Judgment :- Arumugham, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No.69 of 1987 dated 29. 1988 convicting the first appellant (A-2) under Secs.302, and 307, I.P.C. for having caused the death of one Murugan and for having attempted to murder P.W.2 Pethu Thevar alias Shanmugha Thevar and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. and ordering the sentences to run concurrently and convicting the second appellant (A-5) under Sec.302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of one Muthukutti and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place at or about 1 p.m. on 11. 1985 at Nettur village within the jurisdiction of the Alangulam police station. 2. Both the appellants as A-2 and A-5 along with A-1 by name Sivananaindhaperumal Thevar alias Raja Thevar, their father, A-3 Esakki Muthu, their brother and A-4 Muthukutti were tried by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli on the following charges: under Sec.148, I.P.C. against A-2 to A-5; under Sec.147, I.P.C against A-1; under Sec.302,. I.P.C. against A-2; under Sec.149 read with Sec.302, I.P.C. against A-1, A-3 and A-5; under Sec.302, I.P.C. against A-5; under Sec.149 read with Sec.302, I.P.C. against A-1 to A-4; under Sec.307, I.P.C. against A-2; under Sec.323, I.P.C. against A-1; for having formed an unlawful assembly with a view to attack P.W.1 Thirumalai Ammal, P.W.2 Pethu Thevar alias Shanmugha Thevar and both the deceased Murugan and Muthukutti, and commit rioting and cause the death of both the deceased in Nettur Village at or about 1 p.m. on 11. 1985 with the weapon of offence Aruval and knife. After elaborate trial, the learned trial Judge found A-2 guilty under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C. and A-5 guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and dealt with A-2and A-5 as stated earlier. He found A-1, A-3 and A-4 not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed on them A-2 and A-5 viz., the Appellants herein, have come forward with the present appeal. 3. He found A-1, A-3 and A-4 not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed on them A-2 and A-5 viz., the Appellants herein, have come forward with the present appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the recorded oral and documentary evidence before the trial court are briefly stated as follows: Both the appellants herein are the sons of A-1 Sivananaindhaperumal Thevar alias Raja Thevar and A-3 is also a son of A-1 and brother of A-2 and A-5. They were all living in Nettur village. P.W.3 Shanmugha Thevar alias Pethu Thevar with his wife P.W.1 Thirumalaiammal and their sons by name Murugan and Muthukutti both the deceased in this case also belonged to the same village. Both-the’ families own cultivable lands at the village called Kasikkuvaithan. The lands of A-1 was situated abutting the lands of P.W.1 in the said village on its western side but in a higher level than the lands of P.W.1. There was a pipeline in the lands of A-1 which drained the excess rain water during rainy season and it was alleged by deceased Murugan son of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that it caused damage to their crops and insisted for the removal of the pipeline 8 months prior to the occurrence. Since A-1 did not accede for the demand, it appears that deceased Murugan had given a petition to the Deputy Tahsildar, Veerakeralampudhur Ex.P-2, dated 210. 1985 against A-1 and his sons. The Village Kasikkuvaithan was within the Karuvan-tha revenue firka and P.W.4 Kumaresan, Revenue Inspector of that Firka was directed to enquire upon the petition given by deceased Murugan on 11. 1985 by his superior officer. P.W.4 Kumaresan took up the enquiry on the same and accordingly at about 11 a.m. on 11. 1985 he went to Nettur village along with the village menials and summoned both the parties to the village chavadi and in their presence, he went to the land situated in Survey No.149/1 in that village and inspected the disputed pipe-line and along with the respective parties concerned, reached the Nettur village chavadi. In the village chavadi P.W.4 opined that as the pipe-line in the lands of A-1 would not cause a«r damage or affect the lands of P.W.1, there existed no need for the removal of the pipe-line and accordingly advised P.W.2 and his sons. In the village chavadi P.W.4 opined that as the pipe-line in the lands of A-1 would not cause a«r damage or affect the lands of P.W.1, there existed no need for the removal of the pipe-line and accordingly advised P.W.2 and his sons. But the deceased Murugan did not agree for the same. Consequently as both the parties indulged in wordy altercations P.W.4 along with his village administrative staffs asked both the parties to leave the chavadi premises at about 12.30 p.m. on 11. 1985. Accordingly, A-2 and A-5 the appellants herein along with the other three accused first went out of the chavadi and afterwards the deceased and his family along with one Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar left the chavadi premises. In the above backdrop, according to the prosecution, the occurrence in this case happened. 