Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned 4th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by the judgment dated 31.1.1989 and thereof both the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The short facts giving rise to this prosecution case as indicated that one Dilip Kumar, the servant of the informant Krishna Gope of village Gari Hotwar came to the Khaliyan and narrated that both the appellants assaulted Dhiran Gope. He also stated that he (Dilip Kumar) had gone to the house of Atwa Oraon when he found Dhannu Oraon drinking liquor and there was some altercation and in the meantime, the appellant No. 1 slapped Dhiran Gope, the deceased and in retaliation Dhiran Gope also slapped him and thereafter, all the accused persons came there, when both the appellants came there with Tangi and Baluwa and thereafter they assaulted Dhiran Gope. It is also stated that accused persons had also assaulted one Mangra Oraon at the house of Atwa Oraon when he tried to pacify the dispute and also to save Dhiran Gope. On this information, the informant went at the house of Atwa Oraon and found his father-Dhiran Gope lying in injured condition at the house of Atwa Oraon and he also found on his head. Thereafter, the injured Dhiran Gope was taken to Sadar Hospital by Rickshaw, but Dhiran Gope succumbed to his injuries. It is also stated that the father of the informant with the servant Dilip Kumar had gone in search of labour for thrashing the paddy and after searching the labourer he stayed at the house of Atwa Oraon for taking liquor. 3. Altogether four accused persons, namely, Sanicharwa Oraon, Dhanu alias Lulha, Indra Oraon and Baijnath Oraon were charged by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and the Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and going through the materials, acquitted Sanicharwa Oraon and Baijnath Oraon as the prosecution could not be able to establish the charge against them beyond all reasonable doubts, but both the appellants, namely, Dhanu alias Lulha and Indra Oraon were found to be guilty and they were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC as mentioned above. 4. 4. The defence case as alleged that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case as well as prosecution failed to explain about the injury caused to the appellant No. 1 and there is also much contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. 5. Altogether 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution of whom PW 10, Dr. K.R Srivastava is the doctor who held postmortem on the dead body of Dhiran Gope and found following ante mortem injuries : A. Incised wound. (i) 11 x 1 cm. over left side of forehead and adjoining portion of the head situated posterity. The weapon had cut the frontal bone underneath completely and brain up to the death of 1 cm. presence of blood and blood clots in the cranialcavity. (ii) 11 x 1 cm. over forehead, left side obliquely placed. The weapons cut the frontal underneath completely and brain up to the depth of 1 cm. The left end of the injury No. 2 and outer end of injury No. 1 had crossed each other. B. Internal.There was contusion of Scalp, measuring 8 x 6 cm. over vertex of head and underneath there was crack fracture of the parietal bone and posterior part of frontal bone, from the right parietal bone and fracture extended to sequamous part of right temporal bone. There was presence of epidural and subdural blood and blood clots underneath and there was contusion of both parietal lobes of brain underneath. The doctor opined about the injury found on the person as being incised wounds were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons and the death was due to head injuries as well as all the incised injuries were found on the. need of the deceased, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Tanga. 6. Other witnesses, PWs 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11 are of formal nature. PW 4, Jagarnath Gope claimed to have come to know about the incident from Krishna Gope who narrated him that his father was done to death in the Angan of Atwa and thereafter, he took the dead body on his Rickshaw and brought to the hospital. PW 5, Krishna Gope, informant also came to know about the occurrence from his servant Dilip Kumar as such he rushed to the spot and found his father in injured condition in the Angan of Atwa. PW 5, Krishna Gope, informant also came to know about the occurrence from his servant Dilip Kumar as such he rushed to the spot and found his father in injured condition in the Angan of Atwa. PW 6, Dilip being the servant of the informant is said to be the eye-witness and according to him Dhiran, the deceased asked for wine from Lulha which was refused and as such Dhiran gave him assault with slap and thereafter Lulha alias Dhanu Oraon, appellant No. 1 brought a Tangi from his house, but Dhiran closed the door but even then Lulha gave Tangi blow on the door but later on Dhiran snatched the said Tangi, but again Lulha went to his house and brought another Tangi and thereafter, he gave Tangi blow on the head of Dhiran and then he (Dilip) went running to the informant for information of the incident. 7. It is true that he admitted in para 3 of his cross- examination that Lulha also sustained injury as he was assaulted by one Mangna with wood, but at this stage, I may mention here that neither any injury report has been placed from either side nor the appellant No. 1 narrated this fact at the time of recording his statement under Section 313, Cr PC. 8. PW 7 Atwa Oraon is also an eye-witness and admittedly the incident took place in the Angan of this witness and he also claimed in his statement about altercation took place in connection with demand of wine. He also stated that both Lulha and Dhiran started quarrelling and also gave the slaps which was pacified by him but Lulha came there with Tangi. He further stated that Indra Oraon, appellant No. 2 also assaulted with Tangi on the head of the deceased (Dhiran) as well as Lulha fell him down and assaulted and thereafter, he raised alarm but they fled away. 9. PW 8 Mangna Oraon, son of Etwa Oraon also said to be the eye-witness and he constantly deposed that Lulha alias Dhanu brought Tangi from his house and he assaulted Dhiran, the deceased with Tangi. According to him, Indra-appellant No. 2 also gave Tangi blow on the head of Dhiran at the relevant time. He further claimed that Dhanua alias Lulha assaulted the deceased with Tabla also. According to him, Indra-appellant No. 2 also gave Tangi blow on the head of Dhiran at the relevant time. He further claimed that Dhanua alias Lulha assaulted the deceased with Tabla also. This witness was also assaulted by Dhana at the relevant time and as such he can be said to be the competent witness on the point of occurrence. He clearly stated in his cross-examination that both the appellants, Indra and Dhana had assaulted the deceased (vide para 3). 