Honble BANSAL, J.–The instant appeal stems from the judgment dated December 21, 1996 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities) cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Sessions Case No. 30/1996 whereby the convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Kamal @ Kamal Singh and co- accused Hari Singh who has not filed appeal against his conviction as under:- Kamal Singh u/S 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. Hari Singh u/S 323 IPC Imprisonment for the period already undergone by him in detention (2). The appellant Kamal Singh and hari Singh were acquitted from the remaining charges and co-accused Kanhaiya was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. (3). Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution cases are that on April 27, 1996 parcha-bayan Ex.P4 of PW 4 Handu son of Ratanlal by caste Meena resident of Badolas who was undergoing treatment in General Hospital, Sawaimadhopur, was recorded by hari Singh SI, (PW11) PS Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur at 5:50 AM wherein Handu stated that today at about 6:30 PM he had gone to the well situated in front of his house for taking bath. On hearing hue and cry from the side of his house he ran towards his house an saw that Kanhaiyalal, Hari Singh, Kamal, Sugan all by caste meena resident of Badolas were beating his father Ratanlal, uncle Harji and aunt Smt. Rampati wife of Kishanlal with lathis and gandasi. Kamal Singh gave gandasi blow on the person of his father and the remaining accused inflicted injuries on the person of his uncle Hari. When he and Rampati intervened to rescue them they were also beaten by he accused. He was inflicted injuries with lathi by Hari Singh. He sustained injuries on his left elbow and left temporal region. His father Ratanlal sustained serious injuries and his condition is precarious. It was also stated by handu that the accused wanted to encroach upon their land situated in front of their house by butting `bed (thorny bushes) over it. They were rescued by Bhim Singh, Khemraj and other persons. Therefore, Jagdish, Kanhaiyalal and others took all the injured persons to Sawaimadhopur and got them admitted in General Hospital. It was also stated by handu that the accused wanted to encroach upon their land situated in front of their house by butting `bed (thorny bushes) over it. They were rescued by Bhim Singh, Khemraj and other persons. Therefore, Jagdish, Kanhaiyalal and others took all the injured persons to Sawaimadhopur and got them admitted in General Hospital. On the basis of parcha-bayan Ex.P.4 a case under section 307, 447, 323, 324 IPC was registered by SHO Police Station Malarna Dungar. Formal FIR is ex.P34. Harji, Handu, Ratanlal and Rampati were medically examined on 27.4.1996 by Shri Preetam Chand Gupta, Medical Jurist, Sawaimadhopur and he prepared injury reports Ex.P1, Ex.P5,Ex.P9 and Ex.P13 respectively. On X-ray it was also found that there was compound fracture of left frontal bone of Ratanlal and fracture of lower 1/3rd of radius and ulna bone of Rampatis left forearm. Ratanlal died in the hospital at about 5:30 PM on April 28, 1996. Autopsy on his dead body was conducted by Dr. Gupta, Medical Jurist on April 29, 1996 and he prepared post mortem report Ex.P10. Therefore, section 302 IPC was added by the police. In the course of investigation inquest report of the dead body of Ratanlal Ex.P3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Clothes of the deceased Ratanlal which he was wearing at the time of incident were seized and sealed by the Investigating Officer Vide Ex.P7. The Investigating Officer reached on the spot on April 29, 1996 and prepared site-plan Ex.P22. blood-smeared soil and control soil were seized and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P23. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. All the accused were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P24, Ex.P25 and Ex.P26 respectively. On the disclosure statement Ex.P27 of the appellant Kamal Singh recorded under section 27 the Evidence Act, gandasi was recovered at his instance. Lathies were also recovered on the disclosure statements of the remaining accused. (4). On conclusion of the investigation a chargesheet was laid in the court. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge. (5). Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against u/Ss. 302, 307, 325/34, 323 and 323/34 IPC against the appellant. Charges under sections 302/34, 307/34, 325, 323, 323/34 and 323/34 IPC were framed against Kanhaiya and Hari Singh. The appellant and the other co-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. (6). (5). Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against u/Ss. 302, 307, 325/34, 323 and 323/34 IPC against the appellant. Charges under sections 302/34, 307/34, 325, 323, 323/34 and 323/34 IPC were framed against Kanhaiya and Hari Singh. The appellant and the other co-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. (6). In order to prove the charges the prosecution has examined as many as. 14 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. it was stated by the accused that when Hari Singh was tying his goats in his bada Ratanlal, Harji, Handu, Kailash, Khemraj, Rampati, Naini Bai and Goranti came over there and beat him with lathi, danda and gandasi. Om hearing hue and cry Kamal Singh and Kanhaiya went to save hari Singh from their well and they were also beaten by Ratanlal and others. They sustained injuries on their person and got them medically examined. In defence DW1 Dr. Umesh Sharma was examined and the copies of the injury reports and FIR No. 45/1996 dated 27th April 1996 were filed. (7). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Kamal Singh and co-accused Hari Singh and other co-accused Kanhaiya was acquitted of all the charges. (8). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. With their assistance we have carefully scanned and scrutinized the material on record. (9). PW 6 Dr. Gupta stated in his deposition that on April 27, 1996 he was posted as Medical Jurist in General Hospital, Sawaimadhopur. On that day at 3:15 AM he examined Ratanlal son of Kalu Meena aged 55 years resident of Badolas and found following injuries on his person:- (1) Lacerated would 5 cm. x 1 cm. with clotted blood on left frontal region of scalp. there was bleeding from both nostrils. There was compound fracture of left frontal bone through which brain matter was coming out. (2) Abrasion with clotted blood 2 cm. x 1 cm. on right thigh. (10). Dr. Gupta further stated that both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. duration of injuries was within 24 hours. Ratanlal was an indoor patient in the hospital. He was unconscious. Looking to his serious condition he informed the police. He prepared injury report Ex.P9. (2) Abrasion with clotted blood 2 cm. x 1 cm. on right thigh. (10). Dr. Gupta further stated that both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. duration of injuries was within 24 hours. Ratanlal was an indoor patient in the hospital. He was unconscious. Looking to his serious condition he informed the police. He prepared injury report Ex.P9. He also stated that on X-ray compound fracture of left frontal bone was found. This injury No. 1 was dangerous to life. he prepared X-ray report Ex.P10. (11). Dr. Gupta also stated that on the same day at about 4:20 AM he examined Smt. Rampati wife of Kishanlal Meena aged 40 years resident of Badolas and found following injuries:- (1) Red colour bruise 6 cm. x 2 cm. on left forearm (2) Abrasion with clotted blood 1 cm x 1/4 cm on posterior surface of right hand. (12). Dr. Gupta further stated that both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Duration was within 24 hours. Injury No. 2 was simple and for injury No. X-ray was advised. he prepared injury report Ex.13. On X-ray fracture of radius and ulna bone of right hand was found and therefore, injury No.1 was grievous in nature. he prepared X-ray report Ex.P14. (13). Dr. gupta further stated that on the same day at 4:10 AM he also examined handu son of Ratanlal aged 34 years and found following injuries on his person:- (1) Pain with swelling and tenderness on left side of face mandibular region. (2) Abrasion with clotted blood 2 cm x 1 cm vertically on posterior surface of left elbow. (14). Dr. Gupta further stated that both the injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon and their duration was within 24 hours. He prepared injury report Ex.P5. (15). It has been further stated by Dr. Gupta that on the same day at 3:45 AM he examined Hari son of Kalu Ram Meena aged 50 years resident of Badolas and found following injuries on his body:- (1) Incised would with clotted blood and bleeding from left ear 9 cm x 2 cm. vertically on left side of face and temporal region of scalp with swelling. Margins were smooth, cleancut and well defined. (2) Lacerated wound with clotted blood 2 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. on outerend of right eyebrow. vertically on left side of face and temporal region of scalp with swelling. Margins were smooth, cleancut and well defined. (2) Lacerated wound with clotted blood 2 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. on outerend of right eyebrow. (3) Pain with swelling and tenderness on posterior surface of left hand and wrist. (4) Abrasion with clotted blood 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left elbow. (16). Dr. Gupta further stated that injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon and the rest were caused by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 hours. For injuries No. 1 and 3, X-ray was advised. he prepared injury report Ex.P1. On cut fracture of left maxilla bone was found and therefore, injury No.1 was of grievous nature. He prepared X-ray Ex.P16. (17). Dr. Gupta also stated that on April 29, 1996 at 7:00 AM he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ratanlal who died at 5:30 PM on 28.4.1996 and found following injuries:- (1) Stitched lacerated wound with 5 stitches and clotted blood, 5 cm. in length obliquely vertical left frontal region of scalp, 3.5 cms. above the left eyebrow with diffuse swelling on left side of scalp. On dissection it was found that there was diffuse clotted dark colour haematoma over left frontal and parietal region between scalp skin and skull bone. After removing haematoma it was found that there was depressed compound fracture of left frontal bone. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm. in size vertically. From upper end of depressed fracture 2 fissured fracture extending to left parietal bone were also found. Brain matter was protruding out from depressed compound fracture. Diffuse extra dural haematoma was present on left side of brain. (2) Abrasion with dry scab 2 cm x 1 cm vertically on external surface of upper 1/4th of right thigh. (18). Dr. Gupta further stated that the cause of death was come resulting from depressed compound fracture of left frontal bone, fissured fracture of left parietal bone and extra dural haemorrhage and in any to brain. Both the injuries were ante- mortem in nature. Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He prepared post-mortem report Ex.P20. (19). On close scrutiny of the testimony of Dr. Gupta we find it reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not challenged the veracity of Dr. Gupta was is an independent and impartial witness. Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He prepared post-mortem report Ex.P20. (19). On close scrutiny of the testimony of Dr. Gupta we find it reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not challenged the veracity of Dr. Gupta was is an independent and impartial witness. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Ratanlal met with the homicidal death because of injury No. 1 mentioned in his injury report as well as in post-mortem report and handu, harji and Smt. Rampati sustained the aforesaid injuries as deposed by Dr. Gupta. (20). Learned counsel for the appellant contended that injuries of appellant Kamal, Kanhaiya and Harisingh have not been explained by the prosecution. The genesis of the occurrence has been withheld by the prosecution. Learned counsel further contended that if any injury was caused by the appellant to the deceased it was caused while exercising the right of private defence of his body and, therefore, no offence was committed by him. It was also contended by learned counsel that as per the version of the alleged eye-witnesses, the appellant was having Gandasi whereas both the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by blunt weapon. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against the appellant. Hence this appeal be allowed. In alternate it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that no offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and at the most the appellant can be held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment. (21). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the the appellant. As regards injuries sustained by the appellant and other co-accused Kanhaiya and Harisingh, DW 1 Dr. Umesh Sharma stated that on April 7, 1996 he was posted as Medical Officer, P.H.C. Malarna Doongar. On that day he examined Kamal S/o Ramdev, aged 30 years, by caste-Meena, R/o- Badolas and found following injuries on his person:- (1) Lacerated would 1-1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on left side of parietal region, vertically placed. (2) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on top of left middle finger. (3) Abrasion with haematoma 2/3" x 2/3" on top and under nail of left ring finger. (2) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on top of left middle finger. (3) Abrasion with haematoma 2/3" x 2/3" on top and under nail of left ring finger. (4) Abrasion and fracture of nail 2/3" x 1/8" on left thumb (22). Dr. Sharma further stated that all the injuries sustained by Kamal were caused by blunt weapon and their duration was within 24 hours. X-ray was advised to ascertain the nature of injuries. He prepared Injury Report Ex.D7. On X-ray it was found that right finger and middle finger of left hand were fractured, therefore, injury No. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature and the rest were simple injuries. (23). Dr. Sharma also stated that on the said day at 9:30 A.M. he examined Kanhaiya S/o Ramdev, aged 43 years, by caste-Meena, R/o Badolas and found following 5 injuries on his person:- (1) Bruise with abrasion 4/5"x1/2" on right side of parietal region of scalp. (2) Bruise with abrasion 2-1/2"x1" on antero lateral aspect of left wrist with lower 1/4 of forearm. (3) Bruise 3-1/2"x1-1/4" on antero lateral aspect of middle of chest on left side. (4) Bruise 4"x1" on back of left shoulder. (5) Bruise with abrasion 2"x1/2" anterior aspect of middle of left side of chest. (24). All the injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 hours. he prepared Injury Report Ex.D8. (25). Dr. Sharma also stated that on the same day at 8:30 A.M. he examined Harisingh S/o ramdev Meena and found following 7 injuries on his person:- (1) Lacerated would 2-1/2x1/2" x1/3" on right side of parietal region posteriorly placed and transverse in position. (2) Abrasion 1/4"x1/4" on lateral aspect of left elbow. (3) Abrasion 5-1/2"x1/5" on left lateral side of lower chest. (4) Bruise 1.6 " x 1" on left postero lateral aspect of chest extending upto abdomen, vertically placed. (5) Bruise 6"x1/2" on back of chest at medial place (6) Bruise 6-1/2"x3/4"- right to injury No.5. (7) Bruise with abrasion 1-1/2"x1-1/2" on left shoulder. (26). All the injuries were simple in nature and cause by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 hours. he prepared Injury Report ex.09. (27). There are no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of Dr.Sharma and, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that appellant Kamal, kanhaiya and Harisingh sustained the aforesaid injuries in this incident. (26). All the injuries were simple in nature and cause by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 24 hours. he prepared Injury Report ex.09. (27). There are no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of Dr.Sharma and, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that appellant Kamal, kanhaiya and Harisingh sustained the aforesaid injuries in this incident. it is true that the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the appellant Kanhaiya and harisingh but non-explanation of injuries does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the prosecution case is false and must be thrown out. In Dharminder vs. State of H.P. (1), Honble the Supreme Court held that- ``Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants has suppressed the injuries of Durga Nand and that by itself is sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution since injuries of Durga nand remain unexplained. Therefore, their version of having caused injuries to the complainant side in self-defence is to be accepted. Reliance has been placed on Takhaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersingh Chamansing (20001 (6) SCC 145). No doubt in view of the observations made in the abovenoted case, the prosecution is under duty to explain the injuries on the accused persons but it has further been observed in para 17 of the judgment that non- explanation of injuries of the accused persons does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the prosecution case is false and must be thrown out. It is further observed that: (SCC P. 154, para 17) ``Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth form falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot be itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case. Another decision which has been referred to is reported in Rajender Singh vs. State of Bihar ( 2000 (4) SCC 298 ). It is on the same proposition as laid in the case of Takhaji. It has been deserved that non-explanation of injuries on the accused, ipso facto cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. Another decision which has been referred to is reported in Rajender Singh vs. State of Bihar ( 2000 (4) SCC 298 ). It is on the same proposition as laid in the case of Takhaji. It has been deserved that non-explanation of injuries on the accused, ipso facto cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. It is also observed, ordinarily prosecution is not obliged to explain each and every injury on the accused even though injuries might have been caused during the course of occurrence and they are minor in nature but where the injuries are grievous, non- explanation of such injuries attracts the court to look at the prosecution case with little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident. (28). In another case Sekar @ Raja Sekharan vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2), the Apex Court indicated that non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case in all cases. This principle applies to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial of where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. (29). Keeping in view the above principle we have scanned and scrutinized the prosecution evidence and in our opinion the prosecution evidence qua the appellant is consistent and trustworthy. (30). PW 1 Harji deposed that on April 26, 1996 at about 6:00- 6:30 P.M. when he was sitting on Chabutra situated outside his house, Harisingh brought `Dhakre (thorny bushes) from jungle and put those `Dhakre in front of the house of the deceased Ratan lal. When Ratan Lal asked harisingh not to put `Dhakre in front of his house, he was pushed and given fist blows by harisingh. Thereafter Kanhaiya, Sugna and Kamal Singh case there. Kanhaiya and Kamal were armed with Gandasi, sugna was having lathi. Kamal gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Ratan Lal. Ratan lal fell down. Kamal also gave second blow with the handle of Gandasi on the person of Ratan Lal. Harji further stated that he was also beaten by Sugna and Kanhaiya. Kanhaiya and Kamal were armed with Gandasi, sugna was having lathi. Kamal gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Ratan Lal. Ratan lal fell down. Kamal also gave second blow with the handle of Gandasi on the person of Ratan Lal. Harji further stated that he was also beaten by Sugna and Kanhaiya. PW 2 Handu S/o deceased Ratan lal, PW 3 Nehni, PW 7 Rampati and PW 8 Khemraj also stated in their deposition that appellant kamal Singh had caused injuries on the person of the deceased Ratan lal and one of the injuries was on his head. Rampati, harji and handu further stated that the were also beaten by co-accused Kanhaiya, Sugna and Harisingh. On close and careful scrutiny of these statements we are of the view that the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses qua the appellant is reliable. (31). Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out some minor discrepancies, variations and improvements in the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses. Learned counsel contended that in his cross-examination Harji stated that he could not see whether blunt or sharp side of Gandasi hit the head of Ratan Lal whereas in his police statement Ex.D1 he has stated that Kamal Singh caused injury with blunt side of Gandasi on the head of Ratan Lal. Same is the position of the statement of PW2 handu. Learned counsel argued tat in these circumstances, the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses should not be relied upon. (32). We have considered the above contention raised by learned counsel and have also perused the aforesaid and other contradictions and omission pointed out by him. In Leela Ram vs. State of haryana & Another (3), it is held by the Supreme Court:- ``There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradiction 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 maybe, but variations by reason therefore should not render the, evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there maybe, but variations by reason therefore should not render the, evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situation: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. The cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern in unproductive and a pedantic exercise. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishments sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give slightly exaggerated account. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. Mere hair splitting on the available evidence ought not to be undertaken and instead the totality of the situation ought to have been reviewed. (33). In another case State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj. & Another (4), the Apex Court held that:- ``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 prosecutions case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incidence 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 where 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 witness and environment in which such witness was making the statement. In order to ascertain as to where 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 witness and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese vs. State of Kerala ( 1974 (3) SCC 767 ); ( AIR 1974 SC 739 ); 1974 Cri LJ 624) held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are of then the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1981 SCC (Cri) 676: ( AIR 1981 SC 1167 : 1981 Cri LJ 630) this Court held that 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 congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki ( 1981 (2) SCC 752 ; ( AIR 1981 SC 1390 :1981 Cri LJ 1012) held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, 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 deposition such a 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. (34). It has been held by the Apex Court Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Karuppusamy & Ors. (5), that only a tutored witness can depose in a parrot-like fashion. On the contrary, a natural witness is bound to commit mistakes. (35). In regard to the capacity for absorption and petition of events of a witness