IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1314 of 2008 1. DHARAM DAS PRASAD SAH 2. ASHOK PRASAD SAH 3. HANESHWAR SAH ---PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----OPP.PARTY ----------- 02 19.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the appellate order dated 20-08-2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Munger in Cr. Appeal no. 169 of 2004, whereby the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court in G.R.No. 1873 of 2001/Tr. No. 95 of 2004 has been affirmed. On 6.12.2001 at about 9.30 p.m. informant (PW-4) was inside his house. Some body made a call from outside. The informant opened the door. The accused persons named in the F.I.R. along with four others armed with gun and pistol forcibly entered into the house of the informant and they committed loot at gun point. Accordingly, investigation was made whereafter charge sheet was submitted under Sections 448 and 427 of the Penal Code leading to the order taking cognizance under Sections 448 and 427. At the trial charge(s) were framed against the petitioners under Sections 444, 427 and 380 of the Penal Code. In order to prove the charge(s) the prosecution examined altogether 06 witnesses. PW’s 1,2,3 were the independent witnesses whereas PW’s 4,5, and 6 are the informant, mother of the informant and Investigating Officer of the case respectively. On a consideration 2 of the evidence on record, learned trial Court held the petitioners guilty only under Section 448 of the Penal Code (as would appear from paragraph no.11 of the judgment). They were, acquitted of the other charge(s). Since they were convicted for a petty offence/charge and there was no previous record of criminal antecedent, they were let off under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. The appeal preferred by the petitioners failed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that court below having disbelieved part of the deposition of the PW’s ought to have acquitted them of the charge(s) under Section 448 of the Penal Code. It is next submitted that in fact no offence punishable under Section 448 of the Penal Code is made out. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand supported the impugned judgment. This Court on a consideration of the materials available on record including the two judgments of the Courts below find that learned trial Court critically evaluated the evidence of the informant (PW-4), mother of the informant (PW-5) and Investigating Officer (PW-6) whereafter it has come to a definite conclusion that they being the natural witnesses and there being no material to discredit them that the conviction can be based on their evidence. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the court below has partly disbelieved those evidence the same ought to have been disbelieved in toto, in my view, is not sustainable in law. It is always the duty of the court to appraise the 3 evidence and to sift the grains from the chaff. The theory falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not hold good so far as the criminal case is concerned. Learned trial court has appraised their evidence critically and has recorded a finding of guilt which has been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court. This court does not find any patent illegality and/or infirmity in the two judgments of the courts below meriting interference. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)