JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II, Madurai. The respondent filed final report against a total number of six accused including the appellants. The other two, by name, Thannasi and Eswaran were found to be juveniles in conflict with law and the case against them has been dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. Yet another accused Boomi @ Boominathan died during trial. Thus, these appellants/A1 to A3 were alone faced trial before the trial Court. The trial Court framed as many as five charges as detailed below: Charges Accused Penal Provisions 1 A1 to A3 148 IPC 2 A1 to A3 341 IPC 3 A1 to A3 302 IPC 4 A2 326 IPC (2 counts) 5 A3 326 IPC 2. By judgment dated 24.03.2010, finally, the trial Court convicted the appellants as follows: Accused Conviction under Section Sentence imposed A1 148, 341 and 302 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. A2 148, 341, 302 and 326 (2 counts) IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each count for the offence under Section 326 IPC (2 counts). A3 148, 341, 302 and 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 326 IPC Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Funk Mari @ Muthumari. P.W.1 is the brother, P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is yet another brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. They were all residing at Velupillai Street in Villapuram. The deceased and his family members were rearing pigs. All the four accused herein belonged to one family, as they are all brothers. The accused 5 and 6 are their relatives and they are the cousins of the accused 1 to 4. The accused were all residing in East Street, Villapuram, Madurai. The accused party were also rearing pigs. 3.1. Two days prior to 14.07.2001, the pigs belonging to the deceased party had gone to the East Street near the house of the accused. The accused party caught hold the pigs and detained them. P.W.2 and the deceased went in search of the same and they questioned the accused as to why they had detained their pigs. This resulted in a quarrel between the accused family members and that of the deceased and P.W.2. 3.2. While so, on 14.07.2001, in the usual course, the deceased and his family members had freed the pigs to enable them to go in search of food. The pigs went to the locality, where the accused were residing. It was a great nuisance for the accused party. This time also, they caught hold the pigs and detained them by tying the same with ropes. P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased, therefore, went in search of the pigs. The pigs went to the locality, where the accused were residing. It was a great nuisance for the accused party. This time also, they caught hold the pigs and detained them by tying the same with ropes. P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased, therefore, went in search of the pigs. They went to the house of the accused and questioned them as to why they had detained the pigs. This resulted in a quarrel between the two groups. In the said quarrel, it is stated that all the accused numbering 6 took out dangerous weapons like sword and knife. The accused formed into an unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased and attacking P.Ws.1 to 3. They restrained the deceased from moving further by so rounding him. When the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were within the circle, the accused started mounting attacks on them. All the 6 accused attacked the deceased with weapons like, sword and knife and caused as many as 19 injuries. The deceased fell down. P.W.2 tried to rescue the deceased. The 2nd accused attacked her with knife and caused injuries. P.W.3 tried to intervene. Again the 2nd accused attacked him also. He also sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 3 are grievous in nature. P.W.1, then, tried to intervene. The 3rd accused attacked him with aruval resulting in grievous hurt. Then, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 4 raised alarm. On hearing the same, the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. Then, P.Ws.1 to 3 were rushed to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. 3.3. One Dr. Dhandapani (not examined as a witness before the trial Court) examined P.W.3 at 12.35 p.m. on 14.07.2001. P.W.3, at the earliest point of time, told the Doctor that he was attacked by four known persons with velkambu, aruval and hands 45 minutes before their arrival to the hospital. The Doctor found the following injuries: 1. Incised wound 4 cms x 2 cms x visual depth in back of left side of abdomen. 2. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 2 cm in left hand. Ex.P7 is the Accident Register. 3.4. Then, he examined Mrs. Muniammal (P.W.2). She also told that she was assaulted by four known persons one hour prior her coming to the hospital near her residence with aruval, velkambu and hands. 2. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 2 cm in left hand. Ex.P7 is the Accident Register. 3.4. Then, he examined Mrs. Muniammal (P.W.2). She also told that she was assaulted by four known persons one hour prior her coming to the hospital near her residence with aruval, velkambu and hands. The Doctor found the following injuries: "Cut injury right hand, conscious, oriented. CVS, RS, CNS, Abdomen NAD." Ex.P8 is the Accident Register. The Doctor examined P.W.1 at 12.55 p.m. He also told the Doctor that he was assaulted by four known persons with aruval, kathi, velkambu and hands one hour prior to his arrival to the hospital and the occurrence had taken place at his residence. The Doctor found the following injuries: "Cut injury lower abdomen with bowel loops coming outside." Ex.P.9 is the Accident Register. 3.5. The dead body of the deceased was also brought to the hospital, after some time and it was kept in the mortuary. Due intimation was sent from the hospital to the police. 