their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh vs. State of Punjab (6), indicated thus:- ``It is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness Should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden sales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eye witness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witnesses was no something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he concerned, if he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind the testimony can not be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. (36). ``Much importance can not be attached to minor discrepancies appear in the statement of the witnesses. ruled Honble Supreme Court in `B.B. Hirji Bhai vs. State of Gujrat (7). Following guidelines were indicated in this regard:- (i) By and large a witness can not be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. it is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (ii) Ordinarily it so happens that witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore can not be expected to be attached to absorb the details. (iii) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What Ones may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one persons mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (iv) By and large people can not accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (v) 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 super of the moment at the time of interrogation and one cannot expect people to make very precise of reliable estimates in such matters. (v) 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 super of the moment at the time of interrogation and one cannot expect people to make very precise of reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (vi) Ordinarily a witness can not be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. An witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (vii) 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 some time so operates an 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 mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. (37). Keeping in mind the aforesaid guidelines if we scan the prosecution evidence we find consistency in the statements of PW 1 Harji, PW 2 Handu, PW 3 Nehni and PW 7 Rampati. We find the presence of these, witnesses at the time of incident quite natural. Having viewed the testimony of these witnesses from broad angles and with cogent standards we find it honest, true and consistent qua the appellant. The discrepancies appear in the testimony of these witnesses do not sake the main version of the prosecution case. We do not find any vital or material contradictions or omissions therein. The may be, no doubt, some minor discrepancies or variations and improvements in the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses but it is not of such serious nature which may prove fatal to the prosecution case and made it doubtful. It is as a result of normal course of human conduct. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. The discrepancies, variations and omission pointed out by learned counsel are, in our opinion, of minor nature and the year not in material particulars. It is as a result of normal course of human conduct. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. The discrepancies, variations and omission pointed out by learned counsel are, in our opinion, of minor nature and the year not in material particulars. The trial Court has accepted their testimony as no inherent defect was pointed out by the defence. We also find no reason to take a contrary view. (38). Harji, handu and Rampati had also sustained injuries in this incident. In Surjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab (8), it was held that -``nephew of the deceased, who had suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence was a natural and stamp witness. In Sardul Singh vs. State of Punjab (9), it was indicated that the presence of witness, who received injuries during the course of incident cannot be doubted. Bankiya vs. State of Maharashtra (10), was he case wherein Honble Supreme Court observed that the presence of the injured witness at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and being victim themselves, they would not leave out real assailants and substitute them with innocent persons. (39). Apart from the testimony of the aforesaid witness, PW 12 Bheem Singh also stated in his deposition that appellant Kamal Singh had caused an injury with blunt side of Gandasi on the head of Ratan Lal. Bheem Singh was declared hostile by the prosecution but on this ground alone his testimony cannot be totally rejected. (40). In Balu Sonba Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra (11), the Apex Court held that- ``While it is true that declaration of a witness to be hostile does not ipso facto reject the evidence and it is now well settled that the portion of evidence being advantageous to the parties may be taken advantage of but the court before whom such a reliance is placed shall have to be extremely cautions and circumspect in such acceptance. Reference in this context may be made to the decision of this Court is State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra ( 1996 (10) SCC 369 ) wherein this Court stated: (SCC P. 363, para 7) ``It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. (41). We have perused the testimony of Bheem Singh with utmost care and we are of the view that his statement that the appellant had caused injury with blunt side of Gandasi on the head of Ratan Lal is trustworthy being consistent with the case of the prosecution. The above witness get corroboration from medical evidence also. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant and caused injuries on the person of Ratan lal which resulted in his death. (42). As regards the right of private defence of the appellant, the case of the prosecution was that the incident took place in front of the house of Ratan Lal whereas as per defence the incident took place in a `Bada belonging to Harisingh. When Harisingh was tying his gots in his `Bada, Ratan lal. Harji, Handu, Kailash, Khemraj, Rampati, Nehni Bai and Goranti came there and started beating him with Lathi, Danda and Gandasi. On hearing he and cry when Kamal Singh and Kanhaiya reached there to save Harisingh from their well they were also beaten by Ratan lal and others. A look at the Site Plan Ex.P22 demonstrates that when the Investigating Officer inspected the place of incident, he found blood in front of the house of Ratan Lal. PW 14 Harman Singh, the Investigating officer also deposted that from this place blood smeared soil was also seized by him. He further stated that no blood was found in `Bada belonging to the appellant in which the incident was alleged to have taken place as per version of the accused party. This fact proves that as alleged by the prosecution the incident took place in front of the house of Ratan Lal and not in a `Bada belonging to the appellant or his brother Harisingh. This fact proves that as alleged by the prosecution the incident took place in front of the house of Ratan Lal and not in a `Bada belonging to the appellant or his brother Harisingh. This fact further proves that harassing was the aggressor and when he started beating Ratan Lal, Kamal Singh also reached there and thereafter he inflicted two injuries on the person of Ratan lal. Out of these two injuries, injury on the head proved fatal. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no `Dhakre were found at the spot when the I.O. reached there and, therefore, true genesis of the case was not put forward by the prosecution. We have also considered this contention and in our opinion, `Dhakre were removed from the place of incident either at the time of the incident or thereafter and, therefore, the Investigating Officer did not find these `Dhakre at the spot. Hence there is no substance in the above submission made by learned counsel. Since the complainant party was not the aggressor, the right of private defence of body did not accrue to the appellant. it is true tat the appellant and two other persons from his side had also sustained injuries in the same incident but it does not mean that the appellant had caused injuries on the person of the deceased in exercise of right of private defence. (43). Honble the Supreme Court in Sekar @ Raja Sekharan vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police , T.N. (supra) held that- ``The number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was. it cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. The defence has to further establish that the injuries so caused on the accused probabilises the version of the right of private defence. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation, is a very important circumstances. But mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not after the prosecution case in all cases. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation, is a very important circumstances. But mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not after the prosecution case in all cases. this principle applies to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omissions on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. (See Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar ( 1976 (4) SCC 394 ). A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. Section 97 delas with the subject-matter of right of private defence. The plea of right comprises the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right; (ii) of any other person; and in the case of offence of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences in relation to property. Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under Section 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99. To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. Sections 100 and 101 IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence. (44). Having gone through the entire material on record, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant did not inflict the injuries on the person of the deceased in exercise of the right of private defence of body. (45). Sections 100 and 101 IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence. (44). Having gone through the entire material on record, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant did not inflict the injuries on the person of the deceased in exercise of the right of private defence of body. (45). Now the question for consideration rises as to what offence was committed by the appellant. Only two injuries were found on the person of the deceased Ratan Lal. Out of these injuries, one was abrasion on right thigh and another injury was on left frontal region of scalp. Thus there was only one injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased. This injury was caused by the appellant with the blunt side of Gandasi. It also appears that the incident occurred all of a sudden. In view of these facts we are of the opinion that the appellant had no intention to cause death of Ratan lal or to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or likely to cause death. But in our considered view, the appellant had the knowledge that the injury which he was going to cause on the head of Ratan Lal was likely to cause his death. Therefore, the act of the appellant comes within the mischief of Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence for offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant is in custody for more than 6 years all 11 months, therefore, in the ends of justice, we direct the appellant to suffer the sentence to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-. (46). Consequently, the appeal of the appellant Kamal Singh is partly allowed. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer only years simple imprisonment. on deposit of fine, the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer only years simple imprisonment. on deposit of fine, the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine if deposited, shall be paid as compensation to the widow of Ratan Lal.