JUDGMENT : The judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.4.2010, passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore City, in Sessions case No.620/2005, is called in question by the State in this appeal. 2. The respondents were charged, tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 143, 148, 448, 302 read with section 149 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a small restaurant of K.Bhojarajashetty (P.W.11) was vacant and was available for lease; the deceased Selvaraj being the friend of accused No.1Joseph John @ Johni @ Pradeepraj, requested Bhojarajashetty to lease the restaurant in favour of accused No.1; after taking the restaurant on lease by giving Rs.25,000/as advance amount, accused No.1 was running the restaurant; after few months, accused No.1 seems to have suffered loss and therefore, he wanted to surrender the restaurant in favour of owner of the restaurant i.e. Bhojarajashetty and thus requested the deceased to get back his advance amount as also some premium for vacating the restaurant voluntarily; the deceased had a talk with Bhojarajashetty and it was settled for Rs.40,000/, i.e. Bhojarajashetty has to pay Rs.40,000/to accused No.1 and that accused No.1 shall vacate the premises voluntarily; despite such agreement, the amount was not paid by Bhojarajashetty to accused No.1, though he had vacated the restaurant and consequently, accused No.1 started pressurising the deceased to get money from Bhojarajashetty; after due deliberations, the deceased was informed by Bhojarajashetty that he would come on 27.1.2005 and meet him and would pay Rs.35,000/which in turn can be handed over to accused No.1; In the morning of 27.1.2005, accused No.1 and his associates met the deceased in the congress office maintained by the deceased and enquired about the money ; the deceased had informed accused No.1 that the amount would be paid to him in the evening of that day, i.e., on 27.1.2005; there were verbal altercations between the deceased and accused No.1 inasmuch as deceased told accused No.1 that the money is not yet paid to him by Bhojarajashetty; accused No.1 being enraged, took out dagger from his pocket and slit the neck of the deceased; all other accused also stabbed the deceased with dagger, consequent upon which deceased died on the spot. 4. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of incident, P.W.1father of deceased; P.W.3wife of deceased; P.W.9friend of deceased and P.W.12brother in law of deceased were present and saw the incident. 5. Immediately after the incident, telephone calls were made to the police who immediately rushed to the spot and consequently, P.Ws.22, 25, and 26 along with constables came separately to the spot; apart from the aforementioned police officers, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of police and the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police also rushed to the spot and enquired with P.W.1 and public at large; at 2.30 P.M., statement of P.W.1 was recorded as per Ex.P1 by P.W.25. The complaint came to be registered in Wilson Garden Police Station at 3.15 P.M., in Crime No.30/2015, for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. The police officer attached to C.O.D.P.W.27 laid the charge sheet. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 27 witnesses and got marked 31 exhibits and 12 material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined. The trial Court acquitted all the accused. 7. Shri B.T. Venkatesh, learned Addl. SPP taking us through the entire material on record including the judgment of the Court below submits that the trial court has not assigned any reason much less valid reason for coming to the conclusion; the trial court has merely narrated the version of witnesses and has considered the exhibits but has not discussed the material on record; in effect, Shri Venkatesh submits that though the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court runs into more than 75 pages, the same is not speaking order and therefore, he requested the Court to reappreciate the matter in its entirety to do justice to the matter. He further submits that the version of eyewitnesses more particularly P.Ws.1 and 3 may not be disbelieved inasmuch as their presence is natural and probable on the spot; though the recovery panchas have turned hostile, the evidence of police officer –P.W.25 who is independent officer of the State cannot be disbelieved; the evidence of eyewitnesses is consistent and cogent with the case of the prosecution; though there are minor exaggerations in the evidence of eyewitnesses, the same would not take away the effect of material evidence on record; the first information is lodged immediately after the incident; there is no delay in lodging the complaint; the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory fully supports the case of the prosecution; the FSL report discloses that all the articles sent to laboratory after the examination were containing human blood and of ‘A’ blood group; there cannot be any dispute with regard to scene of offence. Therefore, he submits that the accused are to be convicted for the offence under section 302 of IPC. However, during the course of arguments, he fairly submits that the evidence as against accused Nos.2 to 5 may be shaky and may not be sufficient to bring home guilt against them and material against accused No.1 is consistent, cogent and reliable and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in acquitting accused No.1. 8. Shri S. Shankarappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of defence submits that the trial Court has evaluated the material on record fully and has come to the correct conclusion; the presence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 9 and 12 is highly doubtful inasmuch as the material on record clearly reveals that they were not present at the scene of offence; the eyewitnesses are planted by the prosecution during the course of investigation though none was the eyewitness to the incident; accused are falsely implicated. It may not be possible for committing the offence by five persons in a small place, that too when the vacant place available for moving in the room is about 5’x10’; the First Information/complaint has come into picture after due deliberation of PW.1 with the police Officers; the First Information cannot be said to have been recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as it has come into picture during the course of investigation and therefore, at the most it can be said that the same is recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C.; both the recovery panchas (PWs.17 and 18) have turned hostile and therefore the recovery evidence as against accused No.1 falls to the ground; since the version of the eye witnesses is fully concocted, the trial Court is justified in disbelieving their version; PW.1 being the powerful person in the locality has implicated all his enemies in the crime; there is no reason as to why the First Information should reach Court at 6.30 p.m., if really the First Information is registered at 3.15 p.m. in the Police Station, more particularly when the Police Station is about 3 kms. from the jurisdictional Court; the time taken by the police for getting the first information report submitted before jurisdictional Magistrate has been utilized by the Investigating Officer to concoct the story and to implicate all the accused; the postmortem report reveals that the contents of the stomach of the deceased were empty and therefore he had not consumed milk as deposed by PWs.1 and 3 and consequently the presence of PWs.1 and 3 is highly doubtful. On these among other grounds, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsaccused argues for confirmation of the judgment of the Court below. 9. PW.1 is the father of the deceased. He lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 at 2.30 p.m. on 27.1.2005 before PW.25 the police Officer who was present at the scene. FIR came to be registered at 3.15 p.m. in Wilson Garden Police Station. PW.1 is the eye witness to the incident in question. He is also the witness for scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2. PW.2 is another eye witness to the incident in question. FIR came to be registered at 3.15 p.m. in Wilson Garden Police Station. PW.1 is the eye witness to the incident in question. He is also the witness for scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2. PW.2 is another eye witness to the incident in question. Though he has supported the case of the prosecution in examination-in-chief, unfortunately has taken ‘U’ turn in the cross-examination by admitting to all the questions put forth by the defence counsel; the evidence of PW.2 is unbelievable. PW.3 is the wife of the deceased. She is also an eye witness to the incident. PWs.4 and 5 were supposed to depose about the aspect of motive relating to sharing of the balance of amount raised by accused No.1 and the deceased for the purpose of Annamma Festival. Both of them have turned hostile. PW.6 is the neighbour of the deceased. She came to the spot after the incident. However, she has deposed that PWs.1 and 3 were present when PW.6 came to the spot. She is the hearsay witness. PW.7 is the Police Constable who took the articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. PW.8 is another Police Constable who carried the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. PWs.9 and 12 are the eye witnesses. However, they have supported the case of the prosecution in part by deposing that they saw accused No.1 with dagger in his hand and that he was threatening the deceased with dire consequences. In so far as subsequent incident is concerned, both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.9 is the friend of the deceased and PW.12 is the brother of PW.3 (brother-in-law of the deceased). They are also the witnesses for scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2. PW.10 is another witness who was supposed to depose about the aspect of motive relating to sharing of amount raised in the name of Annamma Festival. He has also turned hostile. PW.11Mr.Bhojaraj Shetty is the owner of the restaurant who had leased the restaurant in favour of accused No.1 at the request of the deceased; the incident is said to have taken place because of not returning of the money which was supposed to be returned by PW.11 to accused No.1 after he vacating the restaurant. PW.13 is another eye witness. He has turned hostile. PW.14 is the witness for inquest panchanama at Ex.P9. PW.13 is another eye witness. He has turned hostile. PW.14 is the witness for inquest panchanama at Ex.P9. PW.15 is the friend of the deceased who came to the spot after the incident. He is not the eye witness to the incident in question. PW.16 also came to the spot after the incident. His evidence is on par with the evidence of PW.15. PWs.17 and 18 are the witnesses for recovery of mobile belonging to the deceased from accused No.1 under Ex.P10. Both of them have turned hostile. PW.19 is the Engineer who drew the sketch of scene of offence as per Ex.P12. PW.20 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, who examined the articles sent for examination by the Investigating Officers. He gave the report as per Ex.P13. PW.21 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.M. report is at Ex.P16. He has given his opinion as per Ex.P17 after seeing the weapon. PW.22 is the Head Constable who went to the spot immediately after getting the wireless message. While he was on patrol duty, he received the information at 1.45 p.m. on 27.1.2005 and within five minutes he went to the spot. PW.23 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He also went to the spot on being informed about the incident. He carried the dead body for postmortem. PW.24 is the Head Constable who arrested accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 on 1.2.2005. PW.25 is the Inspector of Police attached to Wilson Garden Police Station, who registered the crime based on the first information lodged by PW.1. He conducted the investigation in part. PW.26 is the Station House Officer of Wilson Garden Police Station. After receiving the message from Police Control Room about the incident he went to the spot. He conducted part of the investigation. PW.27 is the Police Officer attached to COD who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that under Ex.P24, a dagger was recovered from accused No.1, which he had hidden. Under Ex.P25 blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered at the instance of the accused. However, the witnesses for the said mahazars are not examined before the Court. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they are not examined in support of the mahazars. Under Ex.P25 blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered at the instance of the accused. However, the witnesses for the said mahazars are not examined before the Court. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they are not examined in support of the mahazars. However, we find that the Investigating OfficerPW.25 has deposed about the said recovery panchanamas during the course of deposition before the Court. 11. The Apex Court in the case of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil & another, reported in 2000(7) Supreme 728 : 2001 CRI L.J. 504, considering the question as to whether it is necessary to obtain the signature of two independent panchas for seizure of recovery mahazars, has concluded under the facts and circumstances of that case that it is not necessary to obtain the signatures of independent panchas who are the witnesses for recovery mahazars. The Apex Court has held that the Court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery. In the matter on hand also, though we do not find any reason as to why the witnesses for recovery mahazars are not examined, we find that the Investigating Officer (PW.25) who conducted the recovery, has deposed in support of the case of the prosecution before the Court. He is an independent Officer of the State. He does not have any bias either against the accused or against the complainant. Absolutely, no suggestion is made to the Officer alleging bias against him. There is no reason as to why he should depose falsely supporting the said panchanams. 12. In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, the incident has taken place at about 1.40 p.m. on 27.1.2005 in Congress Office. It is undisputed that the deceased was a VicePresident of Congress Party, of Shanthinagar Block, Bangalore City. Virtually, he was running Congress Office. It seems, he was using the said Office as his car garage also. The said Office is having carpet area of 10’x12’. At the time of incident, a Maruthi Omni Van was parked on the eastern side in the said Office. Thus, Maruthi Omni Van had occupied about 5 to 5½ feet space in width. In the remaining portion, the deceased was sitting in a chair. He had a small table also. The said Office is having carpet area of 10’x12’. At the time of incident, a Maruthi Omni Van was parked on the eastern side in the said Office. Thus, Maruthi Omni Van had occupied about 5 to 5½ feet space in width. In the remaining portion, the deceased was sitting in a chair. He had a small table also. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1father of the deceased and PW.9friend of the deceased were also sitting in the Office during the relevant point of time. PW.12, the brother-in-law of the deceased was outside the Office. PW.1 requested PW.12 to get ‘Tea’ for PW.9. Accordingly, PW.12 went to the house of the deceased, situated nearby and asked PW.3, the wife of the deceased for ‘Tea’. PW.3, being the wife of the deceased came with three cups of ‘Tea’ and one cup of ‘milk’ in a tray. The milk was for the deceased. PWs.1, 9, 12 had tea and deceased consumed milk and were sitting and chitchatting. At that point of time, PW.3 was also present. The incident has taken place at about 1.40 p.m. on 27.1.2005. On getting the telephonic message as aforementioned, the Police Officers, viz., PWs.22, 25 and 26 came to the spot immediately and enquired PW.1 about the incident. The Assistant Commissioner of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police also came to the spot. They enquired PW.1 and others about the incident. Thereafter complaint came to be lodged by PW.1. Before PW.25 came to the spot the complaint came to be written between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. and thereafter the same was registered at 3.15 p.m. in the Police Station. In this context, we find sufficient force in the contention of Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the accused that the complaint at Ex.P1 is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C., inasmuch as the same can be treated as the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that the police came to the spot immediately after the incident i.e., about 5 to 10 minutes. Even the mobile police squads were alerted. Mobile squad arrived at the spot and police had started controlling the mob. During the interregnum, they talked with PWs.1, 3 and others also. Even the mobile police squads were alerted. Mobile squad arrived at the spot and police had started controlling the mob. During the interregnum, they talked with PWs.1, 3 and others also. Therefore, Sri Shankarappa is justified in arguing that Ex.P1 has come into existence after the police enquired with them, including PW.1. As aforementioned, the complaint came to be written between 2.30 and 3.00 p.m. and the same came to be registered at 3.15 p.m. Immediately, after getting the news from telephone call, the concerned police have made a note in the Station House Diary about the incident and have proceeded to the spot. Thus, Sri Shankarappa is justified in contending that such note made by the police in the Station House Diary immediately after getting the news, amounts to First Information and therefore, Ex.P1 cannot be called as First Information recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Hence, we also concur with the conclusion reached by the trial Court that Ex.P1 is hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. Merely because the First Information Report is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C., case of the prosecution cannot be suspected only on that ground. The entire material has to be considered homogeneously before coming to the conclusion. 13. The case of prosecution mainly rests on the ocular testimony of eye witnesses PWs.1, 3, 9 and 12. PW.9 is the friend of the deceased. He is known to the family members of the deceased. He had close acquaintance with the family of the deceased. PW.12 is the brother-in-law of the deceased, i.e., brother of wife of the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, both were present on the scene of offence and witnessed the incident. The trial Court has not relied upon the evidence of PWs.9 and 12. We find that the approach of the trial Court in that regard is just and proper. PWs.9 and 12 are the witnesses for scene of offence at Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is recorded from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on the date of the incident itself, i.e., on 27.1.2005. Both of them have signed Ex.P2, along with PW.1. As aforementioned, PW.1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. PWs.9 and 12 are the witnesses for scene of offence at Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is recorded from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on the date of the incident itself, i.e., on 27.1.2005. Both of them have signed Ex.P2, along with PW.1. As aforementioned, PW.1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. Along with him, PWs.9 and 12 were present at the time of spot inspection for about one hour i.e., from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on the date of the incident, which means that they were present immediately after the incident, inasmuch as the incident has taken place at about 1.40 p.m. and the complaint came to be registered at 3.15 p.m. The first step during investigation under taken by the police was recording of Ex.P2 (spot panchanama) from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. for which PWs.9 and 12 are signatories. Despite the same, their statements are not recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. though they are allegedly the eye witnesses. There is no reason as to why their statements are not recorded to disclose that they had seen the incident in question. As aforementioned, both of them were very much present for one hour with the police during the course of recording of scene of offence mahazar. If really PWs.9 and 10 were the eye witnesses, their statements would have also been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. They also did not venture to request the police to record their statements by informing the police that they are the eye witnesses. Ample material has come on record to show that the police immediately after coming to the spot enquired PWs.9 and 12 also. If PWs.9 and 12 are really the eye witnesses, their statements would have been recorded by the police at the earliest during the course of investigation. However, their statements came to be recorded only on 29.3.2005 though the offence has taken place on 27.1.2005, which means, their statements have been recorded after about two months of the incident in question. As aforementioned, PW.9 was having close acquaintance with the family of the deceased and PW.12 is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming as to why their statements are recorded highly belatedly. As aforementioned, PW.9 was having close acquaintance with the family of the deceased and PW.12 is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming as to why their statements are recorded highly belatedly. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in not relying upon the version of PWs.9 and 12 in so far as the actual incident is concerned. But the fact remains that they are the witnesses for scene of panchanama at Ex.P2. More than that no weight can be attached to the evidence of PWs.9 and 12. 14. The next socalled eye witness is PW.3. She is none other than the wife of the deceased. Her native place is Tamil Nadu. She came to Bangalore after her marriage with the deceased. She admits in her evidence that the house of the deceased, where PW.3 was living, is situated three houses apart from Congress Office which was possessed by the deceased, which means, three houses are situated in between Congress Office and the house of the deceased. She has deposed before the Court that her father-in-law (PW.1) sent words through PW.12 for getting the tea prepared for PWs.1, 9 and 12. Accordingly, PW.12 went and requested her sister to prepare tea. On the date of the incident, the deceased was fasting and therefore PW.3 prepared tea for three persons and took milk for her husband. She carried four cups totally as aforementioned in a tray. According to her, she personally took the tray with four cups and came to Congress Office; the deceased consumed milk and PWs.1, 9 and 12 had tea; thereafter she was standing there holding the tray with empty cups; immediately, thereafter accused No.1 came along with his accomplices and stabbed the deceased with dagger. She admits that she left the tray and cups there itself as she was frightened. She admits that she did not try to intervene the matter for safeguarding the deceased. 15. The scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2 discloses that one table, one chair, number of plastic chairs, and Maruthi Omni Van were found on the spot. It is also mentioned in the scene of offence panchanama that blood stained two iron daggers, white chappals and the plastic chair were also lying on the spot. Every minute detail is mentioned in the scene of offence mahazar. It is also mentioned in the scene of offence panchanama that blood stained two iron daggers, white chappals and the plastic chair were also lying on the spot. Every minute detail is mentioned in the scene of offence mahazar. However, curiously there is no mention about tray and four cups. Had really PW.3 went along with four cups with the tray, the same should have found place in the scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P2). 16. Ex.P1, the First Information clearly reveals that PW.1 and the deceased only were present on the scene of offence when the incident took place, which means, the First Information takes away the presence of PWs.3, 9 and 12 on the spot at the time of incident. 17. According to the prosecution, PW.3 was very much present on the scene of offence. However, PW.3 has deposed that she was very much present when the police came to the spot immediately after the incident. She further deposed that she was present all through till the body was lifted from the scene of offence. She has also deposed that she was present when the scene of offence panchanama was written between 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., which means that she was present during the course of recording the scene of offence panchanama. Though she was present on the scene of offence all through the day and though she conversed with the police, her statement is not recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C on that day. However, her statement is said to have been recorded on the next day during the course of inquest. Though the statement of PW.3 is said to have been recorded during the course of inquest, it appears, Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the accused is justified in arguing that the same must have been recorded without her notice. She has admitted in the evidence that her statement is recorded after two days. Curiously, PW.3 has admitted in her cross-examination that she was not enquired by the police during the course of inquest proceedings. In column No.4 of inquest panchanama at Ex.P9, it is specifically stated that the deceased was last seen by PW.1 only. If really PW.3 was also present along with the deceased at the time of the incident, her name also would have been normally found place in Column No.4 of the inquest panchanama at Ex.P9. In column No.4 of inquest panchanama at Ex.P9, it is specifically stated that the deceased was last seen by PW.1 only. If really PW.3 was also present along with