JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma, J.): Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the accused has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: 3. On 1.10.1996 at about 11.15 AM a telephonic message from Om Parkash (PW-8) a Shop Keeper of Fatehpur was received in Police Station, Dharamshala conveying that there had been a group clash in Fatehpur Bazar wherein a boy had been injured. On receipt of this telephonic information a report daily-diary Ext. PW-13/A was recorded in the Police Station by Onkar Singh (PW-13) and A.S.I. Jasbir Singh (PW-15) accompanied by a few other police officials went to the place of occurrence. On reaching at the place of alleged occurrence he came to know that the injured whose name was Ranjeet Singh had been removed to the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. After making arrangements for preserving the place of occurrence PW-15 proceeded to Zonal Hospital Dharamshala where he learnt that said Ranjeet Singh had died. PW-15 Jasbir Singh then recorded the statement of Parmeshwari Dass (PW-1) under Section 154 of the Cr. P.C. Ext. PW-l/A which disclosed that at about 10AM on 1.10.1996 when PW-1 who was coming to Dharmshala reached at the Tea Stall of one Kamal at Fathepur the deceased and Vikas Kumar (PW-17) came to the said Tea Stall and sat there. At about 10.45 AM accused Virender Kumar accompanied by a boy stated to be son of one Parkash Chand R/O Village Khaneyara came inside the Tea Stall. Accused Virender Kumar alias Babla asked Ranjeet Singh as to why he had beaten up the boy who was accompanying the accused. The deceased replied that he had no quarrel or dispute with him and inquired as to who he was to ask such questions from him. The conversation led the deceased and the accused to grappling and PW-1 Parmeshwari Dass started pacifying them. The deceased replied that he had no quarrel or dispute with him and inquired as to who he was to ask such questions from him. The conversation led the deceased and the accused to grappling and PW-1 Parmeshwari Dass started pacifying them. However, the accused took out a dagger (chhura) from the pocket of his pant and gave blows therewith on the left side of the chest and right side of the back of the deceased who attempted to go out of the tea stall but collapsed in front of the stall. At the time of occurrence Tarlok Chand and Mahinder Singh were present on the spot and so many other persons had also gathered there. PW-1 Parmeshwari Dass left on a scooter to the house of the injured and after his return there from along with the family members of Ranjeet Singh he was removed to the Hospital where he was declared dead. On the basis of the statement Ext. PW-l/A a formal F.I.R. Ext.PW-13/B came into being at Police Station, Dharmshala. PW-15 Jasbir Singh A.S.I, prepared inquest papers Exts. PW-15/B and PW-15/C and applied for post mortem examination of the dead body of Ranjeet Singh vide application Ext. PW-7/A. The dead body of Ranjeet Singh was photographed by Pawan Kumar (PW-11), the negatives whereof are Exts. PW-1 I/A to PW-ll/D and the developed photographs are Ext. PW-11/E to Ext.PW-11/H. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (PW-15) returned to the place of occurrence where Krishan Chand A.S.I. (PW-18) had already reached. PW-18 prepared the spot map Ext. PW-18/A and also got the place of occurrence photographed from Tara Chand (PW-10) the negatives whereof are Exts. PW-10/A and PW-10/B and the developed photographs are Exts. PW-10/C and PW-10/D. He also took in possession the blood soiled earch (?), stone and blood Ext. P-2 vide Memo Exts. PW-2/A in the presence of Parkash Chand PW-2. Dr. D.P. Swami (PW-10) conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Ranjeet Singh and prepared and issued the post mortem report Ext. PW-19/A. As per this report the following Anti-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body: " 1. Incised wound stabbed spindle shaped oblique on the left mid upper chest oblique (as shown in picture), 2.3.x 1x5 cm in the 4th intercostals space, piercing to left ventarcile lx x 1/2x2 cm raddish in colour. 2. PW-19/A. As per this report the following Anti-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body: " 1. Incised wound stabbed spindle shaped oblique on the left mid upper chest oblique (as shown in picture), 2.3.x 1x5 cm in the 4th intercostals space, piercing to left ventarcile lx x 1/2x2 cm raddish in colour. 2. Incised wound stabbed on the left shoulder back and upper mid part oblique, 2.3 cm x 1 cm, x3 cm damaging left shoulder muscle raddish. 3. Incised wound (stabbed) on the mid left side of back, spindle shaped, oblique, 2.3 cm x lx 5 cm, (as shown in diagram), piercing back of liver and with clotted blood 100 cc. 4. Incised would (stabbed) on the right mid back oblique 2.3x1.5 cm, piercing back of the liver with clotted blood 100 cc radish." As per the opinion given by the doctor who has conducted the postmortem, Ranjeet Singh died of blood loss shock due to multiple and- mortem sharp double edged weapon injuries. Injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and injuries No.3 and 4 in combination were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The approximate time that elapsed between the injuries and death was 15 minutes to one hour and between the injuries and death was 15 minutes to one hour hours. At the time of conducting of the post mortemPW-19 took in possession the wearing apparels found on the dead body and handed them over to the police in a sealed cover. During the course of investigation on application Ext. PW-18/B made to him along with a dagger (Chhura) in a sealed cover, he opined after examining the dagger that