JUDGMENT : Ch. P.K. Misra, J. - The order judgment passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1986 acquitting the Respondents-Opp. parties of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 109, 307, 452, 427, 203, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 and Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "Indian Penal Code") has been assailed in Government Appeal No. 15/87 filed by the State and Criminal Revision No. 63/87 filed at the instance of the informant. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the judgment of the trial court is as follows: On 12.8.1984 morning the informant (P.W. 1) along with his associates, P. Ws. 2 to 4 and Ors. set out to tend their cattle. While returning in the evening with their cattle they learnt that the vegetable crops which they had grown on the ridge of village tank 'Bada Pokhari' were damaged by the Respondent opp. parties at about 12.00 noon. So they went and challenged the arbitrary and high-handed action of the Respondents as a sequel of which there was exchange of unsavoury language among them on the village road between 6.00 and 6.30 P.M. Kalandi Parida (P.W. 8) and other gentlemen of the village interfered and subsided the matter promising them that it would be settled on the following day. Accordingly they dispersed themselves in the evening. At about 8.00 P.M. the Respondents formed an unholy gang being armed with different lethal weapons like 'tenta, kanta, balam, knife and lathi' and came forward to the house of P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida. They forcibly broke open the door and entered inside the house. P.W.4 Gangadhar Parida and his son Bijay Kumar Parida (P.W. 2) were dragged from the house and brought to the outer verandah where they were severely assaulted with 'balam, tenta, kanta, knife and lathi'. 3. At the time of assault P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida and his son Bijay Kumar Parida (P.W. 2) raised shrill shriek as a reason whereof Darsani Barik (deceased) and P.W. 3 Dhaneswar Barik reached at the spot. Respondent Sura Baraj inflicted a piercing wound with a 'balam' on the abdomen of deceased Darsani Barik as a result of which his intestine came out. Respondents Dharani Baraj and Sura Parida also assaulted deceased Darsani Barik with 'tenta and balam' respectively on his shoulders. Respondent Sura Baraj inflicted a piercing wound with a 'balam' on the abdomen of deceased Darsani Barik as a result of which his intestine came out. Respondents Dharani Baraj and Sura Parida also assaulted deceased Darsani Barik with 'tenta and balam' respectively on his shoulders. Respondent Naba Parida was found to have been exhorting the other Respondents to kill deceased Darsani Barik. P.W. 3 Dhaneswar Barik was also injured on his left abdomen by Respondent Sura Parida by means of a 'tenta'. Due to such ferocious assault his intenstine also came out. Respondents Darsani Baraj, Sura Baraj and Dharani Baraj also assaulted him with 'balam' on different parts of his body and Respondent Naba Parida gave a knife blow on his hand causing bleeding injury. 4. P.W. 5 Dura Parida, wife of P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida, and Satan Parida (wife of late Dibakar Parida) also reached at the spot and received injuries. P.W. 8 Kalandi Parida and other witnesses on hearing such outcry rushed to the spot and noticed injuries on the aforesaid persons. But the Respondents seeing them immediately disappeared from the scene of occurrence in different directions'. Deceased Darsani Barik and P. Ws. 2 to 4 were carried to Aul P.H.C. for medical treatment. But on the way deceased Darsani Barik succumbed to the injuries. The informant, P.W. 1 Suresh Chandra Barik, son of deceased Darsani Barik, reached at the spot and observed the injuries on his father and P. Ws. 2 to 4. After the miscreants left the place, P.W. 7 Bamdev Parida and P.W. 8 Kalandi Parida asked deceased Darsani Barik as to how he received the injuries on his abdomen and shoulders to which he presented a graphic picture about the manner of assault by the Respondents. He narrated that Respondent Sura Baraj pierced a pointed weapon into his abdomen and Respondent Dharani Baraj and Sura Baraj assaulted his shoulders by 'balam and tenta'. They also found P.W. 3 Dhaneswar Barik was injured on his chest, back and left hand and his intestine had also come out. On enquiry P.W. 3 revealed that Respondent Sura Parida gave a tenta blow on the shoulder of Darsani Barik, Respondent Dharani Baraj gave a 'balam' blow on the shoulder and Respondent Sura Baraj stabbed into the abdomen of Darsani Barik respectively as a result of which his intestine came out. On enquiry P.W. 3 revealed that Respondent Sura Parida gave a tenta blow on the shoulder of Darsani Barik, Respondent Dharani Baraj gave a 'balam' blow on the shoulder and Respondent Sura Baraj stabbed into the abdomen of Darsani Barik respectively as a result of which his intestine came out. P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida had also received bleeding injuries on his shoulders, back and left hand. P.W. 2 Bijaya Kumar Parida had also received injuries on his left shoulder and hand. 5. Soon after the incident the Officer-in-charge of Aul Police Station received the F.I.R. lodged by the informant, P.W. 1. A case was registered against the Respondent and immediately thereafter he proceeded to the spot. He examined the witnesses, held inquest over the