( 1 ) (CRIMINAL Appeal under Section 374 (2) Crl. P. C. against the Judgment dated 23/07/1999 in SC No. 273 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions, Judge, Hyderabad) a-1 and A-2 preferred this Criminal Appeal against the Judgment of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad made in S. C. No. 273/97 dated 23-7-1999. Originally the charge sheet was filed as against three accused under Section 307 IPC in Cr. No. 114/96 of Malakpet Police Station and during the pendency of the case, A-3 died and in view of the same, the learned Judge proceeded with trial as against A-1 and A-2, recorded the evidence of PW-1 to PW-8, marked Exs. P-1 to P-6 and also Exs. D-1 to D-5 and ultimately found A-1 and A-2 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and each accused was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. Hence the present Criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell is as per the information received from Yashoda super Speciality Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad on 17-8-1996, H. C. No. 2939 (PW-6) went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of injured PW-1 wherein PW-1 had stated that he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Amangal Mahaboobnagar District and was residing in Pratapnagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad and on 17-8-1996 at 9. 30 p. m. while he was proceeding to his sisters house after dinner on the way near St. Thomas School all the three accused armed with knives attacked him. A-1 stabbed him on his stomach, left hand and right hand shoulder. A-2 and A-3 attacked him with stone and knife. PW-1 cried for help and on hearing the cries his sister PW-2 and also neighbours rushed towards the scene of offence and in view of the same A-1 to A-3 ran away. PW-1 was shifted by PW-2 and others to Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital. The Circle Inspector of Police, PW-8, registered Crime No. 114/96 under Section 307 IPC and subsequent thereto A-1 to A-3 were arrested and sent to judicial remand. ( 3 ) PW-1 is the son-in-law of A-1 as PW-1 married the daughter of A-1 and they were blessed with a female child. The Circle Inspector of Police, PW-8, registered Crime No. 114/96 under Section 307 IPC and subsequent thereto A-1 to A-3 were arrested and sent to judicial remand. ( 3 ) PW-1 is the son-in-law of A-1 as PW-1 married the daughter of A-1 and they were blessed with a female child. The wife of PW-1 i. e. , Vanaja died at Amangal in a fire accident which is the subject matter of Cr. No. 22/96 registered under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and other offences as against PW-1. this appears to be the motive and the version of the prosecution is several times A-1 tried to manhandle PW-1 because of the said reason and to his fortune he was escaping but ultimately A-1 to A-3 made this plan of attack to do away with the life of PW-1. The defence is one of total denial. ( 4 ) THE XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad had registered the crime as P. r. C. No. 26/96 and the same was committed to the Court of Session which was made over the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who had recorded the evidence of PW-1 to PW-8, marked Exs. P-1 to P-6 and Exs. D-1 to D-5 and on appreciation of the evidence found A-1 and A-2 guilty. Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court in detail through the contents of Ex. P-1 and the evidence of PW-1 and would submit that there are certain material deviations in between Ex. P-1 and also the evidence of PW-1 and in view of the same, the version of the prosecution may have to be viewed suspicion. The learned Senior Counsel also would point out that the Investigating Officer had not done the investigation on proper lines and he failed to collect the blood stained earth and had not even drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The learned Senior counsel also would contend that in view of the specific information furnished by PW-2 to the Police at the earliest point of time, the present first information cannot be said to be the F. I. R. The learned Senior Counsel also would submit that the material witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 had not supported the version of the prosecution and taking into consideration Exs. D-1 to D-5 which are the improvements made by the witnesses, the appellants are entitled for an acquittal. The learned Counsel also would submit that even prior thereto, there was enmity between the parties and taking advantage of certain injuries the foisting of cases as against A-1 and A-2 by PW-1 cannot be ruled out. The learned Senior counsel also had pointed out to the suggestions put by the defence in this regard and ultimately the learned counsel would conclude that even otherwise except the evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence available on record and even if the evidence of PW-2 is carefully scrutinized it cannot be said that PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and in view of the close relationship between PW-1 and PW-2, the same may have to be viewed with suspicion. The learned Senior counsel also pointed out that none of the weapons had been seized and in the light of these infirmities acquittal may have to be recorded. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that Ex. P-1 is not an encyclopedia and the mere slight variation in between Ex. P-1 and the evidence of PW-1 cannot be a ground for recording acquittal. The intention to do away with the life of PW-1 on the part of A-1 to A-3 is clear since the motive is grudge which A-1 owes towards PW-1 in view of the death of his daughter. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. Heard both the Counsel. The specific case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day A-1 to A-3 in view of the grievance A-1 had as against PW-1 due to the death of his daughter, the wife of PW-1, with an intention to do away with the life of PW-1, had attacked PW-1. PW-1 married the daughter of A-1 and A-2 is the son of A-1. It is not in controversy that the wife of PW-1 met with fire accident and a complaint also was lodged in this regard which is the subject matter of Crime No. 22/96. The daughter of PW-1 is in the custody of the appellants in view of the compromise. It is not in controversy that the wife of PW-1 met with fire accident and a complaint also was lodged in this regard which is the subject matter of Crime No. 22/96. The daughter of PW-1 is in the custody of the appellants in view of the compromise. With a view to take revenge, inasmuch as the appellants thought that PW-1 was responsible for the death of the daughter of A-1 and sister of A-2, the present attack was planned and PW-1 was attacked near St. Thomas school and the specific case of the prosecution is that A-1 stabbed PW-1 on his stomach, left hand and right hand shoulder indiscriminately and the other accused attacked him with stone and knife respectively. PW-5, the S. I. of Police of Police, Bhavaninagar Police Station since 1997 deposed that on 17-8-1996 at about 9. 30 p. m. when he was at his residence he heard some loud cries in front of St. Thomas High School and he came out of the house and saw PW-1 lying in a pool of blood. Immediately he went inside the house and made a telephonic call to Malakpet Police Station and again he went to the injured person and there he found PW-2, the sister of PW-1, and some other person. PW-5 further deposed that he saw some persons going on two wheelers and he had not seen their faces and he came to know through the sister of PW-1 that the incident took place due to family disputes. Police shifted PW-1 to hospital and PW-5 also was examined by the police. Though this witness (PW-5) is a Sub-Inspector of Police he was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross-examination by prosecution this witness had specifically deposed it is not true to say that he stated to police in Ex. P-3 to the effect that he saw the accused running away on the scooter. This Witness also was cross-examined by the Counsel for the accused. Though PW-5 deposed that he made a telephonic call to the Malakpet Police Station relating to the incident, this cannot be treated as F. I. R. for the reason that no details had been furnished by PW-5. Ex. p-1 reads as hereunder:- today i. e. , on 17-8-96 at about 9. Though PW-5 deposed that he made a telephonic call to the Malakpet Police Station relating to the incident, this cannot be treated as F. I. R. for the reason that no details had been furnished by PW-5. Ex. p-1 reads as hereunder:- today i. e. , on 17-8-96 at about 9. 30 PM I, namely Praveen Kumar went to my sisters house from our house, again while I was going to my mothers house, Near St. Thomas in Shalivahana Nagar, some people throwed stones from my back, on my head. I turned back and saw three persons namely vital Reddy, Manohar Reddy, Ranadhir Reddy came nearer to me and stabbed me with big knives. They stabbed me on my stomach, right hand and left hand with knives. Then I shouted Bachavo, Bachavo. They went away leaving me there itself. By hearing my shoutings, my sister and some other people came there and took me to the Yashoda Hospital and admitted there. I was taking these MLC. No. 4633 treatment. Kindly, I request you to take legal action against the three persons. Thus it is clear that in Ex. P-1 it is stated that some people threw stones on the back side of PW-1s head and he turned back and saw three people namely Vittal Reddy, Manohar Reddy and Ranadhir Reddy coming nearer to him and stabbed him with big knives on his stomach, right hand and left hand with knives and he shouted Bachavo, Bachavo and they went away leaving him there itself. By hearing his shoutings his sister and some other people came there and took him to Yashoda Hospital for treatment. This is the earliest stand taken by PW-1 in Ex. P-1 wherein specific stand was taken that all the three stabbed him with big knives and it is also pertinent to note that on hearing the shoutings, his sister and some other people came there and took him to Yashoda Hospital and admitted in the Hospital for treatment. As per the earliest version of PW-1, PW-2 reached the spot on hearing the cries and it is highly doubtful whether PW-2 could have witnessed the incident at all. As per the earliest version of PW-1, PW-2 reached the spot on hearing the cries and it is highly doubtful whether PW-2 could have witnessed the incident at all. PW-1 deposed that he married the daughter of A-1 and A-2 is the brother of his wife and in 1992 he was blessed with a daughter and on 