Judgement SURINDER SINGH, J. :- Respondents were tried and acquitted, by the learned Sessions Judge, for allegedly committing the murder of Fandi Ram, in furtherance of their common intention, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their acquittal has been assailed by the State in the appeal being wrong and illegal. Prosecution Story 2. In brief, the prosecution story as emerges from the evidence on record is Prehalad Chand (PW 10) was a Panchayat Pradhan and he was also running a shop of grocery items in his village Boh. Fandi Ram deceased owed Rs. 500/- to Prehalad Chand on account of some purchases of grocery items, made on credit. Respondent Bhola alias Paras Ram, son of Prehalad Chand, used to help him in his shop and agriculture pursuits. It is alleged that on 14-2-1992, Bhola carried a bottle of liquor and went to the house of deceased at 8 a.m. to realize the amount of Rs. 500/- due to his father. Fandi Ram (deceased) told him that he would make the payment after getting a loan from the society-shop. Bhola requested him to accompany him to the house of Prithu respondent, thereafter he would also accompany him to the shop. Both of them went to the house of Prithu. Dharmu respondent, the real brother of Prithu was present in the house. All of them consumed the bottle of liquor. PW3 Kailasho Devi, the wife of Fandi Ram was waiting for her husband in the house, when he did not come, she sent her son PW 4 Singho to call his father from the society-shop, but Singho found his father in the house of Prithu and he reminded him to return to his house, but the respondents told Singho that he had to go to society-shop and they would accompany him. At that time, a debate was going on between them on account of the Panchayat elections held earlier. Singho thereafter went to village Kathla, thinking that it was a normal discussion. 3. Around 3.30 p.m., Kailasho Devi and her another son Jagdish saw from their house the respondents giving fist blows to Fandi Ram in the courtyard of the respondent-Prithu. Then both of them went running to the spot which was opposite the school, across the Nallah. Bhola gave a stone blow in their presence on the head of Fandi Ram and ran away. Then both of them went running to the spot which was opposite the school, across the Nallah. Bhola gave a stone blow in their presence on the head of Fandi Ram and ran away. Other respondents also hit him with the stone on the head. Jagdish (PW-2) intervened but the respondents Dharmu and Prithu also gave beatings to him. The sleeve of his shirt tore off and fell on the spot. Thereafter Prithu and Dharmu also ran away. Kailasho Devi and Jagdish took Fandi Ram to the Pradhan Prehalad Chand (PW-10) father of Bhola respondent. On the way Sardari Lal (PW-5), her elder son also met them while returning from the Gharat (water-mill). On seeing his father with bleeding injuries asked the reason as to how he had sustained the injuries. Fandi Ram revealed him the above facts. They also met Janam Singh, Numberdar (PW-6), who was standing in the front of his house. On being asked Fandi Ram also told him that he was injured by the respondents. When they reported the matter to Pradhan Prehalad Chand (PW-10), he asked them to compound the matter by taking Rs. 600/-, in the meanwhile, Fandi Ram became unconscious. He was taken to the place of PW-12 Desh Raj, Pharmacist which fell on the way. He gave first aid at the house of Chaman Lal. Thereafter they reached their houses. Findi Ram breathed his last around 11 p.m. 4. In the morning, on 15-2-1992, PW-5 Sardari Lal informed the police telephonically from village Darini that Dharam Singh and others had a quarrel with his father and he was beaten up, as a result of which, he passed away during the night. 5. PW-15 ASI Feru Ram recorded Rapat No. 15 Ex. P. 19 and proceeded to the spot with some police constables to verify the ircumstances. The police party went to the spot on foot and reached there around 5 p.m. Jagdish Chand, son of the deceased made a statement (Ex. P5) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the police, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered in Police Station, Shahpur. The inquest papers were prepared and the dead-body was sent for the post-mortem by the police and took into possession one Parna Ex. P. 10 from underneath the head of the deceased, which was sealed on the spot. The inquest papers were prepared and the dead-body was sent for the post-mortem by the police and took into possession one Parna Ex. P. 10 from underneath the head of the deceased, which was sealed on the spot. ASI, aforesaid recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and thereafter the remaining investigation was taken up by PW-16 Inspector Gian Chand. He took the photographs of the deceased Exts. P. 20 to P. 24. On 16-2-1992, he inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. P. 27 and took into possession the blood-stained earth along with small stones vide memo Ex. P. 9 and also the torn sleeve of shirt Ex. M. 8, vide memo Ex. P. 10, the stones Exts. M. 1 and M. 2 vide memo Ex. P. 6 and the torn shirt Ex. M. 9 of Jagdish Chand vide memo Ex. P. 7. 