the anti-mortem injuries found on the dead- body of Ranjeet Singh were capable of being caused with dagger (Ext.P-1) so produced. After re-sealing the dagger he handed it over to the police. On receipt of the information about the occurrence Hira Singh, Officer Incharge, Police Station, Dharamshala (PW-16) visited the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, the Mortuary at Dharamshala and the place of occurrence where the other police officials were already conducting the investigation. At the place of occurrence he was informed by Kishan Chand (PW-18) that after stabbing the deceased, accused had fled away. At the place of occurrence he was informed by Kishan Chand (PW-18) that after stabbing the deceased, accused had fled away. Hira Singh (PW-16) started the search for the accused and ultimately arrested him on 5.10.1996 from the house of one Madan Lai in Village Arki Dhar in district Chamba and brought him to Dharamshala. On 7.10.1996 the accused was taken to the place of occurrence where he allegedly identified the spot. On interrogation the accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-5/A in the presence of Suresh Kumar (PW-5) and one Ram Singh to the effect that he had kept concealed the dagger near Rakar Bridge by the side of Manuni Khad under a stone. Thereafter, he led the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to the place where the dagger (Ext.P-1) was stated to have been hidden and got it recovered. After preparing the rough sketch Ext. PW-5/B of dagger Ext.P-1 the same was made into a parcel and was sealed and seized vide memo Ext. PW-5/C. The spot map of the place of recovery Ext. PW-16/A was also prepared. On production by the accused his wearing apparels, namely, Shirt (Ext.P-3) and Pant (Ext.P-4) were also taken in possession and made into sealed parcels vide seizure Memo Ext. PW-5/D. The Viscera which was preserved at the time of conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body, the sample of blood and the aforesaid wearing apparels of the deceased were got chamically analysed in the State Forensic Science Laboratory and as per the report Ext. PY about such examination poison/alcohol were not detected therein. The weapon of offence (Ext. P-l), aforesaid wearing apparels, blood soiled earth, stone etc. taken in possession from the place of occurrence and blood sample were also got chemically analysed by the Investigating agency in the State Forensic Science Laboratory and as per report Ext. PX it was found that the shirts, pents, blood sample and blood stained earth contained human blood but the group thereof could not be ascertained. Blood was found on the weapon of offence (Ext.P-1) also but nothing more could be ascertained, during the course of the investigation it was also found that Dinesh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Tarlok Chand had harboured/concealed accused Virender Kumar alias Babla. Blood was found on the weapon of offence (Ext.P-1) also but nothing more could be ascertained, during the course of the investigation it was also found that Dinesh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Tarlok Chand had harboured/concealed accused Virender Kumar alias Babla. The Officer Incharge, Police Station, Dharamshala accordingly submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 302/212/341.P.C. against the accused and said Dinesh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Tarlok Chand and thus accused Virender Kumar on a charge under Section 302IPC and Dinesh Kumar, Tarlok Chand and Rajinder Kumar on a charge under Section 212 IPC were tried buy the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala. 4. To prove the charges against the accused the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. 5. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent. The accused however did not lead any defence. 6. By the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted Dinesh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Tarlok Chand of the charge against them but convicted and sentenced accused Virender Kumar alias Babla as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 8. There is no dispute that Ranjit Singh is no more in the land of living. There is unrebutted medical evidence in the form of statement of Dr. D.P. Swami (PW-18) read with the post mortem report Ext. PW- 19/A and report about analysis of the visra of the deceased Ext. PY to prove beyond any doubt that Ranjeet Singh died of anti-mortem stab injuries found on his person. In fact the real dispute between the parties is as to who is the author of these fatal injuries. According to the respondent State the factual injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused whereas accused has denied to have caused such injuries. 9. The learned trial Judge has believed and relied on the following evidence to hold the accused guilty of the commission of the offence: (i) the eye-account of the occurrence as given by PW-1 Parmeshwari Dass and PW-5 Suresh Kumar; (ii) the disclosure statement Ext. PW-5/A made by the accused about the weapon of offence Ext.P-1 and consequential recovery thereof at the instance of the accused vide memo Ext. PW-5/A made by the accused about the weapon of offence Ext.P-1 and consequential recovery thereof at the instance of the accused vide memo Ext. PW-5/C; (iii)the medical opinion given by PW-19 that the fatal anti- mortem injuries found on the dead body of Ranjeet Singh were capable of being caused by Chhura (dagger) Ext. P-l; and (iv) the expert opinion vide report Ext. PY that blood was found on dagger Ext. P-l, and human blood was found on shirt Ext.P-3 and Pant Ext. P-4 of the accused. 10. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 reveals that he has given full and detailed eye-account of the occurrence and has fully supported the prosecution case. PW-5 who had seen the occurrence after the injury on the chest of Ranjeet Singh had already been inflicted has fully corroborated and supported the version of PW-1 about infliction of injuries by the accused to the deceased on his back with a dagger. 11. The testimony of these witnesses has been assailed by the learned counsel for the accused on the grounds that; (i) they are interested witnesses inasmuch as PW-1 admittedly was not on talking terms with the accused and PW-5 is a close relation of the deceased and (ii) there are material contradictions and improvements in their statements. It was contended by the learned counsel that these so called eye-witnesses are not reliable in view of the relations between PW-5 and the deceased and PW-1 not being on talking terms with the deceased. Further more there are various material contradictions and improvement in their statements. Therefore, their statements could not be relied upon to convict the accused. To support his contention the learned counsel has relied on Ravulappalli Kon-daiah & Ors., v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 216 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. 12. In Ravulappalli Kondaiahs case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "34.......We cannot overlook the fact that all the eye-witnesses were highly interested in the prosecution, and, at least two of them, namely, P.W.I and P.W.4 were inimically disposed towards the appellants. While such witnesses never fail to denounce the real culprits, they cannot be said to be absolutely immune from the tendency of roping in some innocent persons along with the guilty. While such witnesses never fail to denounce the real culprits, they cannot be said to be absolutely immune from the tendency of roping in some innocent persons along with the guilty. In the present case, where the / assailants did not spare even a woman and an old man who had interceded merely to save the deceased, the temptation to implicate, in addition to the actual assailants, their women and other relations would be real. It is in this context that these contradictions assume importance. As a matter of caution, therefore, the Court should seek some assurance of this interested evidence from independent source qua each of the accused...." 13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sardas case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons, to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order or see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it." 14. In Ravulappalli Kondaiahs case (supra) the witnesses whose statements were under scrutiny were not the eye witnesses of the occurrence but were regarding circumstances by which it was sought to be proved as to what the deceased had been orally telling them about the accused and relations between them. This is human psychology and no one can help it." 14. In Ravulappalli Kondaiahs case (supra) the witnesses whose statements were under scrutiny were not the eye witnesses of the occurrence but were regarding circumstances by which it was sought to be proved as to what the deceased had been orally telling them about the accused and relations between them. Such oral version after the death of the narrator suspected to have been caused by the accused can legitimately be presumed to be exaggerated because of close relations of the witnesses, with the deceased and their motive to such redress against the suspect. In the instant case we are concerned with the appreciation of testimony of eye witnesses and not that of the witnesses who might have been examined to prove an incriminating circumstance against a person whom they believe to be the culprit. Thus, the ratio of the said case is not applicable to this case. 15. In Sharad Birthichand Sarda’s case (supra) the witnesses were found to have tried to implicate the relations of the accused also as assailant, contrary to the factual position. It was against this background that the Honble Supreme court has held as referred to above. Otherwise, vide Para 18 it has been held that the witnesses were undoubtedly relations or partisans of the deceased but that by itself does not make their evidence unreliable. It only puts the court on guard to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in Anuj alias Anu & Anr. v. State ofH.P. 2000 CRI L.J. 1103 while dealing with a similar question has held as under: "17 It is now well settled that a witness cannot be discredited merely because he is a near relation of the victim particularly a victim done to death or that there was some dispute between the accused and the eye-witness. In the course of natural human conduct a near relation will not leave out the real culprit and rope in an innocent person. The Honble Supreme court while dealing with the question of value to be attached to the statements of such witnesses in Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1992 Cri. In the course of natural human conduct a near relation will not leave out the real culprit and rope in an innocent person. The Honble Supreme court while dealing with the question of value to be attached to the statements of such witnesses in Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1992 Cri. L.J. 3958 : AIR 1993 SC 87 held as follows: 7.....In our view, simply on the score that the deceased was related to the eye witnesses or previously there were some disputes between the appellant and the eye-witnesses, their testimonies do not deserve to be discarded because in our view, the testimony of the said eye- witnesses was otherwise convincing and the same also stood corroborated by other facts established by the prosecution. (Also see 1994 Cri. L.J. 1980): (1994 AIR SCW 1526)." 