Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Bihar is directed against the judgment dated 19th January, 1988 passed by Shri Anirudha Prasad Choudhary, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura by which he has acquitted the seven respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) and the two ladies, namely, Andhari Devi and Tejaria Devi who were all accused in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1985. It may be mentioned here that the appeal against these two ladies, however, was dismissed by a Bench of this Court at the time of admission itself vide order dated 9.8.1988. It may also be mentioned here that during pendency of this appeal respondent Bachkan Sharma died and hence, this appeal against him abated. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant Timai Sharma of Village Ramganj Tola Korlahi, P.S. Kumarkhand, District Madhepura, is that his neighbour accused Laxmi Sharma used to work as a plough man of one Gokaran Mandal of his village but on account of dispute of wages between them, Laxmi Sharma had left the work of Gokaran Mandal. On 30.9.1983 Sheo Narain Sharma (deceased) had gone to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal. At about 2.00 p.m. he was returning to his house to take his meal and when he reached in front of the darwaza of accused Laxmi Sharma accused Binay Sharma and Bachkan Sharma asked him as to why he had gone to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal when they had stopped working for him. The other accused persons, namely, Laxmi Sharma, Sadhu Sharma. Binoy Sharma, Andhri Devi, Tejaria Devi, Nageshwar Sharma, Ramji Sharma were also standing there armed with lathi and samath. Sheo Narain Sharma (deceased) replied that he was a poor man and he had to maintain child and unless he worked they (accused) would not provide him food. On this accused Binoy Sharma exhorted that he (deceased) was arguing with him and asked the other accused persons to assault. The other accused persons then surrounded him and started assaulting. Accused Laxmi Sharma assaulted Sheo Narain Sharma on head with samath and Sheo Narayan Sharma fell down and the other accused persons assaulted him with lathi. In the meantime, on halla, the witnesses came but by that time Sheo Narain Sharma had died on account of samath blow. The other accused persons then surrounded him and started assaulting. Accused Laxmi Sharma assaulted Sheo Narain Sharma on head with samath and Sheo Narayan Sharma fell down and the other accused persons assaulted him with lathi. In the meantime, on halla, the witnesses came but by that time Sheo Narain Sharma had died on account of samath blow. The informant with the help of the witnesses carried the dead body of the deceased to him (accuseds) darwaza. 3. The informant alongwith the village chowkidar went to Kumarkhand police station where on the same day at 4.00 p.m. the above fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Indradeo Pathak. The fardbeyan was forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of Murliganj police station for institution of a case where on 1.10.1983 formal first information report (Ext. 1) was drawn up. S.I. Indradeo Pathak, in the meantime, took up investigation. After completing investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the above nine accused persons. 4. All the accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their defence, as gathered from the suggestions given to the witnesses, is that no occurrence as alleged took place and that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Gokaran Mandal and Ram Narain Mandal. 5. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the charge. Among them PW-1 Bindeshwari Prasad Gupta is a formal witness and has simply proved the formal FIR (Ext. 1). PW-2 Vidyanand Sharma, PW-3 Kailu Sharma, PW-5 Makhan Rishideo. PW-7 Pariya Devi (wife of the deceased) claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW-8 Timai Sharma is the informant himself. PW-4 Jagdish Yadav is also a formal witness, in whose presence the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) was recorded at the police station. PW-6 Raghubir Sharma, a witness named in the fardbeyan as eye-witness, has stated that he did not see the assault and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-9 Deo Narayan Rishideo is a witness in whose presence the inquest report (Ext. 3) of the dead body was prepared by the Investigating Officer. PW-10 is Dr. Jang Bahadur Singh who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. His post-mortem report is Ext. 4 PW-11 is Indradeo Pathak, Sub-Inspector of Police, the I.O. of the case. 6. The accused persons did not enter into defence. 3) of the dead body was prepared by the Investigating Officer. PW-10 is Dr. Jang Bahadur Singh who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. His post-mortem report is Ext. 4 PW-11 is Indradeo Pathak, Sub-Inspector of Police, the I.O. of the case. 6. The accused persons did not enter into defence. 7. The learned trial Court after considering the above evidence found that the prosecution has failed to establish that the occurrence took place in the manner and at the place of occurrence as alleged. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons. 8. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State appellant submitted that all the eye-witnesses examined in the case have supported the prosecution case and their evidence is consistent on the point of assault and the place of occurrence. The evidence of the doctor also corroborates their evidence. The objective findings of the I.O. also corroborate the evidence of the eye- witnesses. But the learned trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused persons on filmsy grounds. 