JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal filed by the accused Ramli is directed against the judgement dated January 13, 1973 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. for committing the murder of Mst. Prabhati, a girl 19 years of age by pushing her into the well. She was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Tersely speaking the prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that a day preceding the date of the incident the accused-appellant and Mst. Prabhati (since deceased) quarrelled with each other in the morning regarding cutting of fodder by Ramli from the field of the deceased. On the same evening some scuffle took place between them on the well and during the course of the scuffle the bucket of Mst. Prabhati struck against Ramli resulting in an injury on the head of accused Ramli. She was clinically examined by Dr. Ramakant PW 6, who noted a lacerated wound 3/4 x 1/4" x 1/4" on the left side of forehead, 1/2" from the frontal eminence. Ramli felt aggrieved and throughout the night she went on calling names to Mst. Prabhati. It is alleged that on the next day in. the morning Mst. Prabhati (since deceased) went to fetch water on the well known as Dhani Bhadar Singh-ka-Kua. While Prabhati was drawing water from the well the accused rushed on the well and pushed the former into the well as a result of which she was drowned and ultimately died. This occurrence was witnessed by PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das and some other persons. The first information report Ex. P/1 of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Sri Madhopur by Ganesh Das PW 1 on August 26, 1971 at 1.30 p.m. 3. The autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Prabhati was performed by PW 6 Dr. Ramakant. He found no external injury on the dead body. According to the doctor the cause of death of Mst. Prabhati was asphyxia due to drowning and the duration of the death was about one day. The police after due investigation submitted a challan in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, who after taking proceedings under Section 2.07A Cr. P. C. committed the accused to take her trial in the Court of Sessions. 4. Prabhati was asphyxia due to drowning and the duration of the death was about one day. The police after due investigation submitted a challan in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, who after taking proceedings under Section 2.07A Cr. P. C. committed the accused to take her trial in the Court of Sessions. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of their case, out of whom PW 1 Ganesh Das, PW 2 Mst. Gulli, PW 3 Narain Das and PW 9 Mst. Soni have been examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 6 Dr. Ramakant was examined to prove the post mortem report. PW 5 Ugam Singh and PW 10 Ram Babu are the investigation officers of this case. The accused denied her complicity in the crime and pleaded ignorance. She did not examine any witness in defence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration the various contradictions appearing in the statements of PW 1 Ganesh Das and PW 9 Mst. Soni held that these two witnesses cannot be relied upon as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Placing reliance on the statements of PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das corroborated by the medical evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced her as mentioned above. 6. The convicted accused-appellant has challenged her conviction and sentence and the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgement of the trial court. 7. From the statements of PW 2 Mst. Gulli, PW 3 Narain Das and PW 6 Dr Ramakant, post mortem report Ex. P/5 and first information report Ex. P/1, it stands amply proved that Mst. Prabhati (since deceased) died of drowning. There is no controversy between the parties on this point. 8. The learned counsel, Mr. Tibrewal, appearing for the accused-appellant has raised a number of contentions, which will be dealt with shortly ad seriatum. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the author of the first information report is a near relative of the deceased and it was expected of him to inquire from other persons and ascertain the details and know the names of the eye-witnesses before giving the first information report and as PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das have not been mentioned in the first information report as eye-witnesses, their statements should not be relied upon. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das have not been mentioned in the first information report as eye-witnesses, their statements should not be relied upon. No doubt it is a fact that PW 1 Ganesh Das is a close relative of the deceased, but it is also a fact that he is not an eye-witness of the occurrence, It depends upon the intelligence, upbringing and education of a man as to what inquiry he should make or not make before giving a first information report. By hearing the news that his aunt has been drowned into the well he must have been taken aback. An uneducated villager as he was if he thought it advisible to rush to the Police Station without making a spot inquirt and lodge a report, we cannot fin any fault with him and discard the statements of PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das in this context. The author of the first information report in the case in hand is neither an eye-witness nor is his report based on the information given by an eye-witness and so the non-mentioning of the names of the eye-witnesses in the first information report in the facts and circumstances of this case is of no consequence. 10. Out of the four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case the learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the various contradictions appearing in the statements of PW 1 Ganesh Das and PW 9 Mst. Soni was correct in not placing reliance upon the evidence of these two witnesses. Now remains the evidence of PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das. The question which arises is whether they are the eye-witnesses and they are the witnesses of truth. PW 2 Mst. Gulli who resides at a distance of five pawandas i.e. about 25 feet from the well stated that 15 months back in the month of Bhadwa at 8 a.m. she was providing water to her cow and Mst. Prabhati (since deceased) was drawing water from the well. At that stage accused Ramli rushed from her house and pushed Mst. Prabhati into the well. The witness goes on to state that as soon as Mst. Prabhati fell into the well, she rushed towards Ramli, caught her tight, but she got herself released, threw the witness down and rushed back to her house. At that stage accused Ramli rushed from her house and pushed Mst. Prabhati into the well. The witness goes on to state that as soon as Mst. Prabhati fell into the well, she rushed towards Ramli, caught her tight, but she got herself released, threw the witness down and rushed back to her house. PW 3 Narain Das stated that his house is situated at a distance of 5 or 6 Kadams from the well. He stated that at the relevant time when Mst. Prabhati (since deceased) was drawing water out of the well Mst. Ramli rushed from her house and pushed Mst. Prabhati into the well. Dharrna went inside the well With the help of a lay but could not go deep into the water and as such could not locate the body of Prabhati. PW 1 Ganesh also failed in his attempt to bring out dead body out. Both these witnesses reside in front of the well at a little distance. Their presence on the scene of occurrence was most natural. There is no reason why these two neighbours should falsely implicate the accused-appellant for such a heinous crime. A perusal of Ex. D/4, statement of PW 2 Mst. Gulli recorded by police, shows that she was examined by the police on the date of the occurrence. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length in the trial court. Except the contradictions on insignificant points, nothing has appeared in their statements on the basis of which it can be said that their statements cannot be relied upon. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahcbrao Bodade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 while scanning the evidence of witnesses we have to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations (SIC) embellishments in essential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony delivered. Simply because some minor contradictions appear, their statements cannot be disbelieved. The trial court after a detailed discussion has placed reliance on the statements of these witnesses and we do not find any reason to disbelieve their statements. It had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses when they were in the witness-box. Their statements appear to be consistent and the substratum of the prosecution case has remained in tact. Minor discrepancies only indicate that witnesses were not tutored. It had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses when they were in the witness-box. Their statements appear to be consistent and the substratum of the prosecution case has remained in tact. Minor discrepancies only indicate that witnesses were not tutored. The statements of both these witnesses stand corroborated in material particulars by the statement of PW 6 Dr. Ramakant and the post mortem report Ex. P/5. 11. As regards non-examination of material witnesses the learned counsel contended that in the first information report two persons Bhinwa Das and Ghatam Das have been named. They were independent witnesses but were deliberately withheld from the court and as such inference maybe drawn against the prosecution. It will be pertinent to note that first information report in this case was not given by an eyewitness. A perusal of the first information report Ex. P/l shows that these two witnesses have been named in the first information report, but not as eye- witnesses. The only suggestion given in the first information report is that these witnesses and other persons must have been near about the well at the time of occurrence. It is the duty of the prosecution to assist the court in reaching the proper conclusion in regard to the case which is brought before it for trial, but it is equally true that it is open to the prosecution not to examine witnesses who in their opinion have not witnessed the incident. In this connection it is necessary to bear in mind that there is nothing on record to show that these two persons namely, Bhinwa Das and Ghatam Das, had witnessed the occurrence. No such suggestion has been made to the investigation officer and there is no legal evidence on record to hold that these witnesses had witnessed the occurrence. If the accused felt that the prosecution has suppressed material witnesses they could have made an application under Section 540 Cr. P. C. for examination of these witnesses or could have summoned them as defence witnesses. In the present case we see no justification for the assumption that any eye-witness has been kept back from the court and so we feel no hesitation in rejecting the argument that the case should be thrown to Board because Bhinwa Das and Ghatam Das were not examined. 12. In the present case we see no justification for the assumption that any eye-witness has been kept back from the court and so we feel no hesitation in rejecting the argument that the case should be thrown to Board because Bhinwa Das and Ghatam Das were not examined. 12. Even if it is held that they were eye-witnesses of the occurrence then also the real question for determination is not as to what is the effect of non-examination of certain witnesses as the question whether the witnesses examined m court on sworn testimony should be believed or not. As already held above the two eye-witnesses , PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das are believable and their testimony is trustworthy, the non-examination of these witnesses cannot be said to have affected the credibility of these witnesses. Reference may be made to Narpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1066 . 13. The evidence on record is sufficient to hold that a motive did exist for Mst. Ramli to push Mst. Prabhati into the well, because a day prior to the date of the occurrence she had a quarrel with her and in the evening she had sustained injury at the hands of the deceased. The evidence of motive does lend support to the eyewitnesses examined at the stage of the trial. Thus there is clear proof of motive for the crime which lends additional assurance to the credence of PW 2 Mst. Gulli and PW 3 Narain Das pointing to the guilt of the accused-appellant. Reference may be made to Atley v. State of U. P., AIR 1955 SC 807 . 14. It is thus quite clear that the evidence referred to above leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused-appellant. 15. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal fails. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused-appellant is confirmed. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision of this case has mainly turned up on facts and we find no reason to certify it to the Supreme Court. 17. The leave to appeal is refused. *******