4. P.W.1 Thirumalaiammal, the mother of both the deceased, P.W.2 Shanmughathevar alias Pethuthevar, the father of both the deceased and P.W.3 Esakkiammal, the sister of both the deceased claim that they along with both the deceased and one Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar came out of the village chavadi. When they came near the south of the tea shop owned by one Sankaralinga Mooppanar situated in the north-south main road, the first accused A-1 told Following this A-2 (the first appellant herein) cut the deceased Murugan on his neck with an aruval in his hand. On receiving the cut, deceased Murugan fell down with face upwards. Then A-3 Esak-kimuthu stabbed the deceased Murugan on his left abdomen, right fore-head and right cheek with the knife in his hand. A-4 Muthukutti cut the second deceased Muthukutti with an aruval and when he tried to ward it off, he sustained bleeding injuries in both his hands. Then, A-5 Muppidathi, the second appellant herein, cut the second deceased Muthukutti on his neck with an aruval and on the receipt of the said cut, the second deceased Muthukutti fell to the ground facing upwards. A-3 Esakkimuthu stabbed him on his face, left hip with the knife in his hand. P,W 2came to the scene for the rescue of their sons from being cut and that whereupon A-2, the first appellant herein cut P.W.2 on his left abdomen and consequently his intestine came out. When P.W.2 bent, A-2 cut on the centre of his head and left shoulder-according to P.W.2 with the aruval in his hand. P,W 2came to the scene for the rescue of their sons from being cut and that whereupon A-2, the first appellant herein cut P.W.2 on his left abdomen and consequently his intestine came out. When P.W.2 bent, A-2 cut on the centre of his head and left shoulder-according to P.W.2 with the aruval in his hand. On receipt of the above cuts, P.W.2 ran towards north and fell down near a post-office. When P.W.1 Thirumalaiammal intervened weeping, A-1 accosted her as to why she was weeping and gave a slap on her with his right hand and that as a result of which the ear rings (Pambadam) of P.W.1 shattered down. Following the shouting of P.W.1 and others, appellants and other accused ran towards east with their weapon of offence. 5. P.W.4 the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officers along with their menials then came to the scene. Murugan and Muthukutti, the sons of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were found dead in the scene of crime itself and their bodies were lying at a distance of about 50 feet from village chavadi where P.W.1 and her daughter P.W.3 were present. Injured P.W.2 was lying with the bleeding injuries within the post office. P.W.4 got the details from Pandara Thevar who was there at that time. Then, P.W.4 tried to contact the police by phone but as the phone was not working, he was not able to contact the Police. Then in a van which was coming from north towards Alangulam, in order to save the life of P.W.2, he sent him through the said van along with P.W.1, Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar to the Alangulam Police Station. With a view to avoid further complications, P.W.4 with his staff was in the scene of crime. P.W.3 was found weeping in the scene of crime itself. 6. Somaskandan, P.W.11 employed in the Nettur Post Office speaks to the factum that he saw P.W.2 with the bleeding injuries in his office premises and that when he tried to contact the Alangulam Police over telephone, he could not get the line and then as a result of the shock, he went inside the office. 7. P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Alangulam police station claims that when he was on duty in the station at about 2.30 p.m. on 11. 7. P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Alangulam police station claims that when he was on duty in the station at about 2.30 p.m. on 11. 1985, the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 along with Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar came to the Station in a van and as P.W.2 was found in a critical condition due to the cut injuries in the van itself, P.W.13 sent him to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital through Police Constable Lakshmanan with a medical memo for treatment. For the purpose of helping P.W.2, he sent Kanda Thevar along with P.W.2. He provided a Dhoti to P.W.2 and recovered his blood stained dhoti M.O.10. P.W.1 gave a statement to P.W.13 and he reduced it into writing to her narration and after having read over and admitted by her with reference to its correctness, she subscribed her signature. This statement Ex.P-1 was attested by Pandara Thevar who was present then. On Ex.P-1, P.W.13 registered the same in his police station Crime No.198 of 1985 against the accused under Sec.302, I.P.C. and other sections and prepared the printed first information report Ex.P.14. Then he sent Ex.P-1 and Ex.P.14 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thenkasi through P.W.12 Gr. I.P.C. Chelladurai Pandian with the passport Ex.P-13. After providing an alternate sari to P.W.1, he recovered the blood-stained sari M.O.1 from P.W.1. He also provided an alternate dhoti to Pandara Thevar and recovered his bloodstained dhoti. He sent P.W.1 for treatment to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital with a medical memo through Police Constable Arumugham. He also sent copy ofEx.P-14 to the Inspector of Police and other copies to his superior officers. 