17. In view of the above position in law the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 cannot be discarded for the sole reason that the former was not on speaking terms with the accused and the latter is a relation of the deceased. Besides, it cannot be believed and accepted that PW-1 and PW-5 would have gone to falsely implicate the accused in the present case thereby allowing the real culprit, to go scot free. 18. The improvements and contradictions material for appreciation of the statements of the eye-witnesses as pointed out for the defence are that PW-15 has not been named as a witness in the F.I.R. and had been introduced at a later stage and contradictions as to who went to inform the family members of the deceased, mode of travelling to and back from the house of the deceased, dates as and when the witnesses were called to the police station and places where their statements were recorded. 19. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that apart from the informant Trilok Chand and Mohinder Singh were present at the time of occurrence and so many persons had gathered there. Name of PW-5 thus does not figure in the F.I.R. The other persons apparently had gathered after the quarrel had started. PW-5 is also one of such persons as per his statement he appeared on the spot when accused gave dagger blows on the back of the deceased whereas he had already given dagger blows to the deceased on the chest before causing injuries on the back. PW-5 is also one of such persons as per his statement he appeared on the spot when accused gave dagger blows on the back of the deceased whereas he had already given dagger blows to the deceased on the chest before causing injuries on the back. Thus, it is clear that PW-5 came on the spot after the qurrel had started and had seen the later part of the occurrence when accused caused injuries to the deceased at the back. Thus, his arrival was along with a large number of persons and in such a situation if his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. by PW-1 this cannot be treated as a case of introduction of PW-5 as a witness at a later stage after deliberations. In fact his statement is confined only to that part of the occurrence which was seen by him. Had he been over anxious to involve the accused with whom he is not shown to be inimical, he could have made an exaggerated statement posing as if he had seen the occurrence as a whole. The contradictions as pointed out have no direct bearing on the evidence of the eye-witnesses so far as the occurrence itself is concerned. It is not disputed that brother and mother of the deceased on coming to know about the incident came to the spot. The contradictions as to who informed them of the occurrence, how he travelled, how they returned to the spot are of no use and consequence so far as the actual occurrence is concerned. Other alleged contradictions relate to the recording of the disclosure statement and recovery etc. and shall be dealt with at the appropriate place. It may however be pointed out here that minor and insignificant contradictions in giving details of the occurrence, unless they go to the root of the case of the prosecution need not be given any importance and must be ignored while appreciating evidence. The view we have taken is fully supportable in view of the ratio in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "5...... (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess- work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess- work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron. (7) 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 witnesses by him—perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanish activated on the spur of the moment." 20. The above proposition was reiterated by the Apex Court in Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (AIR) 1988 SC 696 wherein it was held as under: "13.......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 o observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may 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 any witness. 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 story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witness’s altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witness’s altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 Cri. LJ. 1302 at 1305: AIR 1972 SC 2020 at P. 2024 observed: 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 witnesses but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered." 21. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the alleged occurrence took place in a busy locality and as per the ease of the prosecution there were many persons on the spot including Tarlok Chand and Mohinder Singh who have been named even in the F.I.R. However, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness except Vikas Kumar (PW-17) who has not supported the prosecution version. Therefore, the statements of PW-1 and PW-5 could not be relied upon to convict the accused. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on the State of U.P. & Anr v. Jaggo alias Jagdish & Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1586, Sarwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2304 and State of Punjab v. Sohan Singh AIR 1992 SC 1247. 