J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS are the original accused persons who have assailed the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Valsad at Navsari on 15. 6 in Sessions case No. 77 of 1983 for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short hereinafter) with the help of the provisions of section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (the Code for short hereinafter ). All the three accused persons are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the aforesaid offence. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix leading to the rise of this appeal may shortly be stated at this stage. The complainant Satish Ramjor Oza P. W. 2 and the injured Ravindra Ramjor Oza P. W. 3 are brothers who were residing in Railway Yard at Valsad at the relevant time. The accused persons were also residing in the surrounding area at the relevant time. On 17. 5. 1982 at about 9. 15 P. M. the complainant and the injured were standing near the shop on a thorough fare road near-the shop known as Shankar Pan House at Valsad. According to the prosecution version accused No. 1 Jitendra Gopal Khatri pointing finger at the complainant said that this Manjra has become a great Dada. Thus accused No. 1 started quarrelling. Thereafter accused No. 1 attacked Ravindrabhai. At that time accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the injured-Ravindrabhai. They all took Ravindra upto the shop of Liberty bakery. At that time the complainant the brother of injured-Ravindra intervened. Accused No. 1 Jitendrabhai gave a push to him and he fell down. Accused No. 1 Jitendra thereafter went to his residence through the lane opposite to Royal Hotel and brought out a knife. The prosecution further alleged that accused No. 3 Suman Chhagan caught hold of the injured-Ravindra and in the meantime accused No. 2 Amin Arjun brought a poker from the nearby hotel and gave a blow on the abdomen of the injured-Ravindra. Thereafter the accused No. 2 Amin and accused No. 3 Suman caught hold of Ravindra and accused No. 1 gave knife blow on the abdomen of the injured-Ravindra. Thereafter the accused No. 2 Amin and accused No. 3 Suman caught hold of Ravindra and accused No. 1 gave knife blow on the abdomen of the injured-Ravindra. In the meantime P. W. Shakur Ahmed took away the knife from the accused No. 1 and threw it behind Liberty Bakery. Satishbhai brother of injured-Ravindra apprehended that his brother-Ravindra will be finished and therefore he intervened with a bamboo stick from the sugar-cane juice larry and wielding it for self defence. Accused No. 2 therefore got hurt. All the accused persons thereafter fled away from the venue. The injured was taken to the Municipal Civil Hospital for treatment where he was treated as an indoor patient. The complainant-Satish alongwith his friend Jayesh Modi found out the knife used by accused No. 1 in the light of scooter from the back portion of the liberty bakery and went to Valsad Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. which is at Ex. 10. Investigation was carried out. Immediately leprotomy operation was performed on the person of the injured-Ravindra. On completion of the investigation all the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offence under section 307 of the IPC in the Sessions Court of Valsad at Navsari. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) IN order to substantiate the charge against the accused persons the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the following eight prosecution witnesses: p. W. No. Name Ex. No. - - 1 Gopalbhai Dajibhai Patel 7 2 Satishbhai Ramjor Oza 9 3 Ravindra Ramjor Oza 11 4 Sunilbhai Ramlakhan Oza 12 5 Mahmad Iqbal Azim Shaikh 14 6 Dr. Ramratan Himatrav Ramavat 15 7 Sureshkumar Chimanlal Modi 19 8 Bachubhai Virsingji Jadeja 26 the prosecution has also relied on documentary evidence to which reference will be made at an appropriate stage. On appreciation and analysis of the evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Valsad at Navsari found the accused persons guilty for the offence under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further two months. Hence this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code. Learned counsel Mr. 300 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further two months. Hence this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code. Learned counsel Mr. Shethna while appearing for the appellants/accused persons has firstly and forcefully contended that the impugned order of conviction is illegal and is required to be quashed. He has also alternatively contended that conviction under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC is also unjustified and unreasonable. He has also alternatively contended that the quantum of sentence is excessive and harsh. The aforesaid contentions are seriously countenanced by the learned A. P. P. Mr. Dave. ( 4 ) THE prosecution witness No. 3 injured Ravindrabhai is examined at Ex. 11. He has clearly testified that accused No. 1 Jitendra had inflicted knife blow on his abdomen and he had sustained grievous injury. His evidence is fully reinforced by the evidence of the complainant P. W. 2 Satish who is examined at Ex. 9. He is also supported by the evidence of P. W. 4 Sunil Oza who is examined at Ex. 12. It is true that prosecution witness no. 2 Satish is the real brother of the injured and O. W. No. 4 Sunil is the cousin brother of the injured. However it cannot be contended that they are relatives and therefore interested wintesses and therefore they should not be believed. On the contrary related persons would be interested to bring the real offenders to the book. They would not be interested to let off the real offenders. Therefore their testimony cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. The courts anxiety should be to see the realibility and not the relationship in such cases. The evidence of the injured-Ravindra is fully supported by two eye witnesses. Not only that the evidence of the injured is also fully reinforced by the evidence of two medical officers. The medical evidence in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured are also produced. The prosecution witness No. 7 Dr. S. C. Modi is examined at Ex. 19. He was working as medical officer at the relevant time in-Municipal Civil Hospital at Valsad. Dr. R. H. Ramavat is examined at Ex. 15. He was working as Medical Officer in Kasturba Hospital. Medical certificates in respect of the injuries are produced at Exhs. 17 and 20. S. C. Modi is examined at Ex. 19. He was working as medical officer at the relevant time in-Municipal Civil Hospital at Valsad. Dr. R. H. Ramavat is examined at Ex. 15. He was working as Medical Officer in Kasturba Hospital. Medical certificates in respect of the injuries are produced at Exhs. 17 and 20. It is very clear from the medical evidence that the injured had sustained grievous injuries on his abdomen and four other injuries. To mention precisely the injured Ravindra had sustained following injuries: 1 Stab injury over abdomen right ilac forsa wound as tending upto symphis pubis transwise in direction- Size 4 x 3 x paritonimh deep. Intestines were came out of the wound-active bleeding. 2 Incised wound over right forearm mediial aspect from above downwards size 4 x 2 mused deep bleeding. 3 Incised wound over right palm extending upto middle finger medial aspect from above downward size 4 x 1/2 x 1/2. 4 Incised wound over right thumb 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 extending upto thaver prominance. 5 Thus the evidence of the injured is fully reinforced by two eye witnesses and the medical evidence. The F. I. R. was lodged immediately within 25 minutes after the occurrence of the incidence at Valsad Police Station. Names of all the three accused persons and the role played by them came to be narrated in the F. I. R. Learned counsel for the accused Mr. Shethna has forcefully contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of the injured the complainant and the eye witness Sunil in so far as the infliction of poker blow is concerned. He has also drawn the attention of this court to the charge framed against the accused. Relying on the said charge it is contended that there is no mention about the use of poker by accused No. 2. He further contended that there was a scuffle and genesis is concealed by the prosecution. It is true that there are some contradictions in the evidence. There is also change in the sequence of events in the evidence of the injured and the complainant. However such contradictions and discrepancies are at micro level and they do not affect as such the main core of the prosecution version. It is a settled proposition of law that the court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. However such contradictions and discrepancies are at micro level and they do not affect as such the main core of the prosecution version. It is a settled proposition of law that 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 are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. 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 version. The errors due to lapse of memory shall have to be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by the witness. The courts however should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. At this stage it may be mentioned that in Sohrab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2020 the Supreme Court observed as under:"this Court has held that falsus in uno 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". Similarly it may be recalled that in Bharwada Bhogibhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat? AIR 1983 SC 753 the Supreme Court has observed as under:"a witness though wholly truthful is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts get confused regarding sequence of events or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. AIR 1983 SC 753 the Supreme Court has observed as under:"a witness though wholly truthful is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts get confused regarding sequence of events or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important probabilities-factor achoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. ( 5 ) IT may also be mentioned that the courts is bound to bear in mind that the witness to a serious crime like one in question may not react in a normal manner. They may not react uniformly. Their course of conduct may also not be of ordinary type in normal circumstances. Therefore the contention that the complainant the brother of the injured did not react and behave in a normal and natural way so as to rescue his brother and the manner and mode in which he has narrated the incident in the complaint is contradicted partly in his evidence. Needless to mention that every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. The horror stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime may react differently. How a person reacts on witnessing such a crime will depend on several facts and imponderables. The courts cannot reject the testimony of a witness merely because the witness has behaved or reacted in an unusual manner after the occurrence. It is rightly therefore said to discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. Learned counsel Mr. Shethna for the accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Shaikh Nabab vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 169 . Learned counsel Mr. Shethna for the accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Shaikh Nabab vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 169 . Relying on the said decision it is contended that the witnesses in the present case are interested and partisans and they are likely to falsely implicate the accused persons. Having dispassionately examined the said entire decision it can safely be concluded that it is inapplicable to the present case. In the instant case the injured witness is supported by two eye witnesses and the medical evidence on record coupled with the promptitude with which the F. I. R. was filed within 30 minutes after the occurrence. Therefore Mr. Shethna is not in a position to make a slice of profit out of the said decision. ( 6 ) NEXT it brings into the field the question of the nature of the offence committed by the accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there was a common intention to inflict an injury which was sufficient to cause the death of the injured. Therefore all the three accused persons came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC. The learned counsel Mr. Shethna for the accused has alternatively contended that the conviction under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC is illegal as there was no common intention on the part of the accused persons to inflict the same injury caused on the abdomen of the injured. He however contended that at the best the intention of the accused No. 1 while inflicting the knife blow can be said to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and the case is covered by Exception IV to section 300 of IPC as the infliction of knife blow given by accused No. 1 at the second stage of the incident cannot be said to be a premeditated one and therefore even if that act had caused death accused No. 1 at the best would be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and therefore he could be punished only for an offence under Section 308 of the IPC for attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not for the offence under section 307 of the IPC. Exception IV to section 300 of the IPC can be invoked if following four requirements are satisfied: (i) it there was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) that the act was done in heat of patience; (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. ( 7 ) IT is true that the cause of quarrel is not relevant nor it is relevant who started the provocation for the attack. It is equally true that the number of injuries dcaused during the incident is also not a decisive factor. What is emphasised in the aforesaid provisions is that the occurrence should have been suddenly in absence of premeditation and the assailant should not have taken undue advantage and should not have acted in a cruel manner. Where in a sudden quarrel a person in the heat of the moment takes up a weapons and caused injuries one of which is proved fatal he would be entitled to the benefit of Exception IV to section 300 of IPC provided he had not acted in a cruel manner and had not taken undue advantage of the situation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence it is very clear that all the three accused persons had a common intention. However the common intention is a question of fact and it is not by itself an offence. But it creates a joint and constructive liability for the crime committed in furtherance of such common intention. Where no overt act whatsoever has been attributed to the accused it cannot be contended that he had not shared the common intention. Accused No. 1 had inflicted grievous injury on the vital part of the body of the injured by inflicting a knife blow. The prosecution has not succeeded in proving that accused No. 2 Amin had given poker blow. No dobut it is in evidence that he held the injured and he had poker but there is no reliable evidence to show that he had as such used the poker and had inflicted blows on the injured. However there is clear evidence to show that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had held the injured when the accused No. 1 inflicted knife blow on his abdomen. The proof of common intention can be inferred from the set of proved facts. However there is clear evidence to show that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had held the injured when the accused No. 1 inflicted knife blow on his abdomen. The proof of common intention can be inferred from the set of proved facts. It must be shows by the prosecution successfully that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention which was shared by the accused persons. In order to convict a person vicariously liable under section 34 of the IPC it is not necessary to prove that each and every one had indulged in overt act. It is not necessary that the prosecution should prove the contribution of any act to each of the accused. It is found from the evidence on record that accused No. 1 inflicted grievous hurt by inflicting knife blow on vital part of the body (abdomen) and accused Nos. 2 and 3 had held the injured Ravindrabhai. Therefore it can safely be concluded that the accused persons had shared common intention. ( 8 ) NOW the point which requires to be adjudicated at this juncture is as to what was the common intention. According to the prosecution the common intention was to kill the injured. At this juncture it would be necessary to mention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the following circumstances which would affect the finding of conviction under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC: (i) the accused persons initially came without any arms; (ii) the accused No. 2 admittedly did not give any blow; (iii) initially there was altercation and then they started beating; (iv) the complainant inflicted blows with a wooden log and injured the accused No. 2 Amin; (v) the accused No. 1 after altercations and scuffle brought out a knife and accused no. 2 brought a poker; (vi) No poker blow was given on the injured. However the prosecution contended that the common intention to kill the injured though initially absent was formed at the second stage after the accused No. 1 brought the knife and accused No. 2 brought the poker from their residence. It is true that common intention could also be formed in the course of the process and it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was common intention at the inception. It is true that common intention could also be formed in the course of the process and it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was common intention at the inception. However in the light of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record and the manner and mode in which the incident occurred and the nature and number of injuries it is not possible to substantiate the contention of the prosecution that there was a common intention to kill. In the light of the facts and circumstances the common intention was to cause grievous hurt with dangerous weapons. Therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a serious error in finding the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 of the IPC. As such in the light of the evidence on record the accused persons can be held guilty for the offence under section 326 with section 34 of the IPC. ( 9 ) THE next question that arises is as to what should be the quantum of sentence in so far as the guilt of the accused under section 326 read with section 34 of the IPC is established. The trial court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months for the offence under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC. There is no dispute about the fact that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have undergone imprisonment for 19 days and accused No. 3 has undergone imprisonment for 18 days. They have already paid the fine. Section 326 of the IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. The maximum imprisonment prescribed under section 362 of the IPC shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. It is contended on behalf of the accused persons that in view of the intervening time lag and the peculiar facts and circumstances the imprisonment undergone should be considered as sufficient with raising of reasonable amount of fine. Section 357 of the Code provides for payment of compensation to the victims of such crimes. It is contended on behalf of the accused persons that in view of the intervening time lag and the peculiar facts and circumstances the imprisonment undergone should be considered as sufficient with raising of reasonable amount of fine. Section 357 of the Code provides for payment of compensation to the victims of such crimes. The object of this section is to provide compensation payable to the persons who are entitled to recover damages from the sentence even though fine does not form. part of sentence. In Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh AIR 1988 SC 2127 the Apex Court has given guidelines for compensation to be awarded to the victims under section 357 of the Code. It is held that section 357 (2) of the Code is an important provisions and the courts should consider the provisions for providing compensation under section 357 of the Code while deciding such cases. It will appropriate at this stage the refer to the relevant observations in paragraph No. 10 made by the Apex Court in the said decision:"10 Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. In this case we are not concerned with sub-section (1 ). We are concerned only with sub-section (3 ). It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is to some extent a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in out criminal justice system. We therefore recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way". It is to some extent a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in out criminal justice system. We therefore recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way". ( 10 ) IN view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and considering the nature and number of injuries the ability of the accused persons to pay fine and compensation and considering the intervening time lag which is almost ten years the ends of justice will be satisfied if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment undergone so far while raising the amount of fine. Considering the facts and circumstances and the role played by each of the accused and the financial status and position the amount of fine is required to be enhanced from Rs. 300 to Rs. 10 300 in so far as accused No. 1 is concerned and to Rs. 25 300 in so far as accused No. 2 is concerned and to Rs. 10 300 in so far as the accused No. 3 is concerned. Thus accused Nos. 1 2 and 3 shall pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 10 0 Rs. 25 0 and Rs. 10 0 respectively. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment undergone so far and the sentence of fine is enhanced. Accused No. 1 is directed to pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 10 0 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months? accused No. 2 is directed to pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 25 0 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and accused No. 3 is directed to pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 10 0 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. accused No. 2 is directed to pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 25 0 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and accused No. 3 is directed to pay an additional amount of fine of Rs. 10 0 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances and the underlying object of section 357 of the IPC and the guidelines of the Apex Court in Hari Kishans case (supra) and the nature and number of injuries and the age of the injured it is directed that the additional amount of fine awarded against each of the accused if paid shall be given to the injured-Ravindra Ramjor Oza by way of compensation under section 357 of the Code after due verification in the Sessions Court. At this stage it is contended that the accused persons may be given time of 60 days to pay the additional amount of fine imposed by this court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the accused persons are given time upto 15 for the payment of additional amount of fine imposed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussion the appeal stands? partly allowed accordingly. Application Partly Allowed. .