Judgment M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.: 1. The appellants A-1 to A-3 challenging the conviction under Sec.302 read with 34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in S.C.No.63 of 1988 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli have filed this appeal. 2. The factual matrix of the case are this: The deceased Subban is the son of P.W.1 Rangaraj. P.W.2 Valarmathi is the daughter of the deceased. A-1 is the cousin of the deceased and A-2 and A3 are the nephews of A-1. About two years back, A-1 gave a complaint against the deceased and P.W.3 the brother of the deceased for having beaten him with stick. In the said case, the deceased and P.W.3 were convicted About one year prior to the date of the occurrence, P.W.3 while playing cards with A-2, attacked him with a knife, for which a case was registered by the police in Crime No.148 of 1987. Though the deceased and the accused party were living in the same village, namely, Kattipalayam, P.W.1 was staying in his sister-in-laws house at Thavittupalayam. On 26.10.1987 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.I was requested by the deceased Subban and Valarmathi, P.W.2 to come to the their house at Kattipalayam to take dinner. Therefore, all three left Thavittupalayam and were walking towards the village Kattipalayam. When they were nearing a mosque, the appellants A-1 to A-3 suddenly appeared at the scene. The first appellant armed with aruval, the second appellant with a crow bar and A-3 with aruval started attacking the deceased. A-1 cut on the left side of the neck, A-2 stabbed on the chest with crow bar and A-3 cut on the left elbow and right shoulder of the deceased. On seeing this incident, P.W.1 Rangaraj shouted at the accused and intervened by asking them “Why do you cut”. Thereupon, A-1 and A-2 assaulted P.W.1 also with respective weapons on his head. When PW.1 made thus and cry, the accused persons ran away from the scene, On receipt of the injury on the head, P.W.1 had giddiness went and sat near the school and was lying down. On seeing this incident, P.W.2 Valarmathi rushed to her house and informed about the incident to her uncle P.W.3 and her mother. Thereafter, P.W.3 alongwith other went to the scene, found his brother dead and his father lying near the school with injury on the head. 3. On seeing this incident, P.W.2 Valarmathi rushed to her house and informed about the incident to her uncle P.W.3 and her mother. Thereafter, P.W.3 alongwith other went to the scene, found his brother dead and his father lying near the school with injury on the head. 3. PW.3 arranged to take P.W.1 to Velayudampalayam police Station in a car. P.W. 1 gave complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.9 the Sub-Inspector of police attested by P.W.3, Thereafter, P.W.I was sent to the Government Hospital at Karur. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.206of 1987 for the offences under Secs.302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.9 sent the documents to the court as well as to his higher officials. Ex.P-12 is the printed first information report, since, the Inspector was not available then, P.W.9 went to the scene of occurrence at about 9.30 p.m. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-13. He conducted inquest between 10.00 p.m. and 1.00 a.m. and examined P.Ws.2,3,4 and others, Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. Then, he recovered M.O.3 blood stained earth and M.O.4 school where P.W.1 was lying and recovered M.O.5 blood stained earth and M.O.6 sample earth. Then, at 2.30 a.m. he went to the hospital and examined P.W.1 and recovered M.O.1 shirt and M.0.2 lungi from P.W.1. 4. In the meantime, P.W.6 the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Karur examined P.W.1 at about 9.45 p.m. on 26.10.1987 and found five injuries on the head, elbow, leg and hand. P.W.I was hospitalised from 27.10.1987 to 1.11.1987. The Doctor on the basis of the x-ray report gave opinion that P.W.I sustained grievous injuries and issued wound certificate Ex.P-5. On 27.10.1987 P.W7 the Doctor conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and found six injuries on the left side of the neck, elbow, flank and other places. He issued post mortem certificate Ex.P-6. He opined that the deceased would appeal to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained. P.W.10 the Inspector of Police took up further investigation on 29.10.1987 and examined other witnesses and sent the materials objects to the chemical examiner through court. In the meantime, all the three appellants surrendered before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Pudukottai on 30.10.1987. After finishing the investigation, P.W.10 filed chargesheet on 11.1.1988. 5. P.W.10 the Inspector of Police took up further investigation on 29.10.1987 and examined other witnesses and sent the materials objects to the chemical examiner through court. In the meantime, all the three appellants surrendered before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Pudukottai on 30.10.1987. After finishing the investigation, P.W.10 filed chargesheet on 11.1.1988. 