JUDGMENT : Navin Sinha, J. 1. Appellant No. 5 having been deceased during the pendency of the appeal, it stood abated against him vide order dated 05.07.2000. 2. The Appellants stand convicted by the Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Trial No. 64/1984 dated 17.06.1989 under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment with fine, under Section 325/149 to one years rigorous imprisonment with fine, and under Section 148 and 323/149 IPC to fine. 3. PW/3 Janaki, mother of deceased Veerma lodged FIR, Exhibit P/4 on 27.09.1984 at about 9:30 am stating that the deceased was assaulted on 26.09.1984 at about 8.00 pm when she was returning from the fields along with her sons, the deceased and PW/4 Jagdish. Eighteen persons namely Pusa, Shrawan, Dayal, Gheesa, Kanha, Parbhu, Sanwta, Banshi S/o Shrawan, Shankar, Bhanwaru S/o Ganesh, Banshi S/o Bhanwaru, Rampal S/o Ganesh, Jeevan S/o Ganesh, Deva S/o Shankar, Dakhudi W/o Bhura, Gyarsi W/o Kanha, Sonki W/o Ganesh, Puna S/o Shankar came on a tractor armed with Farsi, Kassi, axe, lathis and started to assault the deceased and PW/4, Jagdish. The witnesses PW/10, Nathu and PW/11, Geega came running when the accused went away on the tractor. Pusa was armed with an axe, Kanha, Sanwta and Banshi S/o Shrawan and Deva were armed with Farsi and Gheesa with Kassi and rest with lathis. 4. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW/1 Dr. Satyanarayan Sharma who found following injuries:- "(1) Lacerated wound - margins irregular filled C clotted blood 1"X1/2"X1/2" on right parietal region 4" above right ear. (2) Incised wound - margins smooth sharply cut filled C clotted blood 2 1/2"X1/2"X1" on left parietal region vert obli 4 1/2" above left ear. Fr. of underlying bone detected. (3) Incised wound - margins smooth sharply cut filled C clotted blood on left side chin 1"X3/4"X1" vert obli Fr. of underlying bone detected. (4) Bruise - 6"X1" on post side chest trans obli crossing the T7 vertebra. (5) Bruise - 5"X1" right infrascapular region Trans obli (6) Bruise - 5"X1" on right post axillary fold verti obli. (7) Bruise - 6"X1" on right lumbar region post side trans obli. (8) Incised wound - margins smooth clear sharply cut filled C clotted blood 1"X1/4"X1/4" on left leg ant side 8" above left ankle joint vert obli. (9) Bruise - 4"X1" on left leg upper 1/3 region ant lat side trans obli fr. (7) Bruise - 6"X1" on right lumbar region post side trans obli. (8) Incised wound - margins smooth clear sharply cut filled C clotted blood 1"X1/4"X1/4" on left leg ant side 8" above left ankle joint vert obli. (9) Bruise - 4"X1" on left leg upper 1/3 region ant lat side trans obli fr. of left tibia and fibula complete trans detected. (10) Bruise - 1"X1" on right leg lower part medial side 5" above right ankle joint. (11) Bruise - 1"X1" on right leg lower part medial side 5" above right ankle joint. (12) Bruise - 2"X1" on left forearm part medial side vert obli 3" below left elbow. (13) Bruise- 1"1" on left around post side over the metacarpal bone of little finger." 5. Exhibit P/1, the MLC of PW/4, Jagdish also proved by PW/1 Dr. Sharma noticed nine simple injuries, two grievous injuries and opinion with regard to five was reserved dependent on the x-ray report. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that of the originally named eighteen accused, Shrawan, Pusa, Banshi S/o Bhanwaru, Banshi S/o Shrawan, Bhanwaru S/o Ganesh and the three ladies Dakhudi, Gyarsi and Sonki were not charge sheeted. Of the ten charge sheeted, Rampal, Jeeva, Deva, Pusa and Shankar have been acquitted because PW/3, Janaki acknowledged having falsely implicated them. Both the alleged eye witnesses PW/3, Janki and PW/4, Jagdish were declared hostile. There were material contradictions between the statements made by PW/3, Janki in the FIR, her police statement and the deposition in Court as also of PW/4, Jagdish not only with regard to who may or may not have been the assailants but also with regard to the time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. In the FIR and their police statements the time of occurrence was stated as 8:00 pm, but in Court deposition it was stated as evening while there was still light denying that darkness had set in to establish identification. This was a material contradiction which raises doubts about the credibility of their being eye witnesses. It was acknowledged that there were others whose houses were in the vicinity and who saw the assault but yet there is no independent witness with no explanation for absence of the same. This was a material contradiction which raises doubts about the credibility of their being eye witnesses. It was acknowledged that there were others whose houses were in the vicinity and who saw the assault but yet there is no independent witness with no explanation for absence of the same. In the FIR and their police statement both the witnesses spoke of enmity with Bhanwaru, a non-charge sheeted accused because his daughter-in-law had solemnized a customary marriage with the deceased after the death of her husband to his dislike but resiled from the same in Court her attributing past enmity for a land dispute with Shrawan who was not charge sheeted but was the son of Appellant No. 1. The Appellants stand at par with the five who have been acquitted as they are all alleged to have assaulted together. 