10. Both the appellants were also examined under Section 313, Cr PC and they have denied the allegation. No any witness was examined from the side of defence. 11. It may be noted here that a Tangi with blood-stained was also recovered and seized from the house of Sanicharwa Oraon, the father of the appellants which will be evident from Ext. I. 12. On going through the fardbeyan (Ext. 4), it is apparent that there is specific and direct allegation against both the appellants by the servant Dilip Kujur, PW 6 that both the appellants assaulted Dhiran Gope, the father of the informant by means of Tangi and Baluwa and they assaulted and gave blow on the head. PWs 6, 7 and 8 have consistently supported the prosecution case on this score about assault by Tangi and Baluwa to the deceased as they are eye-witnesses of the occurrence and the medical evidence being the autopsy report, Ext. 3 also finds corroboration about the injuries caused on the head of the deceased-Dhiran Gope. The presence of PW 7 Etwa Oraon and his son Mangana Oraon (PW 8) cannot be doubted as the alleged occurrence said to be taken place ir the Angan of Etwa Oraon and both the witnesses were present at the time of occurrence. There is consistent and corroborative evidence by the ocular evidence about the occurrence, which cannot be discarded as well as there is nothing material to show about any animosity with the said witnesses. 13. The learned Counsel appearing from the side of the defence. (appellants) argued that there is an allegation that the deceased was taking liquor at the relevant time, but the doctor, who held post-mortem, did not detect any drop of liquor in the stomach of deceased. 14. 13. The learned Counsel appearing from the side of the defence. (appellants) argued that there is an allegation that the deceased was taking liquor at the relevant time, but the doctor, who held post-mortem, did not detect any drop of liquor in the stomach of deceased. 14. It may be mentioned here that the occurrence took place on 27.11.1981 at 10 p.m. whereas the post-mortem examination on the dead body was held on 28.11.1981 at 1.30 p.m. and as such it is quite possible that liquor could not be found after such a long duration. 15. The learned Counsel for the defence next argued that investigating officer has not been examined in this case which gives much suspicion about the occurrence and also prejudiced the case of the defence. I have already discussed above that as many as three independent eyewitnesses were examined in this case and all of them are consistent in deposing about the occurrence and gave out a true picture about the assault. In this way, I find that non-examination of the investigating officer cannot be said to be fatal for the whole prosecution case. It is also clear that non- examination of investigating officer by the prosecution, inspite of the steps taken for his evidence, is not always fatal to the prosecution case unless it is shown that the defence case has been prejudiced and interest of justice have suffered Daroga Yadav @ Daroga Ahir and another V/s. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) PLJR 91 : 1996 (1) East Cr C 453 and Behari Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, 1996 (2) PLJR 18 (SC) : 1996 (1) East Cr C 401. Moreover, the Trial Court had also taken steps to procure his attendance. 16. It is further argued that the appellant No. 1, Dhana alias Lulha also said to have sustained injury as admitted by the witness, but the prosecution has failed to explain the injury of the appellant No. 1 which also makes the whole prosecution case doubtful. But, this contention of the learned counsel has got no substance in view of the fact that Dhana alias Lulha has already been examined under Section 313, Cr PC and he did not say a single word that he had ever been assaulted or injured at the relevant time. Had there been such story of assault to him, he could have easily stated this fact. Had there been such story of assault to him, he could have easily stated this fact. It is also evident from the record itself that neither any defence witness has been examined on this score from the side of the appellants, nor any medical report has been brought on the record to substantiate the story of assault. 17. It is further argued that there is much contradiction about the place of occurrence and due to which the prosecution case becomes more doubtful. But, it may be mentioned here that there is specific mention in the fardbeyan itself that occurrence took place in the house of Etwa and this fact has also been corroborated by the witnesses-PWs 6, 7 and 8. It is true that there is minor contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses, but minor discrepancies regarding minute details of incident including the sequence of event and overt acts are possible even in the version of truthful witnesses. In fact, such discrepancies are inevitable and as such the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown due to minor discrepancies, in view of the fact that the witnesses are villagers and rustic. 18. It is further argued that there was no motive behind the occurrence as alleged against the accused persons. But, it is also settled that failure of prosecution to prove the motive does not discredit the entire prosecution case. There is specific and direct allegation against both the appellants/ accused persons for causing Tangi and Baluwa blow to the deceased and all the three eye-witnesses are consistent on this score as well as said Tangi with blood-stained was also recovered and seized from the house of the appellants. It also appears that the medical evidence also corroborates the story of assault in the manner as alleged. Therefore, on giving anxious consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the evidence available on the record. I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against both the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 19. Thus, I find that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34, IPC both the appellants. 20. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as against the appellants are, hereby, affirmed. 19. Thus, I find that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34, IPC both the appellants. 20. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as against the appellants are, hereby, affirmed. The bail bonds of the appellants are, hereby, cancelled and they are directed to surrender to the Trial Court to serve out the sentence imposed on them by the Trial Court forthwith, failing which the Trial Court shall take all coercive steps for securing their attendance. R.A.Sharma, J. 21 I agree.