JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 13.8.07 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali, whereby the appellants Gaji s/o Ladu, Lala s/o Gaji, Kalu s/o Gaji and Nimba s/o Gaji, were convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 341 IPC Each to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further suffer seven days simple imprisonment. U/s. 307/34 IPC Each to suffer seven year's rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 2,000, in default, to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 302/34 IPC Each to suffer life imprisonment with fine Rs. 5,000, in default, to further suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment. The sentence for conviction for offences under Sections 323 & 324 was included in the sentence awarded for conviction under Section 307 IPC. It is specifically ordered that the benefits of provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be available to the accused appellants and further, they shall be entitled for remission by the State and shall suffer the life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 10.4.06 around 8.55 P.M. Ex. Sarpanch Shri Iqbal Kathhat informed the police on telephone that in village Nanana, two families have picked up quarrel which has resulted in serious injuries. On the basis of the information, while making an entry in the roznamcha, the police personnel ASI Goparam, Constables Ramkhiladi, Kanaram, Foolchand, Madanlal, Bhanwarlal etc. went to the place of occurrence. On the same day at 9.15 P.M. yet another information (Ex.P/41) was given by Shri Iqbal Kathhat to the police informing that as a result of quarrel between the families of Anada and Gaji, Anada has expired on the spot, Guman and Abdul are seriously injured. Later, on ASI Goparam reaching the place of occurrence, Iqbal s/o Shayarji Kathhat submitted a written report (Ex.P/36) to the effect that when he and Moola Kathhat reached the Nanana Bazar on motor cycle at around 8.30 P.M., they saw Gaji s/o Ladu, Lala s/o Gaji, Nimba s/o Gaji and Kalu s/o Gaji were standing in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop holding kunt and sticks in their hands. When Guman (PW 2) proceeded towards the market, Gaji and his three sons stopped him and started beating him with sticks and kunt. When Guman (PW 2) proceeded towards the market, Gaji and his three sons stopped him and started beating him with sticks and kunt. On Guman screaming, Anada and Abdul came to his rescue then Gaji and his sons started beating them as well with sticks and kunt. Gaji and Lala were having sticks in their hands, Kalu was having kunt and Nimba was having stick and knife. Anada succumbed to the injuries on the spot and Guman and Abdul got injured. The accused persons fled away from the spot. Later, Abdul and Guman were taken to hospital at Beawar in Salim's jeep. Later, Abdul also died in the hospital. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P/36), the police registered an FIR for commission of offences under Section 341, 323, 307, 302/34 IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. During the investigation, after inquest proceedings, the dead bodies were subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were arrested. From Kalu, blood stained shirt and slipper, from Nimba, blood stained shirt and old shoes, from Gaji, blood stained shirt and plastic shoes, from Lala, blood stained shirt and plastic slipper were recovered. At the instance of Kalu, blood stained axe, at the instance of Gaji, blood stained turban and sharp edged kunt, at the instance of Nimba, blood stained knife, at the instance of Lala, blood stained stick were recovered. The articles recovered were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and FSL report (Ex.P/52) was obtained. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants for offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 307 & 302/34 IPC against the accused Gaji, Kalu, Lala and Nimba before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Barr, who in its turn committed the matter for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali. The trial Judge framed the charges against Gaji and Nimba for offences under sections 341, 323/34, 324, 307 and 302/34 IPC and against the accused Lala and Kalu for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 307 and 302/34 IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 18) and produced the documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to Ex. P/52. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 18) and produced the documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to Ex. P/52. The appellants in their defence got examined D.W.1-Lala, D.W.2-Kalu, D.W.-3 Bhanwru, D.W.4- Devaram and D.W.5-Sugna. The documentary evidence was exhibited as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3. 7. In examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied their involvement in the commission of the offence and claimed that they were present at the place of occurrence. 8. After due consideration of the rival submission and the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the evidence adduced at the trial. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence on record in correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has come with wholly concocted and false story. None of the eye witnesses were as a matter of fact present at the place of incident and they have been planted just to falsely implicate the accused persons. The independent eye witnesses Mahaveer Jain (PW 1), Moola (PW 13) and Iqbal (PW 14) have turned hostile and supported the prosecution case. Other eye witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution were family members of the deceased and thus, being interested witness, their testimony cannot be made basis for conviction of the accused appellants. It is submitted that in the first instance the police was informed about the incident on telephone and the information was recorded in roznamcha (Ex.P/40) and therefore, that should have been treated to be FIR and the Ex.P/36 could have been treated as FIR which is nothing but a statement made by the complainant Iqbal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would submit that Guman (PW 2) has been planted as eye witness of the incident of beating with Anada and Abdul. Drawing the attention of this court to the site plan (Ex.P/18) and pointing out the topography of the place, learned counsel submitted that the place in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop is visible from Kumharo Ka Bas, the fact which further stands fortified from the deposition of the Investigating Officer Mahaveer Singh (PW 18). Learned counsel would submit that just to plant Guman (PW 2) as eye witness of the incident of beating with Anada and Abdul, the place of occurrence of the beating with Guman (PW 2) was also sought to be shifted by the prosecution from Kumharo Ka Bas to the place in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop. Drawing the attention of the court to the statement (Ex.D/1) of Guman (PW 2) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., learned counsel submitted that according to the said witness, he was belaboured near Moola's shop, on account of beating he fell semi unconscious and ran from the place and thereafter, he fell unconscious and was found lying in Kumharo Ka Bas whereas, in his deposition before the court, the said witness has come out with a story that the incident of beating with him had occurred in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop. It is submitted that Kumharo Ka Mohalla is located at distance from Mahaveer Jain's shop and even as per the deposition of other eye witnesses, Guman (PW 2) was found lying in injured condition at Kumharo Ka Mohalla. According to the learned counsel the contradictions in deposition of the witness Guman (PW 2) with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) makes his testimony unreliable and uncreditworthy. It is submitted that even Rasool (PW 3), the eye witness, who is brother of Guman (PW 2) though in examination in chief deposed that his brother Guman (PW 2) was belaboured before Mahaveer Jain's STD Booth but in the cross examination, he has admitted that Guman was belaboured in front of Moola's shop, which is situated in Kumharo Ka Bas. Learned counsel submitted that the story projected by the prosecution that incident of beating with Guman (PW 2) had occurred in front of Mahaveer Jain's STD Booth and later, in the injured condition so as to save himself, Guman (PW 2) travelled from the place of occurrence to Kumharo Ka Bas, is absolutely concocted and false. Learned counsel submitted that the story projected by the prosecution that incident of beating with Guman (PW 2) had occurred in front of Mahaveer Jain's STD Booth and later, in the injured condition so as to save himself, Guman (PW 2) travelled from the place of occurrence to Kumharo Ka Bas, is absolutely concocted and false. Learned counsel would submit that Rasool (PW 3) and Koyali (PW 8) also cannot be considered to be eye witnesses of the incident. As per Koyali (PW 8), on coming to know about the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2), in the first instance, Abdul went to the place of occurrence, thereafter, Rasool and Anada went to the place of occurrence and then she also proceeded to the place of occurrence and while she was on the way, Rasool came running and said that his brother and father have been belaboured and are lying in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop and when she reached the place of occurrence, she found Abdul lying in front of Mahaveer Baniya's shop and Guman (PW 2) at some distance and thus, apparently she is the witness who had seen the accused persons belabouring Guman (PW 2) or the deceased Abdul and Anada. Rasool (PW 3) deposed that on being informed by village boys regarding the incident of beating with his brother Guman (PW 2), he, his father Anada and brother Abdul went to the place of occurrence. However, in cross examination, he has further deposed that on the way he apprised his mother about all being beaten and fallen down and thus, apparently, Koyali (PW 8) had proceeded to the place after the occurrence of the incident. Pointing out the self contradictions in the deposition of Rasool (PW 3) as also the contradiction in his deposition before the court with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/2), learned counsel submitted that the said witness also cannot be accepted as eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the presence of Rasool (PW 3) is disclosed in the written report (Ex.P/36), the site plan (Ex.P/18) and panchayatnama of the body of the deceased Anada and Abdul (Ex.P/19 & P/20) prepared on 11.4.06, which also indicates that he has been subsequently planted as eye witness. Learned counsel submitted that the presence of Rasool (PW 3) is disclosed in the written report (Ex.P/36), the site plan (Ex.P/18) and panchayatnama of the body of the deceased Anada and Abdul (Ex.P/19 & P/20) prepared on 11.4.06, which also indicates that he has been subsequently planted as eye witness. Learned counsel submitted that as stated by Rasool (PW 3) in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had ran away from the place of occurrence on Gaji threatening him to kill and thus, the improvement made by him in his deposition before the court cannot be given any credence. Learned counsel urged that as per Rasool (PW 3), Lala inflicted injury on Anada by stick whereas, no lacerated would inflicted by stick is found on the person of the deceased Anada, which also creates doubt about Rasool (PW 3) being the eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel urged that the recoveries were made from the open field and the recovery witnesses have turned hostile and thus, the alleged recovery also cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused appellants. Learned counsel submitted that Bhanwaroo (DW 3) who is brother of deceased Anada was present at the place of incident but his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, however, he has been examined as defence witness, who has categorically deposed that Gaji, Kalu, Lala and Nimba or any of them were present at the place of occurrence and Kalu and Lala and Lala's wife were even present in the village. It is submitted that the evidence led by the defence has simply been considered by the learned trial Judge. It is submitted that there is absence of motive and therefore, the accused appellants could have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel urged that prosecution having failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record has been examined by the learned trial court threadbare and the findings arrived at cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction with the conviction and sentence awarded. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record has been examined by the learned trial court threadbare and the findings arrived at cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction with the conviction and sentence awarded. It is submitted that the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution do reveal any reason for rejecting their evidence as untrustworthy or unreliable. It is submitted that in the first instance, only the information with regard to quarrel between two families was furnished to the police, which was entered in roznamcha (daily diary report) (Ex.P/40) and the information later supplied were entered in roznamcha (Ex.P/41) but the complete information regarding the incident occurred with the identification of the injured and deceased was furnished by way of written report (Ex.P/36). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the guilt of the accused stands established by deposition of eye witness Guman (PW 2), Rasool (PW 3) and Koyali (PW 8). It is submitted that on account of some minor discrepancies and contradictions, the testimony of the eye witnesses even if they are interested witnesses cannot be discarded. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that if some part of the evidence of a witness is found to be false, his testimony cannot be ignored altogether and even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained. In support of the contention, learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of 'Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.', (2006) 10 SCC 601 . Accordingly, it is submitted that the charges against the appellants stand proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court deserves to be affirmed. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the record thoroughly. 13. The Medical Board consisting of Dr. C.L.Bhati and Dr.K.K.Chauhan, conducted autopsy of the dead bodies of Abdul and Anada. As per their post mortem report (Ex.P-11 & Ex.P-12), following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Abdul and Anada:- Abdul 1. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the record thoroughly. 13. The Medical Board consisting of Dr. C.L.Bhati and Dr.K.K.Chauhan, conducted autopsy of the dead bodies of Abdul and Anada. As per their post mortem report (Ex.P-11 & Ex.P-12), following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Abdul and Anada:- Abdul 1. Incised wound stitch 6 cm on zygomatic region 2. Incised wound 10 cm x on Rt. Parito occipital 3. Incised wound 3 cm x cm on Lt. Cheek. 4. Abrasion - 6 cm x 3 cm on Lt.cheek. 5. Lacerated wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on chin (Rt.) 6. Lacerated wound 2 cm.x cm x M.D. on chin (Lt.) 7. Abrasion - 4 cm x 1 cm on chest (Rt) 8. Black eye with Diffuse swelling 9. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm Rt. Leg. 10. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm on Rt. Leg. 11. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on Lt. Elbow. 12. Bleeding from Lt. ear 13. Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x M.D. Rt. Elbow. 14. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x M.D. Rt. Wrist. 15. Incised wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. Rt. Mastoid. 16. Subdural Heamatoma present in Middle of Scalp. Anada 1. Incised wound 11 cm x 6 cm x 3 cm Rt. Shoulder. 2. Incised wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on upper arm Rt. 3. Stab wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. Rt. Chest. 4. Stab wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on Rt. Chest. 5. Incised wound 9 cm x 3 cm x M.D. on Rt. Ear pinna. 6. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x M.D. on Rt. Mastoid. 7. Stab wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on (Lt) chest. 8. Stab wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. Lt. Chest cardial region. 9. Stab wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on lateral aspect Lt. Chest. 10. Stab wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. on lateral aspect Lt. Chest. 11. Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x M.D. on Lt. Upper Arm. 12. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x M.D. on Lt. Wrist. 13. Incised wound 1 cm x cm x M.D. on Lt. F. A. 14. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. Rt. Scapular. 15. Chest. 11. Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x M.D. on Lt. Upper Arm. 12. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x M.D. on Lt. Wrist. 13. Incised wound 1 cm x cm x M.D. on Lt. F. A. 14. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. Rt. Scapular. 15. Incised wound 4 cm x cm x S.D. on Rt. Back of chest. 16. Stab wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. on Rt. Lumbar. 17. Incised wound 16 cm x 10 cm x C.D. on Lt. Parietal. 18. Incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm x M.D. on (Lt) frontal. 19. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x M.D. on frontal. 20. Cut wound upper lip 3 cm x 1 cm. full thickness. Cause of death of both Abdul and Anada is opined to be multiple injuries and hemorrhagic shock. The injuries caused and cause of death as disclosed in the post mortem report stands confirmed by deposition of Dr. K.K. Chouhan (PW 10). Thus, on the basis of the medical evidence on record, it is established beyond doubt that the death of deceased Abdul and Anada was homicidal in nature. 14. The prosecution case was founded on the testimony of eye witnesses Mahaveer (PW 1), Guman (PW 2), Rasool (PW 3), Koyali (PW 8), Moola (PW 13) and Iqbal (PW 14). The witnesses Mahaveer (PW 1), Moola (PW 13) and Iqbal (PW 14) have turned hostile and supported the prosecution case and therefore, the case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of eye witnesses Guman (PW 2), Rasool (PW 3) and Koyali (PW 8). Learned counsel has contended that the testimony of these witnesses who are highly interested being closely related to the deceased cannot be relied upon and therefore, before examining the evidence led by the prosecution, we considered it appropriate to refer to the position of law settled in this regard by the various decisions of the Apex Court. 15. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (1995) 8 JT(SC) 425, the Apex Court observed that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being partisan witness should be relied upon, has no substance. The Court further observed that the said theory was repelled by this court as early as in Deelip Singh's case ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ). 16. The Court further observed that the said theory was repelled by this court as early as in Deelip Singh's case ( AIR 1953 SC 364 ). 16. In Ram Lakhan v. State of UP, ( AIR 1996 SC 3429 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of close relatives of deceased is liable to be rejected on the ground that they are interested witnesses. What is necessary is that Court should scrutinize evidence of such witness carefully. 17. In Agnoo v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC, 296, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the fact of relationship would add value to his evidence because he would be interested in getting the real culprit rather than innocent persons punished. 18. In Baitullah v. State of UP ( AIR 1997 SC 3946 ), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that evidence of interested witness cannot be discarded merely on ground that he is interested. It is normally expected that witness would leave out real culprits and rope in innocent persons. 19. In Tapubha Bhagwanji v. State of Gujarat( AIR 2002 SC 2794 ) the Apex Court held as under:- "The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are witnesses who in normal course of event are expected to know about the incident. Their deposition do reveal any good reason for rejecting their evidence as untrustworthy or unreliable. Nothing has been brought on record either in cross examination of the witnesses concerned or any other evidence to show any good reason as to why they should falsely implicate the accused in the case. Thus rejection of their testimony on ground that they are interested witnesses being in relation of deceased, nor proper." 20. In Suraj Pal v. State of UP( AIR 1994 SC 748 ) the Apex Court found that the medical evidence fully establish the injury to eye witnesses, eye witnesses gave consistent version and it was held that their evidence cannot be discarded on ground that they were interested witnesses or that co-accused was acquitted on self-same evidence or that there were minor variations. 21. Thus, it is the settled position of law that the evidence of close relatives of the deceased is liable to be rejected on the ground that they are interested witnesses. But then, their evidence needs to be scrutinized by the court carefully. 22. 21. Thus, it is the settled position of law that the evidence of close relatives of the deceased is liable to be rejected on the ground that they are interested witnesses. But then, their evidence needs to be scrutinized by the court carefully. 22. In the backdrop of the settled position of law as noticed above, we have to adjudge as to whether the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses is reliable and with the corroboration from other evidence on record, it conclusively establishes the guilt of the appellants. 23. Guman (PW 2) deposed that on 10.4.06 around 8-8.30 p.m., he went to the market to bring some goods. All the four accused were standing in front of Mahaveer Jain's STD shop. Accused Gaji was armed with kunt, Kalu with axe, Nimba with knife and Lala with stick. All the four accused belaboured him. Gaji inflicted kunt blow on his head, Kalu inflicted axe blow on the waist. The accused continued to beat him rapidly. He suffered injuries on head, waist and right hand in all 15 in number. The hand got fractured. Iqbal (PW 14), Moola (PW 13), Mahaveer Jain (PW 1), his brother Abdul (deceased), father Anada (deceased) and Rasool (PW 3) came to his rescue, who were also belaboured by the accused persons. He further deposed that accused Gaji gave a kunt blow on his father Anada's head and all the four accused continued to beat him. Abdul was also belaboured by all the four accused, who suffered injuries on his head and legs. Kalu inflicted axe blow on the head of Abdul, and Gaji inflicted kunt blow on the neck of Abdul. Nimba inflicted knife blows on Anada. Anada died on the spot. He and Abdul were taken to hospital at Beawar, where Abdul died after 4-5 hours. In cross-examination, he stated that when he was taken to the hospital at Beawar, he was conscious and he fell unconscious only after injection being administered at the hospital. He had never run away from the place of occurrence, he was there only. He deposed that the site plan (Ex.P 18) is correct, but the fact mentioned therein regarding his movement from the place of occurrence "A" and falling down in Kumharon Ka Bas, is incorrect. He never moved beyond Moola's shop. He had never run away from the place of occurrence, he was there only. He deposed that the site plan (Ex.P 18) is correct, but the fact mentioned therein regarding his movement from the place of occurrence "A" and falling down in Kumharon Ka Bas, is incorrect. He never moved beyond Moola's shop. On being contradicted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D 1), he stated that except the first four lines of his deposition before the court recorded on 30.6.06, remaining part of his deposition do find mentioned in his statement before the police. 