Judgment :- Thangamani, J. State represented by learned Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil in S.C.No.13 of 1985 on its file. Respondents one and two were charged under Sec.302 read with Sec.109 and Sec.302 respectively on the allegation that on the evening of 29. 1984, they waylaid deceased Sukumaran near the field of the first respondent and while the first respondent pushed Sukumaran down and caught hold of his hands and instigated the second respondent to do away with him, the latter dealt a blow with M.O.1 knife on the neck of Sukumaran and caused his death. 2. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, filed 19 Exhibits and marked 7 material objects. Of the witnesses examined P.W.2 Mariyadoss and P.W.16 Suguna turned hostile. These factors emerge from the evidence: P.W.1 Joyce and P. W.6 Sunni are brothers. They are the residents of Marathankuzhi in Vilavankodu Taluk. On 26.02.1980, P.W.6 Sunni was taking his bath in the drinking water spring in Paddodu. The first respondent Babu alias Benjamin, who happened to come there protested how P.W.6 Sunni could contaminate the drinking water. He beat on the head of P.W.6 Sunni with a ‘Vettikathi’ and caused injuries to him. Thereafter P.W.6 Sunni and five others went to the house of first respondent Babu and assaulted him. P.W.8 Natarajan who was Writer in Arumanai Police Station at that time, registered. Ex.P-7 complaint preferred by P.W.6 Sunni in this connection. On the same day the wife of the first respondent Babu alias Benjamin came to the Police Station and preferred Ex.P-8 complaint. The police investigated and laid charge-sheet on both the complaints. Later on both the cases ended in acquittal. Since then, the first respondent was inimical towards deceased Sukumaran. 3. On 29. 1984, the seventh day ceremony of the deceased mother of P.W.1 Joyee took place at Narathankuzhi. P.W.1 Joyee and deceased Sukumaran returned the vessels hired for that purpose in Puliyursalai and came back to the village, at about 05.30 P.M. While they were proceeding near the field of the first respondent in a pathway at about 06.00 p.m., both the respondents intercepted the deceased Sukumaran. Second respondent Raju was having a knife with him. The first respondent Babu alias Benjamin asked deceased Sukumaran whether he was a big rowdy. Thereupon P.W.1 Joyee and Sukumaran began to run. Second respondent Raju was having a knife with him. The first respondent Babu alias Benjamin asked deceased Sukumaran whether he was a big rowdy. Thereupon P.W.1 Joyee and Sukumaran began to run. The respondents chased them to a distance of 400 ft. The first respondent pushed deceased Sukumaran down and caught hold of his hands. He directed the second respondent to stab and kill Sukumaran. Immediately second respondent Raju stabbed Sukumaran on his neck with M.O.I knife in his hand. They threatened P.W.1 Joyee with dire consequences. So he ran to the village and informed people there of what had happened. P.W.3 Raj went to the scene place and finding the injury on the neck of Sukumaran, he took his towel and tied it around the neck as a bandage. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 Joyee went to the house of Sukumaran and brought the wife of Sukumaran to the scene place. They found Sukumaran sitting on a bridge nearby with a bandage around his neck. At about 06.45 p.m., one Francis brought a taxi, driven by P. W.4 Varghese. Ex.P-4 is the trip-sheet of the taxi. P.W.3 Raj and the wife of Sukumaran took the deceased in the taxi to the police station. At about 07-45 p.m., P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Arumanai Police Station recorded the statement Ex.P-1 given by Sukumaran. P.W.3 Raj attested the same. The Sub-Inspector registered the same in his station Crime No.93 of 1984 under Sec.307, I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-9 printed F.I.R. and sent the documents to court through P.W.11 constable. The constable handed over the same to the J.S.C.M. at 11.00 p.m. on that day. 4. In the meanwhile after registering the complaint P.W.9 Sub-Inspector sent the injured to Government Hospital withEx.P-3 memo through P.W.12 constable. At 09.00 p.m. P.W.5 doctor examined Sukumar at the Government Headquarters Hospital at Nagercoil. He found Sukumaran dead. Ex.P-4 is the copy of the Accident Register. On the receipt of death intimation, P.W.9 Sub Inspector altered the crime to one under Sec.302, I.P.C. and sent Ex.P-10 Express F.I.R. to the court through P.W.13 constable. 5. On receipt of the message, P.W.14 Inspector proceeded to the scene place at 09.30 p.m. He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 there. On the next day morning he inspected the scene place and prepared Ex.P-15 observation mahazar and Ex.P-16 rough sketch. He recovered M.O.6 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 sample earth from these under Ex.P-17 mahazar. 5. On receipt of the message, P.W.14 Inspector proceeded to the scene place at 09.30 p.m. He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 there. On the next day morning he inspected the scene place and prepared Ex.P-15 observation mahazar and Ex.P-16 rough sketch. He recovered M.O.6 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 sample earth from these under Ex.P-17 mahazar. Then he proceeded to Government Hospital, Nagercoil and held inquest over the dead body of Sukumaran from 07. 00 a.m. onwards. At that time he examined P.Ws.1 and 2. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report. Then he entrusted the body with P.W.12 constable for post-mortem. 6. On the same day at 04.00 p.m. one Dr.Arumainayagam conducted autopsy over the dead body of Sukumaran. Ex.P-19 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. This certificate has been marked through P.W.5 Dr.Ben Ravin-dran who states that he is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr.Arumainayagam. There is nothing in his evidence to indicate whether Dr.Arumainayagam, who issued post-mortem certificate is alive or dead. However, P.W.5 Ben Ravindran and P.W.14 Inspector state in their evidence that Dr.Arumainayagam is dead. After post-mortem P.W.12 constable removed M.O.3 dhoti, M.O.4 towel and M.O.5 waist cord from the body of the deceased and handed over them in the police station. 7. On 29. 1984, P.W.14 Inspector, arrested the first respondent and produced him in court. On 10. 1984, he arrested the second respondent near the bus stand in the presence of Johnson. Second respondent gave a confession statement the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-5. Pursuant to the same, second respondent took the police party to his house and produced M.O.I aruval. P.W.14 Inspector seized the same under Ex.P-6 mahazar. 8. On 210. 1984, P.W.10 Head Clerk of F.C.M. Court, Kuzhithurai caused the blood stained articles in this case to be sent for chemical examination under Ex.P-12 covering letter on receipt of Ex.P.11 requisition from the Inspector. Exs.P-13 and P-14 are the reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist. P.W.14 Inspector completed the investigation and laid charge sheet. 9. When examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. the respondents denied the allegations against them except that on 22. 1980, P.W.6 and Sukumaran came to the house of the first respondent and ransacked the articles there. On an appraisal of the evidence, oral and documentary, the trial court found the respondents not guilty and acquitted them of the respective charges. Hence this appeal by the State. 10. 1980, P.W.6 and Sukumaran came to the house of the first respondent and ransacked the articles there. On an appraisal of the evidence, oral and documentary, the trial court found the respondents not guilty and acquitted them of the respective charges. Hence this appeal by the State. 10. The trial court acquitted the respondents mainly on these grounds: .(i) It does not appear there was any reason for the first respondent to do away with Sukumaran; .(ii) Of the two eye-witnesses cited, P.W.2 Mariadoss turned hostile. The major portion of the evidence of the other eye witness Joyee is an after-thought. (iii) The injury on the deceased could not have been caused with M.O.I knife as claimed by prosecution; (iv) The medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular version of the only eye-witness P.W.1 Joyee; and (v) Ex.P-1 complaint-cum-dying declaration given by the deceased and it is useless to act on Ex.P-1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 Joyee. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Judge erred in not believing the motive alleged in this case. Even a trivial motive may lead to murder. The prosecution case cannot be discarded merely because the motive alleged is flimsy. In this case, P.W.6 Sunni speaks about the motive. The altercation that took place between the first respondent Babu and deceased on 22. 1980 in the drinking water spring is stated to be the reason for the entrangement between the two. But we find from the evidence of P.W.6 Sunni as well as P. W.8 writer of Arumanai Police Station that both sides preferred Exs.P-7 and P-8 complaints and charge sheets were laid against both of them. Be admittedly both the cases ended in acquittal about two years prior to the occurrence. As it has been rightly argued by Mr.M.Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondents, when the criminal cases ended long prior to the occurrence and both Sukumaran and the respondents were living peacefully for about two years in the same village, it is unlikely that on seeing the deceased passing along the pathway near the field of first respondent Babu on that fateful day, the respondents chose to attack him. Further there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that Sukumaran and second respondent Raju who is alleged to have dealt the fatal blow, were having any grievance against each other. Further there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that Sukumaran and second respondent Raju who is alleged to have dealt the fatal blow, were having any grievance against each other. Though it is not necessary that prosecution must prove motive in every case, certainly an established motive adds strength to the version of the eyewitnesses. .12. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 Joyee by the trial court is perverse, biased and one sided. The reasons given by learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 is erroneous. The evidence of P.W.1 Joyee did not find favour with the trial Judge mainly on the ground that substantial part of the same is an after-thought. But they are not of such vital importance so as to discard the evidence of this witness. It is seen that as per the evidence of P.W.1 Joyee that on seeing him and Sukumaran, the first respondent asked Sukumaran whether he was a big rowdy. But in Ex.P-1 complaint no mention is made of this wordy altercation. While P.W.1 Joyee states that the respondents chased them to a distance of 400 ft., the F.I.R. is silent about this chasing. P.W.1 Joyee swears in the witness box that the first respondent pushed Sukumaran down and caught hold of his hands. But according to P.W.14 Inspector P.W.1 Joyee has not stated so during investigation. No doubt, the abovesaid factors are of trivial nature and they by themselves cannot make the version of P.W.1 Joyee as untrustworthy. As it has been held instate of Rajasthan v. Smt.Kalki, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1390, cited by learned Public Prosecutor, in the depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies 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 the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. And the discrepancies referred to by learned Sessions Judge are minor, insignificant, natural and not material. Embellishment and exaggeration are always bound to be present in every narration of an event and the court while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. .13. And the discrepancies referred to by learned Sessions Judge are minor, insignificant, natural and not material. Embellishment and exaggeration are always bound to be present in every narration of an event and the court while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. .13. The evidence of P.W.5 Doctor is to the effect that he did not probe the depth of the incised injury sustained by the deceased. It is not possible to cause an injury 6" in depth with M.O.1. Learned Sessions J udge states that if the length or depth of the injury is taken as 6"; it could not have been caused by M.O.1 knife. So, the evidence of P.W.1 that the respondents caused the fatal injury with M.0.1 knife could not be accepted. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that where the eyewitness’s account is found credible and trust worthy, the medical opinion pointing out alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. So trial Judge should not have rejected the evidence of P.W.1 as inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.5 Doctor. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 S.C.C. (Crl.) 379, it has been held that, "Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injures could have been caused in the manner all and nothing more. The use which the defences can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye-witnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence." And in the present a careful scrutiny of P.W.1 Joyee’s evidence and Ex.P-1 complaint would reveal that it is not as if that medical evidence totally belies the ocular version. 14. However, there are certain other vital factors in this case which render the prosecution version highly improbable. Ex.P-1 which purports to be the dying declaration as well as complaint of deceased Sukumaran is the basis of the prosecution case. 14. However, there are certain other vital factors in this case which render the prosecution version highly improbable. Ex.P-1 which purports to be the dying declaration as well as complaint of deceased Sukumaran is the basis of the prosecution case. It is significant to note that this complaint contains only the thumb impression of Sukumaran though P.W.1 Joyee admits that Sukumaran knows to read and write and put his signature. Ex.P-1 reads that Sukumaran has affixed his thumb impression because he was unable to sign. P. W.3 Raj who is stated to have accompanied Sukumaran in the taxi of P. W.4 Varghcse is an attestor to Ex.P-1. He states in his evidence that Sukumaran was not in a position to sign and so he affixed his thumb impression in Ex.P-1. But P.W.5 Doctor who examined Sukumaran at 09.00 p.m. in the hospital and found him dead, does not say that there was any injury in the hands of Sukumaran or he was in any way incapacitated to sign. As per this Doctor, the only injury sustained by Sukumaran was an incised wound on the left side of the neck 3 cm. x 1 cm. In the absence of any convincing explanation for the deceased, who is a signatory, affixing his thumb impression in the F.I.R. It is genuineness is highly suspicious. .15. P.W.5 Doctor states in his evidence that the injury found on the deceased could have been caused due to stabbing with M.O.1 knife. The blade portion of this weapon measures about 3". If the full length of the blade portion had gone inside the body, it will create an injury of 3" in depth. There would have been profuse bleeding if the artery or vein had been cut. If all the major blood vessels of the neck had been cut, death would have occurred immediately or within 10 minutes. And we find from Ex.P-19 post-mortem certificate that the injury was 6" in depth and all the major arteries were cut and blood clots present. All the chambers of the heart were empty. Modi in his book ‘Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’, 1988 edition, states at page 280 that loss of one third of the blood in the body is almost enough to cause death. All the chambers of the heart were empty. Modi in his book ‘Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’, 1988 edition, states at page 280 that loss of one third of the blood in the body is almost enough to cause death. The total quantity of blood in the body of an adult is on an average about five per cent of the body weight or about 750 ml. per 10 Kg. of body weight. While so it is difficult to accept the prosecution theory that Sukumaran who sustained this injury at about 06.00 p.m. was alive at 07.45 p.m. on that day to prefer Ex.P-1 complaint. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew our attention to the fact that in Ex.P-1 the writing in the first page appears with regular spacing whereas the last seven lines in the second page have been written in a cramped style with a short spacing. This lends credence to the theory that the difference in spacing has occurred since the prosecution was in compulsion to finish the narration within the two pages where the thumb impression of Sukumaran appears at the bottom of the last page. 17. We find from the evidence of P.W.1 Joyee that all of them had taken their food by 02.00 p.m. Then he and Sukumaran went to return the vessels hired for the ceremony. P.W.5 Doctor swears thai the process of digestion is stopped on death. If the deceased had taken rice then the food would have become semi-solid, two and a half hours later. As per Ex.P-19 post-mortem certificate the stomach contained semi-solid food. So, as it has been observed by the trial Judge, Sukumaran would have met with his death at about 05.00 p.m. on that day. This is yet another factor which improbabilises the evidence of P.W.3 Raj that at 07.45 p.m. Sukumaran was alive and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. 18 Learned counsel for the respondents next argued that considering the nature of injuries sustained by deceased Sukumaran, it is unlikely that he was taken to the police station at the first instance as claimed by P.W.3 Raj. Had the death been not instantaneous, the natural conduct would be to rush him to the hospital in an endeavour to save his life. Had the death been not instantaneous, the natural conduct would be to rush him to the hospital in an endeavour to save his life. The fact that deceased is stated to have been taken to the police station at the first instance itself throws suspicion about the origin of Ex.P-1 complaint. 19. The next argument of learned Public Prosecutor is that appellate court’s interference is called for since lower court’s judgment is vitiated by gross errors. But in this case we do not find that there are any substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. We find no basis to reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. The evidence of P. W.1 Joyee and Ex.P.l dying declaration, do not inspire confidence. And we are of the view that the conclusion reached by Learned Sessions Judge does not warrant interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.