9. Learned Counsel for the accused respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 10. In the case of State of Punjab v. Pohta Singh, 2004(1) PCCR, 364 the Apex Court has held "there is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other of his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented." It has further been held therein that "the principle to be followed by the appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there is compelling and substantive reason for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference." 11. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference." 11. Keeping the above principles in mind I would discuss whether the above judgment of acquittal needs any interference. 12. In order to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses I have gone through the entire evidence of the witnesses. Among the eye-witnesses examined, PW-2 has deposed that on the alleged date at about 2.00 p.m. he was at his door which is adjacent north of the door of accused Laxmi Sharma. At that time accused Laxmi Sharma, Bachkan Sharma, Chinai Sharma. Sadher Sharma. Binay Sharma, Tejaria Devi and Andhri Devi were present at the door of accused Laxmi Sharma. He saw that Sheo Narain Sharma (deceased) was returning after skinning jute crops and when he reached near the door of Laxmi Sharma on road, Laxmi Sharma, Chinai Sharma and Sadhu Sharma asked him as to when they had stopped working for Gokaran Mandal, why he had gone to skin his jute. On this Sheo Narain Sharma replied that he was a poor man and unless he worked how could he maintain his children; whereupon altercation ensued. Accused Binay Sharma and Bachkan Sharma then ordered to assault and accused Laxmi Sharma, Chinai Sharma and Sadhu Sharma then assaulted him with samath and lathi. The witness has further stated that accused Laxmi Sharma had assaulted Sheo Narain Mahto with samath on his head and that other remaining accused persons assaulted him with fists and slaps. The evidence of this witness then.is that the head of Sheo Narain Sharma was fractured and blood started oozing out from his face and nose and Sheo Narain Sharma fell down dead and that after assault the accused persons fled away and the witnesses then brought the dead body of Sheo Narain Sharma to his deorhi. 13. PW 3 has stated that on the alleged date at 2.00 p.m. he was at his door when he saw Sheo Narain Sharma coming from southern side and when he reached near the door of Laxmi Sharma, on road, accused Laxmi Sharma, Chinai Sharma and Sadhu Sharma stopped him and asked as to why he had gone to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal when they had stopped working for him. The other accused persons were also with them. The other accused persons were also with them. Sheo Narain Sharma replied that he was a poor man and unless he worked what his children would eat, and on this Bachkan Sharma and Binay Sharma ordered to kill him and accused Chinai Sharma assaulted him with lathi and accused Laxmi Sharma assaulted him with samath on his head and Sheo Narain Sharma fell down and died. The other accused persons assaulted him with fists and slaps. 14. PW-5 has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 2.00 p.m. he was going to Ramganj after taking his meal and when he reached near the house of Sheo Narain Sharma, he saw that Sheo Narain Sharma was coming from southern side and when he reached near the house of Laxmi Sharma, he saw that Laxmi Sharma, Chinai Sharma and Sadhu Sharma surrounded Sheo Narain Sharma and started assaulting him with fists and slaps and in the meantime the other accused persons reached there from the house of Bachkan Sharma and then accused Binay Sharma ordered to assault and Laxmi Sharma gave a samath blow on the head and Chinai Sharma gave a lathi blow and Sheo Narain Sharma fell down receiving samath blow and died. The witness has stated that the assault took place in front of the door of Laxmi Sharma. In cross-examination, he has stated that they had carried the deceased from the place of occurrence to the deorhi of the deceased. 15. PW-7 has stated that on the alleged date at lunch time she was at her door when she saw her husband coming through the road from southern side and when he reached in front of the house of Laxmi Sharma, the accused persons came and asked him as to where he had gone. Her husband replied that he had gone to work. On this, the accused persons exhorted to kill. In the meantime, she also went near her husband and saw that accused Laxmi Sharma assaulted her husband on his head and he fell down dead and other accused persons assaulted him with lathi and fists. The dead body was then taken to deorhi of her house. She has further stated that the accused persons had told her husband as to why he had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal and for this reason they had assaulted him. The dead body was then taken to deorhi of her house. She has further stated that the accused persons had told her husband as to why he had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal and for this reason they had assaulted him. In cross-examination she has stated that her husband had not gone to work for Gokaran Mandal earlier and on the date of occurrence no body had come to call him but as other persons were going, he also went to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal. She has also stated that her husband had first received lathi and fist blows and then he was assaulted with samath and accused Binay Sharma, Nageshwar Sharma, Ramji Sharma, and Sadhu Sharma had assaulted her husband with lathi on the body and when he was being assaulted with lathi, Laxmi Sharma brought samath from his door and gave samath blow on his head. 16. PW-8 Timai Sharma, the informant, has deposed that Sheo Narain Sharma was his nephew. On the alleged date at 2.00 p.m. he PW-8 was at his darwaza when he saw that Sheo Narain Sharma was returning after skinning the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal and when he reached in front of the house of accused Laxmi Sharma. all the accused persons reached there on road. Accused