7. According to PW/3, Janaki she was walking approximately 45-50 ft. ahead while the deceased and PW/4, Jagdish were behind but the latter claims that he was about 25-30 ft. behind the deceased. The assault first took place upon the deceased and yet the witness did not mention who assaulted him first. His claim that he fell unconscious and remained so for three days unable to identify the others who assaulted is falsified by Exhibit P/1, his MLC report dated 27.01.1994 which does not state so. These material contradictions raise serious doubts with regard to whether the Appellants were the assailants or not. Once PW/3, Janki and PW/4, Jagdish had been declared hostile and there were material contradictions in their evidence, the Trial Court ought to have made a deeper analysis of the evidence to conclude as to what extent the evidence of the hostile witnesses was finding corroboration and from where to base conviction on the same. The Trial Court has not made any in-depth analysis of the two witnesses and has proceeded on assumptions and presumptions that even if the witness was not speaking the truth with regard to all the assailants at least they were speaking the truth with regard to the present Appellants to return a finding of guilt. 8. PW/10, Nathu has been disbelieved as an interested witness being the uncle of the deceased and PW/11, Geega, the brother-in-law of PW/10 has been disbelieved for the same reason as not being present at the time of the assault. 8. PW/10, Nathu has been disbelieved as an interested witness being the uncle of the deceased and PW/11, Geega, the brother-in-law of PW/10 has been disbelieved for the same reason as not being present at the time of the assault. It was lastly submitted that according to the Doctor it was injury No. 2 which was fatal but there is no evidence as to who made the fatal assault much less is the evidence who delivered the incised blows and who caused bruises with lathi. 9. Counsel for the State invoked the principle of 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' stating that it has no application in India. Merely because there may be some trivial contradictions between the statements of the witnesses in the FIR, the police statement and the Court deposition, some of the accused named may not have been charge sheeted or acquitted cannot lead to a conclusion that the witnesses were lying on all aspects including the involvement of the present four Appellants. The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright and to the extent that it finds corroboration from other evidence can form basis of conviction. Even if PW/10, Nathu and PW/11, Geega are not eyewitnesses yet they reached immediately after the occurrence even while PW/3, Janaki and PW/4, Jagdish were present near the body which lay on the ground and the accused were seen running away on the tractor. The witnesses being rural folk, their sense of timing cannot be applied like urban people wearing a watch. The sum and substance of their evidence is that there was sufficient light available for identification. PW/4, Jagdish was an injured witness whose credibility is always considered high as the law presumes that having been injured in the same incident, he was speaking the truth. Reliance in support of submissions was placed on 2016 Crl.L.J 2962 (Umesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh) and 2006 Crl.L.J SC 133 (Ramashray Yadav v. State of Bihar). The charge being under Section 149 IPC, the absence of any specific attribution of assault in the facts of the case against any one of the Appellants is hardly relevant. 10. Learned Counsel for the informant submitted that PW/3, Janaki was the mother of the deceased and there is no reason why she should be telling falsehood. The charge being under Section 149 IPC, the absence of any specific attribution of assault in the facts of the case against any one of the Appellants is hardly relevant. 10. Learned Counsel for the informant submitted that PW/3, Janaki was the mother of the deceased and there is no reason why she should be telling falsehood. There is clear evidence with regard to the present Appellants that they came together on a tractor and assaulted. That others may not have been charge sheeted or acquitted is an irrelevant consideration so long as there is evidence against the present Appellants. It was fairly acknowledged that the protest petition as also application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Shrawan, Banshi and Pusa was rejected. 11. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record. 