deadbody of Darsani Barik, prepared his report vide Ext. 2, sent a medical requisition for examining the injured Gangadhar Parida, Dhaneswar Barik, Dura Parida and Satan Parida to the Medical Officer, Aul P.H.C.. He also arranged to sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination to the Subdivisional Hospital through the Constable, P.W. 11. He drew up a spot map, seized blood stained earth and sample earth and other incriminating materials from the verandah of P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida and prepared the seizure list. He also seized the clothes of deceased Darsani Barik and lungi of Respondent Naba Parida and sent those incriminating materials to Forensic Science Laboratory through the S.D.J.M., Kendrapara. After completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet in court. 6. In the trial court all the accused- Respondents were charged under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 302/149 and 324/34, Indian Penal Code. Accused-Respondents Sura Baraj, Darsani Baraj and Sura Parida were separately charged under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Respondent Naba Parida stood charged under Sections 109 and 302, Indian Penal Code. Accused-respondents Sura Parida, Darsani Baraj, Dharani Baraj, Naba Parida and Sura Baraj stood charged u/s 307 or in the alternative Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code. Accused-respondents Darsani Baraj, Narahari Baraj, Dharani Baraj, Sura Baraj and Chandramani Baraj were charged under Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code. Accused-respondent Darsani Baraj was separately charged u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. Accused-respondents Kelu Senapati, Nirod Behera, Nata Parida, Pradeep Parida, Keshab Behera, Amulya Parida, Basant Baraj and Ashok Baraj were charged under Sections 326/149, Indian Penal Code. All the accused-respondents except Respondent Darsani Baraj were further charged under Sections 324/149, Indian Penal Code. Accused-respondent Darsani Baraj was separately charged u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. Accused-respondents Kelu Senapati, Nirod Behera, Nata Parida, Pradeep Parida, Keshab Behera, Amulya Parida, Basant Baraj and Ashok Baraj were charged under Sections 326/149, Indian Penal Code. All the accused-respondents except Respondent Darsani Baraj were further charged under Sections 324/149, Indian Penal Code. Respondents Kelu Senapati, Narahari Baraj, Chandramani Baraj, Nirod Behera, Nata Parida, Pradeep Parida, Amulya Parida, Basant Baraj and Ashok Baraj were further charged under Sections 307/ 149, Indian Penal Code. 7. Prosecution nonetheless examined 12 witnesses, but according to the learned trial court, since the testimony of the ocular witnesses did not inspire any trust, the Respondents were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 8. Previous enmity between some of the prosecution witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 6, and the Respondents probably weighed much in the mind of the trial court, therefore, he was not inclined to place any reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is true, P.W. 1 had admitted that Respondent No. 9, Nirod Behera, was the secretary of Bahurupa Club of that village and some of the Respondents were members of that Club, During the year 1983-84 the said Club took lease of the village tank 'Bada Pokhari' for pisciculture. There was incident of theft of fish for which Respondent Naba Parida filed a criminal case against some of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, according to the trial Court their evidence should be weighed with utmost circumspection and care. 9. Enmity is not the only ground by which the intrinsic and probative value of the testimony of a witness would be effaced to the ground. While evaluating the testimony of a witness the court should be on guard as there might be likelihood of embellishment or exaggeration to the prosecution case. But that shall not be a ground to ignore the entire testimony of a witness. In this case, some of the prosecution witnesses including the father of the informant had been injured during the same incident. P.W. 1 being the son of the deceased is a most natural and truthful witness and his testimony shall not be doubted merely on the ground that he was closely related to the deceased. Ordinarily close relatives of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape, but there might be an effort to implicate few others with the real offenders. Ordinarily close relatives of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape, but there might be an effort to implicate few others with the real offenders. Therefore, the court should be on guard and circumspect to rule out such false implication, Thus the approach of the trial court that since there was enmity between the few prosecution witnesses and the Respondents, on that ground alone their testimony should deserve out right rejection is nothing but unrealistic and imaginary. 10. The evidence of P.W. 9, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased Darsani Barik, however, certified that the deceased had received the following injuries. i) Incised wound over radial aspect of left forearm at the middle for about 11/2" x 1/4" x skin deep. ii) Incised wound over the left shoulder 2" x 1/4" x skin deep. iii) Incised wound over the right shoulder extending to scapular region 6" x 1/2" x skin deep. iv) Oblique penetrating wound over the left lumbar region for about 1" x 1/2" x peritoneum deep with three loops small gut out and injured with fecal discharge. v) Abrasion over the left tibial tubercle 1/2" x 1/4". According to him, the death of Darsani Barik was homicidal in nature and the cause of death was die to internal haemorrhage and shock. Keeping in view that deceased Darsani Barik met a homicidal death, it has to be examined how far the prosecution has been able to connect the Respondents with the cause of death of deceased. In this regard, mainly the testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 6 has been relied upon. P.W.1 being the son of the deceased is a most natural witness. He has also lodged the FIR by setting the criminal law into motion. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 1 by treating him to be not an eye-witness. On a close and careful reading of the FIR, Ext.1, it never gives an impression that P.W. 1 was not present at the spot nor had seen the occurrence. What ail it has suggested is that by hearing the outcry raised by P. Ws. 2 to 4 he along with other witnesses reached at the spot and found injuries on deceased Darsani Barik and P. Ws. 2 to 4. What ail it has suggested is that by hearing the outcry raised by P. Ws. 2 to 4 he along with other witnesses reached at the spot and found injuries on deceased Darsani Barik and P. Ws. 2 to 4. But after the Respondents left the place of incident they reached near the injured persons and gathered the minute details of the incident. Merely because P.W. 1 and few other prosecution witnesses could not dare to reach the place of actual assault thereby no inference can be drawn that their presence was doubtful. It is true, after P.W. 1 went near the place of incident, he gathered the details of assault caused by the Respondents. 11. Another circumstance which had greatly influenced the trial Court is that the details of injuries inflicted on the prosecution witnesses such as P. Ws. 2 to 4 had not been narrated. But after carefully going through the contents of the FlR we found that the details of the injuries on P. Ws. 2 to 4 have been noted therein. We, therefore, found that the approach of the trial court was incorrect and erroneous. It is to be borne in mind that the FIR shall, in no circumstance, be treated as an encyclopaedia of the prosecution case so as to present a detail discussion including the evidence of the prosecution witnessed. The purpose of FIR is only to activate the investigating agency into motion, but not to state the entire evidence at that stage. The FIR shall be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction only to the maker. 12. Law does not mandate the informant to repeat the same incident over again during investigation. The contents of the FIR sometimes can be regarded as a statement u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure if the Investigating Officer mentioned in the case diary that the informant has corroborated the prosecution story. 13. P.W. 2 has not only claimed to be an eye-witness, but also had received injuries in course of same incident. He is the son of P.W.4, who was also injured. The trial court disbelieved the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 4 by holding that the theory of dragging from the house to the outer verandah was introduced for the first time in court, but not stated in the FIR. A question arises for consideration as to whether the statements of P. Ws. The trial court disbelieved the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 4 by holding that the theory of dragging from the house to the outer verandah was introduced for the first time in court, but not stated in the FIR. A question arises for consideration as to whether the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 4 about their dragging from the house to the outer verandah would intrinsically render their evidence unreliable, untrustworthy and incredible. The court should have borne in mind the difference between "discrepancy or variation" and "contradiction". All "discrepancies or variations" cannot be regarded as "contradictions". In this regard we place strong reliance on a decision reported in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj and Another, where the identical question came up for consideration. The Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgment held: Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. The Supreme Court further held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony and when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere incongruity or inconsistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Therefore, variation and minor discrepancies are quite but natural while depicting the prosecution story. The learned trial court has taken an unrealistic view in negation of normal human behaviour of an individual caught in such hurrifying situation. P.W. 2 Bijay Kumar Parida must have got stupified after the injuries were inflicted not only on him but also on three other persons. The learned trial court forgetting the above aspect regarding the fault of investigation rather threw the blame on the injured witnesses. It must be borne in mind that the verandah is situated on the flank of the roof. It is quite likely that when all the Respondents broke open the door and entered into the house of P. Ws. 2 and 4 in course of incident, they might have been dragged from the house to the outer verandah. P.W. 