8. P.W.12 on receipt of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-14 from P.W.13 at about 4 p.m. on 11. 1985, reached Thenkasi town at about 5.30 p.m. and having come to know that the Magistrate after completing the day’s work left for his home, he proceeded to his house but was informed that the learned Magistrate had gone for a walk and that therefore he was waiting for the arrival of the learned Magistrate and on his arrival at about 8.30 p.m. he handed over Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-14 to him and got his signature in Ex.P-13. 9. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police, Alangulam received the copy of Ex.P-14 through Police Constable 904 Narayanan at his house at about 4.15 p.m. on 11. 9. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police, Alangulam received the copy of Ex.P-14 through Police Constable 904 Narayanan at his house at about 4.15 p.m. on 11. 1985 and took up investigation in this case. Then, he had been to the Alangulam police station and verified the General Diary entries and reached the scene of crime in Nettur village by 5 P.M. on that day. P.W.14 conducted inquest over the dead body of Murugan in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-15. In the meanwhile, during the inquest itself at about 5.30 p.m. he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-16 in the presence of Vellaisamy Thevar and Muthiah Thevar. At about 6.15 p.m. in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered the blood stained earth M.O.11 and sample earth M.O.12 under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-17 near the dead body of Murugan. At about 6.30 P.M. in the place where the dead body of Muthukutti was found, he recovered blood stained earth M.O.13 and sample earth M.O.14 in the presence of the same witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-18 attested by them. Then, he also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-19 with reference to the topography of the scene of crime. Between 8.30p.m. and 10.30 p.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Muthukutti and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-20. He sent the dead bodies of Muthukutti and Murugan with requisitions Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 through P.W.9 and P.W.10 for the conduct of autopsy. 10. P.W-5, Dr.Somasundaram, the then Assistant Surgeon, Thenkasi, Government Hospital received the requisition from the Inspector of Police P.W.14 for the conduct of autopsy over the dead body of Muthukutti through P.W.9at 2.15 a.m. on 11. 1985 and commenced his autopsy at about 10 a.m. on 11. 1985. [After listing the injuries His Lordship proceeded.- He issued a post-mortem certificate Ex.P-4. He opines that that due to injury found on the neck, out of shock and haemorrhage, the deceased would have died......He also opines that from the 250 grams of undigested food particles, the deceased would have taken the food 4 or 5 hours prior to his death. [After adverting to other evidence His Lordship proceeded. - Ed] 16. He opines that that due to injury found on the neck, out of shock and haemorrhage, the deceased would have died......He also opines that from the 250 grams of undigested food particles, the deceased would have taken the food 4 or 5 hours prior to his death. [After adverting to other evidence His Lordship proceeded. - Ed] 16. When all the accused were examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they denied their complicity in the crime as a whole and stated that a false case had been foisted against them and examined Dr.Palace D.Prakash, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital as D.W.1 on their behalf. This witness claims that at about 11 a.m. on 211. 1985, he has sent a requisition Ex.D-4 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli requesting him to record the dying declaration from P.W.2 who was in the hospital then and accordingly at about 11.45 a.m. in his presence, the learned Magistrate recorded the dying declaration from P.W.2 Ex.D-1 and during that time, he claims that he was present throughout and certified that when P W.2’s statement was recorded by the Magistrate, he was conscious and was in a position to give the statement. That apart, Form No.91 used to recover M.O.1 has been marked as Ex.D-2 and the requisition given by P.W.13 to the doctor for giving medical treatment to P.W.2 has been marked as Ex.D-3 and the entries found in the General Diary of Alangulam Police Station at about 14.30 hours on 11. 1985 has been marked as Ex.D-5. 17. On assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence let in both by the prosecution and the accused, the learned trial Judge found A-2 Arjunan, the first appellant herein guilty under Secs.302, and 307, I.P.C. and A-5 Muppidathi, the second appellant herein guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and dealt with them as stated above. 