R. P. DHOLAKIA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants, original accused Nos. 1 to 4 of Sessions Case No. 78 of 1996, by this appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 30-7-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offences under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and also to suffer S. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer S. I. for two months for the offence under Sec. 323, 324, 325 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in short is that a machine installed for supplying water in Bhantdiwala field belonging to Pratapbhai for cultivation was to be disposed of and in order to buy the same, Rameshbhai and Balwantbai from Village Samgada came to the house of the complainant Rupabhai Mansingbhai on 2-12-1995 at about 5. 00 p. m. The complainant took the persons who came in jeep to show the machine accompanied by Chehubhai Kabhaibhai, Kanubhai Rupabhai, Ranchhodbhai Kabhai and deceased Pratapbhai. Thereafter they came back and as it was time for dinner and as Balwantbhai and others were their relatives, they took them inside their house for dinner. After dinner, as the jeep was parked very near to the Panchayat office, they all including Pratapbhai and other persons proceeded to see off. When they reached near Panchayat office, since a cart was on the way, Pratapbhai asked Bhikhabhai Marubhai to keep it on the side. However, Bhikhabhai Marubhai gave him abuses and accused Dhirubhai Babubhai gave stick blows on Pratapbhai. Thereafter, three persons came there of which, Mafatbhai Arjanbhai (accused No. 2) gave farsi blow on the head and Dhirubhai Dhanjibhai (accused No. 3) gave blow with rings on the deceased. Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai (accused No. 4) also beat him with stick. The accused No. 4 Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai gave stick blow on Ranchodbhai. Kanubhai also received stick blow inflicted by somebody, Balwantbhai received stick blow from Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai below his eyes and the complainant received a stick blow on the head from Dhirubhai Dhanjibhai. Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai (accused No. 4) also beat him with stick. The accused No. 4 Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai gave stick blow on Ranchodbhai. Kanubhai also received stick blow inflicted by somebody, Balwantbhai received stick blow from Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai below his eyes and the complainant received a stick blow on the head from Dhirubhai Dhanjibhai. The persons who came for rescuing namely, Rupabhai Mansing, Ranchhodbhai Kabhaibhai, Kanubhai Rupabhai, Balwantsing Amarsing, Chandubhai Kabhaibhai also received injuries. When mother of the complainant Revaben came there, accused ran away. Thereafter, the injured were being taken to Tarapur Hospital in that jeep and at that time, a threat was given by the persons numbering 10-12 to the complainant and his persons of death if a compliant is filed. With these allegations, a complaint was filed on 3-12-1995 at about 3. 30 a. m. before the PSO of Tarapur Police Station. As condition of Pratapbhai and two others was reported to be serious by the doctor at Tharapur, they were taken to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad. Upon filing of complaint, PSO, Tarapur Police Station sent yadi for medical certificate to Tarapur Health Centre. The Investigating Officer, Mr. Waghela of Tarapur Police Station, thereafter went to place of incident and drew panchnama of place of incident in presence of panchas. On 4-12-1995, as all the four accused appeared before the Police with the respective weapons, panchnama to that effect was drawn. He went to V. S. Hospital for recording dying declaration of injured Pratapbhai. However, as he was not in conscious state of mind, his dying declaration could not be recorded. When he received vardhi that Pratapbhai succumbed to his injuries on 7-12-1995 during treatment, he made entry in the Station Diary and a report was sent to the learned J. M. (First Class), Khambhat, for adding Sec. 302 of IPC. Looking to the injuries received by the deceased, Secs. 504, 506 (2), 302 read with Sec. 114 of IPC were added. As injuries were caused to the complainant and others, learned Magistrate added Secs. 324, 325 and 326 read with Sec. 114 of IP Code. Arrangements were made for sending the dead body of the deceased for post mortem and on arrival of post mortem report, it was kept with the investigation papers. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Khambhatt. 324, 325 and 326 read with Sec. 114 of IP Code. Arrangements were made for sending the dead body of the deceased for post mortem and on arrival of post mortem report, it was kept with the investigation papers. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Khambhatt. ( 3 ) AS the offence was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nadiad where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 78 of 1996. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, framed charge against the accused at Ex. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and prayed for trial. ( 4 ) TO prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses namely, P. W. 1, Dr. S. S. Chauhan, Medical Officer of Tarapur Health Centre Ex. 15; P. W. 2 Rupsing Mansingbhai, the complainant and injured Ex. 26; P. W. 3 Naranbhai Kabhaibhai, panch of panchnama of place of incident Ex. 27; P. W. 4 Amarsing Dazobhai, another panch of panchnama of place of incident Ex. 29; P. W. 5 Dr. Manish Patel, the doctor who treated injured Chehubhai Kabhaibhai on 3-12-1995 Ex. 33; P. W. 6 Chehubhai Kabhaibhai Chauhan, injured eye witness Ex. 42; P. W. 7 Kanubhai Rupabhai, another injured eye witness Ex. 45; P. W. 8 Balwantsing Amarsing, another injured eye witness Ex. 46; P. W. 9 Ranchhodbhai Kabhaibhai, another injured eye witness Ex. 47; P. W. 10 Pratapgiri Magangiri Gosai, eye witness and jeep driver Ex. 52; P. W. 11 Krishnasinh J. Vaghela, Investigating Officer Ex. 54; P. W. 12 Dr. Vijaykumar Chandrakant Sheth, doctor at Community Health Centre Ex. 62; P. W. 13 Somabhai Mathurbhai, Head Constable who took investigation on 3-12-1995 Ex. 68, P. W. 14 Dr. Dilipbhai Manubhai Desai, doctor who performed post mortem on the body of the deceased Ex. 71 and P. W. 15 Dr. Arvindbhai Sharma, the doctor who treated Pratapbhai at V. S. Hosital Ex. 73. The prosecution also placed reliance upon documentary evidence numbering 29. ( 5 ) ON submission of closing purshis Ex. 77 by the prosecution, learned Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. qua the incriminating question wherein the accused came out with the case of total denial. 73. The prosecution also placed reliance upon documentary evidence numbering 29. ( 5 ) ON submission of closing purshis Ex. 77 by the prosecution, learned Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. qua the incriminating question wherein the accused came out with the case of total denial. The accused did not examine any witness nor stepped into the witness box. Therefore, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge delivered the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused as aforesaid which is giving rise to prefer the present appeal. ( 6 ) HEARD learned Senior Counsel, Mr. K. J. Shethna, for the appellants and learned APP, Mr. R. C. Kodekar, for the respondent-State. ( 7 ) LEARNED senior counsel, Mr. Shethna, mainly argued that there is a delay in filing FIR and it has not been properly explained by the prosecution. According to him, said period of delay has been used by the prosecution for the purpose of falsely involving more persons into the crime in question. Taking us through various oral as well as documentary evidence more particularly evidence of the injured complainant and other injured eye witnesses along with the complaint Ex. 55, he argued that the deposition of injured complainant, P. W. 2, Rupalbhai Mansing Chauhan, Ex. 26, is quite contrary to his statement made before the police in FIR and is an improved version of his complaint Ex. 55 and further statement so as to implicate falsely all the accused into the crime in question attributing specific role. The complainant did not describe any such role in the complaint which he has given in his deposition. He also took us through the evidence of other injured eye witnesses namely, P. W. No. 6, Chehubhai Kabhaibhai Chauhan at Ex. 42; P. W. 7 Kanubhai Rupabhai, son of the complainant and nephew of Pratapbhai Ex. 45; P. W. 8 Balwantsing Amarsing Ex. 46, the brother-in-law of both the complainant and the deceased and the person who accompanied the persons wanted to purchase the machine and also of P. W. 9 Ranchhodbhai Kabhaibhai Ex. 47. The oral evidence of the only independent eye witness, P. W. 10 Pratapgiri Magangiri Gosai Ex. 52, was also shown to us. He is the jeep driver who came there with the persons intended to purchase diesel engine (machine) from Pratapbhai. 47. The oral evidence of the only independent eye witness, P. W. 10 Pratapgiri Magangiri Gosai Ex. 52, was also shown to us. He is the jeep driver who came there with the persons intended to purchase diesel engine (machine) from Pratapbhai. He further took us through the evidence of P. W. 1, Dr. S. S. Chauhan, Medical Officer of Tarapur Health Centre Ex. 15. According to said doctor, all the injured were brought there for treatment at about 3. 00 a. m. on 3-12-1995 and after giving primary treatment to all concerned, he advised the relatives of injured Pratapbhai to take him to Ahmedabad as his condition was serious. He further took us through the oral evidence of P. W. 5, Dr. Manish Patel Ex. 33, the Medical Officer, V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad, who examined injured Chehubhai Kabhaibhai; P. W. 14, Dr. Dilipbhai Manubhai Desai, Ex. 71, the doctor who performed post mortem of the deceased and also produced and proved the post mortem note Ex. 72 issued by said doctor together with the evidence of P. W. 15, Dr. Arvindbhai Sharma, Ex. 73, the doctor who was rendering his service as Neuro Surgeon at V. S. Hosital. According to Dr. Arvindbhai, he came to V. S. Hospital on a call having received from V. S. hospital and examined the injured Pratapbhai and also deposed the same in the Court. He further took us through the evidence of Police Officer, Krishnasinh J. Vaghela, P. W. 11, Ex. 54, the person who investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet into the court. He drew our attention towards the application Ex. 31 sent by the complainant to D. S. P. , His Excellency, the Governor of Gujarat, Honourable Home Minister, etc. and argued that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present appellants. According to him, all the appellants have been falsely involved into the crime in question. He further argued that injuries noted down by various doctors including the doctor who performed the post mortem do not tally with the evidence given by the I. O. He further argued that even as per the evidence on record, out of four, three persons came later on and therefore, they cannot be charged for the offence. Even motive has also not been established in this case. Even motive has also not been established in this case. In this regard, he took us through the evidence of PSI and showed relevant portion from his deposition. According to him, even PSI, who investigated the matter, admitted that he came to know from the very beginning that motive shown by the prosecution was not correct and it was something else. Drawing our attention towards application Ex. 31, he argued about the mental condition of the complainant in involving more and more people in the crime in question. He also took us through the cross examination of various witnesses and ultimately argued that it is a case wherein the judgment and order of conviction is required to be quashed and set aside and appellants are required to be acquitted. He relied upon 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 23 in the case of Saradul Singh Vs. State of Haryana wherein it has been laid down by the Supreme Court at head notes A and B as under: "a. Criminal Trial"appreciation of evidence"generally-Duty of courts"held, is to analyse, sift and assess the evidence on record, with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the same, without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion of the case of the prosecution"courts must undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. B. Criminal Trial"witnesses-Interested witness-Testimony of"reliability"evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinised more carefully to find out if it has a ring of truth"if the same is found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence in the mind of the court, held, it cannot be discarded totally merely on the ground of certain variations or infirmities or additions and embellishments, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core. " ( 8 ) HE also relied upon AIR 1993 Supreme Court 141 in the case of Parusuraman alias Velladurai and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu wherein it has been held at head note as under: "penal Code (45 of 1860),ss. " ( 8 ) HE also relied upon AIR 1993 Supreme Court 141 in the case of Parusuraman alias Velladurai and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu wherein it has been held at head note as under: "penal Code (45 of 1860),ss. 304, Part I, 325, 34"murder trial"participation of accused persons in occurrence resulting into death of victim proved"most of injuries however found on body of deceased were external and on lower legs and arms"intention of accused to cause grievous hurt not murder"conviction altered from S. 304 Part I read with S. 34 to S. 325 read with S. 34. " ( 9 ) HE also relied upon AIR 1954 S. C. 271 (Vol. 41 C. N. 63) in the case of Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh Vs. The State of Pepsu wherein it has been held in para 11 as under: "where, however, the court below fails in apprehending the true effect of a material change in the versions given by witnesses immediately after the occurrence and the narrative at the trial with respect to the nature and character of the offence, it would not be right for the Supreme Court to affirm such a decision when it occasions a failure of justice. AIR 1950 SC 169 ,rel. on. " ( 10 ) LEARNED APP, Mr. Kodekar, also drew our attention towards the oral as well as the documentary evidence shown to us by the learned counsel for the appellants along with the reasoned judgment and order delivered by the court below and argued that prosecution is able to prove the case against all the appellants accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, presence and respective role of each accused have been established. As far as delay in filing FIR is concerned, he argued that there is no much delay. The incident has taken place during night and it was their duty to see that the persons who received injuries get better treatment so that they can survive and therefore, their primary work was to see that injured persons are taken to hospital. Same has been done and thereafter as per the advice of doctor at Tharapur Community Health Centre, some of them were shifted to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad. In these circumstances, said delay is not required to be considered more particularly when it has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Same has been done and thereafter as per the advice of doctor at Tharapur Community Health Centre, some of them were shifted to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad. In these circumstances, said delay is not required to be considered more particularly when it has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. As far as minor contradictions are concerned, he argued that there is no contradiction on material point. Moreover, minor contradiction