18-3-1996 his wife died in a fire accident and soon after the fire accident on 7-3-1996 he admitted his wife in C. D. R. Hospital and on that day the relatives of A-1 and A-2 beat him with suspicion that he was responsible for the fire accident of his wife and they also had taken away his daughter. PW-1 gave complaint at Narayanaguda Police Station for beating him. This witness also deposed that the Circle Inspector of Police, Narayanaguda booked a case against him and he was sent to the Amangal Police Station in Mahabubnagara District and meanwhile his wife expired on 19-3-1996 and after his return from judicial custody at the intervention of elders an agreement was entered into under which he paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to the maintenance of his daughter and he returned utensils. PW-1 further deposed that after a week days time thereafter the elders demanded him to transfer some land in favour of his minor daughter who was then aged 3 years then and since he did not oblige to their demand they attacked him. This witness also further deposed that on 17-8-1996 he was returning from his sisters house situate at about 300 yards away at 9. 30 p. m. and when he reached the gate of St. Thomas school he was hit by a stone on his head causing bleeding injury. He turned back and saw his brother-in-law with raised hands and he also saw A-1 and A-3 (who is no more) coming in his direction while parking their two wheelers and they parked their vehicles near a street light. A-1 uttered in filthy language to kill him. A-1 was armed with a knife and stabbed him continuously on the left side of his stomach and all over the body and A-3 also stabbed him and he received bleeding injuries all over the body. He raised cries bacho, bachao and then fell down. A-2 after he fell down tried to hit him with a stone by raising his hands. He raised cries bacho, bachao and then fell down. A-2 after he fell down tried to hit him with a stone by raising his hands. Meanwhile one Prashanth came and saved him and by then his sister by name P. Sujatha came running in his direction and in their presence the accused tries to run away. PW-1 further deposed that the incident took place near the house of S. I who telephoned to police and police came within five or ten minutes and shifted him in an auto to Yashoda Hospital near Nalgonda Cross Roads. Thereafter police came to the Hospital and recorded his statement and he affixed his thumb impression on his statement and it is Ex. P-1. PW-1 deposed that he was treated as an in-patient in Yashoda Hospital for about 17 or 18 days. ( 6 ) A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 and Ex. P-1, definitely would go to show that PW-1 is making an improved version while deposing before the Court in deviation of what had been stated in Ex. P-1. In cross-examination PW-1 deposed that he was facing a trial on allegation of murdering his wife in Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar and A-1 herein is the complainant in the said case and A-2 and A-3 may be the witnesses. No doubt PW-1 denied certain suggestions relating to details of dowry and this witness also denied the suggestion that on failure of giving additional dowry he started torturing his wife and several answers were elicited in relation to murder of his wife. This witness also deposed that A-1 is working as Lecturer in Maths in a government college and at that time A-2 was studying Intermediate. Soon after the incident he got his wife admitted in C. D. R. Hospital and it is not true to say that in his presence the Magistrate recorded dying declaration of his wife and the witness adds at that time he was in Narayanguda Police Station and after his release he came to know that two dying declarations of his wife were recorded and he also denied the suggestion that he threatened his wife to give false statement that she received accidental burn injuries. Several questions were put in relation to the said case. Several questions were put in relation to the said case. This witness further deposed that he did not state to police about the incident of beating on 7-3-1996 by Anji Reddy and others as it was not asked and however he gave complaint against them on 7-3-1996 at Narayanaguda Police Station and he did not state about lodging complaint in Narayanaguda Police Station for the incident dated 7-3-1996 in his statement or Ex. P-1. Cross-examination at length was made in relation to the incident of death of the wife of PW-1. PW-1 also deposed that after the incident he was conscious and police recorded his statement at Yashoda Hospital and he was conscious when police came to the spot and he does not remember the designation of the officer who came to the spot and he told to the police on their enquiry that he was stabbed and he gave this statement on the spot when police arrived and he does not remember if the Doctor in Yashoda Hospital enquired him the details of incident and if he had noted them in the record sheet. He also does not know if the Casualty Doctor sent information about stabbing to the police and he does not remember if by 9. 30 p. m. he was taken to Yashoda Hospital and he does not remember if he had stated to the Doctor that he was stabbed at 8. 