Judgment J.R. Vora, J.—Instant Appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th of October, 1999, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 164 of 1996, whereby present appellants No. 1 and 2 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while appellants No. 3 and 4 came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 to read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 30 days. 2. As per the prosecution case, incident occurred on 10th of June, 1996, near the statute of Ambedkar at old bus-stand chowk, in the town of Visavadar, District - Junagadh, wherein Samat Sajan Charan died on account of injuries. On that day, deceased Samat Sajan and his brother P.W. 4 Pala Sajan, residents of Haldarwa nesh (hamlet), came to village Visavadar to sell ghee and purchasing of household things. Both these brothers reached Visavadar at about 8.00 a.m. and went to the shop of one Jagadishbhai Chandubhai to sell ghee. Thereafter, deceased Samat Sajan separated from his brother Pala Sajan and asked him to complete the purchasing, and that he (deceased) was going towards old bus stand and thereafter he (deceased) wanted to go to Junagadh. Now, after the deceased and his brother Pala Sajan separated, complainant Oghad Pancha met deceased Samat Sajan in the old bus stand chowk. They exchanged pleasantry and talked about a plot of land, which was to be purchased by the complainant. In the meantime, one Kathi Jagubhai and forester Chavdabhai also came there and deceased suggested to take tea together. All of them took tea at the hotel of Amubhai and thereafter complainant and deceased both went to see the plot of land and returned after about one and half hours. While when they reached at near new bus stand, in the chowk of statute of Ambedkar, deceased was walking behind the complainant and heard beckoning shouts. When complainant looked behind, he found four persons, which turned out to be four appellants herein in TI parade, were beating Samat Sajan with axe (‘farsi’) and sticks. While when they reached at near new bus stand, in the chowk of statute of Ambedkar, deceased was walking behind the complainant and heard beckoning shouts. When complainant looked behind, he found four persons, which turned out to be four appellants herein in TI parade, were beating Samat Sajan with axe (‘farsi’) and sticks. Jagubhai Kathi, who was standing near, attempted to prevent the appellants, but in the meantime, all the four appellants started suddenly beating the deceased Samat. Out of four appellants, two were having axes and the two were having sticks. One of the appellants gave consecutive blows on the right side of the head and behind the ear of the deceased. The second appellant, who had an axe, also gave blows on the head of the deceased. It was turned out during investigation that accused No. 1 Hikha Jiva Gujaria and accused No. 2 Gogan Kalabhai had axes with them and accused No. 3 Harsur Vala Gujaria and accused No. 4 Gabha Valabhai Gujaria had sticks with them. Accused No. 2 Gogan Kala Gujaria had also inflicted an axe blow on the lower part of the body of the deceased and attempted to extract an axe from the body of the deceased. He could not do it. P.W. 4 Pala Sajan, according to prosecution case involved to Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujaria, who was 5th accused and acquitted by the Trial Court and he was saying that to kill Samat. It was also transpired from the prosecution case that the deceased was friend of complainant Oghad Pancha and they had relation for last five years. Wife of the complainant was made sister by the deceased. The cause of dispute was that daughter of one Charan Hikha Mandan was kidnapped by the deceased and thereafter she was relieved and, therefore, for the last 15 years between these families, the enmity was continued. The complainant Oghadbhai Pancha did not know the names of the accused at that time, but in T.I. Parade, he identified four accused to be the participating accused along with weapons attributed to them. During investigation, in all six accused were revealed and charge sheeted. Accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujaria came to be acquitted by the Trial Court by judgment and order impugned in this Appeal and there is no Appeal against the acquittal by the State. During investigation, in all six accused were revealed and charge sheeted. Accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujaria came to be acquitted by the Trial Court by judgment and order impugned in this Appeal and there is no Appeal against the acquittal by the State. Accused No. 6 Valabhai Bhimabhai Gujaria died during trial and trial was abated as against him. 3. According to the further case of the prosecution, P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt was serving as PSI Visavadar Police Station and was in patrolling. At that time, he received information that a murder is committed in the chowk of old bus stand at Visavadar. Therefore, he immediately went to said chowk and found the dead body of the deceased lying in blooding condition. Complainant Oghad Pancha was present at that time and he gave the complaint, which he produced on record at Exhibit-53. The said complaint came to be recorded in Visavadar Police Station by P.W. 15 Jujarsinh Ramsinh Thakore, who was In-charge of Police Station. The complaint was forwarded by P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt to the police station. Investigation was entrusted to P.W. 17 and he arranged to draw the inquest panchnama and forwarded the dead body for the postmortem at Government Hospital. He also draw the panchnama of scene of offence and from the scene of offence, bloodstained earth was seized. He recorded the statements of witnesses Pala Sajan and Jagubhai Bhimabhai Khuman. One motorcycle belonged to accused No. 6 was found near the scene of offence was seized. The accused were arrested and the weapons were recovered from them. Since the complainant Oghad Pancha did not know the accused, test identification parade was held on 13th of April, 1996 by PW 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, Executive Magistrate, Visavadar, wherein the present appellants were identified by the complainant Oghad Pancha. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, in all, against six accused. Out of the six accused, accused No. 1 died during trial and accused No. 6 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujaria was acquitted by the trial court. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as Sessions Case No. 164 of 1996. Charge came to be framed against all the accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, on 28th of August, 1998, vide Exhibit-1. Charge was read over to all the six accused. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as Sessions Case No. 164 of 1996. Charge came to be framed against all the accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, on 28th of August, 1998, vide Exhibit-1. Charge was read over to all the six accused. They pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the evidence of prosecution was led. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. After the evidence was over, the learned Trial Judge brought incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused to the notice of the accused, but the case of each of the accused was of total denial. After hearing the prosecution as well as defence, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to acquit accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujaria and convicted the present appellants i.e. accused No. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and under Section 302 to read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 6 died during trial. The learned Trial Judge did not believe the case of unlawful assembly. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Kadvabhai Gopalbhai, examined at Exhibit-13, being Medical Officer of Visavadar Community Health Center, performed postmortem on dead body of the deceased from 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. The dead body had some articles, which were seized by the Doctor and were given to the Police. Clothes upon the dead body were found blood stained. Two ST bus tickets of Rs. 3.00 and O.50ps respectively were also found. In dead body, there was one axe, which was extracted and handed over to the Police, which was seized by the Police. According to the Dr. Kadvabhai Gopalbhai, the deceased had the following external injuries. 1. Incise wound on right occipital region 6" x 6 ½” brain deep oblique upto back of ear. Brain matter seen and bulged. 2. Incise wound on right occipital region below & parallel to injury No. 1 overlapping each other on anterior side. 5" x 1" brain deep oblique. Brain matter presents bulged. 3. Incise wound on right parietal region 4" x 1" brain deep A.P. Direction. 4. Incise wound on left temporal parietal region 6 ½” x 1" x brain deep oblique. Brain matter bulged. 5. 5" x 1" brain deep oblique. Brain matter presents bulged. 3. Incise wound on right parietal region 4" x 1" brain deep A.P. Direction. 4. Incise wound on left temporal parietal region 6 ½” x 1" x brain deep oblique. Brain matter bulged. 5. Incise wound on back starting from right renal angle towards left renal area and flank upto anterior axillary line. Axe was impacted in the wound on left flank by 2”abdominal wall flap. The axe entered from left renal region and excited from left flank. The handle of axe was lying towards left axilla. Sharp portion of the axe came out from wall. 6. Abrasion on right dorsum of hand 2" x 1" oblique. On internal examination, the Doctor found the following injuries. 1. Right side occipital region 6" x 1" oblique A.P. Corresponding to injury No. 1, 2 of Column No. 17. 2. Right parietal bone 4" x 1" A.P. Direction corresponding to injury No. 3 of Column No. 17. 3. Left temporal & parietal bone 6 ½” x 1" oblige A.P. Corresponding to injury No. 4 of Column No. 17. 4. Cartex and medulla of right occipital area of brain cut 6" x 1 ½” deep corresponding to injury No. 1, 2 of Column No. 17. Blood vessels and meninges also cut. 5. Cartex and medulla of left temporal parietal region of brain cut. 6 ½” x ½” x 1- deep oblique corresponding to injury No. 4 of Column No. 17 blood vessels & meninges cut. 6. Free blood & clots present over surface of brain. According to Dr. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai, the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was due to intracarnial hamerrohage and injury to brain. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injuries No. 1 to 5 above could be caused by sharp cutting weapon while injury No. 6 could be caused by hard and blunt substance. This witness has been cross-examined. PW-2 Maksud Ahmad Ibhrahimbhai, examined at Exhibit-18, was serving as Circle Inspector in Revenue Department and had prepared a map of scene of offence, which he produced at Exhibit-20. P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha, examined at Exhibit-21, was complainant and eye witness. P.W. 4 Pala Sajan Taparia, brother of the deceased, examined at Exhibit-22, is also an eye-witness of the incident. PW-2 Maksud Ahmad Ibhrahimbhai, examined at Exhibit-18, was serving as Circle Inspector in Revenue Department and had prepared a map of scene of offence, which he produced at Exhibit-20. P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha, examined at Exhibit-21, was complainant and eye witness. P.W. 4 Pala Sajan Taparia, brother of the deceased, examined at Exhibit-22, is also an eye-witness of the incident. P.W. 5 Jagubhai Bhimabhai Khuman, examined at Exhibit-23, was an eye witness, according to the prosecution case, but he did not support the prosecution case and, hence, he was declared hostile. P.W. 6 Durlabh Virabhai Dabhda, examined at Exhibit-24, is also a panch witness of scene of panchanama and he stated that in his presence the panchnama of scene of offence was drawn, which he produced at Exhibit-25. Complainant Oghadbhai showed the scene of offence. P.W. 7 Natvarlal Gaurishankar Rajyaguru, examined at Exhibit-33, is a pancha of panchnama at Exhibit-34, by which police has seized muddamal articles including the clothes worn by the deceased. P.W. 8 Suresh Jagjivan Sadrani, is panch of panchnama at Exhibit-36, by which motorcycle of the original accused No. 6 was seized. He is also the panch of panchnama of test identification parade, by which the complainant identified all the four appellants. The panchnama is produced at Exhibit - 37, but this panch has neither supported the panchnama at Exhibit - 34 nor the panchnama at Exhibit-37 and, hence, he was declared hostile by the prosecution and confronted with the panchnama. P.W. 9 Somabhai Danabhai Vala, examined at Exhibit-38, is also a panch of panchnama at Exhibit-36, by which motorcycle of accused No. 6 was seized and he has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 10 Vallabhbhai Ramjibhai Gujariya, examined at Exhibit-39, is second panch of test identification parade panchnama at Exhibit-40 is also panch of panchnama at Exhibit-34, by which the clothes upon the dead body were seized by the police and muddamal articles which were found from the body were also seized, but this witness has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 12 Govindbhai Khima Vora, examined at Exhibit-41, is panch of panchnama at Exhibit-42 and Exhibit-43. Panchnama at Exhibit-42 is the panchnama of arrest of accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujariya, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court, while panchanama at Exhibit-43 is panchnama by which present appellants were arrested and from their custody, weapons were recovered. P.W. 12 Govindbhai Khima Vora, examined at Exhibit-41, is panch of panchnama at Exhibit-42 and Exhibit-43. Panchnama at Exhibit-42 is the panchnama of arrest of accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujariya, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court, while panchanama at Exhibit-43 is panchnama by which present appellants were arrested and from their custody, weapons were recovered. However, this witness did not support the prosecution case in respect of both the panchnamas and, therefore, prosecution cross-examined the witness and confronted him with both the panchnamas. P.W. 13 Bhabhlubhai Selarbhai Chand, examined at Exhibit-44, is second panch of panchnama –Exhibit-43, by which all the four appellants were arrested, but he has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 14 Badha Mulu Vank, is examined at Exhibit-45, is a panch of panchnama at Exhibit-42, by which accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujariya was arrested. This witness has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 15 Jujarsinh Ramsinh Thakore, examined at Exhibit-46, was in-charge of Visavadar Police Station on 10th of June, 1996 and at about 11.05 hours PSI Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt, forwarded a complaint for registration of crime and he had registered the crime. He produced station diary entry of registration of crime at Exhibit-47. P.W. 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, examined at Exhibit-49, is the Executive Magistrate and Mamlatdar of Visavadar, who conducted the test identification parade on 13.06.1996 at 3.30 p.m. whereby the complainant Oghad Pancha identified the present appellants and that panchnama is produced at Exhibit-37. He also produced a letter sent by PSI, Visavadar Police Station, requesting him to hold test identification parade, which he placed on record at Exhibit-50. He, vide his letter produced at Exhibit-51, informed the Police about arranging of T.I. parade. P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt, examined at Exhibit-52, who was the then PSI of Visavadar Police Station and he reached at the scene of offence and recorded the complaint of complainant Oghadbhai Pancha and investigated the offence. 6. In nutshell, this is the evidence of the prosecution. In addition to this, postmortem note is produced at Exhibit-15 and the complaint is produced at Exhibit-53. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, for the appellants, vehemently urged that the whole case rests upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Oghadbhai Pancha and P.W. 4 Pala Sajan Taparia. 6. In nutshell, this is the evidence of the prosecution. In addition to this, postmortem note is produced at Exhibit-15 and the complaint is produced at Exhibit-53. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, for the appellants, vehemently urged that the whole case rests upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Oghadbhai Pancha and P.W. 4 Pala Sajan Taparia. Admittedly, Oghadbhai is thickly related to deceased while Palabhai is brother of the deceased and, hence, both are related and interested witnesses. The third circumstance which according to Mr. Lakhani, learned counsel, appears in the evidence of T.I. Parade and so called evidence of Forensic Science Laboratory-Exhibit-6. Only one independent witness is examined as P.W. 5 Jagubhai Bhimabhai Khuman, who has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. According to learned Advocate for the appellants, both these witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 Oghadbhai Pancha and P.W. 4 Pala Sajan, are got up witnesses and their presence at the place of incident is doubtful and since Oghadbhai admitted in his deposition that the wife of the witness was believed sister of the deceased and they were thickly related, their evidence must be scrutinized carefully. When according to learned Advocate for the Appellants, the evidence of Oghadbhai is scrutinized, he stated that, when he met deceased Samat, Samat was alone and Pala was not present with him, indicating that Pala was a got up witness. In clear terms, witness stated that, he was walking ahead of the deceased and when he looked behind, injuries were already inflicted on Samat. He was not sticking to the story of FIR and did not depose that how the incident occurred nor stated that who inflicted which injuries nor stated that how many injuries were inflicted by each of the accused. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to the deposition of Oghadbhai wherein in cross-examination he stated that on the day of test identification parade, from police station to the office of Mamlatdar, one Head Constable Maldebhai had taken him and the accused and he was made to sit in the room which was adjoining to the Office of Mamlatdar. It is submitted that, therefore, it is clear that before T.I. Parade, the accused were shown to this witness and there was no meaning of T.I. Parade when this witness and accused were together and were taken to the Mamlatdar Office. It is submitted that, therefore, it is clear that before T.I. Parade, the accused were shown to this witness and there was no meaning of T.I. Parade when this witness and accused were together and were taken to the Mamlatdar Office. Maldebhai, who is Head Constable, has been referred in the case but the prosecution has not examined this witness. It is also stated that where the incident occurred is densely situated area, which is apparent from the cross-examination of both the witnesses and no independent witnesses is examined by the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that if we see the story narrated in the FIR and deposition of complainant Oghadbhai, complainant differs in major portion of story even in attributing the role to each of the appellant, and the story about after the incident. According to FIR and the deposition of the Investigating Officer P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt, he recorded the FIR at the scene of offence because when he visited the scene of offence, he found the crowd and from crowd, complainant Oghadbhai Pancha was standing 40 to 50 feet away from the scene of offence and he came to him and he recorded the complaint at Exhibit-53 on the bonnet of the government vehicle. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellants that in this regard, in cross-examination, witness Oghad Pancha stated that after the incident, he went to his house and reached at this house at 11.00 a.m. When he reached at his house, one Head Constable Maldebhai had been to his house and Maldebhai took him to the police station, where the complaint came to be recorded. It is submitted that therefore this is a serious contradiction in the prosecution case and the story narrated in the complaint is falsified by the contradictions in the evidence of the Investigating Officer as well as this witness Oghad Pancha in respect of recording of the complaint and, therefore, the evidence of this witness must not be believed. In respect of T.I. Parade of the accused by witness Oghad Pancha, it is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellants that in his evidence, Oghadbhai stated that at the time of T.I. Parade, all persons worn clothes of different colours and the persons who had identified by him were in white clothes. In respect of T.I. Parade of the accused by witness Oghad Pancha, it is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellants that in his evidence, Oghadbhai stated that at the time of T.I. Parade, all persons worn clothes of different colours and the persons who had identified by him were in white clothes. It is submitted that this was the second opportunity for the witness to identify the accused easily or to provide clue by the investigating agency. In any case, it is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellants that this witness is thickly related and when the complainant submitted detailed story in FIR and described the incident differently in deposition and since there is a contradiction in recording of the FIR, it clearly appears that, this witness is got up one and should not be believed. About other eye-witness P.W. 4 Pala Sajan, it is submitted that this witness stated that he and deceased, being brothers had come to Visavadar together and had sold ghee to one Jagadishbhai. According to learned Advocate, this story of the witness is not supported because Jagadishbhai to whom ghee was sold has not been examined. In fact, according to the story which Pala Sajan has stated, after selling of ghee to Jagadishbhai, deceased and the witness, both separated and had decided to meet at new bus stand, which is away from old bus stand about half kilometer, where the incident occurred. Therefore, there was no reason for this witness to go to the old bus stand. This is so because, from the new bus stand of Visavadar, this witness and the deceased, both were to go to Junagadh in one forest case and, therefore, this is a chance witness and could not be believed. It is submitted that the witness narrated that, he witnessed the incident from near the office of Municipality and distance between the Office of the Municipality and the Chowk, where the incident occurred, is about 500 feet and, therefore, in any case, he must not have seen the incident. It is submitted that very important fact is this that witness attempted to involve accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujariya who is acquitted by trial Court and, therefore, he is not a truthful witness and being brother of the deceased, he posed himself to be an eye witness. It is submitted that very important fact is this that witness attempted to involve accused No. 5 Lakhabhai Sidabhai Gujariya who is acquitted by trial Court and, therefore, he is not a truthful witness and being brother of the deceased, he posed himself to be an eye witness. The conduct of this witness is also condemnable because even he being real brother of the deceased and he was near the scene of offence, he did not try to save his brother nor made any such attempt to intervene. It is submitted that the witness stated that his statement was recorded by the police at Haldarwa nesh (hamlet) while, according to the Investigating agency, his statement was recorded on the same day. According to the story which he stated in his police statement, after the incident, he was frightened and, therefore, he ran towards river, known as ‘Popatdi’ and from there through the railway track he ran to Haldarwa nesh (hamlet). While in deposition, the witness stated that on account of he being frightened, he went towards Hanumanpura and from there he went to Satadhar Road to Haldarwa nesh to convey the incident to his father, but he was informed that his father had been to Visavadar on motorcycle of one Jillubhai Darbar of village Visavadar and, therefore, in one truck he returned to the scene of offence and found that still his brother was lying at the scene of offence and had died. It is submitted that this story has not been stated by the witness and this contradiction is proved in the evidence of Investigating Officer that after the incident, he ran towards the river Popatdi and from there through railway track he went to Haldarwa nesh. It is submitted that if the witness goes to Haldarwa nesh and returned, which is about 15 kms away from the scene of offence and still the witness finds the dead body of his brother at the scene of office, is improbable story and, therefore, this is the indication that the witness is a got up one and not an eye witness. None of the witnesses attributed any specific role to appellant No. 3 and appellant No. 4 in the evidence and, therefore, in fact, there is no evidence against appellants No. 3 and 4. None of the witnesses attributed any specific role to appellant No. 3 and appellant No. 4 in the evidence and, therefore, in fact, there is no evidence against appellants No. 3 and 4. In fact, it has come in the evidence that the deceased was headstrong person and might have been killed by somebody. There is no investigation at all on the line that the accused knew that the deceased was coming to Visavadar on that very day. It is submitted that in these circumstances, when both the witnesses, posing themselves to be eye witnesses, are related witnesses and there are loopholes in their evidence, it is risky to convict the accused in respect of Forensic Science Laboratory opinion evidence. It is submitted that, that is merely a corroborative piece of evidence. In fact, panchnama at Exhibit-43 of the arrest of the accused is concerned neither about how all the clothes worn by the accused persons were seized and how other clothes were provided to the accused, when they were arrested has been explained by prosecution nor any evidence in the whole trial is found that how clothes of the accused were changed and other clothes were provided to them. So, the panchas of panchnama at Exhibit - 43 whose panchas have turned hostile, could not be proved by the Investigating Officer and therefore the fact of seizure of clothes becomes doubtful. It may be a matter of logic that the accused were arrested after two days of the incident and how it could be presumed that the accused were continuing with the same clothes which they were wearing at the time of the incident and, therefore, it is submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory evidence establishing samples No. 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 belonged to accused Gogan Kalabhai, accused - Harsur Vala and accused Gabha Vala, and so called opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory that those clothes contained Blood Group ‘B’ of the deceased is of no help to the prosecution. It is submitted that, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show what quantity of blood was extracted from the dead body of the deceased, for which a decision has been relied upon by the learned Advocate in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mohmed Fariq Haji Mohmad, reported in 2000 (2) GLH (UJ) 9, wherein this Court observed that muddamal clothes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after 14 days delay and there was no mention of quantity of blood collected from the body of the deceased. In the circumstances, the evidence of bloodstains found on the clothes of the accused was of the group of the deceased, is of no avail to the prosecution. In fact, prosecution was required to give account of the blood collected and how the collected blood was used. This is not done and, therefore, it is ultimately submitted that both the eye-witnesses are related and are interested witnesses, their evidence does not inspire confidence. There is no other corroborative evidence as almost all panchas have turned hostile. It is submitted that the evidence of test identification parade is of no avail to the prosecution as the witness had an opportunity to notice the accused persons. In respect of the Forensic Science Laboratory opinion of finding bloodstains on the clothes of three accused is also of no avail to the prosecution case as the procedure prescribed by this Court in the above said decision was not followed and, therefore, the conviction and sentence to the appellants by the Trial Court is bad in law and the judgment and order is required to be set aside. Alternatively, it is submitted that no overt act is attributed to appellants No. 3 and 4 by any of the witnesses and, therefore, they are falsely implicated and there is no evidence against at least appellants No. 3 and 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lakhani for the appellants relied upon some decisions which will be referred to hereinafter in detail. 8. As against that, learned APP Ms. Archana Raval vehemently submitted that there are two eye-witnesses of the incident and the evidence of the identification of the accused by the witnesses is unimpeachable. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lakhani for the appellants relied upon some decisions which will be referred to hereinafter in detail. 8. As against that, learned APP Ms. Archana Raval vehemently submitted that there are two eye-witnesses of the incident and the evidence of the identification of the accused by the witnesses is unimpeachable. It must be noted that both the witness are rustic villagers and, in fact, so far as the manner of occurrence of the incident is concerned, none of the witnesses is in contradiction to the prosecution story. There may be minor variations not affecting the root of the prosecution case, but out of four accused, two accused inflicted blows by axe and other two accused inflicted stick blows are narrated by both the witnesses in their deposition. It is submitted that so far as this fact is concerned, no contradiction could be brought to the notice by the defence. Reading of the evidence by the defence is also not proper as nowhere it is stated by Oghadbhai that Maldebhai had taken witness Oghadbhai and the accused together to the Mamlatdar Office. What is conveyed by the witness is this only that accused were also taken by Head Constable Maldebhai as well as he was also taken by Head Constable Maldebhai at the Mamlatar office for T.I. Parade. This is made clear by the evidence of independent witness Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, Executive Magistrate, that complainant came first to his office and thereafter accused came and he made arrangements to keep the complaint and the accused separately. The evidence of two eye-witnesses appears to be natural and in their own language and the totality of the circumstances must be considered. It is submitted that even the hostile witness P.W. 5 Jagubhai Bhimabhai Khuman to certain extent supports the prosecution case that from approximately 100 feet he did notice the incident, but he could not say, who were the assailants and who was the victim. So far as the occurrence of the incident is concerned, this witness can be relied upon but motive is very clear which is stated by P.W. 4 Pala Sajan that there was previous enmity because one lady was kidnapped by the deceased and, therefore, there was enmity between the villagers of the deceased and the accused. So far as the occurrence of the incident is concerned, this witness can be relied upon but motive is very clear which is stated by P.W. 4 Pala Sajan that there was previous enmity because one lady was kidnapped by the deceased and, therefore, there was enmity between the villagers of the deceased and the accused. There is no contradiction at all in the police statement given by Pala Sajan or in the complaint given by Oghad Pancha. This is because only one contradiction is proved in the evidence of the Investigating Officer about Oghad Pancha that after the incident how he reached to Haldarwa nesh, but so far as the main incident is concerned, nothing could be brought about the genesis as to disbelieve the core of the prosecution case. Medical evidence of P.W. 1 Dr. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai who conducted the postmortem corroborating the say of the witnesses. Not only that, the articles which were found from the body, including about Rs. 5000/- cash amount of selling of ghee and the ST bus tickets, corroborates the eye witnesses. P.W. 4 Pala Sajan also explained in cross-examination that why he went towards the old bus stand because one Jillbubhai Darbar of village Badg conveyed to him that his brother had gone towards old bus stand and, therefore, he went to the old bus stand. This has come in the cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that this witness is a chance witness so that Oghadbhai could not be believed only because the story is varied only in respect of how the FIR was recorded. It is submitted that, whatsoever, stated in the complaint is corroborated in the deposition of the complainant as no contradiction at all has been asked by the defence to this witness from the complaint. Reproduction of the incident in the same words of FIR after many years after considerable long time may be difficult. It does not mean that it is in contradiction whatever stated in the FIR. It is submitted that panchnama at Exhibit-43 is very important panchnama by which the clothes of the accused were seized. It is not material that how they were supplied fresh pairs of clothes, but what is important is, when accused were found and when their clothes were seized and in some of the clothes worn by three accused, there were blood stains of the group of the deceased. It is not material that how they were supplied fresh pairs of clothes, but what is important is, when accused were found and when their clothes were seized and in some of the clothes worn by three accused, there were blood stains of the group of the deceased. This is strong corroborative evidence, which could not be dislodged by the defence. It is, therefore submitted that the judgment and order of the Trial Court impugned in this Appeal is based on sound reasoning and requires no interference. This is a case of direct evidence and, in fact, there is no reason at all to disbelieve or discredit these witnesses only because they are related or interested witnesses. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appeal be dismissed accordingly. 9. We have considered the rival contentions advanced in this Appeal. We have re-appreciated the whole evidence recorded during the trial. We have taken into consideration, complete and comprehensive evaluation of all vital features of the case and the broad and reasonable probabilities arising out of the circumstances emerging from the evidence recorded. 10. The case of prosecution rests on evidence of two eye-witness i.e. P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha, examined at Exhibit 21, P.W. 4 Pala Sajan, examined at Exhibit-22 and two other important witnesses i.e. P.W. 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, Executive Magistrate, examined at Exhibit-49, who conducted the test identification parade and P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt, examined at Exhibit-52, Investigating Officer. In view of the extensive contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to see the evidence of these four witnesses in little detail along with the First Information Report. 11. First Information Report placed at Exhibit-53 was given by prosecution witness Oghad Pancha and has been proved in all respects. It is revealed that on the day of the incident at about 8.00 a.m. this witness as well as the deceased met at old bus stand chowk at Visavadar near Ambedkar statute. They had a talk about seeing a plot of land which this witness wanted to purchase. They returned after seeing the plot and while they were returning, the incident occurred. According to the complainant, they also took tea with one Forester Chavdabhai and independent witness Kathi Jagubhai who turned hostile. They had a talk about seeing a plot of land which this witness wanted to purchase. They returned after seeing the plot and while they were returning, the incident occurred. According to the complainant, they also took tea with one Forester Chavdabhai and independent witness Kathi Jagubhai who turned hostile. Now, while they were after seeing the plot, returned to the old bus stand chowk, the witness was little ahead of the deceased and heard shouts and loud voices. He turned around and noticed that four persons, two of them having axes in their hands and two of them having sticks in their hands, were beating the deceased. P.W. 5 Kathi Jagubhai attempted to prevent them, but in the meantime, all the four persons collectively attacked the deceased. The two persons having axes inflicted consecutive blows on the head of the deceased. He mentioned the locations and the blows clearly, i.e. one on the right side of the head, one below and behind on the right ear and head of the deceased and other person with axe also inflicted blows on left side of the head of the deceased. Samat had fallen down and one axe had stuck in the left side of the body of the deceased. At that time, the two other persons, who were having sticks also inflicted blows of sticks on the body of the deceased, they were frightened and, therefore, did not intervene. He also gave description of all the four persons and stated that the crowd was gathered and the four persons ran away from narrow lane of Harijan Vas. It is also admitted that he knew Samat since last five years and his wife was believed sister of the deceased. The motive was stated in the FIR that deceased had kidnapped daughter of Charan Hikha Madan before 15 years of the incident, therefore, there was enmity between the parties. According to the Investigating Officer, this FIR was recorded at 11.05 a.m. at the scene of offence wherein Oghad Pancha volunteered to give the complaint. 12. Now, for the incident, this very witness Oghad Pancha stated in clear terms in the examination-in-chief that while they were returning after seeing the plot, he was little ahead of the deceased and when he heard loud noises, he looked behind and saw that Samat had been beaten. 12. Now, for the incident, this very witness Oghad Pancha stated in clear terms in the examination-in-chief that while they were returning after seeing the plot, he was little ahead of the deceased and when he heard loud noises, he looked behind and saw that Samat had been beaten. On right side of his head a blow of axe was given, 4/5 blows were given on the head, one on the side of the body. The dispute was between Charan Hikha Madan and deceased on account of kidnapping his daughter by the deceased before 15 years of the incident. There were four persons, out of which, two had axes while two had sticks with them. He knew the assailants and he identified them in the Court. He stated that assailants ran away from the narrow lane street of Harijan Vas and he stated that all the four persons had worn white clothes. Incident occurred about 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. and he gave the complaint before the police. He saw the place of incident to Investigating Officer and thereafter four days after the incident, he was called by Mamlatdar and he attended the test identification parade and identified all the four accused. In his cross-examination, an attempt is made by the defence to suggest that he knew the accused before the incident. It was also admitted by him that he stated that he did not know the names of the assailants. In Para-6, the question about T.I. Parade, location of Mamlatdar Office and the general awareness, was asked. The accused were kept in a jail and the jail as well as the Mamlatdar Office were situated in the same premises. The witness stated that he was called by Head Constable Maldebhai. He denied the fact that accused were sitting in the police station and he did not saw them, but he stated that the panchas, the accused and he himself were taken to Mamlatdar Office by Head Constable Maldebhai. In Para-7 thick relationship between the deceased and the witness had been asked, which the witness had admitted. He further stated that from his shop, the office of Mamlatdar was about 500 feet away. In Para-7 thick relationship between the deceased and the witness had been asked, which the witness had admitted. He further stated that from his shop, the office of Mamlatdar was about 500 feet away. Only that in contradiction, but whatever stated by the Investigating Officer about recording of the complaint, he stated that after the incident, he went to his house and was called by Head Constable Maldebhai, he went to the police station and gave the complaint, while Investigating Officer stated that he recorded the complaint at the scene of offence itself. The witness further stated that he reached there and saw that there was crowd. He recorded the complaint on the bonnet of the government vehicle. In para 10, he stated about T.I. Parade that in all 20 persons, all were wearing clothes of different colours. The four accused were wearing white colour clothes and he identified all of them. Except this, nothing is coming out from the cross-examination of this witness. 