18. We have heard Mr.G.R.Edmund, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein. 18. We have heard Mr.G.R.Edmund, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein. Among the various grounds urged in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel confirmed his arguments on the following main points: Firstly, that Ex.P-1 the statement recorded by P. W.13 is not real one but the real complaint given to the police at the earliest point of time has been suppressed and that therefore, the reliance placed upon Ex.P-1 by the learned trial Judge is not correct; secondly,that the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 were falsified by Ex.D-1 the statement given by P.W.2 to the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli when he recorded the same as dying declaration on 211. 1985 at about 11.45 a.m. and that therefore the accounting of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be relied and even so, it is not safe to place any reliance upon their evidence in this case; thirdly, that though P.W.1 and P.W.2 claim to have been the injured witnesses in this case, they were not the truthful witnesses speaking the real truth of the prosecution case, but implicated all the accused falsely due to the enmity that existed among themselves; fourthly, that P.W.3 is the planted witness by the prosecution and that as such, she could not have witnessed the occurrence and this factum was inherent with the serious laches and inconsistency found in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 itself; fifthly, that even the evidence of P.W.4, the Revenue Inspector is suffering on account of serious ladies and credibility and so much so, the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be accepted; sixthly, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before us that the non-examination of the material witnesses Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar by the prosecution casts every serious doubt on the genuineness of its theory against the accused and that therefore, the trial court ought to have held that the prosecution has not come forward with the true case; seventhly, that the medical evidence available in this case, does not provide any corroboration to the accounting of the ocular witnesses; eighthly, that the serious laches found and committed by the investigating agency and the delay in sending the first information report to the Court virtually provide a crude jolt to the prosecution theory and that, therefore, the trial Court ought to have rejected the entire prosecution case and. acquitted the appellants also like the other accused. In submitting the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the findings given by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 39 and 40 of his Judgment and on the basis of the same, he contended that the entire prosecution case suffers from very many serious suspicion and grave doubt and therefore, pleaded for the acquittal of both the appellants herein. 19.Per contra, Mr.S.Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered every one of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and further contended that the prosecution has established the strong motive for the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased and attack P.W.2; and that after examining all the neighbours and the so called Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar in all 21 persons by the investigating agency and out of which prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3, the ocular witnesses in this case pertaining directly to the overt acts of the appellants herein and that, therefore, it is not reasonable to comment that the prosecution has failed to examine proper and material witnesses in this case; and that further the medical evidence rendered by the medicos who conducted the autopsy over the two dead bodies renders full support and corroboration to the claim of the ocular witnesses and that there was no lapses or serious infirmities in the investigation done in this case and more particularly the delay in the first information report reaching the court has been properly explained by the prosecution and that therefore in all, prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants herein and that accordingly, the learned trial Judge has rightly and justifiably rendered his judgment of conviction and sentences against the appellants. 20. In the light of the above rival contentions the only point that has arisen for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants/accused in committing the murder of both the deceased and in causing hurt to P.W.2 with an intention to murder him beyond all reasonable doubt? [After discussing the evidence His Lordship proceeded-Ed.] 23. 20. In the light of the above rival contentions the only point that has arisen for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants/accused in committing the murder of both the deceased and in causing hurt to P.W.2 with an intention to murder him beyond all reasonable doubt? [After discussing the evidence His Lordship proceeded-Ed.] 23. According to P.W.6, Dr.Pal Singh, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Murugan, the first deceased, the external injury number one could have been caused by an aruval which is necessarily fatal and that injuries 2 to 5 could have been caused by a weapon like knife and that the deceased would appear to have died 21 to 23 hours prior to his autopsy. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 along with the post mortem certificates Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6 clinches the fact that both the deceased were attacked at about 1 p.m. on 11. 1985,15 feet south of the thatched tea shop belonging to one Sankaranaray-ana Mooppanar in Nettur village by the assailants. 24. One another aspect in this case available to fortify the said conclusion is the evidence of P.W.7 Dr.Kandasamy, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital who issued the wound certificate Ex.P-7 to P.W.2 the father of both the deceased and Ex.P-8 to P.W.1 the mother of both the deceased. A cursory perusal of the evidence of P.W.7 and Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8 coupled with the evidence of P. Ws.l to 3 clearly establishes the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 and both the deceased were attacked at or about 1 p.m. on 11. 1985 in the place claimed by the prosecution as above stated. 25. As regards the complicity of both the appellants herein along with the accused acquitted by the learned trial Judge, in attacking P.Ws.1 and 2 and causing the murder of both the deceased we have got the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to3in this case. In projecting the various overt acts of the appellants and the acquitted accused, P.W.1, the mother of both the deceased and wife of P.W.2 claims that she along with her husband and sons and others came out of the village chavadi at or about 12.30 p.m. on 11. In projecting the various overt acts of the appellants and the acquitted accused, P.W.1, the mother of both the deceased and wife of P.W.2 claims that she along with her husband and sons and others came out of the village chavadi at or about 12.30 p.m. on 11. 1985 and when they were approaching at the south of the tea shop of Sankaranaryana Mooppanar that is about 15 feet south, the first accused A-1 shouted that he would not allow the channel and finish him and that it was followed by the first appellant (A-2) cutting the first deceased Murugan upon the neck with an aruval in his hand as a result of which the first deceased fell down to the ground facing upwards, then A-3 Esakkimuthu stabbed the first deceased upon his left abdomen, right forehead, right cheek and that A-4 Muthukutti cut the second deceased Muthukutti which was warded off by him and as a result of which he sustained injuries in both the hands and that the second appellant (A-5) cut the second deceased Muthukutti with aruval on his neck which made him fall to the ground facing upwards followed by A-3 stabbing the second deceased on his face, left hip. 31. In so far as the place of occurrence in the instant case is concerned, we have already held that the entire occurrence took place at a place situated 15 feet south of the tea shop of Sankaran-arayana Mooppanar. It was the evidence of P.W.14 that though he examined several witnesses in and around the scene of crime including so-called Pandara Thevar and Kanda Thevar, none has claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and that therefore, prosecution has not examined them and that since P.Ws.1 and 2 happened to be injured witnesses and P.W.3 their daughter was very much present throughout even as confirmed by P.W.4 who saw her near the dead bodies when he came out, immediately after the occurrence and during the panchayat, we are of the firm view that the non-examination of independent or strange persons from the scene of crime or from the neigh-“bourhood by itself would not affect the accounting of the ocular witnesses in this case. As such, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that though the scene of crime was situated in a public place surrounded by a number of petty shops and people were available, the non-examination of any other independent witnesses would cause every suspicion to the prosecution case. In short, there is no substance in the said contention. Then, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since Ex.P-1 the first information report itself does not contain the fact that P.W.3 was present to witness the occurrence, though given by her mother P.W.1, the same could not be subscribed with any credibility and that consequently, the so-called claim of P.W.3 that she was present throughout the occurrence has to be rejected. In the context of the consistent, natural and uncontroverted claim of P.W.3, pertaining to the actual occurrence proper and in the context of P.W.4 the Revenue Inspector corroborates the presence of P.W.3 even during the panchayat just prior to the occurrence and that she left along with others from the village chavadi and when P.W.4 came out of the chavadi, he saw P.W.3 near the dead bodies with no passing of time dissuades us to accept the above contention. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia requiring all the minute details and facts that happened subsequently to the occurrence to find a place in the same and it is a piece of evidence expected to set the law in motion with material particulars. Therefore, in this case, P.W.1 has given the statement which was reduced into writing by P.W.13 which corroborates the accounting or ocular witnesses in all material particulars and as such, we are totally unable to accept the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and we believe the claim of P.W.3 that she was present and witnessed the entire occurrence throughout. [After considering the other contentions made on behalf of the appellants and examining them in detail with reference to the evidence available on record. His Lordship concluded. - Ed.] 36. We have carefully considered Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 in the context of cogent and consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 pertaining to the actual occurrence, proper. We have already held that the very basic structure and fabric of the prosecution case has been convincingly and cogently established by the abovesaid witnesses. His Lordship concluded. - Ed.] 36. We have carefully considered Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 in the context of cogent and consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 pertaining to the actual occurrence, proper. We have already held that the very basic structure and fabric of the prosecution case has been convincingly and cogently established by the abovesaid witnesses. In the light of the above proved aspects and that P.W.1 and P.W.2 happened to be injured witnesses in this case, we are not inclined to attach any importance to the corrections found in Ex.D-2 or the non-reference of the directions claimed to have been given by A-1 at the inception of the occurrence itself in Ex.D-5 so as to affect or impair the prosecution case in any manner. Having considered Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 since the above documents came into existence only after the occurrence and during the process of investigation, we are of the firm view that the above discrepancies were all only minor in nature and character and bound to occur in a case of ghastly incident like the one on hand. Therefore, we are not impressed by the importance and the credibility in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, we reject the said contentions made by the learned counsel. 37. At this stage, it is very useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 S.C.C. (Crl.) 559, in which it has been observed as follows: “Merely because of the failure on the part of the prosecution to produce any independent witness to the incident that occurred at a public place like a bus stand, where there must have been several of such witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted. Generally people are insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. The court instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused.” The Apex Court has further observed as follows:”The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance, the errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses may go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The Courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy." In Sohrab v. State of M.P, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2020: 1972 S. C. C. (Crl.) 819, the Apex Court has held as follows: "This Court has held that falsus in undo falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered." Therefore, in the light of the ratios enunciated by the Apex Court in the above referred cases, and applying the same to the instant case in our hand, we are constrained to hold that the laches or discrepancies relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants as above referred are only very minor in nature and character and that too happened subsequent to the occurrence especially when P.Ws.1 to 3 were in the grip of utter despair and agony and horror stricken mood and cannot be expected to make a computerised narration of the entire facts of the case in the first information report and that further when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were about to be despatched to the hospital for treatment in view of the precarious condition of P.W.2, the Sub Inspector of Police is not expected to probe the aspects in every detail and then make an entry in the General Diary. Even so, the very discrepancies relied on by the learned Counsel, in our definite view would not in any way cause damage to any extent to the very basis of the established prosecution case. .38. Lastly, a faint argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that while the learned trial Judge acquitted A-1, A-3 and A-4 disbelieving the prosecution version clearly fell into error in convicting the appellants herein accepting the said ocular testimony cannot be sustained in law. Having considered the entire evidence adduced in this case and the proved attendant circumstances, we are not impressed in any manner by the above arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants. The legal ratios enunciated in the above referred case laws clearly provide an apt answer for the above argument advanced by the learned counsel. Having considered the