5. After the case was committed, during the course of the trial, prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 through whom Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os.l to 8 were marked. The case of the defence as put forward in Sec.343, Crl.P.C. statement is that all the accused did not participate in the alleged occurrence and they have been falsely implicated, since there is prior enmity between them and that earlier, the deceased and P.W.3 attacked A-1 and in respect of which a criminal case was filed against them and in that case, deceased and P.W.3 convicted and fined. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. 6. On the basis of the materials placed before the trial court, it was concluded that the appellants had committed the offences for which they were charged and they are liable to be convicted and sentenced thereto. As against this verdict, the present appeal has been filed before this Court by all the appellants i.e., A-1 to A-3. 7. Mr.A.Packiraraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed, in view of the vital discrepancies with reference to the core of the prosecution and as such, the appellants are not liable to be convicted, especially in the absence of any immediate motive. It is also vehemently contended by Mr.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the appellants that a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 in chief and cross, would clearly show that there are two complaints recorded from P.W.1 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.9 and that only one statement has been registered and another statement has been suppressed and therefore, it is a clear case where the prosecution has concealed the important document which would highly affect the genuineness of the prosecution case, thereby the prosecution has not come with clean hands. 8. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Elango, learned Government Advocate would submit/by reading out the relevant portion of the evidence, that the ocular testimony projected through P.Ws.1 and 2 has been amply corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 1 admission in the cross-examination that a statement has been obtained at the hospital is merely a mistake and that mistake, at any rate, would not affect the case of the prosecution, in as much as there are materials to show from the other witnesses that the complaint was given by P.W. 1 at the police station at about 8.00 p.m. attested by P.W.3, which reached the Magistrate at about 4.30 a.m. on the next day. In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the trial court has discussed the entire materials threadbare and has come to the correct conclusion by giving valid and proper reasonings. 9. We heard both sides and we have carefully scrutinised the materials and considered the submissions made by both sides. 10. P.W. 1 is none other than the father of the deceased. A-1 is the sons of his elder brother. Admittedly, there were two cases against the deceased band P.W.3 with reference to the attack made on A-1 and A-2. In one case, P.W.3 and the deceased were convicted. This would show that there is strong enmity between both the parties. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there is not motive at all. As laid down by this Court time and again, motive is a double edged weapon, which can be used by either of the parties, either for false implication or for attacking the victim party, But, in the instant cease, Mr.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the appellants makes out a plea that though there is a motive earlier, there is no materials to show that there is any proximity for this occurrence or any immediate motive to prompt the accused to make an attack on the deceased and P.W.1. Though, we find some force in the contention urged by the counsel for the appellants, since there is no materials with reference to the immediate motive, in our view, that aspect alone would not be sufficient to reject the entire case of the prosecution, especially when there are two eye witnesses who speak about the occurrence. As indicated earlier, P.W. 1 is the father the deceased, who is seriously injured. As indicated earlier, P.W. 1 is the father the deceased, who is seriously injured. The nature of the injuries found in the wound certificate and in the evidence adduced by the Doctor, who examined P.W.1 would reveal that but for the timely treatment given by the hospital authorities, he would not have survived. Therefore, when P.W.I was subjected to very serious injuries, there is no difficulty for this Court to give due importance to his testimony. 11. According to P.W.I, he accompanied the deceased and P.W.2 to the house of the deceased at Kattipalayam. near the mosque, where a tubelight was burning and also where two street lights were there, the occurrence had taken place. After the attack was over, P.W. 1 went and sat near the school. From both the places blood stained earth was taken by the police. On analysis it was found that the blood stained earth contained human blood. Besides that, the overtacts attributed to each of the accused, as spoken to by P.W.1, is clearly corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.7 the post mortem doctor, even with regard to the injury sustained by P.W.1, the medical evidence adduced by P.W.6 is in consonance with the ocular testimony. Therefore, in our view, the evidence of P.W. 1 which is cogent and consistent and which reflects the fragrance of truth is sufficient to hold that the prosecution has established its case against the appellants. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants points out that P.W. 1 would admit in the cross exami--nation that he gave complaint and the hospital, which was reduced into writing by P.W.9 at 2.00 a.m. at the hospital, attested by P.W.3 But, in chief examination P.W. 1 would state that he was brought to the police station by P.W.3 wherein he gave complaint to P.W.9 at 7.30 p.m. It is true that there is discrepancy with reference to the time at which the complaint was given and the place where the said complaint was given to the police officer, as seen in the evidence of P.W.1. But, P.W.3 who is the attesting witness and P.W.3 who has recorded the first information report would categorically state that the complaint was given at the police station and P.W.3 attested the said complaint and thereafter, P.W. 1 was sent to the hospital. But, P.W.3 who is the attesting witness and P.W.3 who has recorded the first information report would categorically state that the complaint was given at the police station and P.W.3 attested the said complaint and thereafter, P.W. 1 was sent to the hospital. P.W.9 would also state that the victim came to the police station along with P.W.3 and gave complaint and thereafter, he was sent to the hospital after registering the case of the offences under Secs.302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 9 to the effect that the complaint was received only at the hospital and not at the police station. Further more, it is the evidence of P.W.9 that he went to the scene immediately after receipt of the complaint and conducted inquest from 10.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. on the same night, The complaint which was given at 7.30 p.m. was registered at 8.30 p.m. which reached the Magistrate at 4.30 a.m. early morning, Therefore, it cannot be contended that the complaint was received by P.W.9 only at the hospital at 2.30 a.m. whatever, it may be, even assuming that there were some discrepancies, the same, in our view would not affect the genuineness of the prosecution case projected through P.W.1. 13. While a similar discrepancy was dealt with by the Apex Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Ani State of Rajasthan v. Ani , 1997 S.C.C. (Crl.) 851. The Apex Court would observe as follows: “We are of the view that the discrepancy regarding the time of recording first information statement, on the facts of this case, is not enough to castigate the testimony of an important eye witness, whose presence at the spot cannot in any way be doubted the maximum consequence which such discrepancy may, visit, on the facts of this case, is that the first information statement cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of the maker of it”. In the light of this observation, when nothing has been elicited during the course of the cross examination of P.W. 1, to discredit his testimony, with regard to the main occurrence, we are not inclined to give any importance to the said discrepancy. In the light of this observation, when nothing has been elicited during the course of the cross examination of P.W. 1, to discredit his testimony, with regard to the main occurrence, we are not inclined to give any importance to the said discrepancy. Therefore, P.W.ls evidence which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence can be acted upon to conclude that the appellants have committed this offence of committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries on the head of P.W.1. No. doubt, it is true, that P.W.2 a child witness who according to P.W.I left the scene immediately when the assault began. We are conscious about the various rulings by the Apex Court with reference to the mode of appreciation of the evidence of a child witness, it is also true, as pointed by the learned counsel for the appellants, that there are lost of details given in the evidence of P.W.2. But, it shall be stated that the conviction that we are imposing on the appellants by confirming the verdict of the trial court is not on the basis of evidence of P.W.2, but exclusively on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, who is a truthful witness and whose evidence can be acted upon, in the light of the clear corroboration through medial testimony. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial court have to be confirmed. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are confirmed. The trial court is directed to take steps to commit the accused to custody to undergo rest of the sentence.