12. The primary principles of criminal law need no reiteration. Yet in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties it is proposed to succinctly discuss the same as it has great bearing in the facts of the present case. 13. The fact that an occurrence may have taken place and the Appellants may have been named along with others who may not have been charge sheeted or acquitted cannot lead to any presumption for innocence of the Appellants if there is evidence with regard to them otherwise establishing that they were the assailants. But it is for the prosecution to establish this fact beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is slightest of doubt and the possibility exists that the assault may not have been committed by the accused, the benefit of doubt has to be given to them. 14. The credibility of an injured witness is undoubtedly high as the law presumes that having been injured in the same incident, he must be telling the truth. But it is not an absolute proposition to be applied and accepted devoid of all other facts and circumstances of the case. If there is evidence available which raises reasonable and credible doubts about the truthfulness of the statement of an injured witness containing material contradictions, it has to be taken with caution and calls for deeper scrutiny. In the present case, the injured witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. In (2010) 14 SCC 412 (Badrilal v. State of M.P.) it was observed:- "16. In the present case, the injured witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. In (2010) 14 SCC 412 (Badrilal v. State of M.P.) it was observed:- "16. Injuries to a witness do indicate his presence at the time of incident, but from that it does not flow that his evidence is to be accepted automatically...." 15. It is true that the evidence of a hostile witness also cannot be rejected out right and can be taken into consideration to the extent that it finds corroboration from other evidence. There is no corroborative evidence with regard to the presence of the Appellants after the two eye witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. It is true the principle of 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has no application in this country but that does not mean that the Court will ipso facto apply the principle devoid of the particular facts of a case where the prosecution witnesses claiming to have been eye-witnesses to the occurrence have themselves been declared hostile and there are material contradictions in their statements leading to doubts with regard to the truthfulness of the same and the manner in which the occurrence may have taken place. 17. PW/10, Nathu and PW/11, Geega have been held not to be eye-witnesses after a threadbare analysis at paragraph 10 by the Trial Court. We find no reason to come to any different conclusion. 18. That leaves the only issue for sufficiency of evidence with regard to the Appellants after PW/3, Janaki and PW/4, Jagdish have been declared hostile by the prosecution. There are material contradictions in their statements not only with regard to the time of occurrence but also the participants and manner of occurrence. The Trial Court at paragraph 11 has arrived at an abrupt conclusion that they were eye-witnesses without discussing the material contradictions in their evidence which led to their being declared hostile to conclude that they were eye-witnesses reliable enough to sustain conviction against the Appellants. 19. The recovery witnesses having gone hostile, conclusion of the Trial Court that the FSL report Exhibit P/37 had no relevance to the accused calls for no interference. 20. 19. The recovery witnesses having gone hostile, conclusion of the Trial Court that the FSL report Exhibit P/37 had no relevance to the accused calls for no interference. 20. Trivial and minor contradictions in the evidence of a prosecution witness not having material impact on the prosecution case can be ignored if the witnesses are otherwise consistent in their statements and inspires confidence in the Court that they were speaking the truth. But, if the contradictions are not trivial in nature and appear to be material raising doubts about the credibility of the witness as being eye witness to the occurrence, the benefit of doubt undoubtedly has to be given to the accused. 21. PW/3, Janki and PW/4, Jagdish have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have been cross-examined. The law provides that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright and so much of it as finds corroboration from surrounding evidence is admissible. But, if the credibility of the witness itself is in doubt and the contradictions glaring and material in nature even from the cross-examination of the witness, there have to be reasons why the evidence and which part of it was acceptable and from where it finds corroboration. 22. PW/3, Janki in the FIR explicitly states that the occurrence took place at 8.00 PM. She specifically named the five acquitted accused as persons who had lathis in their hands who also assaulted the deceased and were exhorting not to leave the deceased alive. She further stated that the accused persons and which includes the acquitted five also stated that if she wanted to save herself she must go away. In her police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she reiterated the names of the five acquitted accused and that all of them indulged in the assault also. But, in her Court statement the witness in cross-examination after having denied their presence in her examination-in-chief stated that she named the five acquitted persons only because they did not come in the night when she was sitting near the dead body of her deceased son and therefore named them out of spite. She specifically denied that in her police statement she had mentioned their presence. A suggestion was made to her that she did so because of a compromise with them. This was a major contradiction. She specifically denied that in her police statement she had mentioned their presence. A suggestion was made to her that she did so because of a compromise with them. This was a major contradiction. The fact that the witness acknowledged that she had wrongly named five persons with intention to implicate them raises serious doubts about the credibility of the witness and to the extent that she may be speaking the truth. 