occurs almost in all cases. As far as medical evidence, he argued that there is a difference between the deposition of the witnesses and medical evidence and therefore, court should give weight to the evidence of eye witnesses because they are the witnesses of incident while medical evidence is not cent percent accurate as it is based on `may and `may not . According to him, even motive is also established. Witnesses and accused are from the same village apart from they being from the same community and the incident has taken place in their Village itself very near to the Panchayat and therefore, question of misidentification does not arise at all. He ultimately submitted that since the impugned judgment and order of conviction is just, legal and proper, same may not be interfered with. ( 11 ) WE have minutely gone through the oral as well as the documentary evidence shown to us by the learned counsel for the respective parties along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction. We have also gone through the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. Keeping in mind law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, we proceed further. ( 12 ) IT is required to be noted that most of the eye witnesses were seriously injured and except one, all are relatives of deceased Pratapbhai. Of the injured, three were referred to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad looking to the grievous injuries sustained by them and out of which, Pratapbhai succumbed to his injuries. As Pratapbhai remained unconscious till death, although yadi was sent to Executive Magistrate for recording his dying declaration, dying declaration of Pratapbhai could not be recorded as he did not regain consciousness. It is further to be noted, as established from the post mortem note Ex. 72 which has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of Dr. As Pratapbhai remained unconscious till death, although yadi was sent to Executive Magistrate for recording his dying declaration, dying declaration of Pratapbhai could not be recorded as he did not regain consciousness. It is further to be noted, as established from the post mortem note Ex. 72 which has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of Dr. Dilip Manubhai Desai, P. W. 14, Ex. 71, that Pratapbhai, a young man of about 35 years, received as many as 17 external injuries on various parts of his body including vital parts. There were seven internal marks of injuries on the body of deceased Pratapbhai. Both external as well as internal injuries were narrated by Dr. Dilip Manubhai Desai, who performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased, in his oral evidence at Ex. 71. It has been categorically deposed by him in paragraph 15 that external injury No. 1 and fracture are possible while inflicting stick blow. According to him, depressed fracture is possible by the blunt side of farsi. Looking to injury No. 9, he deposed that this injury is possible at the time of saving oneself from causing said injury. As far as internal injuries are concerned, it has been categorically deposed that backside head injury can be possible by the blunt side of muddamal farsi. Said injury can also be possible if blow with force is given with muddamal stick. Same way, injury on chest and other injuries shown in column No. 17 are possible by way of stick. In para 16 it has been deposed that if stick blow has been given on left side of the head, then, injury can be caused on the right side of brain resulting into internal hemorrhage. He further deposed that injury No. 1 is the corresponding head injury and the fracture which has been received on hand can be possible by way of stick. Simultaneously, other injuries on Pratapbhai are also possible by way of stick. Cause of death as stated by the doctor has been due to shock as a result of injuries sustained. Though this doctor has been thoroughly cross examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nothing contrary came out shaking his evidence. ( 13 ) FROM the aforesaid evidence of Dr. Dilip Manubhai Desai, it appears that deceased Pratapbhai was beaten up severely by the accused. Though this doctor has been thoroughly cross examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nothing contrary came out shaking his evidence. ( 13 ) FROM the aforesaid evidence of Dr. Dilip Manubhai Desai, it appears that deceased Pratapbhai was beaten up severely by the accused. Looking to the number of injuries sustained by the deceased, it can be said that those injuries cannot be inflicted by only one person. Evidence on record suggest that there were in all four accused who came with deadly weapons i. e. accused No. 1 Dhirubhai Babubhai Chauhan with iron covered stick, accused No. 2 with farsi and accused Nos. 3 and 4 with sticks and accused No. 1 gave blow on the head of deceased, accused No. 2 gave farsi blow on the head of deceased while accused Nos. 3 and 4 gave stick blows to the deceased. This is supported by the evidence of various doctors namely, Dr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Medical Officer, Tharapur Community Health Centre, District Kheda, P. W. 1 Ex. 15; Dr. Manish Patel, doctor at V. S. Hospital, P. W. 5 Ex. 33 as well as Dr. Dilipbhai Manubhai Desai of V. S. Hospital, P. W. 14 Ex. 71. The complainant-Rupabhai Mansigh, P. W. 2, Ex. 26 and brother of the deceased also received severe injuries on head. According to complainant, stick blow was given by Dhirubhai Dhanjibhai on his head. He also deposed regarding the injury received by other witnesses namely, Ranchhodbhai, Kanubhai and Balwantbhai by stating that accused No. 4-Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai gave stick blows on left side ear of Ranchhodbhai and also pushed with the stick on the body of Balwantbhai. He also caused injury below the eyes of Ranchhodbhai. He further deposed that though Kanubhai also received stick injury, who caused said injury is not known to him. Simultaneously, P. W. No. 6 Chehubhai Kabhaibhai, also received injury in the incident. According to said Chehubhai, when accused No. 2-Mafatbhai Arjanbhai was inflicting farsi blow on his head, he tried to save himself and hence, he received blow on his hand. Accused Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai also gave stick blow on his right arm. Evidence on record further suggest that witness Chehubhai and the complainant Rupabhai along with Pratapbhai were referred to V. S. Hospital where they were treated. Accused Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai also gave stick blow on his right arm. Evidence on record further suggest that witness Chehubhai and the complainant Rupabhai along with Pratapbhai were referred to V. S. Hospital where they were treated. Witness Chehubhai also narrated about various blows having given by all the accused to deceased Pratapbhai and other witnesses. P. W. 7 Kanubhai Rupabhai Ex. 45, who is the son of the complainant and nephew of the deceased Pratapbhai, also received injury in the incident. Kanubhai Rupabhai also categorically deposed about various blows having given by the accused to deceased Pratapbhaii and other witnesses including himself. Simultaneously, P. W. 8 Balwantsing Amarsing Ex. 48 and P. W. 9 Ranchhodbhai Kabhaibhai Ex. 47 also deposed on the same line giving account of the incident as well as various blows given by the accused to each of the witnesses and deceased. ( 14 ) ONE another person Pratapgiri Magangiri Gosai whose presence is also established at the place of incident has been examined by the prosecution as P. W. 10 at Ex. 52. He is the driver of the jeep in which the persons from Samgada came to the Village for seeing the machine intended to be purchased from Pratapbhai. He also gave detailed account of the incident. He is an independent witness whose evidence can be relied in toto. ( 15 ) IT is required to be noted that other eye witnesses present at the time of incident are relatives of the complainant as well as of the deceased and hence, court has to see whether their evidence can be taken into consideration for basing conviction or not. ( 16 ) IT is required to be noted that presence of all witnesses at the scene of incident has been established by way of evidence on record. It is further established that all the above referred witnesses, who were there at the time of incident, had received injury in the incident and were treated initially at Tharapur Community Health Centre and thereafter some of them were shifted to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are got up witnesses or interested witnesses but were persons present at the time of incident and received injuries. The incident had taken place at 9. 00 p. m. very near to the Panchayat office and also very near to their residence. The incident had taken place at 9. 00 p. m. very near to the Panchayat office and also very near to their residence. It is a small Village where during night hours more particularly at the time of dinner, generally agriculturists and others would be at home and, therefore, their presence at the scene of offence is quite natural. ( 17 ) RELIANCE is placed upon the law laid down by the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in Sardul Singh (supra ). It has been held therein by the Honourable Apex Court as to the care and the caution to be taken when Court places reliance upon the evidence of witnesses who are relatives or interested persons. The observations at head notes `a and `b may be reproduced here again. "a. Criminal Trial"appreciation of evidence"generally-Duty of courts"held, is to analyse, sift and assess the evidence on record, with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the same, without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion of the case of the prosecution"courts must undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. B. Criminal Trial"witnesses-Interested witness-Testimony of"reliability"evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinised more carefully to find out if it has a ring of truth"if the same is found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence in the mind of the court, held, it cannot be discarded totally merely on the ground of certain variations or infirmities or additions and embellishments, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core. " ( 18 ) RELIANCE is also placed on a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Honourable Apex Court (Coram: H. K. Sema and Dr. A. R. Lakshmanan,jj.) in the case of State of A. P. Vs. " ( 18 ) RELIANCE is also placed on a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Honourable Apex Court (Coram: H. K. Sema and Dr. A. R. Lakshmanan,jj.) in the case of State of A. P. Vs. S. Rayappa and Others, (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 353 wherein at head note `a it has been held as under: "a. Criminal Trial"witnesses"related witness-Merely because witnesses were related to deceased, they cannot be said to be interested witnesses and on that ground alone their testimony cannot be rejected"in view of the reluctance of the general public to be a witness, a close relative is the only natural witness, and the only requirement is that testimony of such a witness should be examined cautiously by court-Words and phrases""interested witness"". ( 19 ) IN view of the afore referred decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, testimony of a witness inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground of he being related or interested witness. However, his testimony has to be examined cautiously. ( 20 ) IN light of the afore referred law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, we have carefully and cautiously examined the evidence of all the aforesaid injured eye witnesses. Here in the present case, testimonies of all the aforesaid eye witnesses inspire confidence as they all are injured in the incident and their presence is quite natural. Apart from the injured eye witness-complainant and other injured eye witnesses, there is also an independent eye witness examined by the prosecution at Ex. 52 as witness No. 10, Pratapgiri Magangiri Gosai. He is the driver of the jeep in which persons from Samgada came for seeing the machine intended to be purchased from Pratapbhai. His evidence is supporting the version of the complainant and other injured eye witnesses. Apart from the above, medical evidence as well as other aspects also support the say of the prosecution. ( 21 ) IT may be noted that soon before the incident, there were altercations between the parties over removal of bullock-cart kept on the road by the accused. It is also required to be noted that accused, deceased and injured witnesses are from the same vicinity and hence, there cannot be any possibility of misidentification of the accused. ( 21 ) IT may be noted that soon before the incident, there were altercations between the parties over removal of bullock-cart kept on the road by the accused. It is also required to be noted that accused, deceased and injured witnesses are from the same vicinity and hence, there cannot be any possibility of misidentification of the accused. It is proved that accused went there with deadly weapons and as a pre-plan put the bullock-cart as a hindrance on the road so that the jeep would not move forward and since Pratapbhai asked to remove the said bullock-cart, scuffle took place resulting into the present incident. The accused No. 1 first started inflicting blow on Pratapbhai and other accused also started beating Pratapbhai resulting into his death ultimately at V. S. Hospital. Other witnesses also sustained severe injuries. The evidence of doctor who performed post mortem on the body of deceased shows external injuries numbering 17 on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. Hence, it cannot be said that their intention was not to kill Pratapbhai but to teach a lesson. It can however be inferred that their intention was to commit murder of Pratapbhai and it was with that intention in mind, they started quarreling and gave blows on various vital parts of the body of deceased with deadly weapons. Not only that, they also caused various injuries to other persons also when they tried to intervene to save Pratapbhai while he was being severely beaten up. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the incident had taken place in a spur of moment. It can rather be said that it is a well-designed pre-plan put in motion by the accused with definite intention of killing Pratapbhai and they have succeeded in the same. ( 22 ) IT is true that there is a delay of 4-5 hours in lodging the FIR. It may be seen in this regard that in the incident number of persons were seriously injured and hence, the first priority would be to take the injured persons to a nearby hospital for providing treatment to save their lives and in that process if any delay has been caused, it is not a delay at all which fatal to the prosecution case. If the complainant did not give detailed account of the incident in the FIR, it cannot be said that what has been stated in his evidence before the Court below is an improved version of his complaint especially when satisfactory explanation of his having sustained head injury has been given. As regards minor contradictions, we may say that there is no contradiction at all on material point. It has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in S. Rayappa (supra) that minor discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses do not fatal to the prosecution as they do not materially affect the case of the prosecution nor do they create any infirmity. Hence, said contradiction being minor contradiction is not considered by this Court. ( 23 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the court below in delivering the impugned judgment and order of conviction requiring interference by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is required to be rejected. This appeal is accordingly rejected.