24. Rasool (PW 3) deposed that on 10.4.16 at about 8-8.30 p.m. when his brother Guman (PW 2) was going to market in Village Nanana, in front of Mahaveer Jain's STD shop, accused persons belaboured him. The beating was given on account of land dispute. Accused Gaji, Lala, Kalu and Nimba were armed with kunt, stick, axe and knife respectively. Gaji gave kunt blow on the head, chest and back of Guman (PW 2). On being informed by the village boys about the incident of quarrel, he, his father Anada and brother Abdul went to the place of occurrence. Accused Gaji gave blow on the head of the Anada, then Gaji's three sons also came there. Nimba inflicted knife blow on the chest of Anada, Kalu inflicted axe blows on the chest and shoulder of Anada and Lala gave a stick blow to Anada. As a result of beating, Anada fell down and died on the spot. Abdul was belaboured by all the four accused, who suffered injuries on chest, waist and other parts of the body. Guman and Abdul were taken to the hospital. After two hours, Abdul succumbed to the injures in the hospital. In cross-examination, he deposed that Guman was lying 70 steps away from Mahaveer's shop. Guman was unconscious in the hospital but at the time when he was taken to the hospital in the jeep. He deposed that he did come back home from the place of occurrence. He categorically accepted that Guman was belaboured in front of Moola's shop. Anada had left home just after a minute Guman left the home. He stated that in the examination-in-chief, he has wrongly stated that ^^fQj xkth ds rhuksa yM+ds Hkh vk x;s** . He deposed that he did come back home from the place of occurrence. He categorically accepted that Guman was belaboured in front of Moola's shop. Anada had left home just after a minute Guman left the home. He stated that in the examination-in-chief, he has wrongly stated that ^^fQj xkth ds rhuksa yM+ds Hkh vk x;s** . He further stated that from Mahaveer's STD shop to Moola's house and Roshan's Flour Mill, there is a straight way and there exists no slope. On being contradicted with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D 2), he stated that except the first four lines of his deposition before the court recorded on 30.6.06, remaining part of his deposition do find mentioned in his statement before the police. 25. Koyali (PW 8) deposed that on the fateful day, his son Guman (PW 2) went to market for purchasing goods. Gaji caught hold of his son Guman, then said, entered into quarrel. Later, his son Abdul went there. The village boys informed her that Gaji, Kalu, Nimba and Lala were beating Guman (PW 2) and Abdul. On coming to know about the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2), in the first instance, Abdul went to the place of occurrence, thereafter, Rasool and Anada went there together and then she also proceeded to the place of occurrence. While she was on the way, Rasool came running from the opposite side and said that his brother and father after being beaten are lying on the ground. When she reached the place of occurrence, she found Abdul and Anada lying in front of Mahaveer Baniya's shop and Guman (PW 2) was lying at some distance. Gaji was armed with Kunt, Kalu with Axe, Nimba with Knife and Lala with stick. When she was standing there, Gaji said that she would also be killed. Abdul had suffered injuries by kunt, axe and knife and was in position to speak. Seeing lot of blood spread at the spot, she fell unconscious. She was taken home by Abdul's wife. 26. Mahaveer Jain (PW 1), who turned hostile, has denied to have seen the occurrence, however, stated that Iqbal got opened his shop and informed the police on telephone. He also denied that Anada had died on the spot but deposed that Abdul was taken to Beawar in a jeep. She was taken home by Abdul's wife. 26. Mahaveer Jain (PW 1), who turned hostile, has denied to have seen the occurrence, however, stated that Iqbal got opened his shop and informed the police on telephone. He also denied that Anada had died on the spot but deposed that Abdul was taken to Beawar in a jeep. However, in cross examination, he stated that he had seen Abdul and Guman being taken in a jeep to Beawar rather, he had heard about it. 27. Iqbal (PW 14), who also turned hostile, has denied to have seen the incident of beating and stated that he had heard from villagers that Anada and Gaji have entered into quarrel. He admitted to have informed about the incident to the police. He had seen Anada and Abdul covered in blood in front of STD shop. According to him, Guman was lying in Kumharo Ka Bas, from where, the villagers brought him. He had given the report to the police on the next day. He denied the recoveries having been made in his presence. He stated that he had incurred expenditure of Rs. 8,000/- for the treatment of Guman, however, on demand being raised, he threatened to kill him. 28. Moola Kathat (PW 13) who has also turned hostile, has deposed that his shop is situated 100-150 ft. away from Mahaveer's shop. He denied to have seen the incident of beating. He accepted the suggestion that when he reached the place of occurrence, Anada had already died and Abdul was still breathing. He alongwith Gaji and Bana Kathaat had taken Abdul and Guman to the hospital at Beawar in Salim's jeep. He denied that the police had recovered kunt from Gaji, knife from Nimba, blood stained safa from Gaji, axe from Kalu and babul's stick from Lala in his presence. Guman was brought from Kumharo Ka Bas, which is a place away from the place where Anada and Abdul were lying and there exists a slope. 29. Mahaveer Singh (PW 18), Investigating Officer, on his attention being drawn to the site plan (Ex.P/18), stated that from the place marked as 'X' and 'X-1', Kumharo Ka Mohalla where Guman was lying is visible, as Kumharo Ka Mohalla is located down the slope. 30. 29. Mahaveer Singh (PW 18), Investigating Officer, on his attention being drawn to the site plan (Ex.P/18), stated that from the place marked as 'X' and 'X-1', Kumharo Ka Mohalla where Guman was lying is visible, as Kumharo Ka Mohalla is located down the slope. 30. As per the case set out by the prosecution, in the first instance, Guman (PW 2) was belaboured by the accused Gaji, Kalu, Lala and Nimba in front of Mahaveer's STD shop. But the fact remains that as per deposition of the witnesses except Guman (PW 2) himself, injured Guman (PW 2) was found lying in Kumharo Ka Bas and in front of Mahaveer's Jain STD shop, which is alleged to be the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, after the incident of beating, Guman (PW 2) injured, travelled from the place of occurrence to the place 'X-2' shown in the site plan (Ex.P/18), the location alleged to be Kumharo Ka Bas. Though, Guman (PW 2) in his deposition has denied his movement from the place of occurrence i.e. the place in front of Mahaveer Jain's STD shop to Kumharo Ka Bas but at the same time, he has stated that he never moved beyond Moola's shop, which is also a place away from Mahaveer Jain's STD shop on the way to Kumharo Ka Bas. Rasool (PW 3) has deposed that he had seen Guman lying 70 steps away from Mahaveer's shop. He categorically stated that Guman was belaboured in front of Moola's shop. Koyali (PW 8) has deposed that Abdul and Anada were lying in front of Mahaveer's shop and Guman (PW 2) was lying at some distance. Iqbal (PW 14) has deposed that Guman (PW 2) was lying in Kumharo Ka Bas from where the villagers brought him. Similarly, Moola Kathhat (PW 13) has also deposed that Guman (PW 2) was brought from Kumharo Ka Bas which is a place away from the place where Anada and Abdul were lying. Iqbal (PW 14) has deposed that Guman (PW 2) was lying in Kumharo Ka Bas from where the villagers brought him. Similarly, Moola Kathhat (PW 13) has also deposed that Guman (PW 2) was brought from Kumharo Ka Bas which is a place away from the place where Anada and Abdul were lying. Thus, it appears that either the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2) had occurred in front of Moola's shop/Kumharo Ka Bas or he is concealing the factum of his movement after being beaten, from the place of occurrence i.e. in front of Mahaveer's STD shop towards the Kumharo Ka Bas so as to project himself to be an eye witness of the incident of beating with Anada and Abdul occurred in front of Mahaveer's STD shop. But then, on account of veracity of the testimony of Guman (PW 2) regarding the place where he was belaboured by the accused persons being found doubtful, he cannot be branded as liar or wholly unreliable witness and his testimony cannot be discarded as such. 31. In Syed Ibrahim's case (supra), the Supreme Court while considering the applicability of maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' in India, observed:- "Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by PW 1 to a large extent to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence the prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be wholly credible. Falsity of material particular would ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar(s). The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar(s). The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and 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, but it is what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence. (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. In a given case, it is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons. (See Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. The State of M.P. and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. (See Sohrab v. The State of M.P. and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are normal, and expected of a normal person. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised. While normal discrepancies do corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar and in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab. It was further illuminated in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, Ram Udgar Singh v. State of Bihar, Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P. and in Gubbala Venugopalswamy v. State of A.P." 32. As noticed hereinabove, Guman (PW 2) has deposed that all the four accused belaboured him. Gaji inflicted kunt blow on his head, Kalu inflicted axe blow on the waist. The accused persons continued to beat him rapidly and on account of beating, he suffered 15 injuries on head, waist and right hand. As per the injury report (Ex.P/2), following injuries were found on the person of Guman (PW 2): 1. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. on Lt. Parietal 2. Incised wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on frontal (Lt.) 3. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. on parito occipital 4. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x M.D. on Back (Lt.) scapular. 5. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. on Lt. Parietal 2. Incised wound 3 cm x cm x M.D. on frontal (Lt.) 3. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. on parito occipital 4. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x M.D. on Back (Lt.) scapular. 5. Incised wound 13 cm x 3 cm x M.D. on Back (Rt.) scapular. 6. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x M.D. on Back (Rt.) lateral to V.C. 7. Incised wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. on forehead (Rt.) 8. Incised wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. on frontal (Rt.) 9. Diffuse swelling on Rt. Forearm. 10. Incised wound 6 cm x cm x M.D. on Lt. Parietal 11. Incised wound 6 cm x x M.D. on Rt. Parietal 12. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on Lt. Shoulder. 13. Diffuse swelling on Lt. Forearm Complain of pain in back. No visible injury. 14. Incised wound 2 cm x cm x M.D. on Rt. Parietal. 33. As per deposition of Dr.K.K.Chouhan (PW 10), the injuries no. 1 to 8, 10, 11 & 14 were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the ocular evidence of Guman (PW 2) regarding the injuries being inflicted by the accused persons by the weapons specified stand corroborated by the medical evidence. 34. Rasool (PW 3) has deposed that Gaji inflicted kunt blow on the head, chest and waist of Guman. But he has specifically deposed that he was present at the place of occurrence at the time of Guman (PW 2) being belaboured by the accused persons. To the contrary, he has deposed that having informed by the village boys about the quarrel, he, his father Anada and Abdul went to the place of occurrence. That apart, Koyali (PW 8) has deposed that in the first instance, Abdul went to the place of occurrence and thereafter, Rasool and Anada went there. Though, the eye witnesses Guman (PW 2), Rasool (PW 3) and Koyali (PW 8) have been cross examined by the defence regarding the distance of their house from the place of occurrence but one of the witness Rama Kathhat (PW 12) has deposed that the house of the deceased is situated 1 km away from market place. Though, the eye witnesses Guman (PW 2), Rasool (PW 3) and Koyali (PW 8) have been cross examined by the defence regarding the distance of their house from the place of occurrence but one of the witness Rama Kathhat (PW 12) has deposed that the house of the deceased is situated 1 km away from market place. Admittedly, Abdul, Anada and Rasool proceeded to the place of occurrence on being informed by village boys. Smt. Koyali went to the place of occurrence even thereafter. Thus, keeping in view the distance of their house from the market place and consequential time gap in their reaching to the place of occurrence, we are of the opinion that Rasool (PW 2) and Koyali (PW 8) cannot be considered to be the eye witnesses of the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2). 