Binay Sharma asked him as to where he had gone and Sheo Narain Sharma replied that he had gone to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal. Accused Binay Sharma and Bachkan Sharma then asked him as to why he had gone to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal. Sheo Narain Sharma on this said that how would he maintain his children unless he worked. On this Binay Sharma and Bachkan Sharma ordered to assault. The witness has further stated that on hearing hulla he went to the place of occurrence and saw the other accused person assaulting Sheo Narain Sharma with lathi and fists and accused Laxmi Sharma assaulted him with samath on his head and his head was fractured and he fell down and died. His evidence further is that then they carried the dead body to the Deorhi of Sheo Narain Sharma. He has also stated that Laxmi Sharma was a ploughman of Gokaran Mandal and the accused persons had stopped the work of Gokaran Mandal. His evidence further is that then they carried the dead body to the Deorhi of Sheo Narain Sharma. He has also stated that Laxmi Sharma was a ploughman of Gokaran Mandal and the accused persons had stopped the work of Gokaran Mandal. but Sheo Narain Sharma had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal and for that reason the occurrence had taken place. 17. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that accused Binay Sharma was a farmer and the other accused persons were labourers and that accused Laxmi Sharma had left the work of Gokaran Mandal about two months prior to the date of occurrence, but he does not know why he had left his work. His evidence further is that in the morning on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 a.m. he had a talk with Sheo Narain Sharma and he had told him that he would go to skin the jute crops of Gokaran Mandal. He further stated that he cannot give the names of other labourers who had gone to skin the jute crop of Gokaran Mandal but several other labourers had gone. His evidence also is that Laxmi Sharma had taken away the samath. 18. Thus from the evidence of the above eye-witnesses it appears that they have corroborated each other in material particulars. Among these witnesses the house of PW-2 is adjacent to the house of accused Laxmi Sharma in front of which the occurrence took place. Hence he is a competent witness. He is named in the fardbeyan as a witness. His evidence also is that in the next morning he was examined by the I.O. There was. hence, no chance of embellishment in his statement before the I.O. There is, also nothing in his evidence to show any inconsistency in his evidence in Court and his statement under Section 161 Cr PC. He has admitted that he is a labourer of one Ram Narain Yadav and that there was litigation between Ram Narain Yadav and accused Binay Sharma from before. His evidence also shows that Ram Narayan Yadav was present in Court on the date of his evidence in Court but only for these reasons it cannot be said that at the instance of Ram Narain Yadav the witness has deposed falsely against the accused persons. His evidence also shows that Ram Narayan Yadav was present in Court on the date of his evidence in Court but only for these reasons it cannot be said that at the instance of Ram Narain Yadav the witness has deposed falsely against the accused persons. He also admitted that the informant is his mousera father-in-law but for such distant relationship it cannot also be inferred that he had come to depose on behalf of the prosecution. There is nothing else in his evidence to discard his testimony. 19. The evidence of PW-3 shows that the house of accused Laxmi Sharma is at a distance of about fifty cubits from his house. He had hence also occasion to see the occurrence. He is also named in the FIR as a witness. The evidence of the I.O. also shows that he was examined promptly on the next day of occurrence and it appears that his evidence is consistent throughout. The witness, of course, has stated before the I.O. that he was going to scrap grasses after coming out of his house when he saw the occurrence, whereas in Court he has stated that he was at his door. But this is a minor discrepancy and does not affect the testimony of this witness at all. He has also clarified in his cross-examination that he had come out of his house for going to scrap grass when he saw the occurrence. This witness has also admitted that one of his sons is an employee of Ram Narain Yadav but this is not enough to hold that at the instance of Ram Narayan Yadav he has deposed falsely against the accused persons. There is nothing else in his evidence also to disbelieve him. 20. PW-5 is a co-villager and according to his evidence he was going to Ramganj from his house after taking meal when he saw the occurrence. His evidence in cross-examination also shows that his house is at a distance of 5-7 rassis from the house of accused Laxmi Sharma. His presence at the place of occurrence was hence quite natural. There is nothing in his evidence to show that he has any affinity with the prosecution party or enmity with the accused persons. Therefore, he is an independent witness. His presence at the place of occurrence was hence quite natural. There is nothing in his evidence to show that he has any affinity with the prosecution party or enmity with the accused persons. Therefore, he is an independent witness. The evidence of the I.O. shows that he was also examined promptly on 1.10.1983 and there is absolutely no contradiction in the evidence of this witness in Court and his statement before the I.O. The witness, indeed, is not named in the fardbeyan but merely because the name of a witness is not mentioned in the FIR his testimony does not become unreliable. 21. Learned counsel for the accused persons has assailed the evidence of this witness on the ground that he is a chance witness. In this connection the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khujji v. State of M.P., reported in 1991 (3) SCC 627 may be referred to. In that case a witness residing nearby the place of occurrence had stated that he had seen the occurrence while returning home after purchasing vegetables. No material contradiction was found in his evidence. Being an independent witness he had no cause to give false evidence. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the "trial Court erred in not accepting his evidence on the ground that he was not a natural witness but a chance witness." In this case also in view of the discussions made above, the evidence of this witness cannot be discarded saying that he was a chance witness. 22. As regards PW-7, he is the wife of the deceased. The evidence of PW-11, the I.O., shows that adjacent north of the house of Laxmi Sharma is the house of one Ram Chandra Sao and then the house of one Gharib Sharma and then the house of the deceased. The house of PW-7 hence was quite near the place of occurrence. Therefore, she had also occasion to see the occurrence. Her evidence also shows that she was at her door and she had reached the place of occurrence at the time of assault. So there cannot be doubt that she witnessed the assault on her husband. The evidence of the I.O. shows that she was examined in the night of occurrence and there is absolutely no contradiction in her evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. So there cannot be doubt that she witnessed the assault on her husband. The evidence of the I.O. shows that she was examined in the night of occurrence and there is absolutely no contradiction in her evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. Her name, of course, is not mentioned in the fardbeyan. But I have already mentioned that this is no ground to disbelieve the presence of the witness at the time of occurrence. The evidence of this witness also is that her husband had no enmity with the accused from before. Hence there is no reason as to why this witness would implicate them on the ground that she is the wife of the deceased. It is settled law that the relationship by itself is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of a witness if it is otherwise consistent and true. I have also shown that the evidence of this witness is quite reliable. As this witness is the wife of the deceased it is also most unlikely that she would spare the real culprits and involve innocent persons specially when they had no previous enmity with her husband. The argument of the learned counsel is hence not tenable. This witness at paragraph 13 of her evidence has stated that the I.O. had come in the evening and recorded her statement and she had put her LTI on it. Learned counsel has argued that the statement of this witness was actually the FIR and it has been intentionally suppressed by the prosecution. But the evidence of the I.O. shows that after the fardbeyan of the informant he had gone to the place of occurrence and then had recorded the statement of this witness. It hence appears that out of confusion, this witness who is a rustic woman had stated that she had put her LTI on her statement. So it cannot be said that the statement of this witness is the actual FIR and the same has been suppressed by the prosecution. 23. PW-8 is the informant himself and as such he is. of course, an interested witness. He is uncle of the deceased. But mere interestedness is no ground to reject the testimony of a witness and I have also mentioned that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. There is absolutely nothing in his evidence to disbelieve him. of course, an interested witness. He is uncle of the deceased. But mere interestedness is no ground to reject the testimony of a witness and I have also mentioned that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. There is absolutely nothing in his evidence to disbelieve him. He was at his door which was near the place of occurrence. Hence he had occasion to see the occurrence. The fardbeyan (Ext. 2) fully corroborates his testimony. The fardbeyan was recorded very promptly only two hours after the occurrence. Hence there was no chance of concoction in it. 24. It thus, appears that all the eyewitnesses examined in this case are competent witnesses and their evidence appears to be reliable. Their evidence, of course, shows that they are not consistent as to who had actually demanded explanation from the deceased as to why he had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal and who among the accused had assaulted him with lathi but it is a common experience that discrepancies do occur even in the statements of perfectly honest witnesses, which are really due to differences in individual faculties with regard to observation, recollection and recitals of details. It is well settled that unless such discrepancies affect the core of the prosecution case, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded as a whole. In this case also, the witnesses are consistent that when the deceased was returning to his house, he was asked as to why he had gone to skin the jute crop of Gokaran Mandal and then he was assaulted as a result of which he died. Therefore, only because the witnesses are not consistent in naming as to who had asked the explanation from the deceased and who among the accused had assaulted him with lathi the inconsistencies do not affect the core of the prosecution version so as to discard the whole testimony of the witnesses. 25. Therefore, though there are some contradictions in the evidence of the above PWs., their evidence as a whole rings true and inspire confidence. 26. 25. Therefore, though there are some contradictions in the evidence of the above PWs., their evidence as a whole rings true and inspire confidence. 26. Besides the above eye-witnesses, PW-10, the doctor, has deposed that on 1.10.1983 he was posted at Madhepura District Hospital as CAS On that date at 11.00 a.m. he held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sheo Narain Sharma, son of Bal Govind Sharma of Village Ramganj Kodlahi, P.S. Kumarkhand District Madhepura and found that Rigor Mortis was absent. He further found the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) There was no external injury present on the body. (ii) On removing the scalp haematoma was present under whole scalp. Both sides parietal bones were fractured on the side and centre. The fracture was communicative in nature. (iii) On removing the skull bone, subdural and extradual haematoma was found in the cranial cavity. (iv) On opening the chest and abdominal cavity all visceras were found pale. 27. According to the doctor the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage and injury Nos. (ii) and (iii) were sufficient, in the ordinary course, to cause death. He has further opined that time elapsed since death was within 36 hours and injury nos. (ii) and (iii) were possible by hard and blunt substance such as samath. He has also proved his post-mortem report which is Ext. 4. In cross-examination he has stated that samath is a heavy weapon. 28. The evidence of the doctor, thus, shows that the deceased had received a severe blow on his head by a heavy weapon such as samath as a result of which he died at or about the time as alleged. This evidence of the doctor thus corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 29. The doctor, however, did not find any external injury on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents, hence, has argued that as the doctor did not find any lathi Injury on the dead body, the medical evidence is completely at variance with the ocular evidence and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of the above eye witnesses and the prosecution story. 30. Though there is variance between the medical evidence and the oral evidence in this case, as indicated above, mere variance is not enough to reject the prosecution case. 30. Though there is variance between the medical evidence and the oral evidence in this case, as indicated above, mere variance is not enough to reject the prosecution case. In such cases efforts should be made by the Court to find the truth and the ocular evidence may be disbelieved only when it is not compatible with the medical evidence. But in this case the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence that the deceased had received a samath blow on head resulting in his death. There is nothing in the evidence of the eye witnesses to doubt that the blow was given in the manner as alleged. Therefore, from the above variance, at best, it can be said that there is some exaggeration in the evidence of the eye witnesses and no assault by lathi was actually made on the deceased by the other accused persons. But that cannot be a ground to throw away the remaining part of the prosecution case and discard the whole of the testimony of the eye witnesses. 31. PW-11 Indradeo Pathak, the Investigating Officer, has stated that on 30.9.1983 he was posted as a junior Sub-Inspector of Police at Kumarkhand police station and on that date at 16.00 hours, the informant came at the police station with the chowkidar and others and gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 2) which was forwarded to Murliganj police station for registration of the case and that he took up investigation. He has further stated that he then recorded the further statement of the informant and the statements of the witnesses who had come with the informant and on the same date at 17.25 hours visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased lying in his deorhi which was in between his angan and the door. He prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) in presence of Jagdish Yadav PW-4 and Deo Narayan Rishideo PW-9. He found blood in large quantity near the head of the deceased and seized the same and prepared seizure list (Ext. 5). He then inspected the place of occurrence shown by the informant and other villagers. He prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) in presence of Jagdish Yadav PW-4 and Deo Narayan Rishideo PW-9. He found blood in large quantity near the head of the deceased and seized the same and prepared seizure list (Ext. 5). He then inspected the place of occurrence shown by the informant and other villagers. The P.O. was on un-metalled road in village Ramganj Tola Korlahi running north to south and to the adjacent west of the road was outer sehan of the door of accused Laxmi Sharma and to the west of that was the house and Angan of accused Laxmi Sharma. He has stated that grass had grown on the road and on account of rain, the road had become wet and in the western portion of the road he found blood in small quantity on grass. The further evidence of this witness is that after inspection of the P.O., he sent the dead body for post mortem examination and then took the statement of Pariya Devi PW-7 and as it was raining he stayed in the village during night and on 1.10.1983 recorded the statements of Bidyanand Sharma PW-2, Raghubir Sharma PW-6 and Makhan Rishideo PW-5 and others. Thereafter as he was transferred, he made over charge of the case on 13.12.1983 and as the investigation was complete the Officer-in-charge submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination he has stated that he did not seize the blood which was found on the grass at the P.O. He has further stated that he did not note whether there were foot marks at the door of the accused Laxmi Sharma. He has volunteered that as at the door and the house foot marks are found, he did not think it necessary to make a note in this regard. 32. Thus the evidence of the I.O, also corroborates the testimony of the eye witnesses that the occurrence had taken place on a road in front of the house of the accused Laxmi Sharma and then the dead body was taken to the deorhi of the deceased. 33. Hence on a close analysis of the evidence of the above witnesses, it appears that the eye witnesses examined in this case are quite competent and though there are some discrepancies in their statements as to who had actually demanded explanation fromthe deceased, who had actually assaulted him with lathi, their evidence as a whole inspire confidence. 33. Hence on a close analysis of the evidence of the above witnesses, it appears that the eye witnesses examined in this case are quite competent and though there are some discrepancies in their statements as to who had actually demanded explanation fromthe deceased, who had actually assaulted him with lathi, their evidence as a whole inspire confidence. It also appears that though the medical evidence is at variance with the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses inasmuch as the doctor did not find any sign of lathi blow on the body of the deceased, the medical evidence corroborates the consistent testimony of the eye witnesses that the deceased was assaulted on head with a heavy weapon such as samath resulting in his death. The evidence of the I.O. also corroborates that the occurrence had taken place at the alleged place of occurrence. 34. Therefore, there cannot be two opinions that an occurrence as alleged did take place on the alleged date, time and place of occurrence causing death of the deceased in which the accused respondents were involved. 35. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Court below had framed the following questions for determination : (i) Whether the occurrence complained of took place on the date, time, place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. (ii) Whether the accused persons were involved in the crime complained of. 36. The learned trial Court by referring to the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 has mentioned that the above witnesses have categorically stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the accused persons assaulted Sheo Narain Sharma with lathi, fists and slaps on road in front of the house of accused Laxmi Sharma and during the occurrence Laxmi Sharma gave a samath blow on the head of Sheo Narain Sharma as a result of which he fell down and died. The Court then by referring to the evidence of the doctor has further held that the evidence of the doctor fully corroborates the prosecution case as regards the weapon by which the injury was caused upon the head of the deceased as well as with regard to the date and time of the death of the deceased, but as the I.O. did not seize the blood found at the place of occurrence and he (I.O.) did not note whether there was any trampling mark at the place of occurrence and as PWs. 4 and 9 in their cross-ex animation have stated that they had seen the dead body being brought from the east of the village where the jungle lies and they have not been declared hostile, the learned trial Court has opined that in view of the above facts and evidence, simply on the evidence of the above eye witnesses, it cannot be held that the occurrence had taken place on the road in front of the house of accused Laxmi Sharma. 37. In this connection, as already mentioned, the evidence of the I.O. is that there was rain before his inspection of the P.O. Hence, it is obvious, that the blood, if any, fallen at the P.O. was washed away. So even if it be assumed that no blood was found by the I.O. at the P.O. it cannot be doubted on that ground that no occurrence took place there. Then though the I.O. did not seize the blood found on the grass at the place of occurrence, it cannot also be doubted that actually he did not find blood on grass, as there is no reason as to why he would depose falsely against the accused respondents. Again, so far as the absence of trampling mark is concerned, the evidence of the I.O. shows that he was not asked as to whether he had found foot marks, at the place of occurrence. He was, on the other hand, asked as to whether he had found foot marks at the door of accused Laxmi Sharma. So this cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. 38. Apart from these, the most important evidence in criminal cases, is the evidence of the eye witnesses. If the eye witness evidence is acceptable, all other evidence that might have been produced by the prosecution, recede to the background. So this cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. 38. Apart from these, the most important evidence in criminal cases, is the evidence of the eye witnesses. If the eye witness evidence is acceptable, all other evidence that might have been produced by the prosecution, recede to the background. Hence, generally it should be the endeavour of the Court to assess the evidence of the eye witnesses first to find whether the prosecution case is acceptable. But the impugned judgment shows that the learned trial Court without considering whether the evidence of the eye witness is acceptable, he has held that the P.O. as alleged has not been proved. 39. Then though PWs 4 and 9 in their cross-examination have stated that they had seen the dead body being brought from east of the village where jungle is situated, PW-4 is simply a witness in whose presence the fardbeyan was recorded at the police station and according to the I.O. he was a witness of inquest report and seizure list. PVV-9 also is simply a witness in whose presence the inquest report was prepared. There is nothing in their evidence as to how they were competent to see the dead body being brought. So. even if these witnesses have not been declared hostile, there was no justification ior the learned trial Court to rely on their evidence in face of the clear, cogent evidence of the eye witnesses. 40. The finding of the learned trial Court on this point is thus based on erroneous appreciation of evidence and suffers from the vice of perversity and is not acceptable at all. 41. The learned trial Court has also held that the prosecution has failed to prove the manner of occurrence. In coming to this conclusion, it has relied mainly on the following factors : (i) The eye witnesses examined in this case are either relatives of the deceased or chance witness or employees of one Ram Narain Mandal who had serious enmity with some of the accused, (ii) The witnesses are not consistent as to who had demanded explanation from the deceased and who had assaulted him with lathi. (iii) The medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular evidence as no other injury was found by the doctor except the injury of samath on the head, (iv) There is improvement in the evidence in Court as there is no mention of the allegation in the FIR that the deceased was assaulted by fists and slaps, (v) The motive of the occurrence has not been proved. (vi) Same independent witnesses have not been examined. 42. It has already been discussed that merely because a witness is relative of the deceased or chance witness or is inimically disposed towards the accused, his evidence should not be discarded, if it is otherwise trustworthy. The only safeguard against such evidence is that it should be scrutinised carefully. It has also been discussed that it is well settled that mere contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses is not sufficient to disbelieve them as a whole or the prosecution case, unless the contradictions are so material as to affect the core of the prosecution case and it has also been shown that inconsistency or the contradictions mentioned by the trial Court do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is also the settled principle that mere variance between the medical and ocular evidence is not sufficient to throw away the prosecution case and the Court has to find out the truth. I have also been shown which has also been held by the learned trial Court that the evidence of the eye witnesses is consistent that the deceased had received a samath blow on head in the manner as alleged and this is fully corroborated by the doctor. Therefore, this part of the occurrence cannot be disbelieved and as the doctor did not find any external injury, all that can be said is that the evidence with regard to assault by lathi is mere exaggeration and for this exaggeration the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded as a whole. 43. So, I find that the learned trial Court without analysing the evidence of the eye witnesses properly and without adhering to the settled principles of law. in a slip shot manner has disbelieved the testimony of the eye witnesses as a whole. 44. As regards the improvement in the evidence of the eye witnesses vis-a-vis the fardbeyan. 43. So, I find that the learned trial Court without analysing the evidence of the eye witnesses properly and without adhering to the settled principles of law. in a slip shot manner has disbelieved the testimony of the eye witnesses as a whole. 44. As regards the improvement in the evidence of the eye witnesses vis-a-vis the fardbeyan. it is indeed true that some eye witnesses have stated that the deceased was also assaulted by fists and slaps, which is not the case in the fardbeyan. But the law is that if the evidence is otherwise credible and acceptable, merely because there is some degree of attempt to improve or exaggerate the prosecution case, it would not justify the total rejection of that evidence. The Court would be required to discriminate and water down the evidence by chopping off that part of it which appears to be a clear improvement. In this case also all that can be said is that the evidence of the eye witnesses so far as it relates to the assault by any accused with fists and slaps, cannot be accepted. But that cannot be a ground for rejection of the whole evidence of the witnesses. It appears that the learned trial Court has not applied this principle also in coming to its conclusion. 45. So far the motive is concerned, the evidence of PW-8 (informant) is that accused Laxmi Sharma was a ploughman of Gokaran Mandal and he had left the service two months prior to the occurrence. The consistent evidence of the eye witnesses is that as Sheo Narain Sharma, deceased, had gone to skin the jute crop of Gokaran Mandal, accused respondents assaulted him. So the motive is fully proved. The evidence of PW-2 in cross- examination, of course, is that the sister, sisters son, brothers wife of accused Binay Sharma had also gone to skin the jute crop of Gokaran Mandal. The finding of the learned trial Court is that as the kins of accused Binay Sharma had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal, the motive alleged does not stand. But no other witness has corroborated that the sister and other kins of accused Binay Sharma had gone to work. The evidence of PW-2 also does not show that he had seen them going to work. But no other witness has corroborated that the sister and other kins of accused Binay Sharma had gone to work. The evidence of PW-2 also does not show that he had seen them going to work. His evidence also is that those person were not returning with Sheo Narain Sharma So, simply on this evidence it cannot be said that actually, the sister and other kins of accused Binay Sharma had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal. Besides this, when the consistent and un-impeachable evidence of the eye witnesses is that the deceased was asked an explanation as to why he had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal and for that reason he was assaulted, whether the sister and other relatives of accused Binay Sharma had gone to work for Gokaran Mandal or not, the motive alleged is proved. The finding of the trial Court on this point hence is also quite erroneous. 46. As regards, non-examination of same witnesses, the learned trial Court has held that according to PW-7, the wife of the deceased, one Ram Chandra Sao was present in his shop which was near the place of occurrence and according to PW-2 Basudeo Singh, Rajendra Ram, and Gharib Sharma were present at their doors at the time of occurrence but the above persons have not been examined. But it is also well settled that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all witnesses when the witnesses examined, prove its case. Therefore, the learned trial Court was in error in making it a ground for disbelieving the prosecution case. 47. It, therefore, appears that the learned trial Court without analysing the evidence of the eye witnesses and without adhering to the settled principles of law. has come to its finding. The findings of the trial Court are hence wholly unreasonable and requires interference by this Court. 48. 47. It, therefore, appears that the learned trial Court without analysing the evidence of the eye witnesses and without adhering to the settled principles of law. has come to its finding. The findings of the trial Court are hence wholly unreasonable and requires interference by this Court. 48. I have already shown that though there are some discrepancies in the evidence of the eye witnesses and their evidence is at variance with the medical evidence, their evidence as a whole is reliable and the evidence of the eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence and the evidence of the I.O. prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date and time, when the deceased Sheo Narain Sharma was returning to his house and was on the road, in front of the house of accused Laxmi Sharma, he was killed at the hands of the accused respondents because he had gone to skin the jute crop of one Gokaran Mandal. The evidence of the eye witnesses also prove that all the accused respondents were present there at that time. 49. The question, however, is whether all or some of the accused persons should be held responsible for the death of the deceased. 50. In this connection, as already mentioned, the witnesses are not consistent as to who had demanded explanation from the deceased and who had exhorted to assault him. But the consistent evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 8 is that accused Binay Sharma and Bachkan Sharma had exhorted to assault as a result of which the deceased was assaulted. In the fardbeyan also it is mentioned that when the deceased reached the P.O. accused Binay Sharma and Bachkan Sharma asked to assault the deceased. Again the evidence of the eye witnesses is categorical that accused Laxmi Sharma had given a samath blow on the head of the deceased. The evidence on record is clinching that on account of that blow the deceased died. Therefore, it is established that there cannot be any doubt that accused Binay Sharma. Bachkan" Sharma and Laxmi Sharma were responsible for the death of the deceased. The evidence on record is clinching that on account of that blow the deceased died. Therefore, it is established that there cannot be any doubt that accused Binay Sharma. Bachkan" Sharma and Laxmi Sharma were responsible for the death of the deceased. As regards the other accused-respondents, as the evidence of the doctor shows that there was no external injury, and in the fardbeyan it is not mentioned that any of the accused had assaulted the deceased with fists and slaps, and the eye witnesses are also not specific that they also had given order to assault, even though they were present at the place of occurrence, it is doubtful that they shared the common intention with accused Laxmi Sharma and others in the assault. They at least deserve benefit of doubt. 51. The question that next arises is whether the two accused respondents Binay Sharma @ Chinai Sharma and Laxmi Sharma should be held guilty for murder or for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 52. In this regard, the evidence of the eye witnesses is clear that the accused persons did not like the deceased going to work for Gokaran Mandal and hence the deceased was assaulted and only one blow was given to the deceased. It is, therefore, clear that the accused persons had no intention to commit murder of the deceased. They only wanted to thrash him and teach him a lesson. Then, though the evidence is that accused Laxmi Sharma assaulted the deceased on head, which is a vital part of the body, and the evidence of the doctor shows that the blow was given with sufficient force and that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and samath is a heavy weapon and the evidence of the eye witnesses is that the deceased died on the spot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is doubtful that the accused Laxmi Sharma actually intended to cause such bodily injury as was found by the doctor. There cannot, however, be any doubt that the accused had knowledge that by the above assault, he could cause the death of the deceased. The case hence is not a case of murder but of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 53. There cannot, however, be any doubt that the accused had knowledge that by the above assault, he could cause the death of the deceased. The case hence is not a case of murder but of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 53. So, instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, respondent Laxmi Sharma is held guilty under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and respondent Binay Sharma @ Chinai Sharma is held guilty under Section 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code and are convicted accordingly. 54. In the result the appeal is allowed in part, as indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Laxmi Sharma is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and respondent Binay Sharma alias Chinai Sharma son of Laxmi Sharma is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the other accused-respondents, the appeal against them stands dismissed. 55. Respondent Laxmi Sharma, Binay Shrama alias Chinai Sharma are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith to serve out the sentence. The trial Court would take necessary steps to arrest the respondents to serve out the sentence.

State Of Bihar v. Laxmi Sharma