13. Like wise, P.W. 4 Exhibit -22 Pala Sajan, brother of the deceased, stated that both the brothers from Haldarwa nesh (hamlet) came to Visavadar for purchasing and selling ghee. They sold ghee to one Jagadishbhai Chandubhai and thereafter both the brothers separated because this witness had to make some purchases. In examination in-chief, so far as the incident, the witness stated that after they separated from old bus stand and after purchasing while he was returning to old bus stand, for which also he gave explanation in examination-in-cross that one Darbar of village Badg told him that his brother was at old bus stand and when reached near the office of Municipality, he noticed that deceased and Oghad were in the old bus stand chowk near the statute of Dr. Ambedkar. He found that all the four accused came from the side street and they attacked his brother Samat. Accused Hikha Jiva and Gogan Kalabhai had axes with them and Harsur and Gabha had sticks with them. They inflicted stick blows and axe blows on the body of the deceased. Hikha Jiva inflicted axe blows on right side of the head of Samat while Gogan Kala inflicted axe blows on the left side of the head of the deceased. Accused Hikha Jiva and Gogan Kalabhai had axes with them and Harsur and Gabha had sticks with them. They inflicted stick blows and axe blows on the body of the deceased. Hikha Jiva inflicted axe blows on right side of the head of Samat while Gogan Kala inflicted axe blows on the left side of the head of the deceased. Hikha Jiva gave second blow near the right ear of the deceased and thereafter Samat had fallen down on the ground and Gogan gave another blow on left side of the head of the deceased. He also gave blow on side of the body of the deceased where the axe got stuck. Gogan Kala tried to pull out the axe, but it could not be extracted. He also tried to involve one Lakhabhai who had come there with stick and was shouting to kill Samat. Crowd was gathered and Lakhabhai Sidabhai found that witness was standing there and stated that the brother of the deceased Pala had been there and he also should be killed and, therefore, he ran away from the spot towards Popatdi river and from Hanumanpura and Satadhar road he reached at his residence at Haldarwa nesh. He was informed that his father had already gone to Visavadar. He stated the motive also. In his cross-examination, in Para-3 he was asked about whether both of them had purchased tickets for coming to Visavadar and he stated that both the tickets were purchased by deceased brother and had given his ticket to him. In Para-4, defence has asked about where the witness sold ghee and how much. He denied the fact that the shop of Jagadishbhai Chandubhai was near new bus stand and was away from old bus stand. In Para-5 it was asked that except selling ghee and purchasing, they had no opportunity to come to Visavadar and he had no reason to come to the old bus stand after purchasing when he was to go to Junagadh with his brother from new bus stand, but he explained voluntarily that one Darbar of village Badg told him that his brother was at old bus sand chowk and, therefore, he went towards old bus stand. He stated that the place where he was standing and noticed the incident of the scene of offence was at the distance of 75 feet and not at the distance of 500 feet. He stated that the place where he was standing and noticed the incident of the scene of offence was at the distance of 75 feet and not at the distance of 500 feet. He also stated that the area was densely situated and in Para-7 contradiction is asked as to how he after the incident reached at Haldarwa nesh and returned at the scene of offence. According to this witness, while he went to Haldarwa nesh to inform his father and returned from Haldarwa nesh, still the dead body of his brother was lying in the chowk. The only contradiction which is coming in examination-in-cross is in respect of how, after the incident, witness went to Haldarwa nesh. His original statement before the police was that because he was frightened he went towards Popatdi river and from there to railway track and from there he went to Haldarwa nesh, while in his deposition, he stated that he went to Hanumanpura where he got the rickshaw and from there he went to Satadhar Road and he went to Haldarwa nesh and returned. This is the only contradiction coming in his cross-examination. Except that, denial is asked in cross-examination, nothing his coming out to disbelieve this witness. 14. P.W. 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, Executive Magistrate and independent witness and he narrated all the facts about test identification parade. He has been cross-examined in detail but in cross-examination there is nothing coming out to indicate that there was any loopholes in arranging the test identification parade as to infer that either accused was shown to witness Oghad or that clue was provided by this witness, so the accused easily be identified. The witness arranged TI parade three times and each time all the four accused changed the clothes and remained in the line of dummies wherever they wanted to, and in these circumstances, each of the accused were identified. Not only that but the witness stated in his examination-in-cross that accused changed their clothes from other dummies and this fact was not mentioned in the panchnama, but in panchnama, it is categorically mentioned that the accused had each time had changed their clothes and changed the appearance. 15. Like wise P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt, examined at Exhibit-52, Investigating Officer, is also a witness and the Investigating Officer. 15. Like wise P.W. 17 Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt, examined at Exhibit-52, Investigating Officer, is also a witness and the Investigating Officer. On receiving information that the murder has been committed at old bus stand chowk, he immediately reached there and found a dead body lying. This is the corroborative piece of evidence. When he searched, he found Oghadbhai to gave the complaint and he wrote that complaint on the bonnet of the government vehicle i.e. jeep and forwarded that complaint for registration, which was registered at 11.05 in Visavadar Police Station. The only contradiction we found is in regard to where the complaint came to be registered. Except that, this witness is important because he saw the dead body lying in the chowk and he reached soon after at the scene of offence. 16. This weighty evidence against the accused persons is required to be re-appreciated. The Trial Court heavily relied on the evidence of these witnesses. In appreciation of evidence specially in criminal trials like murder, the Court is required to exercise due diligence and the standard of such exercise would be of an exercise by prudent person. Each case has to be decided on the evidence led irrespective of any view of the same act might have been taken on different evidence, led in another case. A Court of law is required to be derived truth from the legal evidence placed before it by either side and the Court should not be guided either by moral conviction or by influence of the gravity of crime. Undoubtedly, the appreciation of evidence in criminal trial is not based on any set principle, but Court has to seek guidance from its own experience. After examining the legal material placed before it, Court may come to its own conclusion. The prosecution story cannot be subjected to the critical and meticulous test of rationalism. Crimes are reality and be viewed as such, keeping in mind all the surroundings of particular crime where it might have committed. Therefore, no hard and fast rules can be laid down to appreciate the evidence in criminal trial because it is after all a question of fact in each case as they stand. It must also be noted that in matter of appreciation of evidence, there cannot be an indeed can never be any precedent since two cases cannot be identical for all times to come. It must also be noted that in matter of appreciation of evidence, there cannot be an indeed can never be any precedent since two cases cannot be identical for all times to come. Right approach, rather than to bank upon mechanically on some formal proposition is to appreciate the evidence through ordinary human prudence and that is really a correct judicial approach to reach at the truth. 17. Therefore, in order to appreciate the evidence on record especially in criminal trials, the Court must bear in mind the set up and the circumstances in which the crime is committed, the quality of evidence, nature and temperament of witnesses, the level of understanding and power of perspective of individual witness and probability in ordinary course of nature about occurrence of the incident as might have been witnessed by the witnesses. There cannot be a prosecution case with a cast iron perfection in all respects and it is obligatory therefore upon the Court to analyze, shift and assess the evidence on record with reference to trustworthiness and truthfulness of the witnesses 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. What is insisted is search for the truthfulness and credibility of the prosecution story. The approach should be to discern the thread of the prosecution story and find out whether the evidence of the witness to read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. 18. The present case is a case of direct evidence, where there are two eye witnesses. In all types of cases, the testimony of an eye-witness is placed at the highest pedestals. The eye witnesses, as Benthan has said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Where the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the site at the time of occurrence is probable and nothing is shown as to how their presence was improbable, the evidence of the eye-witnesses ought to be relied on by the Court and cannot be brushed aside for imaginary reasons far from the truth and denouncing practical realities of the version. One of the tests to check whether the eye-witnesses have actually seen the occurrence; is whether such evidence is corroborated by medical evidence and the other is whether there are contradictions or discrepancies. One of the tests to check whether the eye-witnesses have actually seen the occurrence; is whether such evidence is corroborated by medical evidence and the other is whether there are contradictions or discrepancies. It is also to be seen whether there is improvement of previous statement. Even if the version of the witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstances, there can be no ground to discard such evidence only because the witnesses happened to be interested or related to the deceased. In absence of inherent vice, inherent defect or obvious improbability, no presumption adverse to a witness should be drawn on any matter, at least, such adverse circumstances must be put to the witness and he is given an opportunity to explain it. Evidence of eye-witnesses who give clear and cogent evidence and no direct enmity is established, vis-a-vis, accused, such evidence cannot be discredited only because witnesses happened to be either a chance witness or related witness. In short, the approach should be to appreciate the evidence of eye-witnesses on its own merits and to accept the same with all cautions. If there be independent corroboration to the injuries of the deceased and the occurrence if supported by the circumstances, there cannot be any impediment in acting upon the eye-witnesses despite there may be variations in their evidence in other minor circumstances. A witness is presumed to be an independent unless his testimony springs from a source, which is tainted. A statement given on oath must be believed unless it is so inherently improbable that no person of prudence would believe it or the version given on oath is totally destroyed through the instrument of cross-examination of the witness. 19. Considering the evidence on record and the contentions raised, we are unable to come to the conclusion that both the eye-witnesses are got up one or they faked the evidence only because they are thickly related or interested in the deceased. It must be noted that the core of prosecution story right from the inception appears to be natural. Two brothers from their Haldarwa nesh, a small hamlet, where people breed animals, cattles and earn their livelihood through selling milks, ghee, etc. coming to nearby town is a natural incident. It must be noted that the core of prosecution story right from the inception appears to be natural. Two brothers from their Haldarwa nesh, a small hamlet, where people breed animals, cattles and earn their livelihood through selling milks, ghee, etc. coming to nearby town is a natural incident. It is an ordinary and normal occurrence that such residents of Haldarwa nesh came to near town to dispose of their milk products and to purchase their necessary household things. Therefore, the deceased and P.W. 4 Pala Sajan both had been to Visavadar and this story is inherently probable. The appellants also were the residents of a hamlet, situated in the area and there was enmity between two families on account of the incident that years before the deceased had kidnapped a female from the family of the accused which ensued complications. It must also be noted that when there is a cogent and direct evidence, motive rests in oblivion. In any case, there is sufficiently established motive in prosecution case. It is again a natural story that they sold ghee on the shop of Jagadishbhai Chandubhai and both brothers were separated because witness Pala had to purchase some household things and thereafter both of them were to go to Junagadh for attending a forest case. Credibility of prosecution rests definitely upon normal and ordinary life of the residents of particular area and when the story fits in normal circumstances of life of the citizens of that area, the prosecution story is required to be given credence. It is also not abnormal and improbable that Oghadbhai met deceased Samat at Visavadar. This is so because Oghadbhai was the resident of Visavadar. This is not a chance meeting. The whole scenario is required to be appreciated in this set of circumstances that witness Oghad and Samat were thickly related and, therefore, they met and took tea and went to see the plot. Relationship in the present case therefore gives more credence to the witness instead of casting any aspersions on them as had there not been any relationship, the presence of witness would become doubtful and improbable at the scene of offence. We have narrated the contentions of Oghadbhai made in the FIR and in his deposition. We do not find a single contradiction which discredits the witness on account of different story he narrated in the FIR and in the deposition. We have narrated the contentions of Oghadbhai made in the FIR and in his deposition. We do not find a single contradiction which discredits the witness on account of different story he narrated in the FIR and in the deposition. On the contrary, when Oghadbhai in his deposition described the incident in his own language, this naturalness of the witness is sure guarantee of truth. Whatever stated in the deposition is not at all in contradiction to whatever stated in the First Information Report by the witness, but it is a reproduction in natural manner by the witness and his say could not be dislodged in cross-examination nor it could be shown that the say of the witness was so improbable or so inherently impossible that his version could not be believed. Only contradiction which is admitted to be projected by learned Advocate for the Appellants is in respect of contradictions between the witness and Investigating Officer about recording of the First Information Report. The witness stated that after the incident, he ran away to his home from where he was called by Police Constable Maldebhai and he gave the complaint. It must be noted that emphatically he denied in the cross-examination that he was forced by the Investigating Officer to give a false complaint about the incident which he had not seen. Though the Investigating Officer submits that the First Information Report was recorded then and there when the dead body was lying in chowk and from a crowd Oghad volunteered and the complaint was recorded. It must also be noted that Exhibit-53 is recorded soon after the incident and has been the basis of registration of a crime against the accused which is clearly coming out from the evidence of P.W. 15 Jujarsinh Ramsinh Thakore and this witness is supported by station diary entry produced at Exhibit - 47, which is a public record and accordingly the incident occurred on 10.30 and the crime was registered at about 11.05 a.m. on the same day after half an hour of the incident. So, the fact remains that the FIR had contained the description of the incident as given by Oghad as has been made public record within half an hour. So, the fact remains that the FIR had contained the description of the incident as given by Oghad as has been made public record within half an hour. It must also be noted that when Oghadbhai deposed before the Court about the incident is not at all in contradiction so far as description of the incident is concerned. In such circumstances the fact that where the FIR was recorded would be immaterial one. 20. In our humble view, this is not a contradiction affecting the core of the prosecution case. Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments is natural especially when witnesses deposing before the Court after considerable time. The question arises as to what is the contradiction affecting the prosecution case. Contradiction which destroys the prosecution case and the variation in the evidence must be discerned while appreciating the evidence and its effects must be considered. Normally, discrepancies is natural to appear in the prosecution story because the prosecution establishes the case not only through the documentary evidence but through human instrumentality and therefore it is natural that normal discrepancies would be crept in which would not destroy the prosecution case. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and hurry at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful witness may be. Material discrepancies are not normal and not expected of a normal person. The courts have to label the category to which the discrepancies may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not erode the credibility of prosecution case, material discrepancies do so. It is the rule of law that even if there are discrepancies of normal nature about description and reproduction of the incident, those discrepancies would not erode the prosecution case. While here is the case where the witness sticks to his version in very natural way as to the occurrence of the incident, but a variation on account of lapse of time and error of memory has crept in only on the point as to where the FIR was recorded, and that normal discrepancy would not affect at all the prosecution case. When in all material respects and about the description of the incident, the witnesses found truthful, it would be far fetched even to imagine that such witness is got up witness because he could not depose or deposed in contradiction to Investigating Officer as to where the FIR came to be recorded. We do not find any substance in this argument against both the eye-witnesses advanced by learned Advocate for the appellants. Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments, if any, unless it is fatal to the prosecution case, it does not create any infirmity. This is the rule of law and the settled principles followed by criminal Courts. True it is that, the evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized more carefully to find out whether it has a ring of truth and if found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court, the same cannot be discarded totally merely on account of certain variations or infirmities pointed out, which are not connected with the description of the occurrence or the core of the prosecution case. Discrepancies found in ocular evidence again of the witnesses, unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. As observed earlier, the evidence of witnesses cannot be evaluated with mathematical nicety and with pedantic standards. The approach, therefore, of the Court must be whether the evidence of witness is read as a whole appears to have ring of truth? Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies and drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate the evidence to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render the evidence unworthy of belief. When we scrutinized the evidence of both the eye witnesses, on evaluation, witness Oghad pancha is well corroborated not only by First Information Report but by the medical evidence as well and by the Investigating Officer. When drawback is pointed out as to recording of FIR, it is in respect of where, in fact, FIR was recorded. When we scrutinized the evidence of both the eye witnesses, on evaluation, witness Oghad pancha is well corroborated not only by First Information Report but by the medical evidence as well and by the Investigating Officer. When drawback is pointed out as to recording of FIR, it is in respect of where, in fact, FIR was recorded. This discrepancy is not at all material because within no time of the incident, the FIR came to be registered before the Police and was made a public document and embellishment in such record was impossible. When the witness gave the version and when it becomes a public record within half an hour of the incident, the fact becomes immaterial where actually the First Information Report was recorded. This is minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the prosecution. It would be hyper technical approach to come to the conclusion that when witness erred as to the place of recording of the FIR, he must be a got up witness. This is so because, the general tenor of the evidence given by both the eye-witnesses is found credit worthy and natural. This opinion is also formed by the Trial Court and this Court will have to attach due weight to the opinion expressed by the Trial Court especially when the Trial Court had also an advantage to look at the demeanour of the witnesses. Same way, the evidence of Pala Sajan cannot be thrown out only because some contradiction appeared in deposition and police statement only in respect of how he reached Haldarwa nesh after the incident and returned to scene of offence. What is material is whether his presence at the scene of offence is natural and the account which he gave of the incident inspires confidence. Only because in police statement he stated that he went to Haldarwa nesh through railway track and before the Court he stated that he went Haldarwa nesh after the incident in rickshaw through Hanumanpura and Shatadar road, would not dislodge the general and important tenor of his evidence, which is supported by P.W. 1 Dr. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai, First Information Report and Medical opinion. His evidence cannot be brushed aside because he is brother of the deceased. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai, First Information Report and Medical opinion. His evidence cannot be brushed aside because he is brother of the deceased. As above said, it is the incident, which is occurred in the Gir Forest area where town of Visavadar is the nearby town for Haldarwa residents to come to sell their milk products and purchase household things of necessity. In Gir forest area, there are small hamlets where the people stay and breed cattle. The description of the occurrence by witness Pala Sajan is natural. True that he has attempted to involve accused No. 5, would be embroidery on his part. This would not affect the main substratum of the prosecution case that the accused with axe and sticks attacked the deceased and murdered the deceased and that murder was seen by these witnesses. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellants that witness Pala Sajan, firstly, he is related witness and because he falsely implicated accused No. 5 and on account of contradiction about his reaching and returning from Haldarwa nesh, would lead to inference that Pala is a got up witness. When the substratum of the prosecution case is established by weighty and affirmable evidence, it would not be proper to reject the evidence of Pala Sajan on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even very honest and truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with the persons. On the contrary, minor discrepancies in evidence may render credence to the deposition of such witness because parrot like statements and descriptions of minute details of the incident are disliked by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancies pointed out was minor or not as aforesaid the test is how the same affects the substratum of prosecution case. Thus, we do not find, in fact, any infirmity in the evidence of both the eye-witnesses i.e. Oghad Pancha and Pala Sajan. Their evidence is impeccable, natural, simple, credit-worthy and could not be shaken either in cross-examination or no circumstances could be shown by the defence so vital as to disbelieve these witnesses. 21. Both the witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha and P.W. 4 Pala Sajan are amply corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Their evidence is impeccable, natural, simple, credit-worthy and could not be shaken either in cross-examination or no circumstances could be shown by the defence so vital as to disbelieve these witnesses. 21. Both the witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha and P.W. 4 Pala Sajan are amply corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai, examined at Exhibit-13 - P.W. 1 had noted above mentioned five injuries and also stated that those five injuries could be caused by hard sharp cutting weapon. One more injury was there i.e. injury No. 6, could be caused by hard and blunt substance. Therefore, no contradiction, in the evidence of Medical Officer and in the evidence of the eye witnesses. It must also be noted that from the body of the deceased P.W. 1 Dr. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai recovered Rs. 5,307/- in cash, which lends credence to the story of the prosecution that both the brothers had been to Visavadar for selling ghee and they already sold ghee. One ST bus ticket in two parts, one of Rs. 3/- and one of Rs. 0.50ps also recovered from the body of the deceased. Independent witness Dr. Kadavabhai Gopalbhai, P.W. 1 has deposed this fact, which leads to trustworthiness of the story of the prosecution. Though P.W. 4 Pala Sajan was asked in defence about the tickets and in clear terms he stated that the tickets were purchased by deceased and he had given him his ticket. According to us, this is quite natural conduct and the prosecution case cannot be questioned on the ground that why deceased did not keep all the tickets with him and if the tickets of Pala was handed over by the deceased to Pala, then why Pala did not produce that ticket to the Investigating Agency. We cannot find fault in prosecution case in this regard, but on the contrary, this aspect strengthened the prosecution case as independent witness Medical Officer, who has no interest at all, has deposed about these facts. Doctor has also recovered one axe, which was stuck up in the body of the deceased and this is the fact deposed by the eye witness. The evidence of Doctor could not be dislodged. 22. Doctor has also recovered one axe, which was stuck up in the body of the deceased and this is the fact deposed by the eye witness. The evidence of Doctor could not be dislodged. 22. Likewise, though the two panchas of T.I. Parade panchnama, P.W. 8 Suresh Jagjivan Sadrani and P.W. 10 Vallabhbhai Ramjibhai Gujariya, have not supported the prosecution case, but we find that the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, P.W. 16, Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad is beyond any reproach. In his examination-in-chief, he mentioned the precautions he had taken to arrange test identification parade. He made the accused and the complainant sit separately in manner, so they could not see each other. For satisfaction he conducted T.I. Parade for three times. The accused were given opportunity to change their appearance and they did so all the three times and also changed their places in que. First time, witness Oghad Pancha identified the three accused i.e. appellants No. 2, 3 and 4. Second time P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha identified all the four appellants. Again an attempt was made and again in affirmation all the four appellants were identified by the complainant. P.W. 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, has been cross-examined in detail, but nothing is elicited as to shake the worthy evidence of this witness. In all respects, Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad proved test identification parade panchnama placed at Exhibit-37 and allegation is made that the witness deposed before the Court that the accused changed clothes with dummy persons and that had not recorded by him in the panchnama, but we find that in the panchnama the fact is recorded that all the accused had changed their appearance and they were given opportunity to remain in the que wherever they wish. Test identification parade is therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was no reason otherwise for Oghad Pancha to say that he did not know the names of the accused otherwise he knew that they were the residents of hamlets scattered and situated in the area. Oghad Pancha could have identified the accused and there could not have any necessity to arrange test identification parade, but the witness is truthful and credit-worthy that he deposed that though he knew the accused on appearance, but did not know their names. Even he gave description of the accused in the complaint and in deposition also. Oghad Pancha could have identified the accused and there could not have any necessity to arrange test identification parade, but the witness is truthful and credit-worthy that he deposed that though he knew the accused on appearance, but did not know their names. Even he gave description of the accused in the complaint and in deposition also. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that the witness Pala Sajan had given an opportunity by the Investigating Agency to see the accused before test identification parade. Stray sentences in Para-4 of cross-examination is referred to as the base of these contentions. It is submitted that in cross-examination, witness Oghadbhai in Para-6 admitted that, to himself (Oghad), panchas and the accused were brought before the Mamlatar office by one Maldebhai, Head Constable from police station. Carving out a submission from this fact that it is submitted that when Maldebhai, Head Constable, has taken panchas, Oghad and other accused together at the Mamlatdar Officer, there was no use at all to arrange test identification parade as the accused were shown to the witnesses before that. We simply cannot accept this argument because the evidence is to be considered in its totality and the real say of the witness which he conveys to the Court must be discerned. It is not the say of the witness, as argued by learned Advocate for the appellants that, the panchas, Oghad and the accused were taken together to Mamlatdar office from the Police Station. The word “together” is supplied by learned Advocate for the appellants, in reading the evidence of this witness, we are unable to add word “together” in the evidence, that is clear from the evidence of the witness to convey and from totality of circumstances, witness has not said that the witness, panchas and accused were taken by Maldebhai, Head Constable, together at Mamlatdar Office. This is more made clear by the evidence of P.W. 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad, wherein in examination-in-chief, he has stated clearly and with certainty that first accused were entrusted to him and they were made to sit in Land Department Room and the doors were closed and thereafter, after five minutes, Oghadbhai came and he was made to sit in the Special Department Room of the Mamlatdar and the doors were closed and thereafter he arranged to call dummies. The worthy evidence of test identification parade is not at all affected as has been argued by learned Advocate for the appellants. Likewise, only because the witnesses stated that the accused were wearing white clothes which means that, it was a clue provided by the police to the witness. The whole evidence, in this respect, is to be read not in isolation but in context with what is established in the prosecution case. It must be noted that in examination-in-cross, in Para-6, Oghad emphatically denied that he had seen the accused before TI parade. The whole Para-10 of his examination-in-cross is read together, wherein the witness has stated that at the time of test identification parade, the dummies were between 20 to 30 years of age, and all them had worn clothes of different colours and the persons who identified were in white clothes. Now this statement of the witness would not indicate that the accused only were in white clothes and all others were not. What the witness wanted to convey was that every body had worn the clothes of different colours which must include the white colour also. In this regard, the evidence of P.W. 16 Vishalbhai Rudabhai Bharvad is seen, it is established beyond doubt that all the three times all the accused were given chance to change their appearance and they in fact did so and changed their clothes with dummy persons and, therefore, merely saying by Oghad that he identified four accused and they had worn white clothes, would not be a ground to disbelieve the weighty evidence of test identification parade as conducted by independent witness and proved beyond doubt. Test identification parade gives credence to the say of the eye-witnesses and the story therefore of the prosecution appears to be natural, simple and probable. 23. The important witness is now Investigating Officer, P.W. 17 –Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt. This witness corroborating the eye-witness in material particular in manner that just after the incident he reached at the scene of offence and found dead body lying with the injuries and inquest panchanama was drawn immediately. 23. The important witness is now Investigating Officer, P.W. 17 –Pradipkumar Odhavji Bhatt. This witness corroborating the eye-witness in material particular in manner that just after the incident he reached at the scene of offence and found dead body lying with the injuries and inquest panchanama was drawn immediately. The contradiction which is pointed out, as discussed above, that witness says that he recorded the complaint on the spot while for recording of the complaint P.W. 3 Oghad Pancha says that he had ran away to his house and from there he had gone to police station to give the complaint. The important thing is, the complaint was recorded soon after the incident at about 11.05 and it is not important that where the same was recorded and, therefore, this witness i.e. Investigating Officer is corroborating the say of eye-witnesses and, therefore, eye-witnesses are worthy of credence. The injuries on the body of the deceased is noted in inquest panchnama placed at Exhibit-26 drawn on the same day from 11.30 to 12.30. Consistent story that four appellants attacked the deceased and inflicted blows and two appellants inflicted stick blows is fortified by the evidence of Investigating Officer and inquest panchnama. Complainant sticks to the FIR and no contradiction could be brought on record. Apart from the fact that manner of describing the incident in First Information Report and manner of describing the incident in the deposition by Oghad may be different, but the substance of occurrence is not shaken at all. Even the other witness i.e. witness Pala Sajan, no contradiction could be brought about, except that, how he went to Haldarwa nesh after the incident and returned and, therefore, the Investigating Officer is an important witness to corroborate the eye-witnesses. 24. Thus, in all respects, viewing the prosecution case and appreciating the same from all possible strict test of judicial scrutiny, it appears that there is truth in the say of the witnesses and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. In all cases, it is not necessary that there should be independent witnesses only. The contention that Jagadishbhai ought to have been examined, is without substance because the role of Jagadishbhai was only to purchase ghee from the deceased and his brother and he had nothing to do with the actual incident. In all cases, it is not necessary that there should be independent witnesses only. The contention that Jagadishbhai ought to have been examined, is without substance because the role of Jagadishbhai was only to purchase ghee from the deceased and his brother and he had nothing to do with the actual incident. We cannot accept the submission of learned Advocate for the appellants that the prosecution case is adversely affected because Maldebhai, Police Head Constable, has not been examined by the prosecution which is referred everywhere in the prosecution case. Considering this argument, we come to the conclusion that Maldebhai was only a Head Constable and executing the orders of the Investigating Officer and was only assisting him. In no circumstances, it could be said that, he was so material witness that non-examination of the witness would affect adversely to the prosecution case. In fact, Head Constable Maldebhai has no role to play at all in prosecution case. He was expected to discharge his duties as being subordinate to the Investigating Officer and he discharged those duties. There is no substance in the say that Pala noticed the incident near the office of Municipality which is 500 feet away. When we scrutinized the evidence of witness Pala as aforesaid, we found that Pala stated that he noticed the incident near the Municipality office, and that does not mean that he was not in a position to notice the incident. The distance which Pala gives in deposition between him and scene of offence is of 75 feet, but in any case, it could not be said that Pala was at a distance as he could not have seen the incident and, therefore, he was got up witness. We do no also accept the contention that there was no role attributed to appellant No. 3 and appellant No. 4. Both the witnesses have named appellants No. 3 and 4 and attributed active role. Common intention amongst these accused in coming together and running together is obvious and established. All the four appellants took part in the incident indicating common intention. There is one injury on the dead body i.e. injury No. 6 could be caused by hard and blunt substance. It may be that other injuries are not fund on the body, but it does not absolve the appellants No. 3 and 4 from liability. All the four appellants took part in the incident indicating common intention. There is one injury on the dead body i.e. injury No. 6 could be caused by hard and blunt substance. It may be that other injuries are not fund on the body, but it does not absolve the appellants No. 3 and 4 from liability. The manner in which the incident is disclosed and proved, active role of the appellants No. 3 and 4 surfaces clean and clear so as to saddle them with the liability with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted certain decisions in support of his contention. The decision in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mohmed Fariq Haji Mohmad, as reported in 2000 (2) GLH (UJ) 9, this Court has observed that when there was delay in sending samples to Forensic Science Laboratory and there was no evidence that how much blood was extracted from the body, the possibility of tampering with the blood sample could not be ruled out and the evidence of Forensic Science Laboratory was not of any help in that case to the prosecution, but in the present case, this question would not arise as the case of the prosecution is proved beyond doubt by direct evidence and the evidence of Forensic Science Laboratory is a corroborative piece of evidence. The manner in which the prosecution case is proved against the appellants, significance of Forensic Science Laboratory evidence is none at all. 26. The second decision which learned Advocate for the appellants relied upon is a decision of this Court in the matter of Mohmad Salim Abdul Razaq vs. State of Gujarat, as reported in 2003 CriLJ [Guj.] 668, wherein this Court while discarding the evidence of test identification parade, observed that in test identification parade, dummies must be selected similar to the accused. This decision also would not help the defence because, in this case what we found was that the dummies were in the age group of 20-30 and there is no iota of evidence that dummies were such as would provide a clue to the witness to identify the accused easily. 27. This decision also would not help the defence because, in this case what we found was that the dummies were in the age group of 20-30 and there is no iota of evidence that dummies were such as would provide a clue to the witness to identify the accused easily. 27. The other decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellants are (i) in the matter of Nathia vs. State of Rajasthan, as reported in 1999 CriLJ 1371; (ii) in the matter of Shiv Bali vs. State of U.P., as reported in 2003 CriLJ 4637; (iii) in the matter of Dharam Singh vs. State of Punjab, as reported in AIR 1993 SC 319 ; (iv) in the matter of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, as reported in AIR 2003 SC 4399 ; (v) in the matter of Dahyabhai Khushalbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat, as reported in 1996 (3) GLR 845 ; (vi) in the matter of Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam, as reported in AIR 1993 SC 1462 and (vii) in the matter of B.N. Singh vs. State of Gujarat, as reported in 1990 (1) GLH 256. These decisions entirely rests on the appreciation of the evidence on the facts of particular case. In criminal trial, one incident would not be similar to other. Each case has to be judged from its own merits and, therefore, the facts of one case would not be a precedent for the other. In the above mentioned cases, there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case those were held to be fatal and the accused were acquitted. While in the present case, we do not find any such infirmity and we have discussed the evidence in great details and, therefore, the aforesaid decisions cited by learned Advocate for the appellants would not be helpful to the appellants. 28. In view of the reasons recorded above this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Appellant No. 3 Harsur Vala Gujaria and Appellant No. 4 Gabha Valabhai Gujaria are on bail in pursuance of the Order dated 8.01.2001 of this Court. Time is granted of 10 weeks from today for appellant No. 3 Harsur Vala Gujaria and Appellant No. 4 Gabha Valabhai Gujaria to surrender before the Trial Court. Bail bonds of appellants No. 3 and 4 stand cancelled.