the village and that in the “tola” in which the deceased resided, Ram Asrey, Kanhaiya, Hardwar and Tilakdhari also had their houses. The house of the deceased Ram Kumar Maury was right behind the house of Ram Asrey. At about 1 a.m. on hearing the cries of Surya Bhan, he had gone to the house of the deceased carrying a torch. The house of the deceased Ram Kumar Maury was right behind the house of Ram Asrey. At about 1 a.m. on hearing the cries of Surya Bhan, he had gone to the house of the deceased carrying a torch. Tilakdhari and Hardwar also reached there with their torches. They saw Ram Kumar deceased lying on the ground to the north of his charan (cattle trough), Parasu Ram gave a spear blow and Jai Ram gave gandasa blows on the neck of the deceased. Sri Prakash was carrying a lathi and Ram Bilas was standing with a pharsa. On the objection of the witnesses, the accused ran away, but before leaving the spot, Sri Prakash fired his country made pistol, which struck Ram Kumar. He had shown his torch, which was functional, to the I.O., who had returned it to him. 14. The accused Jai Ram in his 313 Cr. P. C. statement took the plea that he was present at Maihar, where he works in the Cement Factory at the time of incident. The accused Parasu Ram denied the evidence and stated that in those days, his right hand which had been fractured has been surgically operated upon. Likewise Ram Bilas and Sri Praksh also challenged the veracity and truthfulness of the evidence. All the accused persons claim to have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. No witness has been adduced by the accused in their defence. 15. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the F.I.R. appears to be ante-timed as in the F.I.R., the expression that was used was that the incident had taken place”aaj biti raat mein karib sadhe 12 baje ratri mein.” The expression aaj biti raat mein, suggested that the F.I.R. was lodged the next morning. That the FIR was lodged with delay and was ante-timed was also suggested by the circumstance that the post-mortem was conducted with considerable delay only on the subsequent day, i.e. on 31.10.79 at 1 p.m. Furthermore he suggested that the informant has admitted that his wife was at her maika on the date of incident. In such circumstances it was unlikely that her father, Ram Gati who was a resident of Mauja Barhaje, which was 8-10 kms away would be present in the informant’s village Barrah. He has also not been examined in Court. In such circumstances it was unlikely that her father, Ram Gati who was a resident of Mauja Barhaje, which was 8-10 kms away would be present in the informant’s village Barrah. He has also not been examined in Court. The suggestion being that the informant, might have returned to his village Barrah after he learnt of the incident alongwith his father-in-law, and then proceeded to lodge the report which was antetimed to 2.55 a.m. on 30.10.79 16. Sri Trivedi further submitted that the deceased had cried out ‘ka ho bilas ee kaa kaila” i.e. Bilas what have you done. This remark could only have been made, after the deceased had been given the pharsa blow on his head by Ram Bilas, because according to Dr. A.K. Srivastava, who conducted the post-mortem examination, after receiving the injuries, the deceased could not have spoken. Further the doctor describes the injury No. 1 as an incised wound 8" x 1/2" x bone deep on the middle part of the head of the deceased including the forehead and medial end of the left orbit. The left eye was not present; frontal bone of the skull was cut and fractured. Even after this one injury, by a pharsa to the head of the deceased which had caused a fracture of the frontal bone of the skull, and had caused the left eye to go missing, the deceased could not have spoken. This injury was attributed to the pharsa, wielded by Ram Bilas. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable as there was no punctured wound on the deceased, which is attributed to the spear used by the appellant Parasu Ram, hence, Parasu Ram had even been acquitted in the case by the trial Court and Government Appeal preferred against acquittal had been dismissed. Hence as the specific role has been attributed to the accused Parshu Ram by the witnesses, their evidence cannot be said to be wholly reliable and at the best it was only partly reliable, which could not be utilized for conviction without any corroboration from any independent source, which was unavailable in the present case. 18. Hence as the specific role has been attributed to the accused Parshu Ram by the witnesses, their evidence cannot be said to be wholly reliable and at the best it was only partly reliable, which could not be utilized for conviction without any corroboration from any independent source, which was unavailable in the present case. 18. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, contended that when the informant mentioned in the F.I.R. that aaj biti raat mein karib sadhe 12 baje ratri mein”, he was only referring to that part of the night, which had got over and it was wholly consistent with the lodging of the report at 2.55 a.m. and the report could not be said to be ante-timed. 19. When the deceased had cried to Bilas, as to what he had done, the cry related to the situation, when Bilas was seen standing near him by the deceased, and the remark had not been made after the pharsa blow had been received by the deceased. Merely, because one of the accused persons Parasu Ram was acquitted by the Trial Court and the judgment was confirmed in the Government Appeal against his acquittal, which was dismissed on 12.2.2014. it could not lead to rejection of the evidence in toto. In India, the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply and the appeal of the present two appellants survives and the they could be convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. and there was sufficient corroboration of their evidence. Both parties have submitted case laws, which will also be considered, as we discuss the evidence. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE 20. So far as the submission relating to the significance of the expression “aaj biti raat mein karib sadhe 12 baje ratri mein”, as to whether it refers to the situation in the morning or at 2.55 a.m., in our view from its natural usage it would appear that these words aaj beeti raat mein are usually used if the F.I.R. is lodged in the morning rather than if it was lodged in the night of the incident itself. This circumstance of the F.I.R. being lodged later on and its being ante-timed also finds some support from the circumstance that the post-mortem was conducted after 48 hours only on 31.10.1979 at 1 p.m., even though the incident is claimed to have taken place on 29/30.10.1979 at 1 a.m.. We think that PW 6, Constable Suresh Chandra is prevaricating when he says that the body was handed over to him at 9 a.m., on 30.10.79 but as he could not get transport he left with the body at 12 noon on 30.10.79, and it took him 4 hours to reach the mortuary, and then as the doctors were not available at the mortuary the autopsy could only be conducted on 31.10.79 at 1 p.m. There appears merit in the suggestion that the body might have been handed over to this witness late in the evening on 30.10.79, because the case had not been worked out before that. 21. We also see some merit in the submission that the informant was in his wife’s maika, at the time of incident, and then on receiving information regarding the murder, the informant and his father-in-law Ramgati were called to village Barra from Ramgati’s village Mauja Barhaje, which was 8-10 kms away and the report was lodged. 22. So far as the point relating to the averment in the F.I.R. that the deceased Ram Kumar Maurya had cried “ka ho bilas ee ka kaila” is concerned, on a plain reading the words seem to be referring to a situation where the deceased is protesting against the assailant Bilas as to what he has already done i.e. the remark was made after the deceased had already received the blows from Bilas. No doubt, P.W. 1 Surya Bhan deposed in his examination in chief that “un sabko dekhte hi mere pita ne kaha ki yah ram bilas kya karte ho, itna kahate hi ram bilas ne pharsa pita ke sar ke mathe par chala diya.” But it has been admitted in the cross-examination of Surya Bhan, that out of anxiety he had mistakenly mentioned in the FIR and in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that he was assaulted by Ram Bilas, and then his father had spoken the words His clarification in his cross-examination was as follows:”maine rapat mein yah baat ki ram bilas ne pahale var kiya aur uske baad mere pita bole ghabrahat mein likha dee thee daroga ke samne bhi maine ghabrahat se kah diya tha”. From his clarification it is apparent, that according to the informant the words of protest of the deceased had been spoken after he was assaulted and not before, though on realizing the conflict with the medical evidence, on legal advice, the order has been reversed in his evidence in Court, where it is sought to be stated that on seeing the assailants his father had cried out as to what Bilas was doing and thereafter Bilas and the others assaulted him. 23. Now the size and nature of the incised wound on the middle part of the head of the deceased including the forehead and medial end of the left orbit was 8" x 1/2" x bone deep, and the left eye had been removed due to the injury, and the frontal bone of the skull having been cut and fractured as per the autopsy report. The doctor has also stated in his cross-examination that the deceased could not have spoken the words after receiving the injuries. Thus it is apparent that after receiving even the head injury from the pharsa held by the accused Ram Bilas, which has the features as described above, the deceased could not have uttered the words which were attributed to him. This is a further infirmity in the testimony of the informant, Suryabhan. 24. However, the crucial question in our view to be considered in this case is whether implicit reliance could be placed on the testimonies of the only two witnesses, who have been examined in this case, viz. This is a further infirmity in the testimony of the informant, Suryabhan. 24. However, the crucial question in our view to be considered in this case is whether implicit reliance could be placed on the testimonies of the only two witnesses, who have been examined in this case, viz. PW 1 Suryabhan the son of the deceased and informant of this case, and PW 2 Ram Asrey, the neighbour for recording the conviction of the accused, when Ramgati the father-in-law of Suryabhan, and Tilakdhari and Hardwar who are said to have accompanied Ram Asrey to the place of incident at the time of the crime, have not been produced. The basic infirmity in the testimony of PW 1 Suryabhan was as pointed out above the impossibility of the query made by the deceased after his assault, as to what Bilas had done, looking to the nature of his injury. In that situation the question arises whether implicit reliance could be placed on the testimony of the only two witnesses, who have been produced in the light of the further circumstance of this case that one of the co-accused Parasu Ram, who was assigned a clear role of assaulting the deceased with a spear on his chest was acquitted by the Trial Court and this acquittal was confirmed in the Government Appeal preferred against his acquittal by the order dated 12.2.14. Therefore the question, which arises for consideration before us is whether it would be safe to affirm the conviction of the two surviving appellants only on the basis of the testimony of the two witnesses Surya Bhan Maurya and Ram Asre. The said witnesses could at the highest only be described as being neither wholly reliable, nor wholly unreliable and and we need to examine whether there was any independent circumstance for corroborating the testimonies of the two witnesses for holding the two surviving appellants as liable for this offence. 