V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for offence punishable u/s. 302 I. P. C. , 302 r/w 109 I. P. C. by Addi. Sessions Judge, Jhabua (Camp Alirajpur) by his judgment dtd. 6. 8. 1986 in S. T. No. 14/88. Hence this appeal. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case stated in brief was that in 16th of Aug. 1985, P. W. 2 Ida, alongwith his deceased brother Amiya, brother-in-law Begani was on his way to village Hardaspur, from his village Kanera, for enjoying fest on the eve of Diwasa festival. As they reached Bhunes house in village Kakadkua around 7 P. M. they found the accused sitting with bows and arrows. Accused Abla exhorted Dhundriy to shoot an arrow which he did, hitting Aniya who was ahead of all, in his chest. They tried to escape, but Aniya fell to the ground after running for a short distance. Beganiya rushed to Bhuna and informed him of the incident. He rushed to the place alongwith other brothers Chamsingh and Tidia. Ida reported to them the incident that had taken place. Aniya died on the spot. Next day morning a report was lodged at Police Station, Ambu, which is F. I. R. Ex. P. 3. On completion of investigation, the accused were charged and tried for the above offence. The trial court held them guilty and sentenced them as noted above. ( 3 ) SHRI Sawantsingh learned counsel appearing for the appellant raise the following points:i. F. I. R. Ex. P. 3 is belated. ii. Independent witnesses though available, not examined. iii. Witnesses examined, are close relation Beganiya being brother-in-law of Ida. iv. Their testimony suffers from inherent contradictions. ( 4 ) IT would thus be seen that all the above points relate to appreciation of evidence. ( 5 ) SO far as late lodging of F. I. R. is concerned, it is clear from the evidence and the F. I. R. Ex. P. 3 itself, that the place of occurrence is about 7 Kms. from the Police Station. Diwasa a tribal festival, falls on Amavasya as per Hindu calendar (a fact of which judicial notice can be taken ). Secondly, it was rainy season in mid-August. P. 3 itself, that the place of occurrence is about 7 Kms. from the Police Station. Diwasa a tribal festival, falls on Amavasya as per Hindu calendar (a fact of which judicial notice can be taken ). Secondly, it was rainy season in mid-August. Considering all these facts, and more particularly the fact that injured Aniya had met with on the spot, the delay in reaching the Police Station, next day morning can not be viewed with suspicion, more so when there are no other communication facilities and easy availability of conveyance in the tribal area. There is substance in this point, as raised by the appellant. ( 6 ) AS far non-examination of independent witnesses, as argued by the learned counsel, the main question is who were those independent witnesses? Prosecution case is that P. W. 2 Ida, with his brother Aniya and brother-in-law Beganiya were on their way to Hardaspur to attend a feast. They were intercepted by the accused who had forestalled themselves. On an arrow being shot, by Dhundhriya hitting Aniya in his chest they raised hue and cry. Hearing their cries few villagers from Kakadhua rushed to their help but none of them can be said to be an eye witness. The incident was reported to them. In these circumstances non-examination of such witnesses who had not seen the incident would hardly be of any consequence and help to the appellants. ( 7 ) THE other point regarding relationship may also be considered and disposed of here itself. The two brothers and their brother-in-law Beganiya were going to attend a festival feat at their Mamas place in Hardaspur. It is but natural that the relatives would got together; how can a stranger be expected to join them; Brother and Brother-in-law going to their Mama to enjoy a feast. On fails to see what is unnatural about it. None of them is trying to foist his presence on the spot. All of them started together, little realising what was stored for them, on their way. The criticism made by the appellantst counsel is wholly injustified and uncalled for. ( 8 ) COMING now to the material contradictions in the testimony of P. W. 2 Ida and Beganiya P. W. 3, really speaking there is no such contradiction which would affect the intrinsic, value of their evidence. The criticism made by the appellantst counsel is wholly injustified and uncalled for. ( 8 ) COMING now to the material contradictions in the testimony of P. W. 2 Ida and Beganiya P. W. 3, really speaking there is no such contradiction which would affect the intrinsic, value of their evidence. A minor variation here or there that too on an insignificant point would hardly matter, in appreciation of their evidence. Take for example, an inconsistency, as pointed out by the appellant's counsel, that the F. I. R. does not contain a statement to the effect that the witnesses cried aloud that Dhundhariya shot an arrow, and killed Aniya, while crying out for help in need of despair, no one would cry in such a fashion to make a complete sentence with its subject predicate and verb. Such an omission in the F. I. R. is no omission at all. If the other witnesses do not reproduce the same sentence they can not be said to be unreliable on that account. The other contradiction relates to Beganiyas having rushed to Bhunas house. Firstly it is not there, assuming it to be so, how does it affect his testimony as an eye witness. His rushing to Banwast place is matter of his immediate conduct, which varies from man to man. Whether somebodys hut is there near or around the place of occurrence, is again of no consequence for the simple reason that those hut dwellers have not been produced as eye-witnesses and if a witness were to fatter on such a point, it is just to be ignored. ( 9 ) PREVIOUS enmity was also sought to be introduced but as is well known it works both ways. In the case at hand, in face of the eye witness account, it can not be said that the accused were falsely implicated due to enmity. Absence of motive on the part of the accused was also fairely suggested but this point again is hardly of any consequence, in face of evidence of eyewitness. ( 10 ) NO other point was raised. ( 11 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .