JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. The appellant accused being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 99/87, has filed this appeal challenging the correctness, propriety and validity of the judgment and the findings. The charge against the appellant-accused is that he committed murder of Kalabai wife of Govind and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case is that prior to the date of incident family partition took place amongst complainant Govind (P.W. 3) and his brothers Ramcharan, Babu and Amrit. Accused Ramesh is the son of Babu and nephew of complainant Govind. Fields of complainant Govind and accused Ramesh are adjacent to each other with a fencing (Bagad) in between. The house of Govind is also located in the field itself. Adjacent to this house there is a well. There was some dispute regarding use of water from the well for the purpose of irrigation. The mother of accused Ramesh filed a claim before the Collector, Sehore in this regard. On the fateful day, the complainant Govind (P.W. 3) had been to the weekly market of Sehore. In his absence accused Ramesh caused some damage to fencing. When complainant Govind returned from the weekly market, in the evening, his wife Kalabai informed him that the damage had been caused by accused Ramesh. At that time accused Ramesh along with his brother Ganesh was present in his field. Accused Ramesh told Govind to hereafter raise the fencing at a distance of 4 feet. Kalabai claimed that the land is theirs and they will raise the fencing at that very place. Following this altercation, appellant Ramesh along with his brother Ganesh came near the house of the complainant and struck a Farsi blow on the head of Kalabai. When Kailash (P.W. 5) son of complainant Govind tried to intervene, accused Ganesh assaulted him too. Govind also tried to save his wife and son. He was also manhandled. Shakunbai (P.W. 8) also reached the place of the occurrence. Injured Kalabai and Kailash were taken to the P.S. Sehore which is at a distance of about six kilometer from the spot, on a bullock-cart. As Smt. Kalabai was unconscious at that time, the complainant Govind lodged report at P.S. Sehore where an offence u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Injured Kalabai and Kailash were taken to the P.S. Sehore which is at a distance of about six kilometer from the spot, on a bullock-cart. As Smt. Kalabai was unconscious at that time, the complainant Govind lodged report at P.S. Sehore where an offence u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Injured Kalabai, Govind and Kailash were sent to Sehore hospital for their medical examination and treatment. Kalabai was examined by Dr. B.K. Choudhary (P.W. 4). He found an incised wound over the left parietal region of skull 5" x 1/2" x scalp deep. Dr. Choudhary opined that the injury could be caused by sharp and hard object. Ex. P-8 is the report of Dr. Choudhary, Smt, Kalabai was referred to Medical College Hospital, Bhopal, for treatment. On 5-8-1989 Kalabai succumbed to her injuries. A memo of corpse was prepared and the same was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. B.P. Dubey, Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, Medical Collegei Bhopal. Dr. B.P. Dubey opined that death of Kalabai was caused due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complications. He found an incised wound on parietal region of skull. He also found the fracture of temporal bone and also certain injuries caused due to surgical intervention Ex. P. 12 is report of Dr. B.P. Dubey. Dr. B.K. Choudhary also examined Kailash. (P.W. 5) and found an incised wound on the lower end of left arm, about 2" above the wrist joint over distal end of radius region. This injury was semi-circular in shape. Its size was 4" x 2" x bone deep. Arteries and blood vessels were cut. Dr. Choudhary opined that this injury could be caused by a sharp and hard object. Ex. P-4 is report of Dr. Choudhary in respect of Kailash (P.W. 5). Dr. B.K. Choudhary (P.W. 4) also examined Govind (P.W. 3) and found a contusion over the back of the neck 2" x 2" in diameter. In the opinion of Dr. Choudhary this injury was caused by hard and blunt object. Ex.P. - 10 is the report of Dr. Choudhary in respect of Govind (P.W. 3). On 4-8-1986 blood stained soil and plain soil was seized from the place of occurrence. Accused was arrested on 5-8-1986. On information received from the accused vide Ex. P. - 2 a Farsi was seized as per Ex. Ex.P. - 10 is the report of Dr. Choudhary in respect of Govind (P.W. 3). On 4-8-1986 blood stained soil and plain soil was seized from the place of occurrence. Accused was arrested on 5-8-1986. On information received from the accused vide Ex. P. - 2 a Farsi was seized as per Ex. P. - 3. On completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Ganesh but as the co-accused Ganesh was a juvenile, the police was directed to file charge sheet against him before the Juvenile Court. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge held that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the appellant and convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. We have heard Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.K. Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. Shri Datt, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Trial Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty of commission of murder. He submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellant are bad, illegal, improper and incorrect. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant as above. The conviction of the appellant rests mainly on the following material:- (1) The evidence of eye witness Govind and his son, Kailash; (2) Medical evidence; and (3) Seizure of Farsi at the instance of the appellant. Govind (P.W. 3) has stated that he had some differences with the accused. On the fateful day, he had been to Sehore to visit weekly market. During his absence the fencing in between their fields was damaged by the appellant. When he returned from the weekly market, his wife Smt. Kalabai informed him that the fencing was damaged by accused Ramesh. When the witness was talking with his wife, appellant Ramesh and his brother Ganesh were present in the field. Appellant asked Govind that hereafter fencing should be raised 2" away from the present place. The witness has further deposed that accused Ramesh armed with a Farsi came to the place of occurrence and struck a Farsi blow on the scalp of Kalabai. His co-accused Ganesh caused injuries to him and his son Kailash. Appellant asked Govind that hereafter fencing should be raised 2" away from the present place. The witness has further deposed that accused Ramesh armed with a Farsi came to the place of occurrence and struck a Farsi blow on the scalp of Kalabai. His co-accused Ganesh caused injuries to him and his son Kailash. Injured Kalabai was taken to the Police Station Sehore where F.I.R., Ex. P. - 6 was lodged. This witness has further stated that his wife was admitted in Sehore Hospital, wherefrom she was shifted to Medical College, Bhopal. Kalabai succumbed to her injuries. Kailash (P.W. 5) has also supported Govind (P.W. 3). Smt. Shakunbai (P.W. 8), about whom it is alleged that she reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident, has not supported the prosecution and as such she was declared hostile. The ocular version of Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) is corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 4 Dr. B.K. Choudhary has stated that on 3-8-1986, he examined Smt. Kalabai. At the time of examination she was unconscious arid gasping. On examination he found an incised wound over the left parietal region of skull 5" x 1-1/2" caused by sharp and hard object. Shri Datt learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW, 5) are the relatives of the deceased and are most interested witnesses and conviction cannot rest on their uncorroborated evidence. The relationship of witnesses with the deceased is no ground for not acting upon their testimony if it is otherwise reliable in the sense that they were competent witnesses who could be expected to be near about the place of occurrence and could have seen what happened there at the scene of occurrence. In the case of related and interested witnesses, all that is necessary is to scrutinize the evidence with more than ordinary care. In this case the evidence of Govind (PW. 3) receives ample corroboration in material particulars from his own FIR. The learned Trial Judge has rightly relied upon these witnesses as there is no reason as to why the relatives of the deceased shall spare the real culprit and implicate the accused. There are certain exaggerations in the statement of Kailash (PW. 5). He has stated that accused Ganesh also assaulted his mother and farsa blow was given by Ganesh to deceased Kalabai. There are certain exaggerations in the statement of Kailash (PW. 5). He has stated that accused Ganesh also assaulted his mother and farsa blow was given by Ganesh to deceased Kalabai. He further stated that Ramesh and Ganesh each gave 2-3 blows. Similar exaggerations are there in the evidence of Govind (PW. 3) also but they do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Credibility of testimony, oral or circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrunity. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial, if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. See Inder Singh and another vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1987 SC 1091. The Court should not take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discard the whole case as untrue. The Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood. Invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story but it is no ground to throw a case overboard, if true in the main. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. Because of minor contradictions whole case cannot be discarded as untrue. When we read the evidence of Govind (P.W. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) as a whole we find it worthy of credence and omissions of trivial details do not cause any dent in the testimony of these two witnesses. The learned Trial Judge has given cogent and detailed reasons for relying on the testimony of Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) and we find no reason to take a different view. Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) are natural witnesses. The incident took place in the field of Govind outside his house. From the evidence of Dr. Choudhary it is also established that they are injured witnesses. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) and we find no reason to take a different view. Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) are natural witnesses. The incident took place in the field of Govind outside his house. From the evidence of Dr. Choudhary it is also established that they are injured witnesses. When Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) sustained injuries during the course of incident their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. It is true that Sakun Bai (PW. 8) has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile but in para 3 of her statement she has admitted that she saw the injuries of Kala Bai and at that time Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) were also with her. Kala Bai, Kailash and Govind were seen by her while they were going together. This further establishes the presence of Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) at the time of incident. Shri Datt learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that prosecution has not examined any independent witness and unless the evidence of interested witnesses Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) is