25. According to PW 1 Surya Bhan Maurya, the son of the deceased, he was sleeping in the “osara” alongwith his brother Brij Bhan and father-inlaw Ram Gati when the deceased was assaulted on the cot on which he was sleeping outside the house near the cattle trough. 25. According to PW 1 Surya Bhan Maurya, the son of the deceased, he was sleeping in the “osara” alongwith his brother Brij Bhan and father-inlaw Ram Gati when the deceased was assaulted on the cot on which he was sleeping outside the house near the cattle trough. In the evidence it has come that the the wife of the informant was away in her maika, in such circumstance, the presence of her father Ram Gati alongwith the informant, PW 1 Surya Bhan at the spot, appears to be a little unnatural. Furthermore, the prosecution has not even tried to produce Brij Bhan or Ram Gati as witnesses in this case and has been content only to adduce the evidence of the informant Surya Bhan Maurya, whose cot has been shown in the site plan next to the cots of Brij Bhan and Ram Gati. The evidence of this witness Surya Bhan as we have already shown above regarding the point about the remark made by the deceased as to what Ram Bilas had done could not have been made after the deceased had received the blow on his forehead, which has been described above. Moreover, a clear role has been imputed to Parsasu Ram in the FIR and evidence of inflicting a spear blow on the chest of the deceased. The post-mortem report shows that the injury on the chest was an incised wound 2 1/2" x 1" x cavity deep on the left side front of chest 4" above the nipple. The left cervical ribs (medial end and 1st and 2nd and left clavicle had clear cuts and the 3rd and 4th left cervical ribs were fractured. Dr. A.K. Srivastava, P.W. 7 had also opined that there was no punctured wound on the deceased and although it was possible that the spear could be used in this manner, but normally, such an injury could have been caused either by a pharsa or gandasa, looking to the breadth and length of the injuries. 26. Dr. A.K. Srivastava, P.W. 7 had also opined that there was no punctured wound on the deceased and although it was possible that the spear could be used in this manner, but normally, such an injury could have been caused either by a pharsa or gandasa, looking to the breadth and length of the injuries. 26. Apart from this fact, it was accepted by the Trial Judge and also by the High Court in its order dismissing the appeal against the acquittal that Parasu Ram had just recovered from a fracture 1 or 2 weeks back, and the plaster had been removed just before the occurrence, hence his participation in the incident was unlikely, although, a clear role had been assigned to Parasu Ram in this crime by the witnesses PW 1 and PW 2. For these reasons, the testimony of this witness Surya Bhan Maurya could not be described as wholly reliable and it can only described as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 27. So far as the point from where Ram Asre saw the incident is concerned, we find that Ram Asre whose house has been shown towards east of the house of the deceased. The opening outlet of the house was also on the eastern side and in the site plan, this witness is said to have been moving towards the north and then towards the west to the gali (lane) between the house of Rajvanshi and his own house and is said to have witnessed the incident, but the particular point from where Ram Asre saw the incident has not been shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan. 28. It is also apparent from the site plan and from the evidence that the back side of the house of PW 2, Ram Asre faced the front side of the house of the deceased, where the deceased was said to be sleeping. 29. The other witnesses, who are named in the F.I.R. and whose houses are also said to be in the vicinity namely Tilakdhari and Hardwar nor any other person other than Ram Asre have been produced by the prosecution, who might have lent some corroboration to the testimony of Ram Asre, who was the only other witness apart from the informant. But the prosecution has chosen not to produce any third witness. 30. But the prosecution has chosen not to produce any third witness. 30. It is also admitted that a report had been filed by the accused Ram Bilas implicating the brother of the witness Ram Asre, in an incident of marpit, although Ram Asre denies the involvement of his brother in the marpit. But the said implication could constitute a motive for this witness falsely implicating Ram Bilas and his relations for the present murder, and he was thus clearly a partisan witness. His testimony also suffers from the some infirmity as the testimony of Surya Bhan inasmuch as he has also deposed that the accused Parasu Ram had struck the deceased with a spear and that Jai Ram had given a gandasa blow and that Sri Prakash and Ram Bilas were standing there with lathis. As Parasu Ram was already acquitted and the acquittal was confirmed by the High Court, which had led to our finding that the evidence of Surya Bhan could not be termed as wholly reliable. This finding would equally apply to the testimony of this witness in the aforesaid back ground. Also no blood stained weapons or blood stained clothes of the appellants have been recovered at their instance, which might have provided some independent corroboration of the participation of the appellants in this incident. 31. In Bable @ Gurdeep Singh v. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 181, which was cited by the learned AGA, where it was held by the Apex Court that although two persons had been acquitted by the High Court, the third accused could still be convicted. That was a case where the two acquitted accused had not been named in the FIR, but so far as the third accused was concerned he was named in the FIR and also in the oral dying declaration of the deceased. Also the defence evidence taken in FIR, Ext. D -2 and in the 313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused, regarding the deceased having caused injuries with a sword to the appellant, was disbelieved, and it was observed that the injuries of the accused could have been self-inflicted. In any case the defence version established the presence of the appellant at the time of the crime. 