23. The witness further stated that she was walking about 15 "poundas" ahead of the deceased and PW/4, Jagdish who were walking together. The timing mentioned by her in the FIR and the police statement as 8.00 PM assumes significance. The average walking stride length is a little more than 5 ft. which means the witness was walking at least 75 ft. ahead. In the normal vision, identification at that distance in the darkness of the night may not be possible. But, in her Court statement she now altered the timing of the occurrence to dusk when sufficient light was available for identification. This again is considered a material contradiction in view of her denial that she had ever told the police that occurrence had taken place at 8.00 PM. Likewise, she made specific allegation against one of the original accused Bhanwaru of enmity because his daughter-in-law was living with the deceased after the demise of her husband. But in her cross-examination she changed her version denying enmity with Bhanwaru for the aforesaid reason and shifting the enmity with Shravan who was not charge sheeted but was the father of Appellant No. 1. 24. Likewise, PW/4, Jagdish denied the presence of the five acquitted accused and that he had made any statement to the police with regard to their participation. The witness also tried to shift the timing of the occurrence denying that he had told the police as 8.00 PM. The witness claimed that his mother and deceased were walking ahead, but that he was 10 "poundas" approximately 15 ft. behind the deceased. This is contrary to what PW/3, Janki stated that the deceased and PW/4, Jagdish were walking together. PW/4, Jagdish stated that he was assaulted first after which the deceased was assaulted when PW/3, Janki stated to the contrary. This witness also sought to deny any enmity with Bhanwaru contrary to his own police statement. behind the deceased. This is contrary to what PW/3, Janki stated that the deceased and PW/4, Jagdish were walking together. PW/4, Jagdish stated that he was assaulted first after which the deceased was assaulted when PW/3, Janki stated to the contrary. This witness also sought to deny any enmity with Bhanwaru contrary to his own police statement. The plea of PW/4, Jagdish for non identification of his assailants because he became unconscious and remained so for three days is falsified by his MLC report the next day which does not contain any such material. 25. PW/7, Laxminarayan, who recorded the police statement of PW/3, Janki and PW/4, Jagdish has deposed that he recorded the FIR and the police statements exactly as disclosed by the witnesses. 26. The Trial Judge at paragraph 11 has discussed the aspect with regard to the five acquitted accused cursorily to convict the Appellants by applying the principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" without any discussion as to why and how on the basis of the aforesaid materials which part of the evidence of the two hostile witnesses found corroboration. An erroneous finding has been recorded that there was no attribution of their being possessed of any weapon when the accusation was specific that they fell in the category of others who were possessed and assaulted with lathis. It is also difficult to believe by natural human conduct that the wives of some of the accused persons accompanied on the tractor for the purpose of assault and indulged in the same which also renders the story of the two eye witnesses doubtful raising serious possibility of false implication. 27. Ramashray Yadav (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as despite the fact that all the prosecution witnesses had gone hostile, the evidence of the brother of the deceased was credible and consistent admissible also under Section 157 of the Evidence Act as disclosed to the police immediately after the occurrence and found corroboration from two other witnesses on other aspects with regard to the occurrence. Similarly, Umesh Kumar (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts in view of the FSL report available with regard to the prosecutrix and the evidence that money was offered for a settlement coupled with the passage of time after which they turned hostile. It again has no application to the facts of the case. 28. Similarly, Umesh Kumar (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts in view of the FSL report available with regard to the prosecutrix and the evidence that money was offered for a settlement coupled with the passage of time after which they turned hostile. It again has no application to the facts of the case. 28. In the entirety of the discussion and the evidence discussed it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the Appellants as it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. The Appellants are therefore held entitled to the benefit of doubt and are acquitted. 29. They are required to execute bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court as required under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 30. The appeal is allowed.