6. The respondents were not traceable and police officials were deputed in their search. PW 16 aforesaid recorded the statements of Kailasho Devi on 23-2-1992. On the same day, Bhola respondent was arrested. Other respondents were arrested on 25-2-1992 at Dharamshala. Recoveries 7. During the interrogation of Dharam Singh, he made a disclosure statement Ex. P. 12, pursuant to which he got recovered his pant and shirt from his house vide Memo Ex. P. 11. The police took into possession the Sweater Ex. M. 16 and shirt Ex. M. 5 of Prithu vide memo Ex. P. 13. Above articles were sent for chemical examination. Medical Opinion 8. Dr. R.K. Mahajan (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem of the dead body on 16-2-1992. On the examination of the dead body, he found three lacerated wounds on the skull of the deceased i.e. one on the left parietal (size was 3 cms. x 1 cms. scalp deep), one on right parietal near frontal bone (size 3 cm. x 1 cm. scalp deep) and one on left parietal bone near frontal bone (size 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. and scalp deepl. The skull bone had shown three lacerated wounds. Fracture of the right and left parietal frontal bone was also seen. Bilateral sub-dural heamatoma was seen on the right side and the left in parieto-frontal area. There was also a rupture of the liver. Wounds on the liver were situated posteriorly. The right kidney had also shown lacerated wound in the upper place and 1 cm. Fracture of the right and left parietal frontal bone was also seen. Bilateral sub-dural heamatoma was seen on the right side and the left in parieto-frontal area. There was also a rupture of the liver. Wounds on the liver were situated posteriorly. The right kidney had also shown lacerated wound in the upper place and 1 cm. deep, viscera was sent for the chemical examination. On the receipt of the report Ex. P. 3, the Doctor opined that the cause of death was fracture of right and left parieto-frontal bones with bilateral subdural heamatoma and rupture of liver and kidney right side and blood in the peritoneal cavity. 9. The Chemical Examiner's report had shown the consumption of alcohol by the deceased, but in the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to the above mentioned ante-mortem injuries leading to the shock and death and these injuries were sufficient to cause the death in an ordinary course. The probable time between the Injury and death could not be ascertained, but death and post-mortem was 24 hours to 72 hours. The postmortem report is Ex. P. 4. In the opinion of the doctor, skull injuries could be caused with the blows of stones Exts. M1 and M2. 10. After completing the investigation, the challan against the respondents was presented in the Court for their trial. The trial Court charge-sheeted the respondents under the aforesaid sections, for causing the murder of Fandi Ram. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Findings of the Trial Court. 11. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their defence was that Numberdar Janam Singh had contested the election of the President of the Panchayat, who was defeated by PW-10 Prehalad Chand, therefore, he got this case registered against them due to the enmity. The respondents were called upon to enter into their defence, but they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 12. The learned trial Court did not rely upon the statements of the alleged eye witnesses and also the circumstantial evidence and in the opinion of the trial Court, there was a possibility of sustaining the fatal injuries by the deceased due to fall. 12. The learned trial Court did not rely upon the statements of the alleged eye witnesses and also the circumstantial evidence and in the opinion of the trial Court, there was a possibility of sustaining the fatal injuries by the deceased due to fall. There was no explanation given by the prosecution as to how the liver of the deceased got ruptured and kidney had sustained a wound. Thus, the trial Court gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents. 13. The State has challenged the impugned judgment of acquittal on law and facts. Submissions made before us. 14. Shri P.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has taken as through the evidence on record and forcefully argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the respondents. He submitted that the prosecution evidence is worth inspiring confidence and the offence charged stands proved from the evidence on record. 15. Contra, Shri Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal has argued that the grounds of acquittal are borne out from the record. PWs Jagdish Chand and his mother Kailasho Devi are most unreliable witnesses. They are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence from their house, which was far away from the place of alleged occurrence and the view was interrupted by a pine tree standing in between. Further that all the witnesses, who have deposed against the respondents are close relatives of the deceased and have materially contradicted each other and the PWs have considerably improved their versions. The earliest version given by Sardari Lal to the police did not mention the names of Prithu and Bhola respondents and the alleged statement Ex. P. 5 of Jagdish Chand was a make up story, which is an afterthought. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have re-evaluated the evidence on record. Our Findings 17. In fact PW-3 Kailasho Devi has substantiated the prosecution version. According to her, Fandi Ram, her husband owed some money to Prehalad Chand (PW 10). To realize the due amount, his son Bhola, respondent came to their house around 8 a.m. on the date of alleged incident. Her husband did not have the money and told Bhola that he would go to the shop of Society to bring money and make the payment to him. To realize the due amount, his son Bhola, respondent came to their house around 8 a.m. on the date of alleged incident. Her husband did not have the money and told Bhola that he would go to the shop of Society to bring money and make the payment to him. Bhola was carrying a bottle of liquor in his hand. He took her husband to the house of Prithu and Dharmu, where respondents and her husband started taking liquor. When her husband did not come for a long time, she sent her son Singho (PW 4), to remind her husband that he had to go to village Boh. The respondents did not allow her husband to leave the place, rather they informed Singho that they all would go to village Boh together. Thereafter, Singho went to village Kathla and her another son Sardari Lal had gone to water-mill. She along with son Jagdish Chand (PW 2) had stayed back in the house. Around 3.30 p.m. they noticed that respondents were giving fist blows in the front of their house opposite to the school, across the nallah to her husband Fandi Ram. She shouted at Bhola whether he had taken her husband for giving him beatings. Thereafter, she along with her son Jagdish Chand (PW 7) rushed to the spot. According to her Bhola gave stone blow on the head of Fandi Ram and ran away. The other accused also gave stone blows on the head of her husband. Jagdish Chand (PW 2) had intervened, but Prithu and Dharmu also gave beatings to him and in this struggle, the sleeve of his shirt tore off and fell on the spot. Her husband was having the bleeding injuries. The respondents fled away from the spot. Thereafter she decided to take the injured to Pradhan Prehalad Chand (PW 10) to make a report. On the way, her son Sardari Lal (PW 5) also met them. PW 5 asked his father about the injuries, he disclosed that the respondents had given beatings to him with stones, on account of the recent panchayat elections. Numberdar Janam Singh (PW 6), who was standing in the front of his house, on seeing her husband, asked the reasons for sustaining the injuries. Fandi Ram told him the same story. PW 5 and PW 6 aforesaid have corroborated this version. Numberdar Janam Singh (PW 6), who was standing in the front of his house, on seeing her husband, asked the reasons for sustaining the injuries. Fandi Ram told him the same story. PW 5 and PW 6 aforesaid have corroborated this version. Thereafter they reached the shop of the Pradhan Prehalad Chand. He also enquired from her husband about the injuries sustained by him. He disclosed that he (deceased) was given the beatings by Bhola, Prithu and Dharmu with stones on his head, on account of panchayat elections. Pradhan requested him to compromise the matter after taking Rs. 600/-in the meantime, her husband fell unconscious and she took him to their house. On the way, she met Compounder PW 12 Desh Raj, who gave the first-aid, but her husband could not survive and breathed his last around 10/11 p.m. during that night. Desh Raj aforesaid has admitted this fact. 18. In her cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement Ex. DA where it was not mentioned that she sent her son Singho to remind her father to go to village Boh and the fact of meeting Sardari Lal, who was returning from the water-mill and further that the name of Numberdar Janam Singh, had asked her husband to whom he had disclosed about giving the beatings by the respondents. She stated that there was no Chil (Pine) tree on the way. However, she clearly deposed that the respondents had given stone blows on the head of her husband in her presence. Further according to her, while going to the house of Pradhan, the path was zig-zag and Fandi Ram was being carried on such a path by her son on his back, at that time Fandi Ram was conscious but he was speaking less. When they met the Pradhan, respondents Prithu and Dharmu also came there. She denied that her husband had sustained the injuries due to the fall on the ground, under the influence of liquor. 19. PW 2 Jagdish Singh has afforded the corroboration of her narration and stated that his father died around 11 p.m. Further that they could not bring him to the hospital, as they had to walk 10/15 kms. on foot to reach the hospital. 19. PW 2 Jagdish Singh has afforded the corroboration of her narration and stated that his father died around 11 p.m. Further that they could not bring him to the hospital, as they had to walk 10/15 kms. on foot to reach the hospital. Since it was night time and there was no means of transport to shift the patient either to Shahpur or Dharamshala, they could not lodge the report the same day as it had gone dark. The police station was far off. He proved his statement Ex. P5 recorded under Section 154, Cr. P. C. and also proved the recovery of stones Exts. M1 and M2 vide memo Ex. P. 6 by the police. He also identified the sleeve of his shirt Ex. M8 and the shirt Ex. M9, which was torn. He also stated when he intervened to save his father from Prithu and Dharmu, he was given beatings by them. He was meticulously cross-examined arid was also confronted with his statement Ex. P5, wherein the amount of Rs. 600/-offered by Pradhan to compound the matter was not mentioned nor there was any mention of falling of the torn sleeve of his shirt on the spot. He stated that he had seen the respondents hitting his father with stones from the distance of about 10 yards at that time his father was being given the fist blows. Further according to him, the shop of Pradhan was at 1½ km. from their house. He also stated that Sardari Lal and Janam Singh, Numberdar had met them on their way, while going to the shop of Pradhan. 20. PW 4 Singh has stated that he was sent by his mother to remind his father to return to his house and when he went there, he saw him taking liquor in the company of the respondents. They were talking about the panchayat elections, whereas, Dharamu and Bhola were asking him that he had not voted for them. Accused Dharmu had contested the election of Up-Pradhan, whereas, the father of the Bhola named Prehalad Chand had contested the election of Pradhan. When he tried to bring his father back, the respondents told him that they would accompany him to the Society shop and return back. Accused Dharmu had contested the election of Up-Pradhan, whereas, the father of the Bhola named Prehalad Chand had contested the election of Pradhan. When he tried to bring his father back, the respondents told him that they would accompany him to the Society shop and return back. Thereafter he went to village Kathla and returned at 4 p.m. On the way, Pawan Kumar (PW 9) met him who informed him that his father was given beating by the respondents. This fact has been corroborated by Pawan Kumar aforesaid, who had seen the alleged occurrence from his school compound where he was playing. PW Singho has further stated that by the time, his mother took him to the shop of Pradhan, he also joined him there. Pradhan Prehalad Chand (PW 10) asked them to accept Rs. 600/-and compromise the case. Thereafter, his father fell unconscious and was brought back, after providing him the first aid from the Compounder. He also stated that his father could not be taken to the hospital, because of non-availability of the transport facility and the nearest hospital was at Shahpur which was about 25 kms. away from their village. 21. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the respondents and his father were taking liquor while sitting in the courtyard but at that time, no quarrel took place. He was confronted with his statement Ex. DB where there was no reference of compounding the matter for Rs. 600/- as aforesaid. 22. According to PW 5 Sardari Lal, when his father had died during the night, he went on foot to village Darini and informed the police telephonically. PW-6 Janam Singh has stated that the blood was oozing out from the head of Fandi Ram. On inquiry, he told him that the respondents had given stone blows on his head, when a quarrel started on a discussion of election matter while taking liquor. Next day, he joined the investigation of the case. Police took into possession Parna Ex. P. 10, blood stained earth, torn sleeve Ex. M8 of the shirt and stones Exts. M1 and M2 in his presence from the spot, which were sealed in different parcels. He also identified that shirt Ex. M9 to be that of Jagdish Chand (PW 2), which was also taken into possession, by the police. 23. P. 10, blood stained earth, torn sleeve Ex. M8 of the shirt and stones Exts. M1 and M2 in his presence from the spot, which were sealed in different parcels. He also identified that shirt Ex. M9 to be that of Jagdish Chand (PW 2), which was also taken into possession, by the police. 23. In his cross-examination, he has denied any enmity with the father of respondent Bhola as alleged and he further stated that the blood stained earth and stones were lying at a distance of about one foot from each other on the spot and torn sleeve was lying at a distance of about 10 feet towards the upper side near the jungle of Chil trees, from where the school was about 20 yards. He further stated that the house of Kailasho Devi (PW 3) is about 80 meters away from the place of occurrence. He denied that he was instrumental in concocting the story of panchayat election, in order to settle his score with the father of respondent Bhola. He has also denied that he had visited the shop of Pradhan Prehalad Chand, where he had noticed the head injuries on the person of the deceased, whereas this fact was found mentioned in his statement Ex. DD. 24. Punnu Ram (PW 7) is related to the deceased and also the respondents. According to him, no quarrel took place in his presence. But both the parties were discussing about the Panchayat elections while sitting in the courtyard. PW-8 Bharat Singh is a witness to the disclosure statement Ex. P12, pursuant to which shirt Ex. M15 and sweater Ex. M17 were taken into possession by the police. PW 9 is Pawan Kumar. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of said occurrence, the school was over, but he was playing Kabaddi with his younger brother in the school compound. He had seen the occurrence. He has clarified that Bhola was first to attack the deceased on his head with the stone, thereafter Prithu and Dharmu gave the stone blows. Bhola had struck the stone twice on the head of Fandi Ram, whereas, Dharmu respondent gave stone blow after holding stone on his hand three times. Prithu respondent had pelted the stones. Jagdish Chand and his aunt reached the place of occurrence. Bhola respondent left the place. Bhola had struck the stone twice on the head of Fandi Ram, whereas, Dharmu respondent gave stone blow after holding stone on his hand three times. Prithu respondent had pelted the stones. Jagdish Chand and his aunt reached the place of occurrence. Bhola respondent left the place. On seeing them, Prithu and Dharmu had also left the place. 25. PW-10 Prehalad Chand, the father of Bhola respondent did not support the prosecution version but he has admitted that Fandi Ram was brought to him by Kailasho Devi, accompanied by his son in the injured condition to his shop at about 5 p.m. On inquiry from Fandi Ram and his wife they had informed him that he was given beatings by Dharmu respondent and Fandi Ram also nodded his head supporting this version of his wife. Fandi Ram did not tell that Bhola and Prithu also gave stone blows, on a dispute which arose on the discussion of Panchayat elections. He admitted that when Fandi Ram came to his shop, he had a bleeding injury on his head. He was unable to walk and Fandi Ram had told him that on account of the election, quarrel took place. He further stated that Fandi Ram told him that only Dharmu had given the stone blow to him, however, he denied having offered them Rs. 600/- to compound the matter, but according to him other people who were present there had suggested to take Rs. 600/-to effect compromise. Though Fandi Ram accepted the offer, but Dharmu was not ready to pay this amount. He further stated that Bhola came to the house next day. He (PW 10) and his wife gave beatings to him and thereafter he left the house due to fear of the police. 26. In the cross-examination by the respondents, he has stated that when Fandi Ram came to his shop in the injured condition, immediately thereafter respondents Prithu and Dharmu had come there. Dharmu respondent told him that when he and Fandi Ram were grappling. Sardari Lal (PW 5) son of Fandi Ram gave stone blow to him which instead of hitting him hit his father on the head. Here it is pertinent to note that this suggestion was not put to Sardari Lal (PW 5) in his cross-examination. Dharmu respondent told him that when he and Fandi Ram were grappling. Sardari Lal (PW 5) son of Fandi Ram gave stone blow to him which instead of hitting him hit his father on the head. Here it is pertinent to note that this suggestion was not put to Sardari Lal (PW 5) in his cross-examination. He has specifically denied that Fandi Ram deceased did not disclose that he was given beatings by respondent Dharmu and further that some people told him that Fandi Ram received the injuries due to fall. 27. PW-15 ASI Feru Ram has proved Rapat Roznamcha Ex. P 19 and recovery of Parna Ex. P10, whereas Gian Chand (PW 16) has proved the spot map Ex. P27 and the recovery of stones Exts. M1 and M2 torn sleeve from the spot, as aforesaid. According to him, Bhola was arrested on 23-2-1992 and other respondents on 25-2-1992 at Dharamshala, when their bail application was rejected. 28. The Chemical Examiner report Ex. P35 confirms the blood stains on the sweater and shirt of Prithi Singh and on the sweater and shirt collar of Dharam Singh. 29. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that the respondents took liquor along with Fandi Ram (deceased) in the house of respondent Prithu. It also stands fully established on record that all of them while sitting in the courtyard were discussing about the panchayat elections. Dharmu respondent had contested for the post of Up-Pradhan and the father of Bhola, Prehalad Chand (PW 10) had contested and won the election for the post of Pradhan. Fandi Ram who was drunk proclaimed that he did not vote for them and this was the apple of contention between the respondents and the deceased, which was enough for the respondents who were also drunk, to pick up a quarrel with the deceased. In that process, the respondents grappled with the deceased, gave him fist blows and thereafter gave him the stone blows, which was witnessed by Kailasho Devi and her son Jagdish Singh from their house around 3.30 p.m. Both the witnesses have fully supported their version, which further finds corroboration from the statements of PW 9 Pawan Kumar, PW4 Singho, PW 5 Sardari Lal and PW 6 Janam Singh. However, PW 10 Prehalad Chand has half heartedly supported the case of the prosecution because his son Bhola was involved in the beatings of the deceased. 30. Thus, on a careful scrutiny of the statements of the above witnesses, we find that the respondents and the deceased in a drunken brawl picked up the quarrel. The respondents firstly gave Fandi Ram fist blows which must have hit his abdomen causing injury to the liver and kidney and thereafter hit him with the stone on his head as stated above, which according to the Dr. R. K. Mahajan (PW 1) were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course. 31. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the rapat Roznamcha, wherein the earliest version of Sardari Lal was recorded did not disclose the names of other respondents except Dharmu and the statement of Jagdish recorded under Section 154, Cr. P. C. was an afterthought is worth rejecting, because when Sardari Lal had informed ASI Feru Ram telephonically, subsequently he had recorded the substance in the Roznamacha. More so, Sardari Lal was not an eye witness. The details of the incident were given by Jagdish Chand (PW 2) who had witnessed the occurrence. The further contentions that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and they have considerably improved the earlier version is also worth rejecting, as the so called contradictions and improvements, in our opinion, are not material which shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case. 32. The learned counsel also argued that PW9 Pawan Kumar is a child witness and closely related to the deceased. He was falsely introduced to lend corroboration to the case of the prosecution. We have also considered this contention. Even if we exclude the statement of PW 9 Pawan Kumar altogether from consideration, the statement of Kailasho Devi and her son Jagdish coupled with the above circumstances proved on record are worth inspiring confidence. The chinks in the statements of the prosecution witnesses to which the learned counsel for the respondents had tried to pinpoint regarding improvements and contradictions are very minor in nature and the broad features of the prosecution case cannot be rejected on that ground alone. 33. The chinks in the statements of the prosecution witnesses to which the learned counsel for the respondents had tried to pinpoint regarding improvements and contradictions are very minor in nature and the broad features of the prosecution case cannot be rejected on that ground alone. 33. It is a settled law that merely because, there are omissions, contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of some or all of the prosecution witnesses, it does not mean that the entire evidence by the prosecution should be discarded. It is only after exercising care and caution and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the Court comes to the conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the accused it will convict them. (Please see Sohrab and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1972 SC 2020) : (1972 Cri LJ 1302) (State of U. P. v. M. K. Anthony (AIR 1985 SC 48) : (1985 Cri LJ 493). 34. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 753) : (1983 Cri LJ 1096) the Supreme Court indicates the reasons as to why overmuch importance should be attached to the minor omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. 35. As a matter of fact, by and large, a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details. Thus minor discrepancies are bound to occur in his statement. 36. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances proved on record, it is proved that the respondents were responsible to cause the fatal injuries to the deceased Fandi Ram, as stated by the witnesses, discussed above. 37. Now the question is whether the respondents have committed the offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. According to PW1 Dr. R. K. Mahajan, the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause the death in an ordinary course of nature. 37. Now the question is whether the respondents have committed the offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. According to PW1 Dr. R. K. Mahajan, the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause the death in an ordinary course of nature. It is further proved on record that the act was committed without there being any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offenders having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In such circumstance the cause of quarrel is not material nor it is relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault, but it is proved on record that the occurrence was sudden and unpremeditated and the respondents had acted in a fit of anger. The respondents having not acted in a cruel manner shows the weapon or meaning of attack by the respondents was not out of all proportion to the offence committed. Therefore, the act of the respondents falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Penal Code. 38. Thus, on examining the facts of this case, we find with reasonable certainty that the respondents and the deceased were sharing a bottle of liquor together, but there was a sudden fight as aforesaid. There was no previous deliberation or determination to the fight. It has been held in Shiakh Mazid and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (AIR 2008 SC 1091) : (2008 Cri LJ 1062) that when a fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed, it started by one of them and other had not aggravated it by his own conduct, it would not have taken the serious turn, there is then mutual provocation and aggravation and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. The fight occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. 39. In the instant case, considering the facts and the nature of weapon of offence used i.e. the stone, we find it is a case falling under the first part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 40. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. It is not only perverse as the reasons given for acquittal are not borne out from the record, but it is also most unsatisfactory in view of language, lucidity and logic. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is hereby reversed and accordingly set aside for the reasons aforesaid. 41. The respondents are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are convicted for the offence aforesaid. 42. The respondents be produced on 18-6-2008 to be heard on the quantum of sentence. Order accordingly.