35. But in any case, on account of the part of the statement of Guman (PW 2) being found doubtful, he cannot be held to be 'wholly unreliable witness' and his testimony regarding he being belaboured by the accused persons with the weapons specified cannot be disbelieved and disregarded as such. 36. It is noticed that accused persons four in number armed with the sharp edged weapons attacked Guman (PW 2) and inflicted multiple injuries inter alia on the vital parts of the person of Guman (PW 2). Thus, looking to the nature of weapons used, the place where injuries were inflicted and the nature of injuries caused, the finding arrived at by the trial Judge that the accused persons had intention to cause death of Guman (PW 2) cannot be faulted with. 37. Coming to the act of the accused appellants in belabouring Abdul and Anada, which resulted in their death, as noticed hereinabove, the eye witnesses Mahaveer Jain (PW 1), Iqbal (PW 14) and Moola Kathhat (PW 13) having turned hostile, the prosecution case rests on the testimony of Guman (PW 2), Rasool (PW 3), Koyali (PW 8) and other corroborative evidence. 38. As per the prosecution case, in the first instance, Guman (PW 2) who had gone to the market to bring some goods, was assaulted by the accused persons Gaji, Kalu, Nimba and Lala. As discussed hereinabove, the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2) had occurred either at the place in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop or in front of Moola's shop/Kumharo Ka Bas. As discussed hereinabove, the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2) had occurred either at the place in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop or in front of Moola's shop/Kumharo Ka Bas. In case, the incident had occurred in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop, after being injured, Guman (PW 2) had moved from the place of occurrence to Kumharo Ka Bas inasmuch as, after being injured, he was found lying there. As per the prosecution, Abdul and Anada were belaboured by the accused persons in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop. Guman (PW 2) is claimed to be eye witness of the incident of beating with Abdul and Anada, on the premise that he did move from the place of occurrence towards Kumharo Ka Bas, which is believed by this court. It is true that in the site plan (Ex.P/18), the existence of slope on the way from Mahaveer Jain's shop to Kumharo Ka Bas is indicated but then, there is nothing on record suggesting that the place in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop is visible from the place in Kumharo Ka Bas where Guman (PW 2) was lying. In any case, Guman (PW 2), who having suffered multiple injuries was in position to move and was lying in Kumharo Ka Bas, could have seen the incident of Abdul and Anada being beaten in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop, a place distant from Kumharo Ka Bas. Moreover, even Guman (PW 2) has nowhere claimed that he had seen the incident of beating with Abdul and Anada, while lying injured in Kumharo Ka Bas. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, Guman (PW 2) cannot be accepted to be an eye witness of the incident of beating with Abdul and Anada. 39. As per Rasool (PW 3), on being informed by the village boys about the incident of beating with Guman (PW 2), he, Abdul and Anada went to the place of occurrence. As per Koyali (PW 8) on coming to know about the incident, in the first instance, Abdul went to the place of occurrence, thereafter, Anada and Rasool went there together and then she also proceeded to the place of occurrence. Rasool (PW 3) has categorically deposed that accused Gaji, Lala, Kalu and Nimba were armed with kunt, stick, axe and knife respectively. Rasool (PW 3) has categorically deposed that accused Gaji, Lala, Kalu and Nimba were armed with kunt, stick, axe and knife respectively. Gaji gave stick blow on the head of Anada, Nimba inflicted knife blow on the chest of Anada, Kalu inflicted axe blow on the chest and shoulder of Anada and Lala gave stick blow to Anada. As a result of beating, Anada fell down and died on the spot. Abdul was belaboured by all the four accused, who suffered injuries on chest, waist and other parts of the body. 40. It is true that in the cross examination, Rasool (PW 3) has stated that he did go back to the home from the place of occurrence. But then, as per Koyali (PW 8) while she was on the way from her home to the place of occurrence, Rasool (PW 3) came running from the opposite side and said that his brother and father after being beaten are at the place of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of Rasool (PW 3) to the effect that he did go back home and stayed at the place of occurrence even after Abdul and Anada being belaboured by the accused persons, cannot be accepted as truthful but on that account, we do find any reason to disbelieve his testimony as eye witness of the incident. 41. Koyali (PW 8) has deposed that she proceeded to the place of occurrence after Abdul, Anada and Rasool (PW 3) having already gone there and further that while she was on the way from her home to the place of occurrence, Rasool (PW 3) came running from the opposite side and informed her that after being beaten, his brother and father are lying at the place of occurrence and thus, the testimony of Koyali (PW 8) to the extent of she having seen the act of accused persons belabouring Abdul and Anada, cannot be accepted as trustworthy. But then, her testimony to the extent of she having seen Gaji, Kalu, Nimba and Lala armed with the weapons as specified as also she having found Abdul and Anada lying in front of Mahaveer Jain's shop and Guman at some distance, cannot be disbelieved. 