JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Instant appeal has been filed by four persons namely Dhelai, Pheran, Dhani Ram and Monney against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.1983 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in S.T. No. 109 of 1981, whereby and where under all the above appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence. 2. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant-Money, S/o Ram Prasad had died, thus, the appeal filed on his behalf stands abated vide order dated 30.11.2016, therefore, at present are concerned with the appeals filed by the appellants-Dhelai, Pheran and Dhani Ram. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, as per the first information report lodged by P.W. 1 is that there is a long enmity between the prosecution party and Swami Dayal Yadav and others in connection with land and house. It is further stated that one day prior to the present occurrence an incident of assault took place in between the parties in connection with the land and house, for which Subrati (deceased) had accompanied the son of Habib to the police station, for lodging written report, because of that Dhani Ram, Pheran and Others developed animosity with Subrati. It is further alleged that on the day of occurrence i.e. 31.08.1980, the informant along with Subrati, Anantram, Mintar @ Saleem, Dildar Kalloo and Dukhi had gone to Kodri village for grinding of their wheat. It is stated that they were returning at 11.00 A.M. from Kodri village after grinding of wheat to their village. However, Dukhi, in the way, stayed at his in-law's house. It is further stated that when they reached on the soling (road), the accused persons namely Dhani Ram, Monney, Bramha, Dhelai, Pheran and Ram Bux came out from a bush of behaya. It is alleged that Ram Bux was armed with farsa, whereas other accused persons were armed with lathi. It is alleged that all the accused persons started assaulting Subrati, whereupon he tried to fled away towards east, but he was chased and assaulted by the accused persons, due to that he fell down under a Babool tree. It is then alleged that thereafter the accused persons threw the body of Subrati in a ditch. It is alleged that all the accused persons started assaulting Subrati, whereupon he tried to fled away towards east, but he was chased and assaulted by the accused persons, due to that he fell down under a Babool tree. It is then alleged that thereafter the accused persons threw the body of Subrati in a ditch. It is stated that on alarm raised by the informant and his other associates, so many persons arrived and then the accused persons fled away. It is stated that after retreat of the accused persons, the informant and others had pulled out the body of Subrati from the ditch who died by that time and kept it under the Babool tree. It is further stated that thereafter the informant went to the police station and informed about the occurrence. 4. It appears that the statement of the informant was recorded by Padam Dev Bhatt, (P.W. 6) Head Constable of police station-Laliya, who later on lodged the first information report on 31.08.1980. Thereafter the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) took up the investigation. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the subsequent statement of the informant and went to the place of occurrence. It appears that because of the night, the inquest report was prepared on the next day and the dead body of the deceased sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. 5. It appears that the Doctor (P.W. 4) conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 02.09.1980 and found the following ante-mortem injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 8cm X 1 cm bone deep on head, 10 cm above right ear. 2. Lacerated wound 10 cm X10 cm X bone deep at the top of head. 3. Contusion 3 cm X 2 cm on right cheek just below lower eye lid. 4. Multiple contusions in an area of 8 cm X 10 cm at outer side of right upper forearm. 5. Multiple contusions in an area of 6 cm X 5 cm at outer side of left upper forearm. 6. Multiple contusions in an area of 6 cm X 8 cm at outer side of lower part of thigh and upper part of right leg. 7. Incised wound 9 cm X2 cm X muscle deep at front of left leg at its middle. 8. 6. Multiple contusions in an area of 6 cm X 8 cm at outer side of lower part of thigh and upper part of right leg. 7. Incised wound 9 cm X2 cm X muscle deep at front of left leg at its middle. 8. Incised wound 4 cm X 2.5 cm X bone deep in front of right leg 13 cm above ankle joint. 9. Incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep in front of right leg 7 cm below injury no. 8. 6. On dissection, the Doctor has found fracture of bones of the skull and had ultimately opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage. 7. It appears that the Investigating Officer, after sending the dead body had prepared site map of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses and then after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all the six accused persons namely, Delai, Feran, Dhani Ram, Monney, Bramha and Ram Bux under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of the IPC. 8. After receiving the said charge-sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda took cognizance of the offence and then committed the case to the court of session as the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a court of session. 9. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda for trial, who vide order dated 18.06.1981 framed charges against the above six accused persons under Sections 147 and 302*149 of the IPC. The aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in hindi to which they pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. It reveals from the record that thereafter the prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution had also brought on record first information report (Exhibit ka-1), post-mortem report (Exhibit ka-2), General Diary (Exhibit ka-3), Inquest report (Exhibit ka-4), written report (Exhibit ka-6), cite plan (Exhibit ka-9), recovery memo (Exhibit ka- 10), statement of Babu (Exhibit ka- 11). The defence had also brought on the record two first information reports, which were marked as Exhibit kha-1 and kha-2. It appears that after close of the case of prosecution, the statements of all the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in which their defence is of total denial and false implication. 11. The defence had also brought on the record two first information reports, which were marked as Exhibit kha-1 and kha-2. It appears that after close of the case of prosecution, the statements of all the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in which their defence is of total denial and false implication. 11. It reveals from the record that learned trial court, after considering the evidence available on record had convicted four appellants namely Dhelai, Pheran, Dhani Ram and Monney, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for committing the above offence. It appears that by the same judgment, the learned trial court had acquitted co-accused Bramha and Ram Bux from all the charges after giving them benefit of doubt. However, the learned trial court acquitted all accused person from the charge made under section 147 of the I.P.C. . The appellants had filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 12. Sri Brij Mohan Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that in the instant case, the learned trial court had mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 for convicting these appellants. He further submits that the learned trial court had partly dis-believed the statement of aforesaid three witnesses, so far it relates to co-accused Bramha and Ram Bux. Thus, it is submitted that on the basis of evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, which is wholly reliable, these appellants also deserve to be acquitted. It is further submitted that from perusal of post-mortem report, it is clear that injury No. 1 & 2, which are on the head of deceased, had resulted into his death. There is no specific evidence on record to show that these appellants had inflicted the aforesaid injuries. It is submitted that one of the co-accused namely Bramha against whom there are allegations that he had also assaulted the deceased with lathi had been acquitted. Under the said circumstance, in the absence of any specific evidence, the appellants also deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Under the said circumstance, in the absence of any specific evidence, the appellants also deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Ruhi Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in India, the doctrine of "falsus in uno falsus in omni bus" has no application. Accordingly, it is submitted that if the part of the evidence of witnesses found acceptable and shows the involvement of the appellants in the present crime, then it is open for the trial court to convict the appellant, on the basis of such evidence, for the charges levelled against them. It is further submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that co-accused Bramha and Ram Bux have been given benefit of doubt because in the report lodged against the accused persons for the incident which took place on the preceding day, they were named. So far these appellants are concerned, P.W. 1, in his deposition had categorically stated that these appellants are named in the said report. Accordingly, it is submitted that the case of these appellants is different from that of the case of co-accused Bramha and Ram Bux. Hence, the appellants cannot claim parity with the aforesaid co-accused. Accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is required with the impugned judgment. 14. Having heard the submission, we have gone through the record of the case and carefully scrutinized the evidence available on the record. 15. From perusal of the deposition of P.W. 4 the Doctor read with the post-mortem report (Exhibit ka 2), it is clear that the deceased-Subrati had received altogether nine injuries. It further appears that injury nos. 1 & 2 is on the head, which is a vital part of the body, whereas other injuries are on the other parts of the body. The doctor, on dissection had found fracture of skull bones and had given opinion that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage. Under such circumstance, we find that the deceased had died a homicidal death. Now, the question arose for determination as to whether these appellants are involved in the commission of the present crime or not. This bring us to consider rest of the evidence available on the record. 16. Under such circumstance, we find that the deceased had died a homicidal death. Now, the question arose for determination as to whether these appellants are involved in the commission of the present crime or not. This bring us to consider rest of the evidence available on the record. 16. As noticed above, in the instant case, the prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1- Ram Gopal (informant), P.W. 2-Mintor @ Saleem and P.W 3-Anant Ram have claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4- Dr. R.P. Verma is the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 5- Nan Babu has been declared hostile as he had supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 6-Padam Dev Bhatt is the head constable posted in Police Station-Lalliya, who recorded the statement of informant and lodged first information report. He has proved the first information report and General Diary, which are Exhibit ka-1 & ka- 3 respectively. P.W. 7- Ramker Singh is the Investigating Officer of the present case. 17. It is an admitted position that there is long enmity between the prosecution party as well as the accused persons in connection with land dispute. It is admitted that due to the aforesaid dispute, so many criminal cases are going on in between the parties. Thus we have scrutized the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 cautiously. P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 had stated in their deposition that on the day of occurrence in the morning, they went to village-Kodari along with deceased, Dildar and Dukhi for grinding of their wheat. It is stated that after grinding of wheat, Dukhi stayed in his in-law's house, whereas the witnesses and other, including the deceased, were returning to their village at about 11.00 A.M. These witnesses further stated that when they came on the soling, the accused persons came out from behaya bush. They further stated that at that time, Ram Bux was armed with farsa, whereas others were armed with lathi. It is further deposed that the accused persons had started assaulting Subrati, who was going in front of these witnesses, upon which the witnesses raised alarm and Subrati tried to fled away towards east, but he was chased and assaulted by the accused persons, due to that he fell on the ground near babool tree. It is further deposed that the accused persons had started assaulting Subrati, who was going in front of these witnesses, upon which the witnesses raised alarm and Subrati tried to fled away towards east, but he was chased and assaulted by the accused persons, due to that he fell on the ground near babool tree. The witnesses further stated that thereafter the accused persons threw the body of Subrati in a ditch. The witnesses stated that by that time, so many persons of the nearby village arrived, due to which the accused persons fled away. The witnesses state that thereafter they pulled out the dead body of deceased from the ditch and kept it under the Babool true. It is stated that thereafter P.W. 1 went to the police station for lodging first information report. From perusal of cross-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, we find that their evidence is consistent and the prosecution had elicited anything on which their credibility can be doubted. Under such circumstance, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 cannot be discarded. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that since the learned trial court had dis-believed part of the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, so far it relates to co-accused Bramha and Ram Bux, therefore, on their testimony, the conviction of these appellants cannot be warranted, is acceptable. It is well settled that the doctrine of "falsus in uno falsus in omni bus" has no application in India. Thus, if part of the statement of witnesses is acceptable, then it is open for the court to base conviction of the accused on that basis. 19. From perusal of the judgment of learned trial court, we find that the learned trial court had given benefit of doubt to the co-accused Bramha and Ram Bux, because they were named in the report of the incident, which took place one day prior to the present occurrence. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 1, it is clear that these appellants are named in that report. Thus, the case of these appellants is different from that of aforesaid two co-accused namely Bramha and Ram Bux. Hence, we find that the appellants cannot claim parity with that of aforesaid two co-accused. 20. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 1, it is clear that these appellants are named in that report. Thus, the case of these appellants is different from that of aforesaid two co-accused namely Bramha and Ram Bux. Hence, we find that the appellants cannot claim parity with that of aforesaid two co-accused. 20. On close scrutiny, we find that the deceased had received so many injuries caused by lathi, which is a hard and blunt substance. It is the consistent case of prosecution that these appellants were holding lathi. It further appears from the medical evidence that the deceased had received two injuries on his head and the doctor, on dissection has found fracture of skull bones. Thus it appears that the deceased died due to head injuries, because other injuries were not on vital part of the body. Under such circumstance, the appellants cannot be acquitted from the charge of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that since there is no specific evidence that who had assaulted the deceased on his head, thus the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C, cannot be accepted. 21. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that when the incident started, the witnesses had tried to run away from the place of occurrence, with a view to save themselves. The witnesses had further stated that the deceased ran towards eastern side and he was chased and assaulted by all the accused persons. Under the aforesaid circumstance, if the witnesses had not disclosed the names of the assailant, who had given blow on the head of the deceased, is not unnatural. However since the witnesses had stated that all the accused persons assaulted the deceased, therefore all are liable to be convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. Hence, on that ground itself, no benefit of doubt can be given to the appellants. 22. In view of the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, which find full corroboration from the medical evidence and physical finding of the Investigating Officer, we find that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. 22. In view of the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, which find full corroboration from the medical evidence and physical finding of the Investigating Officer, we find that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Hence, we find no illegality and/or irregularity in impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court so far it relates to these appellants. 23. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are in jail custody. They are directed to serve out the sentence, awarded by the learned trial court.