the deceased at the time of the incident, her name also would have been normally found place in Column No.4 of the inquest panchanama at Ex.P9. It is also relevant to note that the statement of PW.3 made in her deposition that her father-in-law (PW.1) sent words through PW.12 to her to bring tea and accordingly she went with tea to Congress Office, etc. are all improvements. The same are proved by the defence counsel confronting and after bringing to the notice of the Investigating Officer who recorded her statement during the course of investigation. Ex.D3 is another contradiction which makes it clear that PW.3 came to the spot after hue and cry raised by the public outside Congress Office. In addition to the same, it may also be mentioned that the stomach was empty as per the P.M.report. If really the deceased had consumed milk which was allegedly brought by PW.3, the same would have been noted by the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. There were no traces of milk at all. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Sri Shankarappa is justified in arguing that the presence of PW.3 on the spot is doubtful and she is not at all an eye witness. For the aforementioned reasons, we agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court that PW.3 was not an eye witness to the incident. 18. Then, what remains is the ocular testimony of PW.1. He is the father of the deceased. He was aged about 65 years at the time of incident. PW.1 has lodged first information as per Ex.P1. The same contains details of motive for the incident as well as the actual incident. Ex.P1 discloses that accused No.1 was a wayward, he did not have any avocation. He used to wander here and there to extract money from the public during night after threatening them. Ex.P1 further discloses that because of the intervention of the deceased, Mr.Bhojraj Shetty, the owner of the restaurant leased his restaurant in favour of accused No.1 by receiving an advance amount of Rs.25,000/. He used to wander here and there to extract money from the public during night after threatening them. Ex.P1 further discloses that because of the intervention of the deceased, Mr.Bhojraj Shetty, the owner of the restaurant leased his restaurant in favour of accused No.1 by receiving an advance amount of Rs.25,000/. Since accused No.1 had sustained loss and as he could not run restaurant subsequently, he vacated the restaurant and requested the deceased to get him back the advance amount along with certain extra amount as premium (for vacating voluntarily). Ex.P1 further discloses that the deceased had talked with Bhojaraj Shetty who had agreed to pay Rs.40,000/to accused No.1. The said amount was to be handed over to accused No.1 in the evening of 27.1.2005. Accused No.1 came along with his accomplices in the morning of 27.1.2005, enquired with the deceased in respect of the aforementioned money, inasmuch as the money was not paid to him till then. The deceased had informed accused No.1 that money would be paid in the evening of 27.1.2005, inasmuch as Bhoaraj Shetty would be coming in the said evening. However, at 1.40 p.m. when deceased was sitting with his father in Congress Office, accused No.1 came along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and others and after verbal altercation stabbed the deceased mercilessly, consequent upon which the deceased died on the spot. The version as found in Ex.P1 is fully supported by him before the Court at least as against accused No.1. The evidence of PW.1 is consistent with the case of the prosecution. Even in his deposition before the Court, PW.1 has reiterated about the motive relating to the transaction between accused No.1 and Mr.Bhojaraj Shetty; that Mr.Bhojaraj Shetty did not return the amount till 27.1.2005 and his assurance was that he would come in the evening of 27.1.2005 to give the said amount of Rs.40,000/. The said aspect of motive is clearly spelled out by PW.1 during his deposition. So also, PW.1 has deposed that at about 1.40 p.m. accused No.1 came along with other accused and started stabbing the deceased with dagger. All other accused stabbed the deceased on various parts of the body, consequent upon which the deceased died on the spot. The said aspect of motive is clearly spelled out by PW.1 during his deposition. So also, PW.1 has deposed that at about 1.40 p.m. accused No.1 came along with other accused and started stabbing the deceased with dagger. All other accused stabbed the deceased on various parts of the body, consequent upon which the deceased died on the spot. Though in a portion of his examination-in-chief, PW.1 has deposed that the incident is witnessed by his daughter-in-law (PW.3), PWs.9 and 12, in another portion, he has deposed that himself and his son were sitting in Congress Office and at that point of time, accused No.1 came and stabbed the deceased. It is specifically deposed by PW.1 that accused No.1 slit the neck of the deceased. It is also deposed by PW.1 that other accused also were stabbing the deceased. In so far as the actual incident is concerned, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of PW.1 so far as the complicity of accused No.1 is concerned. His evidence with regard to actual incident is not shaken by the defence despite his searching cross-examination. PW.1 has withstood in his cross-examination by deposing emphatically that accused No.1 and other accused assaulted the deceased at 1.40 p.m. 19. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has come up with another aspect of motive relating to dispute regarding sharing of money which was left over after spending the contributions raised by the public in respect of Annamma Festival. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased being the leader of the locality had raised contributions from the public at large for performing Annamma Festival. However, after spending some amount, the deceased had kept the balance amount for himself. Accused No.1 was intolerant of the same, inasmuch as he and his friends wanted the share in the balance amount. In that regard, the quarrel took place. In order to prove this aspect of motive, the prosecution has let in the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, who have turned hostile. PW.1 also did not depose about the said motive before the Court. But he has deposed about the motive relating to money transaction between accused No.1 and Mr.Bhojaraj Shetty through the deceased. Be that as it may, the motive is of less importance in the matter, inasmuch as the case mainly rests on ocular testimony of PW.1. PW.1 also did not depose about the said motive before the Court. But he has deposed about the motive relating to money transaction between accused No.1 and Mr.Bhojaraj Shetty through the deceased. Be that as it may, the motive is of less importance in the matter, inasmuch as the case mainly rests on ocular testimony of PW.1. We find that the evidence of PW.1 is consistent with the case of the prosecution, cogent and reliable. We do not find any reason to agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court that PW.1 was not present at the scene of offence. As aforementioned, in paragraph79 of the judgment of the trial Court, absolutely no reasons much less no valid reasons are assigned by the trial Court as to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. Though the trial Court observed that PW.1 is an eye witness, no reason is assigned by the trial Court to disbelieve the version of PW.1 except stating that PWs.1 and 3 were not present when the accident has occurred. In one line, the trial Court has fully ignored and brushed aside the evidence of PW.1. 20. Though Sri Shankarappa, learned advocate appearing for the accused argues that there was sufficient time for the police to concoct the story by bringing PW.1 as eye witness in the case, we do not agree with the same. The incident has taken place at 1.40 p.m. on 27.1.2005. Immediately thereafter police came to the spot. The material on record reveals that there was huge gathering of people on the spot after the incident. The police controlled the mob and thereafter recorded the statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P1. Thus, it is clear that Ex.P1 has come into picture after 40 to 45 minutes of the incident. Immediately, thereafter crime came to be registered at 3.15 p.m. It is no doubt true that the first information reached the jurisdictional Court at 6.30 p.m., i.e., after about three hours. It is also not in dispute that no reasons are assigned for such delay of three hours. The Police Station is situated within the radius of 3 to 4 kms. from the jurisdictional Court. FIR could have reached the Magistrate at about 4.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. Thus, there may be a delay of about two hours in reaching the FIR to Court. The Police Station is situated within the radius of 3 to 4 kms. from the jurisdictional Court. FIR could have reached the Magistrate at about 4.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. Thus, there may be a delay of about two hours in reaching the FIR to Court. Merely because of such unexplained delay of two hours in reaching the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, case of the prosecution more particularly the version of PW.1 cannot be doubted. 21. On reevaluation of the material on record, we find concrete material as against accused No.1 at least. It is no doubt true that there are number of variations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to motive, the presence of PWs.3, and 12, etc. But such variations in the evidence/contradictions should not take away the affect of evidence of PW.1 and complicity of accused No.1. Even if certain portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other coaccused persons, the conviction of one accused can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to do so and to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove the guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. There cannot be any dispute that the said rule may be a rule of caution. It cannot be treated as ‘mandatory rule of evidence’. 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. [see the judgment in the case of Sucha Singh & another reported in (2003)7 SCC 643 ]. 22. In the matter on hand, we have disbelieved the evidence of PWs.3, 9 and 12. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances. [see the judgment in the case of Sucha Singh & another reported in (2003)7 SCC 643 ]. 