corroborated by the independent witnesses, it will not be safe to sustain the conviction. Shri Datt learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accused inflicted only one injury and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to cause that injury which is shown to have caused death. He also submits that there was no premeditation. The cause of quarrel was trivial and the quarrel was sudden and the death was never intended. He relied on two Supreme Court judgments in the case of Harish Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration), and Mahesh Vs. State of M.P., . In both these cases, the quarrel was sudden and without premeditation. Accused dealt a single blow resulting in death of deceased. There was no evidence of his acting in cruel or unusual manner. In both the cases accused was held guilty u/s 304 and not u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of Harish (supra) deceased died two days after infliction of injury. In the case in hand also Kalabai died two days after the infliction of injury. There was no evidence of his acting in cruel or unusual manner. In both the cases accused was held guilty u/s 304 and not u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of Harish (supra) deceased died two days after infliction of injury. In the case in hand also Kalabai died two days after the infliction of injury. It is not a case where at the time of the incident a large crowd gathered and some of the members of the crowd had actually witnessed the occurrence and were cited as witnesses for the prosecution and then withheld. Where there is no evidence to show that any person other than Govind and Kailash saw the occurrence non-examination of the independent witness or neighbours residing near the place of occurrence is no ground for rejecting the evidence of eye witnesses Govind and Kailash See Amar Singh Vs. State on Haryana, . Undoubtedly Govind and Kailash are the injured witnesses. The ocular version of the incident by the persons who were injured in the same occurrence is of great value to the prosecution, because their presence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. See Ramaswami Ayyangar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, . In this case Sakun Bai who is alleged to have reached at the time of place of occurrence immediately after the incident has been examined, although she has not supported the prosecution case and she has been declared hostile. The prosecution cannot be blamed for withholding the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we find that evidence of Govind (PW. 3) and Kailash (PW. 5) are reliable. Their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in believing their testimony and therefore, we concur with the finding of the learned trial judge in this respect. Thus, on the basis of the ocular evidence and the medical evidence we find that the accused caused an incised wound over the left parietal region of the deceased. From the facts of the case discussed above, it is clear that the whole thing happened on the spur of the moment and the appellant acted on a sudden impulse out of frustration as his stand was that fencing has been put on his land. Dr. Choudhary (PW. From the facts of the case discussed above, it is clear that the whole thing happened on the spur of the moment and the appellant acted on a sudden impulse out of frustration as his stand was that fencing has been put on his land. Dr. Choudhary (PW. 4) has not stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In all cases where person dies, it is the duty of the prosecutor to put a question to the doctor when he is examined in the Court as to the nature of the injuries i.e. whether they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is the duty of the Court as well in a murder case to ascertain from the doctor the nature of the injuries. Dr. B.P. Dubey who conducted the autopsy has stated that the injury caused to Kalabai was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but Dr. Dubey has admitted that there was surgical intervention and therefore, the doctor who first examined the patient is the best person to speak about the nature of the injuries. In the absence of clear evidence of Dr. B.K. Choudhary to the effect that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we can only say that the injury caused was likely to cause death. The incident took place on 3-8-1986 at 6.00 PM. The death occurred on 5-8-1986 at 12.45 in the night. To us it appears that the appellant while dealing solitary blow on Kalabai came to use little more force than that intended. Therefore, the case comes in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, having regard to all the circumstances it is difficult to hold that the accused intended to cause death or intended to cause the injury sustained by the deceased. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blow he was likely to cause death of Kalabai in which case the offence would be punishable u/s 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. We therefore, alter his conviction from murder punishable u/s 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s 304(II), Indian Penal Code. In view of the discussion here-in-above the appeal is allowed in part. We therefore, alter his conviction from murder punishable u/s 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s 304(II), Indian Penal Code. In view of the discussion here-in-above the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against accused/appellant Ramesh for offence of murder u/s 302, Indian Penal Code is set aside. Instead he is held guilty for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code and he is awarded with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years. As the accused/appellant has remained in jail for more than 10 years, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case. Final Result : Allowed