30 p. m. on 17-8-1996. No doubt he had denied the suggestion that he did not name A-1 to A-3 herein as assailants when he was enquired by the Doctor and police. Certain questions were put to him relating to topographical features of the scene of offence to. Police recorded his statement under Ex. P-1 within one hour of his admission in the hospital and he stated to police about the incident of stabbing. PW-1 deposed that he did not state the reason of dinner in Ex. P-1 though he stated that he went to his sisters house. The accused came from Western side behind him and he was going towards East, the C. I. of Police recorded his statement two or three days after the incident and he does not remember whether the C. O of Police had examined and recorded his statement on 17-8-1996 and in all the C. I. visited him in connection with the case twice or thrice. PW-1 also deposed that he did not state to police as in Ex. D-1 that on 17-8-96 at about 9. 30 p. m. while he was proceeding from his parents house after completion of dinner towards his sisters house on the way near St. Thomas School, Shalivahana Nagar one stone came and hit him behind his back. PW-1 further deposed that it is not true to say that he did not state to the Police and also in Ex. P-1 that A-1 to A-3 parked their vehicles near a burning tube light and came in that direction and that A-1 was uttering words in filthy language to kill him and that A-1 stabbed him. This witness further deposed that it is not true the say that there is no such burning tube light as stated by him where A-1 and A-3 parked their two wheelers and that he was deposing about the presence of tube light for the first time before the Court and he does not remember if he had not stated to police about he identifying A-1 to A-3. He stated to police that after he cried bachao bachao the accused went away. PW-1 also deposed that he did not state to Police as in Ex. D-2 that his sister arrived after the accused left the place. He further deposed that though it is not in his statement Ex. P-1 that his statement Ex. P-1 that his sister witnessed the incident but in fact she witnessed the incident and the contents of Ex. P-1 read over to him before obtaining his thumb impression. Though he had not mentioned the individual overt acts of the accused he stated that the accused stabbed him all over the body. He stated to police that A-1 first stabbed in his stomach. PW-1 further deposed that it is not true to say that he did not state to police that all the accused stabbed and he stated to police about A-2 trying to leave the stone and hitting him on his head after he had fallen. This omission was marked as Ex. D-3. this witness also specifically denied that he had falsely implicated A-1 to A-3 because of bitter enmity. PW-1 deposed that it is true that his sister had divorced her husband Bhagya Reddy and it is true that Bhagya Reddy gave complaint against him in Collectorate but he was exonerated. This omission was marked as Ex. D-3. this witness also specifically denied that he had falsely implicated A-1 to A-3 because of bitter enmity. PW-1 deposed that it is true that his sister had divorced her husband Bhagya Reddy and it is true that Bhagya Reddy gave complaint against him in Collectorate but he was exonerated. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had got many enemies including Bhagya Reddy and taking advantage of the same he had falsely implicated the accused in this case. The other allegations also had been denied. This is the evidence of PW-1. ( 7 ) PW-2 is the sister of PW-1. She had deposed about the death of the wife of PW-1 and the accused coming and threatening PW-1 and the other aspects and she deposed that on 17-8-1996 PW-1 came from his fathers house to her house for dinner and was returning at about 9. 30 p. m. towards his house and after few minutes she heard loud cry and suspecting the loud cry to be of PW-1 she rushed in the said direction and saw A-2 raising his hands with a stone and one Prashanth kicked A-2 and the stone fell down on the ground. She also saw the accused stabbing PW-1 and going towards the parked two wheelers. PW-1 fell down and she went near PW-1 and started crying. Near the place of incident there is house of one Srinivas, Inspector who telephoned to police and police came immediately. This witness was cross-examined at length. PW-2 deposed that she did not state to police as in Ex. D-4 i. e. , on 17-8-1996 at about 9. 30 p. m. my brother Praveen Kumar proceeding towards his sisters house after completion of his meal at his parents house, on the way. She also deposed that she heard the cries of his brother while he was being attacked and not when he was attacked and she did not state to police as in Ex. D-5 i. e. , that on the way near St. Thomas School, Shalivahana Nagar three persons Vittal Reddy, Manohar Reddy and Ranadheer Reddy stabbed upon my brother at that time I heard hue and cry of my brother. D-5 i. e. , that on the way near St. Thomas School, Shalivahana Nagar three persons Vittal Reddy, Manohar Reddy and Ranadheer Reddy stabbed upon my brother at that time I heard hue and cry of my brother. She further deposed that when she first witnessed the scene she saw A-2 about to hurl a stone on PW-1 and simultaneously accused stabbing PW-1 and at the time when she saw the incident PW-1 fell on the ground. The witness again says that PW-1 was standing when she saw him first. No doubt this witness denied other suggestions. ( 8 ) IN the light of Ex. P-1 and also the evidence of PW-1, the improved version, and the evidence of PW-2, the presence of PW-2 is definitely doubtful inasmuch as the version is not clear when actually she reached the scene of offence. As per the earliest version in Ex. P-1, the evidence of PW-2 that she had witnessed the incident cannot be believed. Hence, except the evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence available on record relating to what actually had transpired on the fateful day regarding the offence with which the accused had been charged with. PW-3 is the father of PW-1 and PW-2. He just deposed about the accused demanding Rs. 1,50,000/- towards maintenance of the minor child of PW-1 and also about the threats to kill PW-1 if the amount is not paid and after the payment of the above amount there was no dispute, but however on 17-8-1996 the accused stabbed PW-1 near ST. Thomas School at 9. 30 p. m. and on hearing the cries of PW-1 he rushed to that direction and saw PW-1 had fallen down due to injuries and the accused ran away. The evidence of PW-3 to the effect that PW-1 had fallen due to injuries and the accused ran away also cannot be believed since he could not have reached the scene of offence as deposed by him. A suggestion was put to PW-3 and PW-3 deposed that it is not true to say that he went to the place of offence only after Prashanth came and informed him. The other suggestions also had been denied. ( 9 ) PW-4 deposed that PW-1 to PW-3 are his neighbors and on 17-8-1996 at about 9 or 9. A suggestion was put to PW-3 and PW-3 deposed that it is not true to say that he went to the place of offence only after Prashanth came and informed him. The other suggestions also had been denied. ( 9 ) PW-4 deposed that PW-1 to PW-3 are his neighbors and on 17-8-1996 at about 9 or 9. 15 p. m. when he was returning home with this friends he heard loud cry save, save and he though that schools boys were playing near the school and the sound was in connection with a game but soon thereafter he realized the mistake and went in that direction and found some people quarrelling. Himself (PW-4), Ramesh and Sampath went to rescue and the offenders ran away. PW-4 further deposed that he saw PW-1 lying on the ground and he cannot identify the offenders as it was dark. PW-1 was lying in a pool of blood and one of the friends rushed to the house of PW-2 and he (PW-4) ran to the house of PW-3 and brought PW-3. Meanwhile PW-2 arrived and PW-1 was shifted to the hospital. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and this witness was cross-examined. ( 10 ) IT is pertinent to note that Sampath and Ramesh were not examined and PW-4 deposed that he could not identify the offenders it was dark. The version of PW-1 is that there was tube light and he was able to identify the parking of two wheelers by A-1 and A-3. In the light of the evidence of PW-4, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 relating to the exact time when they had reached the scene of offence would become highly doubtful and their version that they had witnessed the accused running away also definitely cannot be believed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, PW-5 immediately made telephonic call and the Police reached the spot. The police personnel who immediately rushed to the spot also not been examined. ( 11 ) PW-6 is the Head constable who had recorded the statement of PW-1, Ex. P-1. PW-7 is the Doctor who examined PW-1 who was brought by PW-2 and had deposed about as many as 12 injuries. Ex. P-4 is the medical certificate issued by PW-7. The police personnel who immediately rushed to the spot also not been examined. ( 11 ) PW-6 is the Head constable who had recorded the statement of PW-1, Ex. P-1. PW-7 is the Doctor who examined PW-1 who was brought by PW-2 and had deposed about as many as 12 injuries. Ex. P-4 is the medical certificate issued by PW-7. This witness specifically deposed that it is true that he had to mention each injury either simple or grievous and each of the injury is simple but their cumulative effect endangers the life. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer who deposed about receiving the statement recorded by H. C. (PW-6) and registering the case on the strength of Ex. P-1 as Cr. No. 114/96 under Section 307 IPC, issuing F. I. R, Ex. P-5 and taking up investigation, visiting scene of offence and recording statements of PW-1 to PW-5. PW-4 and PW-5 stated before him as in Exs. P-2 and P-3. Since the scene of offence was disturbed he did not draw any sketch and he could not collect even the blood stained earth from the scene of offence as it was completely disturbed and he visited Yashoda Hospital and he could not collect blood stained clothes as the Hospital did not preserve the clothes of PW-1. On 5-9-1996 he received medical certificates from Yashoda Hospital and on 20-8-1996 he arrested A-1 to A-3 and sent them for judicial remand. The photographs of the injured were taken in Yashoda Hospital. ( 12 ) THE learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and placing reliance on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and also the medical evidence PW-7, believed the version of the prosecution and conviction had been recorded. In Dr. Krishna Pal Vs. State of U. P. 1996 SCC (Crl) 249 while dealing with omissions in F. I. R. in an incident of murder witnessed by a number of persons and the first informant was not a eye witness and the F. I. R. was lodged after talking to the witnesses present on the spot it was held in the circumstances that non-mention of name of one of the eye witnesses in the F. I. R. is not fatal. No doubt submissions at length were made by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the first Information Report cannot be treated as an encyclopedia and all the details need not be mentioned and some small omissions or variations need not be considered with seriousness if otherwise acceptable evidence is available on record. Placing strong reliance on the evidence of PW-1, the injured, submissions at length were made to the effect that the evidence of PW-1 is definitely trustworthy and hence the conviction can be sustained. In Jose Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1973 S. C. 944 while dealing with the evidence and proof in the case of murder it was held that convinction for murder can be based on the honest and trustworthy testimony of even a single witness. In Joseph Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2003 3 S. C. 507 it was held that in a case of murder evidence of a solitary injured eye witness can form basis for conviction when it is cogent and reliable but where the evidence of solitary witness injured in the incident was in conflict with other evidence and medical evidence and he admitting that signatures on F. I. R. and acknowledgement of summons which were alleged to be his signatures were also different, conviction on the basis of his sole testimony is not proper. In Omprakash Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2003 Crl. L. J. 483 it was held that the first information report need not contain an exhaustive account of incident and where all essential and relevant details of incident were given in the F. I. R. and the witness who had dictated the F. I. R. gave few more details in her evidence, it was held that the evidence given by the witness cannot be doubted on ground that there is improvement. In S. B. Narsale Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 S. C. 1171 in the case of conviction under Section 302 IPC where evidence of only eye witness was corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and motive was disclosed by the prosecution evidence, the Supreme Court refused to interfere. In Mohanan Vs. In S. B. Narsale Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 S. C. 1171 in the case of conviction under Section 302 IPC where evidence of only eye witness was corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and motive was disclosed by the prosecution evidence, the Supreme Court refused to interfere. In Mohanan Vs. State 2001 (1) ALT (Crl) 85 the Division Bench of Kerala High Court while dealing with appreciation of evidence of witnesses and minor discrepancies it was held: ( 13 ) SO far as these discrepancies in the evidence are concerned, it has to be noted that every minor discrepancy does not affect credibility of prosecution case. While appreciating evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of evidence given by he witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences borne out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the Appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Several honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is some times an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Several honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is some times an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is unnatural; if a case has some flaws, inevitably because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. It is found that the learned trial Judge has elaborately analyzed evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 and found it to be credible. There is no infirmity therein to take a different view. ( 14 ) IN Rammi Vs. State of M. P. 1999 (8) SCC 649 while dealing with impeaching the credit of witness, inconsistent statement and what amounts to contradiction it was held at paras 24, 25, 26 and 27 as hereunder: when a eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible, for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possible escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony non discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. ( 15 ) IT is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the Section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. The material portion of the Section is extracted below: 155. Impeaching credit of witness:- The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him (1 ). (2 ). The material portion of the Section is extracted below: 155. Impeaching credit of witness:- The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him (1 ). (2 ). (3) by proof of former statement inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be contradicted would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to contradict the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of the Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose i. e. , to contradict the witness. ( 16 ) TO contradict a witness, therefore, must be to discredit the particular version of the witness. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the present statement, even if the latter is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness (Tahsildar Singh v. State of U. P. (AIR 1959 S. C. 1012 : 1959 Crl. L. J. 1231) there cannot be any doubt or controversy that even if a single witness is found to be trustworthy reliance can be placed on such evidence and conviction be sustained. However, here is a case where there had been admitted strained relationship or enmity between the parties even by that date. No doubt this aspect of enmity may be viewed either positive to the defence or negative to the defence as well. However, here is a case where there had been admitted strained relationship or enmity between the parties even by that date. No doubt this aspect of enmity may be viewed either positive to the defence or negative to the defence as well. The degree of proof in criminal trial may be (i) charge proved beyond shadow of doubt; (ii) want of evidence in establishing the charge as against accused which would result in clean acquittal; (iii) evidence falling short of absolute proof and giving scope to benefit of doubt; (iv) evidence for prosecution and defence equally and evenly balanced, and prosecution proving the case and accused admitting the incident, but putting forth defence under exceptions wherein to depending upon the nature of evidence, benefit of doubt may come into play. The aspects referred to supra are only illustrative and at any rate cannot be said to be exhaustive and it is needless to say that the proof of charge as against the accused in a criminal case may have to be judged depending upon the facts and circumstances and on appreciation of the evidence available on record. Enmity between the accused and victim is a double edged weapon. It may provide instinct for the crime and it may also provide reasons for falsely implicating the accused. In such a case evidence may have to be carefully scrutinized. In State of Punjab Vs. Pritam Singh AIR 1977 S. C. 2005 it was held by the Apex Court at para-4 as hereunder: it might appear that the High Court did not try to consider the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the eye-witnesses but rejected the evidence of those witnesses only on the ground that they were interested and inimical witnesses. But on a very careful consideration of the judgment of the High Court in the light of the evidence led by the prosecution, we feel that the view taken by the High court was not wrong. Apart from the circumstances mentioned by the High Court in its judgment there were certain important intrinsic circumstances which threw a good deal of doubt on the prosecution case. In the first place, it is admitted that there was serious enmity between the parties and there was sufficient motive for Pala Singh to have implicated the respondents at whose instants he was implicated in the murder of Toga Singh and eventually convicted to life imprisonment. In the first place, it is admitted that there was serious enmity between the parties and there was sufficient motive for Pala Singh to have implicated the respondents at whose instants he was implicated in the murder of Toga Singh and eventually convicted to life imprisonment. Equally there was a motive for the respondents also to kill Pala Singh in order to wreak vengeance on him for having caused the death of the father of Gurmej Singh, Teja Singh and Byan Singh. When the motives were thus equally balanced, the Court had to look to surrounding circumstances in order to find out the truth. ( 17 ) IN the present case, in the light of the evidence of PW-4, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 definitely is highly doubtful. PW-5 has declared hostile. No doubt PW-4 also was declared hostile. The earliest version of PW-1 in Ex. P-1 is in deviation of what he had deposed as PW-1. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the weapons had not been seized. The blood stained earth also had not been seized and none others except PW-4 had been examined and the police personnel who immediately rushed to the spot on the telephonic call given by PW-5 also had not been examined. In the light of the contradictions and omissions which had been elicited and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 in particular and also Ex. P-1, the earliest version, and in the light of specific suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses relating to the enmity which PW-1 may have with certain others too, the possibility of implicating the father-in-law and brother-in-law by PW-1 in the present case cannot be totally ruled out. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the solitary testimony of PW-1, especially taking into consideration the evidence of PW-4 and also PW-5 in this regard, benefit of doubt to be given to the appellants and hence the findings recorded by the learned Judge definitely cannot be sustained and the prosecution was unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an acquittal and accordingly the Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an acquittal and accordingly the Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled. It is needless to say that the appellants are entitled to the refund of fine amount, if any, paid by them.