JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st August `87 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the accused appellants were convicted of an offence under section. 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and other connected offence. The sentence imposed on the accused appellants are as under:- Accused Offence Sentence 1.Shanker 148 Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I., Fine Rs. 500/-. In default 3 months' R.I. 302/149 Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment. 27 Arms Act 6 months' R.I. Fine Rs. 400/- and in default 1 month's R.I. 2.Mani Ram 148 Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I. Fine Rs. 500/- and in default 3 months' R.I. 302/149 Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment. 3.Manohar Lal 148 Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I. Fine Rs. 500/-. In default 3 months' R.I. 302/149 Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment. 4.Subhash 148 Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I. Fine Rs. 500/- and in default 3 months' R.I. 302/149 Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment. 5.Ramnarayan 148 Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I. Fine Rs. 500/- and in default 3 months' R.I. 302/149 Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment. 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, it would be necessary to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record which we have read carefully with the assistance of both the learned counsel. 3. PW/1 Atma Ram has stated that on 16th of June 86, in the evening at about 6.30, he, along with his father Brij Lal, Ram Narayan and Rajaram were sitting in front of his house. The witness saw Ramnarain, Sarpanch, Shanker, Maniram, Manoharlal and Subhash. Ramnarayan and Shanker had gun. Subhash had a lathi and nothing was visible with Manohar. They started from ihe house of Sarpanch Ramnarayan and went towards the house of Hansraj. Accused Shanker entered the house of Hansraj, Ramnarayan, Sarpanch, stood by the pole in front of the house of Hansraj and others went into the by-lane. The witness then says that he heard two shots sometimes thereafter and learnt that Ramkumar has been killed. He is, thus, a witness to the fact that the accused persons were armed and had gone towards the house of Hansraj, where the deceased Ramkumar was killed. The cross-examination of this witness is inconsequential. The witness then says that he heard two shots sometimes thereafter and learnt that Ramkumar has been killed. He is, thus, a witness to the fact that the accused persons were armed and had gone towards the house of Hansraj, where the deceased Ramkumar was killed. The cross-examination of this witness is inconsequential. There is no reason why the testimony of this witness should be disbelieved. 4. PW/2 Kami Singh is a Constable deputed for `bandobasth' duty and his deposition has no bearing on the case. 5. PW/3 is Ramratan s/o Thakar Ram. He has deposed that in the evening of 6th of June, he along with one Ramkumar were going towards the house of Ramkumar from the house of the witness. When they reached the house of Sohanlal, they saw Ramnarayan accused calling from the front saying that the witness and Ramkumar should not be allowed to escape. Ramnarayan accused had a 12 bore-gun and he was standing in front of the house of Hansraj. Mani Ram, Manohar and Subhash were in the by-lane and they came out. Maniram had a double barrelled gun. Subhash had a lathi and Manohar had a pistol. Shanker was standing on the wall of the house of Hansraj and all of them were saying that these two persons should not be allowed to go alive. Then Gopi and Ramnarayan s/o Sohanlal came out of the house and on the call being given by the accused Shankerlal fired from his gun which hit Ramkumar in the shoulder Then Mani Ram fired which shot hit the wall and the shot fired by Mahonar missed. Ramkumar on being hit, went inside the house and fell down. The witness also got into the house to save himself. The witness then proceeds to state that the death was caused due to internal rivalry. This witness has been extensively cross-examined. He is an eye-witness to the entire incident. During the course of the cross-examination, certain contradictions and omissions have been pointed out, relying on which it is contended that the testimony of this witness is not acceptable. However, we are not impressed by this submission. The witness PW /3 has deposed that he has said everything to the Police and if some part of the statement is not reproduced by the police while recording the statement it cannot be a cause for rejecting the entire testimony of the witness. However, we are not impressed by this submission. The witness PW /3 has deposed that he has said everything to the Police and if some part of the statement is not reproduced by the police while recording the statement it cannot be a cause for rejecting the entire testimony of the witness. In our opinion, the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the learned Sessions Judge was correct and we see no reason to disbelieve the witness. 6. PW/4 is Gopal, who is another eye-witness. He materially corroborates PW/3 in all particular. He has proved the First Information Report. His description of the entire incident matches the description given by PW/3 and thus the statement of these two witnesses prove beyond doubt the complicity of the accused in commission of the crime. They corroborate each other on all material particulars and the contradictions and omissions which are pointed out, are not such which would require the rejection of the testimony in its totality. 7. PW/5 is Ramnarayan s/o Lekhram. This witness is uncle of PW/1 Atmaram. He was one of the person who was sitting inside the house of Atmaram. He has stated that he saw the accused persons going towards the house of Hansraj and then he went inside the house. He, thus, corroborates PW/1 on the point of the accused persons being seen approaching the house of Hansraj, duly armed with lethal weapons. He, thus, corroborates the testimony of PW/1. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which will in any manner even weaken the testimony. 8. PW/6 Ramkumar is the Head Mohrir and incharge of the Malkhana. His testimony is inconsequential. 9. PW/7 is Mahaveer Prasad, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. He has deposed that the death was caused within one hour of receiving the injuries and the death was homicidal. There is no challenge to this statement by the doctor. 10. PW/8 is Ram Narayan s/o Sohan Lal. This witness is also an eye-witness to the incident along with Gopal Ram. He states that he and Gopal Ram came out of the house on hearing shouts of the accused persons " ekj nks] ekj nks " The witness saw Maniram with a 12 bore gun, Manohar with a pistol and Subhash with a lathi. Shankef Lal was standing on the wall of the house. Hansraj was having a 12 bore gun. He states that he and Gopal Ram came out of the house on hearing shouts of the accused persons " ekj nks] ekj nks " The witness saw Maniram with a 12 bore gun, Manohar with a pistol and Subhash with a lathi. Shankef Lal was standing on the wall of the house. Hansraj was having a 12 bore gun. Ramnarayan was standing with a 12 bore double barrelled gun. He has also deposed that all the five accused said " ekj yks] ekj yks " Then Shanker fired his gun which hit Ramkumar. The witness admits in his cross-examination that he is brother-in-law of Gopal. His presence in the house of Gopal is, therefore, natural and nothing has been pointed out in the cross-examination of this witness which would require his testimony being rejected. 11. PW/9 Vijay Singh is the Photographer who took the photographs from the dead body. PW/10 Brij Lal is father of PW/1 Atma Ram. His testimony is also similar to that of Atma Ram. He corroborates Atma Ram on all material particulars. In fact he repeals the evidence as given by other witnesses in relation to the proceeding of the accused persons duly armed, towards the house of Hansraj. 12. PW/11 Jagdish has proved the seizure of the gun from Shanker Lal. PW/12 is the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer who investigated the present case. He has proved the depositions of the witnesses as recorded by him under section. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has duly proved the same and has stated that the same has been recorded completely. It is relying on the statement of this witness that a submission is made that the omissions pointed out in the testimony of the eye-witnesses are material as they do not find place in the statement under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the depositions to that extent is the marked development or improvement in the case requiring rejection of the entire testimony of the eye-witnesses. It is pointed out that if the omissions are material and important aspects which are deposed to for the first time in the witness box are found missing in the earlier recorded statement, the possibility of definite improvement in the prosecution case cannot be over-ruled and at such a situation it may be necessary to ignore the testimony of such witnesses. However, in the present case, we have scrutinised the entire evidence and we are firmly of the view that the statement of all the eye-witnesses do not contain any such omissions which will require rejection of their entire evidence. Exaggerations to some extent, while deposing in a Court, is natural human tendency in India. If slightest exaggerations are considered as material omissions, it may not be possible to accept any oral testimony in any case. There has to be, therefore, a careful scrutiny of the evidence where such omissions of material nature are pointed out. However, in the present case, the omissions pointed out are not so material as to have a definite bearing on the testimony of the witnesses. These omissions do not point out any deficiency in the main statement of the witnesses and the fact that they did see the accused persons assaulting the deceased with the common object of causing such injury to him as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The fact that the accused persons were armed with weapons is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. PW/1 Atma Ram, PW/3 Ramaratan, PW/4 Gopal Ram and PW/10 Brijlal are the witnesses who state in unequivocal terms that the accused persons were armed. Three of them had gun and had positioned themselves in front of the house of Hansraj with the object of assaulting the deceased. As soon as the deceased appeared in the door of the house of Hansraj, a shot was fired and the deceased was hit. It also is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the shots fired by two other accused did not reach the victim. But the very fact that fire was opened by two other accused, along with Shanker prove beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of all the accused persons and the common object with which they had assembled in front of the house of Hansraj. There is, thus, no error committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in convicting the accused under section. 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. There is, thus, no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******