entire evidence adduced in this case and the proved attendant circumstances, we are not impressed in any manner by the above arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants. The legal ratios enunciated in the above referred case laws clearly provide an apt answer for the above argument advanced by the learned counsel. It appears that the learned trial Judge has based his conviction on the proved specific overt acts of the appellants herein in causing the death of two young sons of P.Ws.1 and 2 by perpetrating the heinous violence as evident from the post mortem certificates and the evidence of the medicos. Nothing has been brought out to disbelieve or suspect the case projected by the prosecution in this case. .39. Mr.G.R.Edmund, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following case laws: .Awadesh v. State of M.P, 1988 S.C.C. (Crl.) 361, Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of M.P, 1979 S. C. C. (Crl.) l,Bir Singh v. State of U.P, 1977 S.C.C. (Crl.) 640, Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, 1976 S.C.C. (Crl.) 160, Zahir Mian v. State of Bihar, (1988)1 Crimes 673, Lalla v. State of U.P, (1992)2 Crimes 739 . We have carefully gone into the legal ratios enunciated in the catena of decisions referred to above, but, we find that the said legal ratios can render no assistance or help to the appellants herein as contended by the learned counsel. Therefore, we are unable to accept the very applicability of the case laws referred to above to the instant case on hand. 40. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Shanmughavelayutham relied on Kesar Singh v. State of Punjab,A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 985, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "A criminal case is not tied down to a particular version as a civil case is by the pleadings of the parties. Courts dealing with criminal cases cannot throw the whole case over-board simply because parts of it are improbable. To hold that a version is improbable is not to disbelieve it entirely or to find it to be false. Courts dealing with criminal cases cannot throw the whole case over-board simply because parts of it are improbable. To hold that a version is improbable is not to disbelieve it entirely or to find it to be false. In a criminal case a conviction must rest on a proof so strong that the court must be convinced that what it concludes must necessarily have happened and is not reasonably explicable in any other way." Nextly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed his reliance on Nawratan v. State of Bihar, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1295, wherein the Apex Court has held under head note (B) to the position that mere non-mention of details in the F.I.R. recorded under Sec.154, Crl.P.C. by itself is no ground for rejecting the prosecution case. On the same score, he relied on Sashi Ram Malakar and others v. The State of Assam, 1977 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 123 (Gauhati), in which it has been held as follows: "The First Information Report is not an "encyclopaedia" which is expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case; it may often be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case alone appear. If any overt act is also attributed to a particular accused, among the assailants, especially where they are a large number, and the F.I.R. is given without delay along with other evidence concerning who caused what injuries, the recitals to that effect in the F.I.R. may afford greater assurance; but the mere absence of reference to overt acts cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the prosecution case." 41. Thus, after having considered every aspect of the tendered oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution very meticulously and having evaluated, our view in the context "of the established facts, attendant circumstances and rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, we are totally satisfied to hold that the prosecution has established the complicity and guilt of both the appellants in that the first appellant (A-2) has caused the death of deceased Murugan by perpetrating the homicidal violence by aruval in his hand and also attacked P.W.2 with aruval with the intention to murder hint also in the same course and thereby committed offences under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C., and that the second appellant (A-5) has caused the death of deceased Muthukutti by perpetrating the homicidal violence by aruval in his hand and thereby committed the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and that the trial Judge after having discussion of the entire evidence very elaborately has rightly rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence against both the appellants for the offences proved against them. Since, we have not come across any materials or aspects to dissent from the view of the learned trial Judge, we do not find merits in this appeal. The prosecution has established the complicity and guilt of both the appellants herein beyond all reasonable doubt as contemplated by law. 42. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.