22. In the matter on hand, we have disbelieved the evidence of PWs.3, 9 and 12. However, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of PW.1, more particularly with regard to complicity of accused No.1. The motive was in respect of accused No.1 only. As aforementioned, there are exaggerations in the evidence of PW.1 also to certain extent. He has changed his earlier version made against one of the accused, who is the son of Meensab. We do not find any material as against accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 to bring home guilt against them inasmuch as the evidence brought on record is not sufficient with regard to the role played by them. However, the consistent, cogent and reliable evidence is found against accused No.1. There cannot be any dispute that the deceased has sustained as many as 22 injuries on his person. One person could not have inflicted so many injuries. But, in the absence of any reliable material as against other accused, we proceed to convict accused No.1 only. It is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW.1 for convicting the other accused, having regard to all other attending circumstances. 23. Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the accused is justified in arguing that certain improvements and omissions which are found in the evidence of PW.1 as clarified by PW.25 (in paragraph12 of his deposition). But those omissions cannot affect the case as against accused No.1. All the omissions as brought out in paragraph12 of the deposition of PW.25 are relating to complicity of other accused or the presence of PWs.3, 9 and 12. However, we find that PW.1 was very much present and witnessed the incident, more particularly the merciless act of accused No.1. The FSL report at Ex.P13, coupled with the evidence of Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory (PW.20) fully supports the case of the prosecution. However, we find that PW.1 was very much present and witnessed the incident, more particularly the merciless act of accused No.1. The FSL report at Ex.P13, coupled with the evidence of Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory (PW.20) fully supports the case of the prosecution. The clothes of the deceased, chappals found on the spot immediately after the incident which were seized from the scene of offence, and other materials seized during the seizure panchanama at Ex.P2 as also the clothes of accused and dagger used for commission of the offence are sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The report at Ex.P13 clearly discloses that the blood found in the said articles are all human origin and of ‘A’ Group, which means that the deceased was having ‘A’ blood Group and such blood having ‘A’ Group was found on the clothes of the accused also. Though the witnesses to the recovery mahazars relating to seizure of clothes of accused No.1 and the daggerMO.No.12 are not examined before the Court, the fact remains that the said recovery mahazars are supported by the version of Investigating OfficerPW.25, who is an independent Officer of the State. We have already narrated supra as to the opinion of the Apex Court in such matters that the Investigating Officer’s version supporting the recovery mahazar cannot be overlooked in the absence of version of mahazar witnesses. 24. At the time of hearing the advocates on the question of sentence, Sri Shankarappa submitted that accused No.1 is young and the offence has taken place without any premedication and he did not have any intention to take away the life of the deceased, and hence leniency may be shown to accused No.1. The said submissions are opposed by Sri Venkatesh, learned Addl.SPP. 25. The material on record clearly reveals that accused No.1 came along with his accomplices fully prepared to the spot. He was armed with deadly weapon like dagger. Therefore, it cannot be said that he did not have any intention to commit murder of the deceased. The deceased has sustained as may as 22 injuries. Hence, the offence squarely falls under Section 302 of IPC. However, we find that it is not a fit case to impose death punishment. He was armed with deadly weapon like dagger. Therefore, it cannot be said that he did not have any intention to commit murder of the deceased. The deceased has sustained as may as 22 injuries. Hence, the offence squarely falls under Section 302 of IPC. However, we find that it is not a fit case to impose death punishment. In view of the above, we find that the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting accused No.1 is not a possible view at all under the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we find that the view taken by the trial Court in respect of other accused may be a possible view. Hence, we do not propose to interfere with that portion of the judgment of the trial Court acquitting accused Nos.2, 4 and 5. Accordingly, the following order is made: i) The judgment and order dated 23.4.2010, passed by the trial Court acquitting accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 stands confirmed. ii) The judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of accused No.1Joseph John @ Johni, stands set aside. iii) Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. iv) He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. v) The period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed.