V. Dutta Gyani, J. — This appeal arises out of judgment dated 9.3.95, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 144(N) of 1990, holding the appellants guilty under section 302 IPC and 302/109 IPC respectively and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.600/-, or in default of payment of fine to suffer one month's RI. 2. Prosecution case proceeded on a complaint lodged by Jaharuddin before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon who directed the police to inquire into the same. The gist of the complaint lodged was that on 25.3.89 around 7.30 in the morning; in village Hatigujia, accused (1) Fazarali, (2) Hanjuadin (3) Giasuddin (4) Jamaluddin (5) Janabali (6) Rahimuddin and (7) Halimuddin having formed an unlawful assembly and being armed with weapons such as, dao, spear and lathi, assaulted Rahul Amin, younger brother of the complainant. On being exhorted by accused Giasuddin, other accuseds chased and attacked Jabed Ali, Raisuddin, Rahum Am in, who were badly beaten up by them. Jabed Ali was lying in a precarious condition in the Civil Hospital at Nagaon. 3. Police on receiving this complaint initially registered a case under sections 447, 326/34 IPC and take under investigation, Sahed Ali succumbed to the injuries the same day during investigation, hence the charge under section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, the accuseds above named were charged and tried for the offences. Prosecution examined seven witnesses including PW 1, the doctor who performed autopsy, PW 6, a clerk of the CJM's Court who forwarded the complaint, and PW 7 the IO. The defence of the accused was" plain denial of the prosecution case as a whole. The trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellants as noted above, acquitted other accuseds on the ground "There active participation in the action of the assault, perpetrated to have materialised upon Sabed Ali is not strong and sufficient." There is no State appeal against their acquittal. The matter rests at that. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised the following points: (1) Prosecution evidence suffers from numerous infirmities such as PW 2 was not present at the scene, as per evidence of PW 4, PW 3 does not support the user of sharp edged weapon, as mentioned in the FIR. The matter rests at that. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised the following points: (1) Prosecution evidence suffers from numerous infirmities such as PW 2 was not present at the scene, as per evidence of PW 4, PW 3 does not support the user of sharp edged weapon, as mentioned in the FIR. Nurul Amin PW 5 on his own showing ran away from the scene of occurrence: PW 8 is silent about alleged use of particular weapon by particular accused. (2) A novel course was adopted instead of lodging a report at the concerned police station, a complaint was filed by PW 3 in the CJM's Court. (3) Medical evidence is at variance with the ocular evidence belying the prosecution story as a whole. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction as recorded by the trial Court. 6. Before proceeding further it would be pertinent to note the injuries as found by the doctor, PW 1 on Sabed Ali. His evidence on the point reads : "Dead body of an average built male. Rigor moritis present. On stitched would present over the head. Number of stitches six vertical, 3 inches length, left side fracture left parietal bone and occipital bone. Profuse blood clot present. Inside the cranial cavity. The injuries are antemortem. Both chambers of heart empty. Stomach empty. Other organs are healthy and normal. In my opinion death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. The injury can not be caused by fall. It could be caused by hitting by a heavy and sharp object. It (the injury) could be caused by sharp dao or dagger or like weapon. The wound was a continuous one. The same assailant can cause the injury either from left or from back. If one is hit by heavy object the fracture would be depressed. I did not find any complete depression but the bone was completely separated by fracture. The weapon must have been very sharp. I saw the fracture after opening the skith." It may be noted that PW 1 was deposing on the basis of opening the stitched wounds and the injury on the head was a depressed fracture although according to PW 1 he did not find 'complete depression' nonetheless a depressed fracture was found, might be it was not 'complete depression' as testified by PW 1. 'Itamuguri' as noted by the trial Court is a heavy cylindrical object, its size ranging between 3" to 5". The external appearance of its impact will depend upon the point of impact and the nature of the wound will depend to a great extent upon the part of the body which receives the impact. As noted by Modi in his text - "A laceration is splitting of tearing of skin by blunt impact, and where the skin layer is thin and is crushed or split against the bone it simulates like an incised wound although caused by a blunt object." 7. The evidence of PW 1, is primarily opinion evidence, and on the question of weapon used in the case at hand it is not data-based, no findings have been noted by the doctor to support his opinion, such opinions can not therefore be preferred as against the occular evidence. As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mayur Panabhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 66 , there is no irrebutable presumption that doctor is always a truthful and correct witness. His evidence is to be appreciated like that of any other witness. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative, it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner that the alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. This is exactly what is sought to be done and achieved in the case at hand. Unless however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries being caused in the manner alleged by eye-witnesses, evidence given by the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency or incompatibility between the eye witness account and the medical evidence (see Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 ). 8. As already noted above, a thin layer of skin just above the surface, can break by severe blow and the appearance of incised wound, this medical view of an injury simulating incised wound has also been approved by the Supreme Court in Suresh vs. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 1122 . 9. 8. As already noted above, a thin layer of skin just above the surface, can break by severe blow and the appearance of incised wound, this medical view of an injury simulating incised wound has also been approved by the Supreme Court in Suresh vs. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 1122 . 9. In view of the foregoing discussion the contention advanced by the appellant's counsel that medical evidence is in compatible with eye witness account thus belying prosecution case cannot be accepted. The evidence of PW 2 is amply corroborated not only by the evidence of PWs 3,4 and 5 but also by the medical evidence, viewed in its proper perspective. The criticism that all witnesses are relatives, therefore, interested, is also without any substance. Mere relationship by itself is no ground to discard their testimony. There is nothing on record to hold that they were out to falsely implicate the accused appellants. The trial Court has rightly rejected this contention on proper consideration. 10. The appellants Fazar Ali and Jonab Ali have been held to be guilty under section 302 and under section 302 read with section 109IPC respectively although the charge as framed was under section 302/34 IPC. The evidence available on record fully supports the sharing of common intention by accused Jonab Ali and his participation in commission of the offence along with Fazar Ali. Since no appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of other accused, we are helpless in the matter. 11. Whether the conviction of appellant Jonab Ali under section 302 read with section 109, in face of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 1PC as framed by the trial Court is proper, is now purely academic. There is overwhelming evidence to support the charge as framed. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to appellant Jonab Ali, in view of the charge as framed by the trial Court his conviction as recorded is altered to one under section 302 read with section 34IPC instead of section 302 read with section 109IPC. With this slight modification in conviction of appellant Jonab Ali, this appeal, in view of the foregoing discussion, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment is maintained, subject to the modification as indicated above. The appeal dismissed.