22. In Jaggos case (supra) the Honble Supreme court held as under: "15. Ramesh is the person with whom Lalu was talking at the time of the alleged occurrence. Ramesh was mentioned in the first information report. It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witness whose evidence is essential to the “unfolding of the narrative" should be called. Ramesh is the person with whom Lalu was talking at the time of the alleged occurrence. Ramesh was mentioned in the first information report. It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witness whose evidence is essential to the “unfolding of the narrative" should be called. This salutary principle in criminal trials has been stressed by this Court in the case of Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad, 1954 SCR 475 : AIR 195,4 SC 51, for eliciting the truth. The absence of Ramesh from the prosecution evidence seriously affects the truth of the prosecution case." 23. In Sarwan Singhs case (supra) the Honble Supreme court has held as follows: "13.......In our opinion the comments of the Additional Sessions Judge are based on serious misconception of the correct legal position. The onus of proving the prosecution case rests entirely on the prosecution and it follows as a logical corollary that the prosecution has complete liberty to choose its witnesses if it is to prove its case. The Court cannot compel the prosecution to examine one witness or the other as its witness. At the most, if a material witness is withheld, the Court may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. But it is not the law that the commission to examine any and every witness even on minor points would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution. The law is well settled that the prosecution is bound to produce only such witnesses as are essential for unfolding of the prosecution narrative. In other words, before an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the witnesses who had been withheld were eye-witnesses who had actually seen the occurrence and were therefore material to prove the case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point; it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters....." 24. In Sohan Singhs case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "4..............The High Court, in the above facts, came to the conclusion that the prosecution story was not probable and the defence version was acceptable. In Sohan Singhs case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "4..............The High Court, in the above facts, came to the conclusion that the prosecution story was not probable and the defence version was acceptable. We do not think that in the facts discussed above this view taken by the High court is not plausible. No independent witness has been examined even though the incident is alleged to have taken place in broad day light on a public road in an inhabited area. Since the view taken by the High court is reasonable and probable, we see no reason to interfere." 25. The settled position in law which emerges from the above quoted decisions is as follows: (i) It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every eye-witness but it is bound to produce only such witnesses as are essential for unfolding the prosecution version; and (ii) In case there are eye-witnesses and they are withheld, adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn. 26. In this case PW-1 has witnesses the occurrence as a whole and had even tried to pacify the accused and the deceased when they grappled with each other. Both, the accused and the deceased were known to him, he is not shown to be inimical towards the accused and has not reason to falsely implicate him in the commission of an offence of murder. He informs the family members of the deceased and helped in removing the deceased to the Hospital. Therefore, he is the most material witness to narrate the entire occurrence and has been examined by the prosecution. To corroborate his version another eye-witness PW-5 has been examined and he has also supported the prosecution version. Yet another witness, namely, Vikas (PW-17) has also been examined though he has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding infliction stab injuries by the accused to the deceased. However, he has stated that a few people were running towards Ranjit Singh who was lying injured by the side of the road and was bleeding. He has further stated that he had also gone there. However, he has stated that a few people were running towards Ranjit Singh who was lying injured by the side of the road and was bleeding. He has further stated that he had also gone there. Thus, he supports the version of the prosecution to the extent that at the material time he had seen the deceased in injured condition outside a Halwais shop on the road and he does not specifically deny the presence of the accused and PW-1 and PW-2 on the spot or his examination as a witness by the police. The statements of PW-1 and PW-5 therefore cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that PW-17 has not supported the prosecution version. 27. Mohinder Singh and Tarlok Singh who are mentioned in the F.I.R. as present at the time of occurrence though were cited as witnesses but were given up as having been won over by the accused. Though the prosecution is obliged to examine such witnesses and if they do not support its case to get them declared hostile and cross-examine them, but their non-examination in the given circumstances does not render the statements of PW-1 and PW-5 as unreliable or suspicious. 28. It clearly emerges from the records that at the time of occurrence so many other persons had gathered on the spot but none from them have been examined. However, PW-18 Kishan Chand, Sub Inspector, has explained in his examination-in-chief that he had not written the statements of the shopkeepers having their shops in the near vicinity of the place of occurrence because they refused to state anything about the occurrence. He has further stated in his cross-examination that he associated 7 or 8 persons but 5 j out of them refused to make any statement on different pretexts. The explanation offered by the Investigating Officer as aforesaid cannot be brushed aside as false. In the circumstances as explained, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 cannot be dis-believed for the reasons that despite there being so many persons present at the time of occurrence more witnesses have not been produced and examined by the prosecution. The view we have take is fully supportable by the view take in Appabhai & Anr. The view we have take is fully supportable by the view take in Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows :- "11.........It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of a pathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village like, towns or cities. Once cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties." 29. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated therein we are unable to agree with the learned defence counsel that evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 could not be believed and relied upon to convict the accused. It is more so because their statements are corroborated by other independent evidence. 30. The first of such corroborative piece of evidence is the recovery of the weapon of offence on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused. PW-16 Hira Sing, Deputy Superintendent of Police has stated that on interrogation by him on the spot the accused made disclosure statement Ext. PW-5/A in the presence of PW-5 and one Ram Singh to the effect that he had kept concealed a dagger near Rakad bridge by the side of Manuni Khad under a stone. He has further stated that the accused then led them to the said place where from under a stone he took out a dagger sketch whereof is Ext. PW-5/B and was seized vide memo Ext.PW-5/C in the presence of PW-5 and said Ram Singh. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of PW-16 which may render his version regarding making of the disclosure statement Ext.PW-5/A by the accused and the consequential recovery of dagger Ex.P-1 at the instance of the accused suspicious. PW-5/B and was seized vide memo Ext.PW-5/C in the presence of PW-5 and said Ram Singh. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of PW-16 which may render his version regarding making of the disclosure statement Ext.PW-5/A by the accused and the consequential recovery of dagger Ex.P-1 at the instance of the accused suspicious. On the contrary his statement is fully corroborated by PW-5 one of the witness of the disclosure statement and recovery of Ext.P-1. 31. It was contended by the learned Counsel that this recover is a mere farce inasmuch as the alleged interrogation of the accused according to PW-16 was conducted in The Police Station whereas according to PW-5 it was conducted on the spot and that PW-16 could not state as to how the presence of the witnesses of alleged disclosure and recovery was procured and similarly PW-5 does not know as to how he was called by the police to the spot and that he was not called to the police station on 7.10.1996, therefore, he could not state as to what happened on interrogation of accused which was conducted at the police station as stated by PW-16. 32. The contention raised for the accused is based on mis- conception/misreading of evidence. No doubt PW-16 has stated that he interrogated the accused in the police station, but this interrogation was in different context as is evident from his further statement that after such interrogation he took the accused to the place of occurrence which was identified by the accused. This part of evidence is inadmissible and has no reference to the disclosure about the dagger. However, according to PW-16, it was after the alleged identification of the spot that the accused was interrogated on the spot and it was during the course of this interrogation that the disclosure statement Ext.PW-5/A was made by the accused. It is so stated even by PW-5. Thus, in fact there is no contradiction/discrepancy as sought to be made out about the place where the disclosure statement was made. The inability of the witnesses to recollect as to through whom the police procured presence of PW-5 and Ram Singh on the spot is of no use and consequence and does not render the disclosure statement Ext.PW-5/A and the consequential recovering of dagger Ext.PW-1, a farce as contended for the accused. 33. The inability of the witnesses to recollect as to through whom the police procured presence of PW-5 and Ram Singh on the spot is of no use and consequence and does not render the disclosure statement Ext.PW-5/A and the consequential recovering of dagger Ext.PW-1, a farce as contended for the accused. 33. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that PW-5 being alleged eye-witness of the occurrence should not have been associated in the recovery and the I.O. having done so, the recovery is rendered a farce. To support his contention the learned Counsel has relied on Narpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1066 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under :- 24........The recovery of these seven empties is mentioned in seizure memo Ext.P.Y. and apart from P.W.23 the Investigating Officer the recovery has been proved also by PW.19 Gurdial Singh who is an eye witness and who has also been held by the courts below to be an independent and disinterested witness. Both these witnesses have deposed on oath regarding the recovery of seven empties from the spot. Merely because other witnesses were not examined would be no ground to reject their evidence. We would, however, like to point out that in future the Investigating Officer should not associate any eye-witness with the recovery memos, because that partakes of an attempt to make the witness omnibus. For these reasons, the recovery, of three empties on the night of May 2, 1973 and seven empties in the morning of May 3, 1973, has been established beyond reasonable doubt and we see no reason to distrust the credibility of Exts.P.K..K. and P.Y. The recovery of the empties is a very important circumstance which fully corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses, taken along with the evidence of the Ballistic expert that some of -hese empties could have been fired from the guns sent to him." 34. The proposition reproduced hereinabove does not in any way support the contention for the accused" inasmuch as it is a rule of caution that the investigating agency should not associate eye witnesses to witness the recoveries as this practice may partake of an attempt to make the witness omnibus. However, the lapse ipso facto will not render the recovery a farce as contended for the accused. 35. As per the opinion given by PW. However, the lapse ipso facto will not render the recovery a farce as contended for the accused. 35. As per the opinion given by PW. 19, the anti mortem injuries found on the dead body of Ranjit Singh could be possible by the use of dagger Ext.PW-l,PW-l Parmeshwari Dass has identified the dagger Ext.P-1 as the weapon of offence with which the accused had caused injuries to the deceased. On chemical examination, dagger Ext.P-1 was found to contain blood vide report ExtPX though it could not be determined as to whether it was or was not human blood. 36. According to the prosecution the shirt Ext.P-3 and Pant Ext. P-4 had been produced by the accused to the police after taking them cut from under a bed in his house vide Memo Ext.PW-5/D. This version is fully supported by PW-16 and PW-5 who have further identified them as the clothes the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses which may render their version is this regard as untrustworthy. On chemical analysis human blood was found on Ext.P-3 and P-4 as per the report Ext.PX. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has no specifically denied that Ext.P-3 and Ext.P-4 are not his clothes nor has been denied that these were blood stained. He has not offered any explanation as to how these were stained with human blood. 37. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the report Ext.PX does not disclose the group of human blood found on the clothes Ext.P-3 and Ext.P-4 and also does not disclose that blood found on dagger Ext.P-1 was that of human being, therefore, the allegedly recovered dagger Ext.P-1 and the clothes Exts.P-3 and P-4 do not connect the accused with the commission of murder. To support his contention the learned Counsel had relied on Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "11. As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with blood-stains which according to the serologist reports were stained with human blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about the group of the blood and therefore it could not positively be connected with the deceased. As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with blood-stains which according to the serologist reports were stained with human blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about the group of the blood and therefore it could not positively be connected with the deceased. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. Few small blood-stains on the clothes of a person may even be of his own blood especially if it is a villager putting on these clothes and living in villages. The evidence about the blood group is only conclusive to connect the blood-stains with the deceased. That evidence is absent and in this view of the mater, in our opinion, even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any inference could be drawn." 38. A similar question arose for determination before this Court in Anuj alias Anu&Anr.v. State of H.P., 2000 Cri.L.J. 1103 wherein this Court having in view the above proposition and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, .1991 Cri.L.J. 2653 held as follows: "50. Be it stated that in the case supra there was no eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In the case in hand the prosecution has examined eye-witnesses (P2.6 and P.W.7) of occurrence. The standard of reliability of circumstances in a case where eye-account of occurrence is available and in a case where there is no eye-account, cannot be the same for the simple reason that in the former case the circumstance is to corroborate eye-account given by the eye-witnesses whereas in the latter case the corroboration is of something not seen by any-one except the accused and the deceased. In the cases where eye-account of the occurrence is available, the reliability of a circumstance will depend to some extent on the reliability of the eye-witnesses. We have already set out the version of the eye-witnesses and have also examined most of the contention to discredit the statements of the eye-witnesses but have not found any sustainable reason to totally disbelieved them. We have already set out the version of the eye-witnesses and have also examined most of the contention to discredit the statements of the eye-witnesses but have not found any sustainable reason to totally disbelieved them. Therefore, it cannot be held that want of ascertaining the blood group in this case renders the detection of human blood on most of the wearing apparels of the accused of no use and consequence. On the contrary, it does corroborate the eye-account of the occurrence. 51. The above view is fully supportable in view of the proposition of law laid by the Honble Supreme Court in case Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 Cri.LJ. 2653: AIR 1991 SC 1853, wherein it has been held as under : "10. Mr. Lalit, however, argued that since the report of the serologist does not determine the blood group of the stains on the weapon and the pant of the appellant, the mere find of human blood on these two articles is of no consequence whatsoever. In support of this contention he placed strong reliance on the decisions of this Court in Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, 1987(3) SCC 480 : 1987 Cri.L.J. 1857 : AIR 1987 SC 1507 and Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Suppl.(2) SCC 21. In the first mentioned case the conviction was sought to be sustained on three circumstances, namely, (i) the appellant and the deceased were last seen together; (ii) a dhoti and a shirt, recovered from the possession of the appellant were found to be stained with human blood; and (iii) the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession to two witnesses when arrested. There was no dispute in regard to the first circumstance and the third circumstance was held not satisfactorily proved. In this backdrop the1 question for consideration was whether the first and the second circumstances were sufficient to convict the appellant. This Court, therefore, observed that a few small blood-stains could be of the appellant himself and in the absence of evidence regarding blood group it cannot conclusively connect the blood-stains with the blood of the deceased. In these circumstances this Court refused to draw any inference of guilt on the basis of the said circumstance since it was not conclusive evidence. In these circumstances this Court refused to draw any inference of guilt on the basis of the said circumstance since it was not conclusive evidence. This Court, however, did not go so far as to say that such a circumstance does not even provide a link in the chain of circumstances on which the prosecution can place reliance. In the second case also this Court did not consider the evidence regarding the find of human blood on the knife sufficient to convict the appellant in the absence of determination of blood group since the evidence of P.W.2 was found to be uninspiring and there was no other circumstance to connect him with the crime. In this case we have the direct testimony of P.W. 1 Komal Chand, besides the testimony of P.Ws. 3 and 4 which we have considered earlier. The find of human blood on the weapon and the pant of the appellant lend corroboration to the testimony of P.W. 1 Komal Chand when he states that he had seen the appellant inflicting the knife blow on the deceased. The appellant has not explained the presence of human blood on these two articles. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid two decisions turned on he peculiar facts of each case and they do not lay down a general proposition that in the absence of determination of blood group the find of human blood on the weapon or garment of these accused is of no consequence. We, therefore, see no substance in this contention urged by Mr. Lalit." 39. In view of the above and the fact that there is eye-account of the occurrence in this case we have no hesitation in holding that detection of blood on Ext.P-1 and human blood on clothes Exts. P-3 and P-4 is a circumstance which cannot be ignored as contended for the accused. On the contrary such detection is a very strong corroborative piece of evidence which leds credibility to the evidence of the eye- witnesses PW-1 and PW-5. 40. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the allegation that accused had absconded and was arrested in Arki-dhar in Chamba District could not be taken as a circumstance against the accused in view of the ratio in Kehar Singh & Ors. 40. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the allegation that accused had absconded and was arrested in Arki-dhar in Chamba District could not be taken as a circumstance against the accused in view of the ratio in Kehar Singh & Ors. v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 wherein it was held that the plea of the prosecution that accused had absconded and was arrested on information received about his whereabouts and was found in possession of some incriminating articles could not be believed for want of associating two respectable witnesses in making the arrest and search. We need not to go into the contention for the reason that the learned Sessions Judge has not relied on such circumstance in holding the accused guilty or as a corroborative piece of evidence. 41. Lastly, it was contended for the accused that keeping in view the nature of evidence in this case the accused may be given benefit of doubt more so for want of evidence regarding motive. 42. The motive to commit an offence may have some significance in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. However, in a case wherein eye-account of the occurrence has been given, the motive, a mere circumstance, looses its importance. In this case the statements of eye-witnesses are reliable and are further corroborated by recovery of the weapon of offence consequent upon a disclosure made by the accused, medical opinion and the detection of blood on the weapon of offence and wearing apparels of the accused. In view of this evidence the charge against the accused is fully and firmly proved and the accused in no way is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused do not call for any interference and are upheld. 43. As a result the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.