JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The Appellant, who was accused in Sessions Trial No. 5/154 of 1988 in the Court of Learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri, has filed this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code recorded against him. 2. The Appellant and his co-accused were charge-sheeted u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Ajijur Rahaman in furtherance of their common intention. The allegation of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence the Appellant and his co-accused came on the rickshaw of the deceased to Khurda Petrol Pump, Nayagarh Chhack where there was some altercation between them and the deceased over the rickshaw fare and during such altercation, the Appellant first dealt a slap on the face of the deceased and when the deceased rickshaw puller sat down stunned by that slap, the co-accused of the Appellant dealt several kicks on his body. It is alleged that the deceased sustained bleeding from his nose and ear as a result of such assault and lost his sense. He was removed to the local Govt. Hospital by some people but after some time he succumbed to the injuries. Basing on the report lodged by a local person, the OIC, Khurda Police Station registered P.S. Case No. 112 of 1983 initially under Sections 341, 325/34, Indian Penal Code, which was later on converted to one u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, the accused persons were committed and tried in the above noted sessions case. The plea of the Appellant was one of complete denial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and proved some documents including injury report, post-mortem report of the deceased. The Appellant-accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 4. On consideration of the evidence on record, Learned Trial Judge came to hold that the Appellant dealt only one slap on the deceased and that he had no intention of causing the death of the deceased. He also found that there was no prior meeting of mind between the accused persons to commit the alleged offences. Accordingly, he convicted the Appellant u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of two months. He also found that there was no prior meeting of mind between the accused persons to commit the alleged offences. Accordingly, he convicted the Appellant u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of two months. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. Mr. D.R. Patnaik, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that out of the alleged eye witnesses, P. Ws. 1, 5 and 15 have not supported the prosecution case and the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are discrepant in nature. He submitted that not only the evidence of the eye witnesses are shaky, but the medical evidence is also not in consonance with their evidence and so it was not proper on the part of the Trial Court to record an order of conviction against the Appellant. 6. Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the death of the deceased due to the injuries not being in dispute, the evidence of the eye witnesses P. Ws. 2 to 4 and 6 are sufficient to prove the complicity of the Appellant with alleged offence. He further submitted that the eye witnesses for the prosecution are independent local persons and have no reason to falsely implicate the Appellant and therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded because of the presence of some minor discrepancies. He submitted that the medical evidence clearly supports the statements of the eye witnesses and in that situation, the Learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the Appellant. 7. At the outset, it is worthwhile to note that the defence did not dispute the death of the deceased due to some homicidal injuries. The Appellant simply took the plea that he was not at all involved in the alleged incident. According to the evidence of the doctor and his report, the injuries were on the face and body of the deceased and the death was because of those injuries. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 15 were indicated by the prosecution as eye witnesses. Out of these witnesses, P.W. 5 and 15 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution allegation. P. Ws. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 15 were indicated by the prosecution as eye witnesses. Out of these witnesses, P.W. 5 and 15 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution allegation. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, and 6 stated that they saw the incident and according to them during altercation between the deceased rickshaw puller and the Appellant over the rickshaw fare, the Appellant dealt a slap on the face of the deceased and the deceased sat down shouting 'MAALO'. A close reading of their evidence, particularly the part of cross-examination, one can see that the P. Ws. 4 and 6 actually did not see the occurrence, but they arrived a little latter and learnt about the slap of the Appellant on the face of the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 are direct in nature and they have categorically stated that they saw the Appellant dealing slap on the face of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out certain discrepancies in the statement of these witnesses and also indicated that the person who lodged the FIR was not examined. Since the person, who lodged the FIR was not a eye-witness to the occurrence, his non-examination cannot be fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, as has been said by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar examination of the informant is not always essential. So far as the discrepancy in the statement of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 11 are concerned, the discrepancies are minor in nature and such discrepancies are bound to occur when the witnesses give their statements after a considerable lapse of time. P. Ws. 2 and 3 have stood their ground so far as the aspect of slapping by the Appellant is concerned. Therefore, their evidence along with the evidence of the post occurrence witnesses like P. Ws. 4, 6 and 14 establish beyond doubt that the Appellant actually slapped the deceased. The medical evidence is also there to support this allegation. In that situation, the Trial Court did not commit any error or illegality in holding the Appellant guilty u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and awarding the above noted sentence. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed