JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.07 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Earipada. in S.T. Case No 164 of 1993 whereby both the Appellants have been convicted u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short. IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life Both the appears were heard together (sic) disposed of by this common order. 2. The two Appellants and their Brother Budhu alias Banku MahaKud were arraigned as accused persons in the aforesaid S.T. Case tor having committed the murder of the Rusu Mahanta. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, while convicting the present Appellants, acquitted accusea Budhu alias Banku Mahakud. 3. The prosecution case, as unravelled in course of trial, is as follows: There was land dispute between the accused persons and the family of one Pravakar Mohanta (informant) and litigations were going on. On 23.05.1993 the informant and his followers ploughed the disputed land and sowed paddy therein despite protest raised by the accused persons. On the very same day in the evening, when Rusu Mohanta the deceased, who was a relation of the informant, was coming with a cow and a Dullock. the Appellants and their brother Budhu Mahakud (since acquitted) marched forward at him being armed with deadly weapons, such as Dows. arrows and Katun, and two of them, namely, the present Appellants, shot arrows at him On of the arrows pierced into the chest of Rusu near his neck, as a result of which be immediately sank down. After causing such injury, the accused persons took to their heels. The witnesses, who were present, shifted injured Rusu Mohanta to his house and laid him on a cot. Subsequently, Rusu died. Pravakar Mohanta along with Ors. went to the police-station and lodged report, on the basis of which a case u/s 302/34. IPC was registered against the Appellants and their brother since acquitted). During investigation, the I.O. held inquest over the dead body, sent it for post-mortem examination, seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth, examined witnesses and arrested the accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the Appellants and their brother. IPC was registered against the Appellants and their brother since acquitted). During investigation, the I.O. held inquest over the dead body, sent it for post-mortem examination, seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth, examined witnesses and arrested the accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the Appellants and their brother. As already stated, the trial Court, on the basis of eye-witnesses' account, acquitted accused Budhu alias Banku Mahakud but convicted the present Appellants u/s 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 4. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6, who claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. She has presented a clear and vivid picture by implicating Appellants Pravakar and Ugresen in the murder of her husband. From her statement it appears that Pravakar and Ugresen shot arrows at her husband. Mr. Mohapatra. learned Counsel appearing for Appellant Pravakar, has however persuaded us not to place any reliance on the statement of P.W.4 since is she is a close relation of the deceased and has made substantial improvement of her version in course of trial which runs contradictory to the evidence of other witnesses and the medical evidence too. Further, it has been brought to our notice that she being a close relation of the deceased did make least attempt to rescue her husband when he was allegedly attacked by the Appellants. Her statement appears to be against the normal human conduct and no reliance can be placed on such testimony. 5. While examining the above contention, we went closely through the evidence of P.W.4 and found her evidence to be natural and it inspires belief. Since P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased, she would not leave the real culprit scot free. Merely because she did not make any attempt to rescue her husband, that by itself will not brand her evidence as untrue. The Supreme Court, in the case of Narra Seetharamayya Varma and Others Vs. Kosaraju Venka Girayya by Lrs and Others, has observed that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted at the spot some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet Ors. Kosaraju Venka Girayya by Lrs and Others, has observed that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted at the spot some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet Ors. rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Everyone reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginary way. Therefore, while considering the contention of Mr. Mohapatra. we are constrained to hold that if we reject the testimony of P.W.4 that she did not make any venture to rescue her husband from the clutches of the culprits, it will become totally unrealistic and against the human approach. Accordingly, such contention is bound to fail. 6. It is true that a criminal case there must be some manner of contradictions and discrepancies. But, unless such contradictions or discrepancies affect the credibility of the prosecution case, they should be ignored. Even though witnesses would be present at the place of occurrence, there may be some inconsistency in their testimony while describing the incident If those inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of their testimony, the variations would safely be ignored. 7. In this case, we notice that P.Ws.3 and 6 have stated that Appellant Pravakar shot an arrow which hit the chest of the deceased at the root of the neck and Appellant Ugresen shot an arrow which hit his (deceased's) right arm. P.W.4 has stated that both the Appellants shot arrows which hit her husband. But, from the medical report we find that there has been no second injury save and except one injury which was noticed near the neck on the chest wall. Therefore, the evidence of P.W 4 being general in nature, it does not even prove the implication of Appellant Ugresen that he had also shot an arrow at the deceased Rusu. But, from the medical report we find that there has been no second injury save and except one injury which was noticed near the neck on the chest wall. Therefore, the evidence of P.W 4 being general in nature, it does not even prove the implication of Appellant Ugresen that he had also shot an arrow at the deceased Rusu. Though P.W.3 and 6 have stated that the arrow shot by Appellant Ugresen hit the deceased on his right arm from the medical report no such injury was noticed Therefore, the version of these witnesses so far as the injury on the right arm of the deceased is concerned appears to be doubtful. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.3. 4 and 6, we final that they have unequivocally implicated Appellant Pravakar that he shot an arrow which hit the deceased on the chest below the neck from the front side In the above background, we have no manner of doubt about the participation of Appellant Pravakar in assaulting the deceased. 8. The trial Court convicted Appellant Ugresen on the ground of having shared common intention with Appellant Pravakar. No evidence has been led by the prosecution that all the accused persons had a common intention to do away with the life of Rusu. It is true that common intention can develop at the spot itself. But in this case it is significant to note that mere has been no injury on the light arm of the deceased. Therefore, benefit of doubt must go in favour of Appellant Ugresen. It is curious to note that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Budhu on the ground that there was no common intention. How could he adopt double standard in so far as Appellant Ugresen is concerned? The prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as Appellant Ugresen is concerned, he must be acquitted of the charge u/s 302/34, IPC. Accordingly. Jail Criminal Appeal No 319 of 1994 is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against Appellant Ugresen Mahakud is set aside. He be released from jail custody and set at liberty forthwith. 9. So fat as Appellant Pravakar is concerned, as discussed above, the prosecution has been able to prove that the arrow shot by him nit the deceased on the chest near the neck. He be released from jail custody and set at liberty forthwith. 9. So fat as Appellant Pravakar is concerned, as discussed above, the prosecution has been able to prove that the arrow shot by him nit the deceased on the chest near the neck. The doctor, P.W.9 has opined that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Therefore, this Appellant must be held guilty of the offence u/s 302. IPC. 10. Mr. Mohapatra. while winding up his argument, has advanced a contention that out of rage due to sudden provocation, Appellant Pravakar shot an arrow which took the life of Rusu. In the aforesaid eventuality, the Appellant should be convicted u/s 304, either Part - I or Part II. IPC. We are constrained to reject the contention inasmuch as there is no justifiable ground to convert, the sentence from Section 302. IPC to Section-304, IPC. 11. Accordingly. Jaii Criminal Appeal No 312 of 1994 is rejected being devoid of any merit. However, Appellant Pravakar is convicted u/s 302. IPC instead of Section 302/34. IPC. and the sentence of life imprisonment is confirmed 12. Mr. Mohapatra. who has been appointed as a State Defence Counsel, shall be paid his dues as admissible to a lawyer engaged by the State Legal Services Authority. P.K. Misra, J. 13. I agree.