32. D -2 and in the 313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused, regarding the deceased having caused injuries with a sword to the appellant, was disbelieved, and it was observed that the injuries of the accused could have been self-inflicted. In any case the defence version established the presence of the appellant at the time of the crime. 32. Furthermore there can be no quarrel with the propositions of law stated in Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 387 and Succha Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 , relied on by the learned AGA, that in India the maxim, “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application and the mere acquittal of some accused persons cannot result in the acquittal of all the accused persons, and the Court always needs to separate the grain from the chaff. Babu v. State (supra) was a case where one of the accused persons who had given the spear blow was acquitted due to the absence of any typical spear injury on the deceased, but the conviction of the other accused against whom there was clear evidence of assault by his weapon was believed as it was a case where there were a number of injured witnesses, who had received substantial injuries, and all the witnesses had unanimously testified to the active participation of the appellant. 33. In Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 11 SCC 335, cited by the appellant’s counsel, the trial Judge disbelieving the prosecution version had acquitted one appellant who had snatched the gun from Joginder and fired on two persons. The benefit of the acquittal was conferred on Joginder also. 34. In Prabhat v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 10 SCC 391 , it was held that after acquittal of 6 co-accused on the same set of evidence, the conviction of the remaining accused was not justified, where the prosecution version suffered from contradictions and discrepancies and the crucial eye-witnesses had not been examined. 35. On a consideration of the case law we are of the view that there are no hard and fast rules either way that the acquittal of the co-accused can have no importance when considering the case of another accused, nor the converse proposition that acquittal of one co-accused must invariably result in the acquittal of the co-accused. 35. On a consideration of the case law we are of the view that there are no hard and fast rules either way that the acquittal of the co-accused can have no importance when considering the case of another accused, nor the converse proposition that acquittal of one co-accused must invariably result in the acquittal of the co-accused. These are questions of fact as to what importance is to be attached to the acquittal of some accused in a criminal case. In cases where the evidence of the witnesses is found to be implicitly reliable for convicting the appellant before the Court, no importance can be attached to the aspect of acquittal of some of the accused, whereas in other cases where there are discrepancies and infirmities in the testimony of the witness produced, acquittal of a coaccused assumes importance vis-a-vis the other accused whose case is being considered. Each case must necessarily be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and when the Court reaches a conclusion that the witnesses produced in a case and the totality of the evidence is such on which implicit reliance can be placed, then conviction can be recorded even if some of the accused have been acquitted. However when a Court reaches a conclusion that the witnesses are neither wholly reliable, nor wholly unreliable, and the wheat and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up, the Court has to examine whether adequate corroboration, direct or circumstantial, exists, for establishing the complicity of particular accused in a case, where some co-accused have been acquitted. 36. In the present case we have mentioned the reasons hereinabove why the two witnesses were not such on whom implicit reliance could be placed, particularly as the statement assigned to the deceased before his murder was unlikely to have been made by him, and they fell in the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witnesses. We also find that other witnesses who were said to be present viz. Brijbhan the brother of the informant, and Ramgati his father-in-law, have not been examined. Likewise Hardwar and Tilakdhari who were also neighbours and who are said to have arrived at the spot alongwith Ram Asre and could have provided some direct corroboration to the testimony of the two witnesses, have not been examined. There is no recovery of any weapons or blood stained clothes etc. Likewise Hardwar and Tilakdhari who were also neighbours and who are said to have arrived at the spot alongwith Ram Asre and could have provided some direct corroboration to the testimony of the two witnesses, have not been examined. There is no recovery of any weapons or blood stained clothes etc. from the accused which might have provided circumstantial corroboration to the version of the two witnesses. The FIR also appears to be ante-timed for the reasons mentioned above, and hence it could not be ruled out that the names of the appellants may have been introduced by a process of consultation and deliberation. For all the above reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has not succeeded in adducing adequate evidence for establishing the complicity of the surviving appellants Jai Ram and Sri Prakash in this case beyond reasonable doubt. The result is that this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction recorded by the trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge for which they were convicted. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court below for compliance. ——————