3.6. P.W.11 the Sub Inspector of Police received the intimation from the hospital at 12 noon on 14.07.2001. He immediately rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1. On returning to the police station, he registered a case in Crime No.416 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 IPC. Ex.P11 is the FIR. He forwarded Exs.P1 and P11 to the Court, which was received by the learned Magistrate at 3.00 p.m. Then, he handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 3.7. P.W.12 took up the case for investigation at 2.00 p.m. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. Then, at 2.30 p.m., he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar. Then, he proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai, where he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P14 - inquest report. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 3.8. P.W.10 - Dr.Natarajan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.07.2001 at 10.10 a.m. He found the following injuries: 1. Then, he proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai, where he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P14 - inquest report. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 3.8. P.W.10 - Dr.Natarajan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.07.2001 at 10.10 a.m. He found the following injuries: 1. Oblique stab injury on front of let side of chest 4 cm x 2 cm entering into left pleural cavity, 6 cm below the left nipple. On dissection: The wound passes obliquely upwards and inwards, piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves in the 7th intercostal space, piercing the pericardium and heart 3 cm x 1 cm x entering into left atrium. 2. Oblique stab injury front of left chest 4 cm x 2 cm x entering into left pleural cavity, 2 cm away and above the left nipple. On dissection: The wound passes obliquely backwards and inwards, piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves in the 4th intercostal space, piercing the pleura 4 cm x linear x through and through piercing the upper lobe of left lung 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and ends as a point. 3. Oblique stab injury on the front of right chest 3 cm x 2 cm x entering into right pleural cavity, 3 cm below right nipple. On dissection: The wound passes obliquely downwards and backwards, piercing underlying muscles, vessels nerves in the 6th intercostal space, piercing the pleura 3 cm x linear x through and through, piercing the lower lobe right lung 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and ends as a point. 4. Oblique stab injury right side of upper abdomen 6 cm x 2 cm x entering into peritoneal cavity, 9 cm below the right nipple through which loops of intestine found protruding out. On dissection: The wound passes obliquely downwards and backwards, piercing the right libe of liver 3 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm and ends as a point. 5. Oblique stab injury front of right side of abdomen, 3 cm x 2 cm x entering into peritoneal cavity, 3 cm below and away from the previous injury No.4. On dissection: The wound passes obliquely downwards, backwards and inwards, piercing the underlying mesentry and mesentric vessels. 1.5 cm distal to the ileosaccal junction. 6. 5. Oblique stab injury front of right side of abdomen, 3 cm x 2 cm x entering into peritoneal cavity, 3 cm below and away from the previous injury No.4. On dissection: The wound passes obliquely downwards, backwards and inwards, piercing the underlying mesentry and mesentric vessels. 1.5 cm distal to the ileosaccal junction. 6. Oblique stab injury front of neck 7 cm below the middle of chin 4 cm x 2 cm x entering into tracheal lumen. 7. Oblique stab injury front of right ear 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm along the muscle plane passing downwards and inwards ends as a point. 8. Oblique stab injury left cheek 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, 3 cm away from angle of mouth, along the muscle plane, passing obliquely upwards and inwards, ends as a point. 9. Oblique stab injury front of abdomen 2 cm x 1 cm x entering into peritoneal cavity, 12 cm above the umbilicus. 10. Oblique stab injury left side of lower abdomen 2 cm x 1 cm x entering into peritoneal cavity, 10 cm below and away from the umbilicus. 11. Oblique stab injury middle of front of left forearm 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 12. Oblique stab injury back of left wrist 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep. 13. Oblique stab injury 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep above the back of left wrist. 14. Oblique stab injury front of right side of lower abdomen 4 cm x 2 cm x entering into peritoneal cavity, 3 cm away from umbilicus through which loops of intestine found protruding out. 15. Oblique stab injury on back of right chest 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm along the muscle plane passing obliquely downwards and outwards and ends as a point. 16.3 cut injuries on the left palmar aspect of proximal phalanx of medial 3 fingers all measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 17. Cut injury on the back of base of the left thumb 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 18.3 cut injuries on the right palmar aspect of proximal phalanx of medial 3 fingers all measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 19. Incised wound front of middle of neck 5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep, 8 cm below middle of chin. 18.3 cut injuries on the right palmar aspect of proximal phalanx of medial 3 fingers all measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 19. Incised wound front of middle of neck 5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep, 8 cm below middle of chin. Note: All the stab injuries are having regular margins and one end curved and other end is pointed. Ex.P10 is the postmortem certificate. According to him, the injuries on the deceased would have been caused by weapons like sword, surikathi and knives. 3.9. During the course of investigation, P.W.12 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He came to know that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mudukulathur on 16.07.2001. On a request made by him, the jurisdictional Magistrate entrusted them to his police custody on 20.07.2001. While in custody, at 6.00 a.m. on 21.07.2001 in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the sword. P.W.12 reduced the same to writing. At 7.00 a.m., the 2nd accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a knife. P.W.12 reduced the same to writing. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the 1st accused took the police and witnesses to Muniyandi koil and produced a sword (M.O.2) from the hide out. P.W.12 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then, the 2nd accused produced M.O1 - Suri Kathi from the hide out. P.W.12 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the material objects for chemical examination. 4. On 23.07.2001 at 9.00 a.m., he arrested the juvenile accused Thannasi and Eswaran at Mandela Nagar bus stop in the presence of witnesses. They have also, one after the other, gave a voluntary confession. Out of the said disclosure statement, M.Os.3 and 4 were recovered from the hide out. Then, he forwarded them also to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. Then, he handed over the investigation to the successor, as he was transferred. 4.1. P.W.13 took up the case for investigation. On 09.08.2001, he came to know that the 3rd accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. Then, he forwarded them also to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. Then, he handed over the investigation to the successor, as he was transferred. 4.1. P.W.13 took up the case for investigation. On 09.08.2001, he came to know that the 3rd accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. On a request made by him, the jurisdictional Magistrate entrusted him to his police custody on 10.08.2001. While in custody, at 6.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses, the 3rd accused gave a voluntary confession. P.W.13 reduced the same to writing. Then he handed over the investigation to his successor, namely, P.W.14 4.2. On 29.01.2002, P.W.14 took up the case for investigation. During the course of investigation, on the same day, at 7.00 a.m., he arrested the 4th accused in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a knife. That was recovered under a mahazar. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court. Following him, the investigation was taken by P.W.15 on 20.09.2002. He collected the medical records and made some more improvement in the investigation. Then, he handed over the case diary to his successor, namely, P.W.16. P.W.16 examined few more witnesses, collected all the relevant records and finally laid charge sheet against the accused. 4.3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the 1st paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and 7 material objects were marked. 4.4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the injured eye witnesses, who have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.4 the wife of the deceased also claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and she has also spoken vividly about the same. P.W.5 has not stated anything incriminating, as according to him, he came to the place of occurrence, after the entire occurrence was over. P.W.6 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the accused 1 and 2 and the consequential discovery of material objects. P.W.7 has spoken about the arrest of the 4th accused and the consequential discovery of the knife. P.W.6 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by the accused 1 and 2 and the consequential discovery of material objects. P.W.7 has spoken about the arrest of the 4th accused and the consequential discovery of the knife. P.W.8 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared and the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.9, who treated the injured in the case. However, Dr. Thandapani, who admitted P.Ws.1 to 3 in the hospital had died. P.W.9 has stated about the admission and the injuries found on P.Ws.1 to 3 and their nature based on the medical records. P.W.10 - Dr.Natarajan has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.11 has spoken about the complaint preferred by P.W.1 and the case registered by him. P.Ws.12 to 16 have spoken about the investigation done by them and the final report filed. 4.5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any documents. Their defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the accused, as detailed in the 1st paragraph of this judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and we have also perused the records carefully. 6. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the interested witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 3 are brothers of the deceased; P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. They were all residing at Velupillai Street at Villapuram. The occurrence had taken place at Mahalingam Street at Villapuram. The accused were residing at Mahalingam Street. Mahalingam street and East Street, Villapuram are situated at almost one and the same area. Since P.Ws.1 to 3 had sustained injuries, their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. But the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have sustained injuries at all at the place, where the deceased had sustained injuries and thus, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the place of occurrence, when the deceased sustained injuries cannot be believed. But the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have sustained injuries at all at the place, where the deceased had sustained injuries and thus, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the place of occurrence, when the deceased sustained injuries cannot be believed. The learned senior counsel would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 had told the Doctor that the occurrence had taken place at their house, i.e., at Velupillai Street, Villapuram, whereas, the deceased had sustained injuries at Mahalingam Street. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, though P.Ws.1 to 3 had sustained injuries, they would not have witnessed the occurrence, in which, the deceased sustained injuries and the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the place of occurrence is thus doubtful. Though attractive, we find it difficult to accept the said argument for the simple reason that there is no material available on record that there was an occurrence at the house of P.Ws.1 to 3. It was not even suggested to P.Ws.1 to 3 that they had sustained injuries at their house and not at the place of occurrence, where the deceased had sustained injuries. Therefore, in our considered view, the argument of the learned senior counsel that P.Ws.1 to 3 had sustained injuries at their house and not at the place, where the deceased had sustained injuries, is only a futile attempt made to distort the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we reject this argument. 7. The learned senior counsel would further submit that in a case, where there are multiple number of accused, prompt launching of the FIR without any doubt will give assurance to the truth of the allegations. But, in this case, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellants, there are lot of doubts in respect of Ex.P1. The learned senior counsel for the appellants would point out at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 and P.W.3 had told the Doctor that they were attacked by four known persons. It is not as if, the two other accused, namely, the juvenile accused were not known to P.Ws.1 to 4. In our considered view, this being the former statements of these witnesses, the same could be used by the accused to contradict the makers of these statements under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not as if, the two other accused, namely, the juvenile accused were not known to P.Ws.1 to 4. In our considered view, this being the former statements of these witnesses, the same could be used by the accused to contradict the makers of these statements under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. At any rate, these statements made by P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded by the Doctor, cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence. In this case, rightly, P.Ws.1 to 3 had been duly contradicted by the accused with the use of these former statements. But P.Ws.1 to 3 had no acceptable explanation to offer. They have only stated that since they were under some kind of pressure due to the incident, they did not mention the correct number of persons, who participated in the occurrence. In our considered view, had it been true that they were attacked by 6 known persons, by all means, going by the natural conduct, they would have told the Doctor that they were attacked by 6 known persons. But they had stated that they were attacked only by 4 known persons. This, in our considered view, is a major contradiction in the case of the prosecution, which has not been explained away at all. 8. Yet another circumstance, which creates doubt in the FIR, is the timing of the same. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at 11.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 to 3 were taken to the hospital immediately and as a matter of fact, P.W.3 was seen by the Doctor at 12.35 p.m. P.W.2 was seen by the Doctor at 12.50 p.m. and P.W.1 was seen by the Doctor at 12.55 p.m. Thus, between 12.35 and 12.55 p.m., the Doctor had seen P.Ws.1 to 3 in the hospital. It was only thereafter, the Doctor would have given intimation to the police about the same. But, strangely, the dead body was brought to the hospital by some one, even before the case was registered. It is not explained to the Court as to who had brought the dead body to the hospital and that too why it was so done without the authority of the Investigating Officer. It is not as if the deceased were brought to the hospital with a view to save him. Admittedly, the deceased breathed his last on the spot, instantaneously. It is not as if the deceased were brought to the hospital with a view to save him. Admittedly, the deceased breathed his last on the spot, instantaneously. Above all, the person, who brought the dead body to the hospital has not been examined at all. But a perusal of the case diary would go to show that the dead body was taken to the hospital at 1.30 p.m. by one Head Constable by name Ayyanar attached to the respondent police station. But that Ayyanar has not been examined. Whether Mr. Ayyanar had reached the place of occurrence on some other information before the registration of the case also has not been explained to the Court. Why Mr. Ayyanar was not examined has also not been explained away. Similarly, the accident register of the deceased, which is a vital document in the case, also has not been marked. Thus, the shifting of the body from the place of occurrence to the hospital, still remains to be a mystery. As we have already pointed out, intimation from the hospital would have reached the police station only after 12.55 p.m., i.e. around 1 p.m. The case was registered at 1.30 p.m. and the FIR had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 3 p.m. P.W.12 the Inspector of Police stated that he received the intimation about the occurrence by 12 noon itself. He had further stated that such information was furnished to him only by the Sub Inspector of Police. 9. Similarly, P.W.16 the Investigating Officer, during cross examination, has stated that during investigation, he verified the general diary maintained at the police station, which revealed that there was entry at 12 noon on 27.09.2002 about the occurrence in the present case. But the general diary has not been produced before the Court. The records revealed that before the lower Court, during the time of trial, the accused made an application to send for the general diary. The said petition was allowed by the lower Court. But the general diary was not produced before the lower Court by the police. 10. But the general diary has not been produced before the Court. The records revealed that before the lower Court, during the time of trial, the accused made an application to send for the general diary. The said petition was allowed by the lower Court. But the general diary was not produced before the lower Court by the police. 10. In order to satisfy our judicial conscience, we directed the respondent Inspector of Police to produce the said general diary to know as to what was the earliest information recorded at 12 noon, whereas the present FIR was registered only at 1.30 p.m. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, today, submitted that the said general diary was long before destroyed, as according to the Tamil Nadu Police Manual, the general diary is required to be maintained only for a period of three years. 11. It is needless to point out that the entry in the general diary made at 12 noon being the earliest information, constitutes the first information and any subsequent information received by the police would be hit by the bar contained in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the instant case, therefore, Ex.P1, which was registered at 1.30 p.m., is not admissible in evidence, as the same is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At any rate, the earliest information entered in the general diary at 12 noon has been suppressed. After making such entry at 12 noon, the Sub Inspector of Police had informed P.W.12 about the occurrence, that is what P.W.12 had stated that he received the information from the Sub Inspector of Police at 12 noon itself about the occurrence. Thus, the earliest information has been suppressed, which creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, the suppression of the earliest information in the case involving multiple number of accused will create a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. The said doubt is further strengthened by the conduct of P.Ws.1 to 4. 12. According to P.W.1, P.W.4 did not witness the occurrence at all. P.W.1 had stated that after the occurrence was over, on hearing the alarm raised, when the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence, P.W.4 also came to the place of occurrence. The said doubt is further strengthened by the conduct of P.Ws.1 to 4. 12. According to P.W.1, P.W.4 did not witness the occurrence at all. P.W.1 had stated that after the occurrence was over, on hearing the alarm raised, when the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence, P.W.4 also came to the place of occurrence. Thus, according to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all. But, P.W.4 the wife of the deceased has a different story to say. According to her, she witnessed the entire occurrence. In view of the positive evidence of P.W.1, we find it difficult to accept the evidence of P.W.4 that she had witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 is rejected. 13. P.Ws.1 to 3 are injured eye witnesses. Because of the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 their presence at the place of occurrence is assured, regarding which, there can be no doubt at all. But the crucial question is that though they were present at the place of occurrence and though they had sustained injuries in the very same occurrence, whether they are telling the truth before the Court. On this issue only, we find some difficulty in believing P.Ws.1 to 3. As we have already pointed out, having told the Doctor at the earliest point of time, before any tutoring, that they were attacked only by four known persons, later on, they have developed their case to swell the number of accused into 6. Assuming that some of these accused were the assailants, who are those accused, "who are the perpetrators of the crime out of the 6 accused before the Court?" It is too well settled that if the grain could be separated from the chaff, there can be no difficulty in acting upon the grain. In other words, the principle 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not been recognised by the Indian Courts and therefore, we cannot reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, simply because, we find that there are some falsities in their evidence. At the same time, if falsehood and truth are so intrinsically mixed with each other making it difficult for this Court to separate the truth from falsehood, the Court has no option but to reject their entire evidence. 14. It is true that it is painful to reject the evidences of injured eye witnesses. At the same time, if falsehood and truth are so intrinsically mixed with each other making it difficult for this Court to separate the truth from falsehood, the Court has no option but to reject their entire evidence. 14. It is true that it is painful to reject the evidences of injured eye witnesses. But, in the instant case, we are forced to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, because, we are not able to separate the grain from the chaff. As we have already pointed out, the FIR is a doubtful document. The original information has been suppressed. The prosecution witnesses have made lot of improvements and there are also lot of inconsistencies and improbabilities, as we have already pointed out herein above. For these reasons, we find no option except to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 15. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds shall stand terminated.