2, however presented the detail incident about not only his injuries, but also injuries on his father, P.W. 4, and Dhaneswar Barik, P.W. 3. His testimony further presented a graphic picture of the incident where he claimed that all the Respondents came in a body being armed with 'tenta, balam, kanta, chhura and lathi', broke open the outer door, entered inside the house and dragged him and his father to the outer verandah. His father was assaulted by Respondents Dharani Baraj, Sura Baraj, Chandramani Baraj, Narahari Baraj and Darsani Baraj on his shoulder, back and hands. When his father fell down on the ground, he was further assaulted by Respondent Dharani Baraj by means of a 'balam' on his back, Respondent Darsani Baraj assaulted him by means of a 'balam' on his shoulder, Respondents Narahari Baraj and Chandramani Baraj further assaulted him by means of a 'kanta' on his left hand and Respondent Sura Baraj assaulted him with a 'balam'. Respondent Dharani Baraj assaulted him (P.W. 2) on his shoulder and Respondent Sura Baraj assaulted on his left arm with a knife attached to a wooden handle as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries. During continuance of assault on P. Ws. Respondent Dharani Baraj assaulted him (P.W. 2) on his shoulder and Respondent Sura Baraj assaulted on his left arm with a knife attached to a wooden handle as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries. During continuance of assault on P. Ws. 2 and 4, Dhaneswar Barik (P.W. 3) and deceased Darsani Barik arrived at the spot on hearing their alarm. Respondents Dharani Baraj and Darsani Baraj assaulted P.W. 3 on his back by means of a 'balam'. Respondent Sura Baraj assaulted him by means of a 'balam' on his chest. Respondent Sura Parida pierced a 'tenta' blow into his abdomen'. Respondent Naba Parida gave a knife blow on his hand. Respondent Sura Baraj pierced a 'balam' into the abdomen of deceased Darsani Barik as a result of which his intestine came out. Respondent Dharani Baraj assaulted deceased Darsani Barik on his shoulder by means of a 'balam''. Respondent Sura Parida also gave a 'tenta' blow on the shoulder of deceased Darsani Barik. When P.W. 6 Parbati Barik, P.W. 7 Bamdev Parida, P.W. 8 Kalandi Parida and other villagers, namely Bamdev Barik and Ramesh Barik reached at the spot, seeing those persons the Respondents fled away from the scene of occurrence. All the injured persons including Darsani Barik were taken to Aul P.H.C. for treatment by the villagers, but on the way deceased Darsani Barik succumbed to the injuries. Nothing could turn out to discredit the testimony of P.W. 2, even though he was subjected to exhaustive and incisive cross-examination. 14. A criticism was made on the testimony of P.W. 2 that he did not speak specifically, before the police during investigation as to which of the Respondents assaulted P.W. 3 Dhaneswar Barik and deceased Darsani Barik. In this regard we found, the approach of the learned trial court was unrealistic and hypothetical. When there was an unlawful assembly consisting of about 15 persons and the incident had taken place during moonlit night, it might not be possible to closely observe the individual assault on P.W. 3 and the deceased. Be it noted that the I.O. has not asked P.W. 2 about the details of the individual assault by the Respondents on the deceased as well as P. Ws. 2 to 4. In this regard we rely on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana, wherein Hon'ble Mrs. Be it noted that the I.O. has not asked P.W. 2 about the details of the individual assault by the Respondents on the deceased as well as P. Ws. 2 to 4. In this regard we rely on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana, wherein Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal held: Section 161(2) of the Code requires the person making the statements 'to answer truly all questions relating to such case, put to him by such officer.....' It would, therefore, depend on the questions put by the police officer. It is true that a certain statement may now be used u/s 162 to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Previously, the law was as enunciated in Tahsildar Singh and Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh as 'omissions, unless by necessary implication be deemed to be part of the statement, cannot be used to contradict the statement made in the witness-box'. Now the Explanation to Section 162 provides that an omission to state a fact in the statement may amount to contradiction. However, the explanation makes it clear that the omission must be a significant one and 'otherwise relevant' having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any ommission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. Reading Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within the Explanation to Section 162, an omission in order to be significant must depend upon whether the specific question, the answer to which is omitted, was asked to the witness... Therefore the omissions with regard to the individual participation would not be regarded as a 'contradiction' so as to bring it under the purview of Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure to test the credibility of P.W. 2. 15. P.W. 4, the father of P.W.2, who too was a victim of the incident narrated his woes in the court. He also substantially and in all material particulars corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2. His evidence further certified that at about 8.00 P.M. on the date of incident while he was sitting in his house after taking his food, all the Respondents came in a body shouting to open the door. He also substantially and in all material particulars corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2. His evidence further certified that at about 8.00 P.M. on the date of incident while he was sitting in his house after taking his food, all the Respondents came in a body shouting to open the door. They were armed with different deadly weapons such as 'balam, tenta, chhura and lathis' and violently banged on the front door of his house as a result of which it was broken open. Thereafter all the Respondents forcibly entered into the house and dragged him to the outer verandah. The Respondents Darsani Baraj and Sura Baraj inflicted several blows on his shoulder by means of 'balam'. Respondent Narahari Baraj gave a blow on his shoulder with a 'kanta', Respondent Chandramani Baraj also gave a blow on his shoulder by a 'kanta' and Respondent Dharani Baraj assaulted his shoulder with a 'balam'. He also presented the details of the injuries on P. Ws. 2 and 3 and on deceased Darsani Barik. While evaluating the evidence of this witness the trial court probably weighed with the fact that since P.W. 4 did not narrate the details of the injuries during investigation, therefore, his evidence was found to be incredible. It has been already discussed above that such minor variations are bound to occur which cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. It is true that some improvements were made by the eye-witnesses on the earlier story and the theory of dragging was introduced at the trial state. But without anything more, such introduction of the dragging theory would never mean to render the prosecution story untrustworthy. In this regard, we rely on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bhimrao, Anna Ingawale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held: It is true, as pointed out by Sawant, J., as well as the learned Sessions Judge, that the eye-witnesses have improved their case at the trial over the story which they put forward at the investigating stage and therefore prove their unreliability in material particulars: but then they are corroborated in certain other material aspects of their testimony by unimpeachable evidence in the form of the injuries suffered by the two sides, the place where they were inflicted and the consequences which flowed from them, and, in those aspects we cannot but believe them. It is not unoften that improvements in an earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case, albeit foolishly. But that does not mean that falsity of testimony in one material particular would ruin it from beginning to end. On the other hand the circumstance will be a good reason merely for the court to be put on guard and sift the evidence with extraordinary caution and to accept those portions of it which appear fully trustworthy either intrinsically or by reason of corroboration from other trustworthy sources. and that is how we have accepted the eye-witness account in part as stated above. We may here frankly state that the reasons given by Sawant, J., in holding that the party of the deceased were the aggressors do not commend themselves to us. The fact that improvements were made by the eye-witnesses on the earlier story and the dragging incident was introduced at the trial stage has already been noticed by us, but, without more, it cannot be taken to mean that it was the party of deceased who set the ball rolling. It was found that the injured persons were interrogated by the Investigating Officer immediately after the report was lodged and they spoke the details of the prosecution story. Therefore, the aforesaid statement cannot, in any way, be termed to be an inconsistent statement recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure In a latter judgment the Supreme Court relied on the earlier judgment reported in Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Another, wherein it has been held: There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. On the analysis of the statement of P.W. 4, we are of the firm view that there has been no material improvement much less contradiction in the deposition made by him before the trial Court. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. On the analysis of the statement of P.W. 4, we are of the firm view that there has been no material improvement much less contradiction in the deposition made by him before the trial Court. The so-called improvement is nothing but narration of facts extracted in course of trial by the prosecution and the defence as well. 14. (Sic) Now adverting to the evidence of P.W. 3 Dhaneswar Barik another injured, it is noticed that at the time of incident between 8.00 and 8.30 P.M. while he was sitting in his house after taking food he heard a shrill, shriek and sound of breaking open the outer door of P.W. 4. Therefore, he rushed to the spot. No sooner he arrived there than did he find the Respondents being armed with different deadly weapons such as 'thenga, balam, tenta' and knife standing in the front of the house of P.W. 4. The Respondent Sura Parida gave a 'tenta' blow on his back and left side abdomen as a reason whereof his intestine came out. Respondent Sura Baraj gave one 'balam' blow on his chest causing bleeding injury. Respondent Dharani Baraj gave a 'balam' blow on his back. Respondent Darsani Baraj gave a blow on his back by a 'balam' and Respondent Naba Parida stabbed him by a knife on the dorsal aspect of left palm. P.W. 3 after receiving such injuries fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Respondent Sura Parida gave a 'tenta' blow on the shoulder of deceased Darsani Barik, Respondent Dharani Baraj gave a 'balam' blow on his shoulder, Respondent Sura Baraj stabbed into his abdomen as a result of which his intestine came out. But on examining the statements recorded by the I.O. during investigation on interrogation to P.W. 3 it is noticed that P.W. 3 has stated in all material particulars about his assault and also about the assault on deceased Darsani Barik. Therefore, on a close and careful study of the testimony of P.W. 3, we found that his evidence is trust inspiring, credible and beyond reproach. Moreover, there has been no major contradiction so as to render the intrinsic value of his testimony to be jettisoned. 15. (Sic) P.W. 5 is the wife of P.W. 4. She also corroborated the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 in all material particulars. Moreover, there has been no major contradiction so as to render the intrinsic value of his testimony to be jettisoned. 15. (Sic) P.W. 5 is the wife of P.W. 4. She also corroborated the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 in all material particulars. She became stupified and dazed at seeing the ferocious act of the miscreants. The learned trial Court disbelieved her statement too on account of she being a relation of the injured and a partisan witness. In this regard we rely on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Gajula Venkateswara Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held: The submission that the witnesses are partisan, therefore, they cannot be relied upon, cannot be accepted as a fixed formula or an inflexible principle of appreciation of evidence. Normally, as in this case such witnesses are very natural witnesses to be found present at the spot. They are competent to depose about the incident more so when they themselves are injured witnesses, unless there is any cogent reason or apparent material on the record, otherwise their evidence cannot be discarded merely because they belong to the same party or they are connected with the victiMs. It may also be observed that in the facts and circumstances, as they are in the present case, it is not easy to secure the statement of independent persons in the sense that they may not be connected with any party. Whosoever may come forward to depose may be aligned to one or the other faction. In a fraction-ridden village it is not easy to secure the statement of independent persons as they remain connected with the either party. Therefore, we find no good reason to accept the findings of the learned trial Court that the evidence of prosecution witnesses should be thrown out on account of previous enmity. 16. P.W. 6 Parbati Barik, whose house was situated near the house of P.W. 4, claimed to have reached at the spot on hearing the outcry. She found that all the Respondents were armed with different lethal weapons such as 'balam', 'tangia', 'tenta', 'lathi' and 'kata'. They broke open the door of P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida and dragged him and P.W. 2 to the outer verandah. She substantially corroborated the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4. She found that all the Respondents were armed with different lethal weapons such as 'balam', 'tangia', 'tenta', 'lathi' and 'kata'. They broke open the door of P.W. 4 Gangadhar Parida and dragged him and P.W. 2 to the outer verandah. She substantially corroborated the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4. She further stated that Darsani Barik was also assaulted by Respondent Dharani Baraj on his back with a 'balam'. Respondent Sura Baraj inflicted a tenta blow on the abdomen of Darsani Barik as a result of which his intestine came out. Dhaneswar Barik (P.W. 3) was also assaulted by Respondent Sura Parida on his abdomen as a result of which his intenstine came out. Respondent Sura Baraj assaulted Dhaneswar Barik (P.W. 3) with a 'balam' on his chest, Respondent Darsani Baraj assaulted P.W. 3 with a 'balam' on his back and Respondent Dharani Baraj assaulted P.W. 3 on his back with a 'balam'. Respondent Naba Parida dealt a knife blow on the left hand of P.W. 3. Nothing could turn out in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony. 17. P.W. 8 proved the dying declaration purported to have been made before him by deceased Darsani Barik on the fateful night. According to him, after hearing the outcry he proceeded to the spot and found P. Ws. 2 to 4 and deceased Darsani Barik injured. He asked deceased Darsani Barik as to who were his assailants, to which he replied that Respondents Sura Parida, Sura Baraj and Darsani Baraj assaulted him. The deceased made a categorical statement that Respondent Sura Baraj caused the penetrating wound. 18. Mr. Mund appearing for the Respondents advanced a formidable point that in so far as the dying declaration by deceased Darsani Barik is concerned, it does not inspire any credibility inasmuch as he could not have been conscious by the time P.W. 8 reached at the spot. We do not agree with the submission of Mr. Mund since P.W. 3 who had also received the same type of injuries could survive and was conscious through out. Since P.W. 3 could be able to name his assailants it cannot be said that deceased Darsani Barik became unconscious immediately after receiving the injuries. He might be getting agonising pain but might be conscious for some time like P.W. 3. Since P.W. 3 could be able to name his assailants it cannot be said that deceased Darsani Barik became unconscious immediately after receiving the injuries. He might be getting agonising pain but might be conscious for some time like P.W. 3. Even if the testimony of P.W. 8 regarding dying declaration is thrown out, it cannot be the only ground to discard the entire prosecution story since P. Ws. 2 to 4, who were present at the time of occurrence and were also injured by the Respondents, have categorically named the Respondents to have committed the crime and have presented a graphic picture about the manner of assault given by the individual Respondents. 19. P.W. 10, the Doctor who examined P. Ws. 2 to 5 found four incised wounds and two abrasions on the person of P.W. 4, two incised wounds on the person of P.W. 2, and one incised wound on the person of P.W. 5 and found the following injuries on the person of P.W. 3, Dhaneswar Barik: (1) Incised wound 11/2" x 1/4" over inner aspect of lower and of left fore-arm 1" proximal to left wrist-joint. (2) Incised wound 11/2" x 1/4" over dorsum of left hand 2" over the left wrist-joint. (3) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" over outer aspect of lower and of left fore-arm just above the lower end of Ulna. Compound fracture of lower end of Ulna was suspected. (4) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" over the dorsom of left hand 2" below the left-wrist joint. (5) Penetrating abdominal wound 21/2" x whole thickness of the abdominal wall on the left flank below the left rib cage with omentum protruding out. (6) Penetrating wound 2" x inter costal space thick situated on the lower part of chest wall on the back. 3" lateral to the mid-line on the left side. (7) Incised wound 11/2" x 1/4" situated obliquely on mid-line of back. (8) Penetrating wound 11/2" x deep x inter costal space thick situated on the left lower part of chest wall in the mid-axillary line. (9) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" over lower part of the anterior chest will on the right-side 2" away from mid-line. 20. (7) Incised wound 11/2" x 1/4" situated obliquely on mid-line of back. (8) Penetrating wound 11/2" x deep x inter costal space thick situated on the left lower part of chest wall in the mid-axillary line. (9) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" over lower part of the anterior chest will on the right-side 2" away from mid-line. 20. Therefore, on a combined reading of evidence of the ocular witnesses and the medical reports, it cannot but be held that the Respondents were authors of the crime which resulted in the death of Darsani Barik and injuries on P. Ws. 2 to 4. 21. All the Respondents forcibly entered into the house of P. Ws. 2 and 4 and are therefore, liable to be punished u/s 427, Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months. There is positive evidence that Respondent Sura Baraj inflicted murderous blows on the abdomen of deceased Darsani Barik with the intention of causing death and therefore, he is liable to be punished u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. But there has been no positive evidence that Respondents Dharani Baraj and Sura Parida had shared the common intention with Respondent Sura Baraj for commission of offence of murder. Therefore, Respondents Dharani Baraj and Sura Parida cannot be held guilty under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted of the said charges. But there are ample evidence to establish that Respondents Dharani Baraj and Sura Parida assaulted on the shoulders of deceased Darsani Barik resulting in severe bleeding injuries as a reason whereof they are liable to be convicted under Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. There has been no evidence whatsoever against Respondent Naba Parida that he had exhorted or abetted the above accused persons for commission of murder. There has been no evidence whatsoever against Respondent Naba Parida that he had exhorted or abetted the above accused persons for commission of murder. Accordingly the prosecution not having established the charge of abetment u/s 109, Indian Penal Code, therefore, Respondent Naba Parida is acquitted of the charges under Sections 109 and 302, Indian Penal Code Respondents Sura Baraj, Chandramani Baraj, Narahari Baraj and Darsani Baraj are found to have inflicted bleeding injuries on the shoulder, back and hands of P.W. 4, Gangadhar Parida and as such punishable u/s 324 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code instead of Section 326/34,Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Respondent Sura Parida having made an attempt on the life of Dhaneswar Barik, is liable to be convicted u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. Respondents Dharani Baraj, Darsani Baraj and Naba Parida are liable for causing injuries on different parts of the body of P.W. 3, Dhaneswar Barik, therefore, they are convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months. The sentences of Respondents are to run concurrently. 22. Accordingly, the Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision are partly allowed in the light of the discussions made above. The bail bonds of the Respondents are hereby cancelled. They be taken to custody forthwith. 23. I agree. Final Result : Allowed