42. Though, Mahaveer Jain (PW 1) has turned hostile but he has accepted that after occurrence of the incident, Iqbal got his shop opened and informed the police about the incident on telephone. 42. Though, Mahaveer Jain (PW 1) has turned hostile but he has accepted that after occurrence of the incident, Iqbal got his shop opened and informed the police about the incident on telephone. Further, he has accepted that Anada had died on the spot and Abdul and Guman were taken in a jeep to Beawar. 43. Iqbal (PW 14) has also admitted that he informed the police about the incident. He had seen Anada and Abdul covered in blood in front of STD shop and Guman was lying in Kumharo Ka Bas. 44. Similarly, Moola Kathhat (PW 13) has deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Anada had already died and Abdul was still breathing. 45. A perusal of the statements of Mahaveer Jain (PW 1), Iqbal (PW 14) and Moola Kathhat (PW 13), reveals that though these persons were present at the place of occurrence, yet they are deliberately concealing the true facts probably to extend favour to the accused persons. 46. The accused appellants Nimba, Gaji, Lala and Kalu were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/14 to Ex.P/17 on 11.4.06. Vide seizure memo Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4, blood stained shirt of Kalu and blood stained shirt of Nimba respectively were seized. Vide Ex.P/5 blood stained plastic shoes of Gaji, plastic slipper of Lala, Plastic Slipper of Kalu and old ragzine shoes of Nimba were seized. Vide Ex.P/6 blood stained shirt of Gaji and vide Ex.P/7 blood stained shirt of Lala were seized. The recovery and seizure of the said articles from the accused persons stands substantiated on the basis of the deposition of witnesses Prem Singh (PW 4) and Sethram (PW 5). 47. On the basis of disclosure statement, at the instance of Gaji, blood stained kunt and blood stained turban (Ex.P/29 and Ex.P/31), at the instance of Kalu, blood stained axe (Ex.P/32), at the instance of Lala, blood stained stick (Ex.P/33) and at the instance of Nimba, blood stained knife (Ex.P/30) were recovered. Though the witness of the recovery Moola Kathhat (PW 13) and Iqbal (PW 14) have turned hostile and stated that the recovery as aforesaid was effected by the police from the accused appellants before them, however, these witnesses have denied their signature on recovery memo (Ex.P/29 to Ex.P/33). Though the witness of the recovery Moola Kathhat (PW 13) and Iqbal (PW 14) have turned hostile and stated that the recovery as aforesaid was effected by the police from the accused appellants before them, however, these witnesses have denied their signature on recovery memo (Ex.P/29 to Ex.P/33). The injuries found on the persons of injured Guman (PW 2) and deceased Anada and Abdul caused by sharp edged and blunt weapon stand corroborated by the recoveries of the weapons from the accused appellants. As per the FSL report, the weapons of the offence kunt, knife and stick recovered at the instance of Gaji, Nimba and Lala were found to be stained with blood of "O" group. The blood group on the weapon axe recovered at the instance of Kalu could be determined, however, the same was found to be stained with blood of human origin. It is pertinent to note that the blood stains found on the Kamij and shirts of the accused Kalu and Nimba and the Safa recovered from Gaji, were determined to be of blood group "O", which as per the FSL report tallies with the group of blood stains found on the Kamij and Baniyan of deceased Anada. Other articles recovered were also found to be stained with blood of human origin, but blood group of the stains could be determined. Thus, the recoveries made from the accused appellants and the FSL report also clearly indicate involvement of the accused appellants in the commission of crime. 48. Coming to the defense evidence, Lala (DW-1) and Kalu (DW-2) have deposed that on the fateful day, they were on their duty on barrel pump and from there they had gone to village Nanana to pick up the wife of Lala from Shankarji's house and from there on coming to know about his uncle and brother being admitted to the hospital at Beawar, they went there. But then, in cross-examination, he even pleaded ignorance about the facts which he must be knowing being the family member of Gaji. It is pertinent to note that Kalu in his cross-examination categorically stated that he does possess any papers regarding his employment at Barrel point run by Shyam Singh. The employer Shyam Singh was produced by the appellants Lala and Kalu for examination before the Court. It is pertinent to note that Kalu in his cross-examination categorically stated that he does possess any papers regarding his employment at Barrel point run by Shyam Singh. The employer Shyam Singh was produced by the appellants Lala and Kalu for examination before the Court. Bhanwaroo Khan (DW-3) has also disclosed the basis of his information regarding Kalu and Lala being present in the village, rather, he has deposed that Gaji, Kalu, Lala and Nimba all the four persons were present at the place of occurrence, but did disclose as to who belaboured Guman (PW 2), Anada and Abdul. To the contrary, in cross-examination, he has stated that on inquiry being made, it could be revealed as to who were the persons involved in the incident of beating. In this view of the matter, he is also found to be a reliable witness. Thus, the plea of alibi raised by the accused appellants as aforesaid cannot be said to be established by evidence on record, which is found untrustworthy. 49. Thus, on the basis of ocular and circumstantial evidence discussed above, it stands established that in the first instance, the accused appellants armed with the weapons belaboured Guman with an intention to cause death and later, when Anada and Abdul came to intervene, the accused appellants in furtherance of common intention to kill them caused grievous and simple injuries by sharp edged weapons and stick and thus, caused their death. In this view of the matter, the charges against the accused appellants for offences under Section 341, 307/34 and 302/34 IPC stand established beyond reasonable doubt. 50. No case for interference by this court is made out. 51. In the result, the appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed.