Judgment Ms. R. Banumathi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment in S.C. No. 82 of 2005 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, convicting first appellant/A1 under Section 302, 307 read with 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment (for offence under Section 302 (IPC) and R.I. for 10 years for offence under Section 307 read with 34 (IPC) and convicting second appellant/A2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed fine. Third accused was acquitted of the charges. 2. Case prosecution in nutshell is as follows: (i) Appellant and witnesses-P. Ws. 1 to 3 are related as under: A3 is grand son of Perumal through his first wife. (ii) A1s marriage was solemnised with one Thenu and there was differences between A1 and his wife Thenu. Due to death of P.W.1s father there had been some quarrel between witness Murugan and A1. P.W.2-Murugan married A1s sister Sasikala. Due to frequent quarrel between P.W.2-Murugan and his wife Sasikala, she left matrimonial house and was residing in A1s house. Inspite of repeated re-quest Sasikala had not rejoined her husband P.W.2-Murugan, which resulted in enmity between both families. P.W.1-Arumugam and his family members are said to have intervened in the matter. (iii) On the night of 111. 2003, P.Ws.1 to 3 and deceased Chennammal were sleeping in the verandah of their house in Ramakrishnampathy Village. In the midnight at about 11.00 p.m., A 1 to A3 came there and on hearing sound, P.Ws.1 to 3 woke up. On the instigation of A2, A1 had thrown M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal on the head of Chennammal and Chennammal died instantaneously. (iv) P.W.1 chased A2 on the river side and he caught hold of A2s shirt and A2 shook of his shirt and ran away. When P.W.3-Lakshmi questioned A1, A1 stabbed P.W.3 with M.O.4-Spear (Kuthu Eetti) on her hands, abdomen and chest. A3 is alleged to have beaten P.W.2-Murugan with M.O.3-Thadi. (v) P.W.4-Peruma, who is sister of P.W.1, on hearing the noise came there and saw A1 stabbing P.W.3 with M.O.4-Spear (Kuthu Eetti). On 111. 2003, P.W.1 had taken his wife Lakshmi to Uthangarai Govt. Hospital. P.W.8-Dr.Marimuthu examined injured. P.W.3-Lakshmi and noted lacerated injury on the right forearm, right hand dorsum, right shoulder and 2nd Meta carpel bone was fractured. Exhibit PS is the wound certificate. On 111. 2003, P.W.1 had taken his wife Lakshmi to Uthangarai Govt. Hospital. P.W.8-Dr.Marimuthu examined injured. P.W.3-Lakshmi and noted lacerated injury on the right forearm, right hand dorsum, right shoulder and 2nd Meta carpel bone was fractured. Exhibit PS is the wound certificate. P.W.2-Murugan was also admitted in the hospital and no external injuries were noted and Exhibit P-4 is the wound certificate. After admitting P.W.3. In the hospital P.W.1 went to Kallavi PS and lodged Exhibit P-1-Complaint, on the basis of which a case was registered in Cr. No. 345/03 under Section 323, 324,307 and 302 IPC under Exhibit P-23-FIR. (vi) P.W.15-Inspector of Police (Investigating Officer) had taken up investigation and he has inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of VAO and prepared Exhibit P-11-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-24-Rough Plan. Blood stained earth and sample earth were seized under Exhibit P-12-Seizure Mahazar. M.O. Kulavikkal and M.O.3-Thadi were seized under Exhibit P-13-Seizure Mahazar. (vii) Witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Chennammal. Exhibit P-25 is the inquest report. After inquest, the body was sent to autopsy. P.W.7-Dr. Gunasundari conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Chennammal and she noted lacerated injuries over left side forehead, depression on left side of face with fracture of facial bones. Opining that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage, P.W.7 issued Exhibit-P-3-Post Mortem Certificate. (viii) A1 to A3 were arrested on 30.11.2003. Confession statement led to recovery of M.O.4-Kuthu Eetti. Insofar as the third accused is concerned, on requisition from Investigating Officer, P.W.9 conducted identification parade in Central Prison, Salem. During the identification parade the witnesses have not identified the third accused (since ac-quitted) and Exhibit P-6 is the Test Identification Parade Report. After receipt of chemical analysis report and due investigation, final re-port was filed against A1 to A3 under Section 302, 307, 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and 323 of IPC. (3) Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 15. Exhibits P-1 to 25 and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C. about incriminating evidence and circumstances. The accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty. (3) Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 15. Exhibits P-1 to 25 and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C. about incriminating evidence and circumstances. The accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of evidence, learned Sessions Judge held that intention of A1 to commit murder of Chennammal was proved beyond reasonable doubt and first accused was convicted under Section 302 and 307 read with 34 of IPC for causing death of Chennammal and causing in-jury to P.W.3-Lakshmi. For sharing common intention, A2 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Holding that the prosecution version regarding the complicity of A3 is not acceptable, A3 was ac-quitted of the charges. 4. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. P.M. Duraiswamy contended that appellants/accused 1 and 2 were falsely implicated and there is no incriminating evidence against appellants. It was further submitted that there are many lapses in Investigation and serious doubts arise as to the genesis of prosecution version and while so, Trial Court was not right in convicting the appellants. 5. Drawing our attention to evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, learned Public Prosecutor (In-charge) Mr. P. Kumaresan submitted that the witnesses have consistently spoken about A1s Overt act and evidence adduced clinchingly establishes that A1 has caused in-jury to deceased Chennammal with intention to cause death and Trial Court rightly convicted appellants/accused 1 and 2. Wife of A 1-Therm left A1 and Panchayat was convened and Venkattan, father of P.W. 1, advised A1 to reconcile to his wife. Regarding the relation of A1 with his wife, there was frequent quarrel between Venkatan and A1. A1s Sister Sasikala had married P.W.2-Murugan. Due to strained relationship between P.W.2 and Sasikala, she left the matrimonial house. Because of frequent quarrel between P.W.2 and Sasikala and her desertion, relationship between both families was strained. About 10 days prior to occurrence, A1 had gone to Ramakrishnampathi Village and quarreled with P.W.1-Arumugam and his family members. 6. On behalf of appellants, it was contended that due to enmity between P.W.1s family members and A1 appellants were falsely implicated. Learned counsel for appellants further contended that prosecution has not established the motive between P.W.1s family members and appellants and to cause the death of Chennammal. 6. On behalf of appellants, it was contended that due to enmity between P.W.1s family members and A1 appellants were falsely implicated. Learned counsel for appellants further contended that prosecution has not established the motive between P.W.1s family members and appellants and to cause the death of Chennammal. It was further argued that there could not have been any motive against aged lady deceased Chennammal, who is none other than the maternal grandmother of A1. There is no force in the contention advanced on "insufficiency of motive." Absence of sufficient motive cannot vitally affect the prosecution case. 7. Where the case of prosecution is based upon direct evidence, it is not incumbent on the part of prosecution to prove the motive for crime. Often motive is to heighten the probability of offence that the person was impelled by that motive. Proof of motive only adds to weight and value of evidence of eye witnesses. Where the case of prosecution is based upon evidence of "Eye Witnesses", the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency or insufficiency of motive will not play a major role as in the case which is based on circumstantial evidence. In our considered view, when direct evidence against accused is clear and cogent, proof of motive is of no importance. P.Ws.1 to 3 have consistently spoken about the overt act of A1. On the fateful night (111. 2003), A1 allegedly accompanied by A2 and A3 went to the house of P.W.1 and threw M.O.1-Ammi Kulavikkal on deceased. P.W. 1 chased A3. On being questioned, A1 caused injuries to P.W.3-Lakshmi with M.O.4-Spear (Kuthu Eetti) on her chest, hand and forehead. 8. That P.W.3-Lakshmi sustained injuries in the incident is strengthened by medical evidence. Evidence of P. W.8-Dr. Marimuthu and Exhibit P-5-Wound Certificate would strengthen the evidence of P.W.3 that she sustained lacerated injuries in the right forearm, right hand dorsum and left hand dorsum. When X-ray was taken as 2nd Meta carpel bone was found fractured. Doctor opined that injury No. 2 — lacerated injury in right hand dorsum was grievous in nature and other injuries were simple in nature. P.W.3 being an "injured witness", her evidence stands on higher footing. The testimony of injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that P.W.3 sustained injury in the same occurrence lends assurance to her testimony that she was present at the time of occurrence. P.W.3 being an "injured witness", her evidence stands on higher footing. The testimony of injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that P.W.3 sustained injury in the same occurrence lends assurance to her testimony that she was present at the time of occurrence. Very much convincing ground is essential to discard such evidence of injured witness. 9. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is assailed on the ground that they being related to Chennammal are "Interested Witnesses" and therefore, their testimony is unreliable. Learned counsel for appellant contended that in the absence of in-dependent witnesses evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be relied upon. There is no provision in law that a person, who is related to deceased has to be termed as an unreliable witness. The evidence of a witness is not be disbelieved simply because he was related to deceased. The occurrence was in night and P.Ws.1 to 3 were sleeping along with deceased Chennammal in verandah. Appellants along with A3 are alleged to have entered the verandah and committed the offence. The occurrence being in the night time, P. Ws.1 to 3, who were the inmates of house are the natural witnesses to speak about the occurrence. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be doubted on the ground that they are related to deceased. 10. Taking us through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, learned counsel for appellants nextly contended that there are several contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 which would vitally affect the prosecution. It was argued that P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that P.W.1 had gone chasing A2, whereas P.W.1 has stated that he had gone chasing A3. It is no doubt true that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 does suffer from contradictions. Contending that when evidence of witnesses is beset with contradictions, Court may not rely upon such evidences, learned counsel for appellants placed reliance upon State of Rajasthan v. Netrapal, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 187: (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1194 and Mathura Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2707 : (2002) SCC (Crl) 1352 : (2002) 1 MLJ (Crl) 994. 11. All discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, which do not create infirmity in prosecution case are not necessarily fatal. 11. All discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, which do not create infirmity in prosecution case are not necessarily fatal. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390 : (1981) 2 SCC 752 : (1981) SCC (Cr) 593, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "8. …….In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person...." 12. The main thing to be seen is, whether such inconsistencies relating to A2 would go to root of the matter pertaining to A1. Despite lengthy cross-examination nothing worth was elicited shaking the credibility of P.Ws.1 to 3 pertaining to A1. Court should not disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 altogether as their evidence is trustworthy in respect of overt act of A1. In our considered view, such discrepancy regarding presence of A2 and chasing of A2/A3 would not vitally affect the consistent version P. Ws.1 to 3 as to the overt act of A1. 13. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 stands amply corroborated by the objective findings by Investigating Officer about the scene of occurrence, detection of human blood in M.O.5-Blood Stained Cement Earth (taken in Cotton Swab) seized from the scene of occurrence and Cotton Swab taken from M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal. Detection of human blood in M.O.1 and M.O.5 lends assurance to the prosecution version. 14. Placing reliance upon Haryana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 2002 SC 2821 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1370: (2002) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1077, learned counsel for appellants contended that non-examination of independent witnesses would vitally affect prosecution case. The plea of non-examination of Independent Witnesses would have to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, occurrence was inside the house viz., at Verandah in the midnight of 111. 2003 at about 11.00-12.00 hours. When occurrence was in the midnight, it is futile to expect examination of any independent witnesses. When occurrence was in the verandah of house, inmates of house are natural and probable witnesses. 15. In the instant case, occurrence was inside the house viz., at Verandah in the midnight of 111. 2003 at about 11.00-12.00 hours. When occurrence was in the midnight, it is futile to expect examination of any independent witnesses. When occurrence was in the verandah of house, inmates of house are natural and probable witnesses. 15. Learned counsel for appellants mainly contended that there was delay in lodging the complaint and delay in registration of FIR and that because of delay, there is every possibility of improvements in prosecution case. Occurrence had taken place in the midnight of 111. 2003 at about 11.00-12.00 hours. The complaint was lodged by P.W.1 at 11.30 a.m. on 111. 2003. On behalf of appellants, it was contended that immediately after the occurrence, number of persons assembled there and some people having two wheelers had gone to Papparipatti to bring private doctor. Taking us through evidence, learned counsel further submitted that Village President also came to scene of occurrence and the Village President was having telephone and he also phoned up to police and informed the occurrence and in such circumstances, delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to prosecution case. 16. Delay in lodging the complaint or registration of FIR is normally viewed with suspicion, because there is possibility of concoction of evidence against accused. When there is delay in registration of FIR, it becomes necessary for prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay. In the instant case, in his evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that there was no bus facility during night time and on the next day (111. 2003), he had taken his wife (P.W.3) to Uthangarai and after admitting P.W.3 in the hospital, he went to Kallavi PS and lodged the complaint. In our considered view, delay in lodging the complaint has been satisfactorily explained by P.W.1. In any event, we do not find any improvements or coloured versions being introduced in FIR. P.W.1 has no motive to falsely implicate the accused, who are his close relatives. 17. It was contended that FIR came into existence during investigation and that there is every possibility that FIR could have been fabricated to implicate the accused, after preliminary investigation. In support his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon Mehtabbi, wife of Khajamiya v. State of Maharashtra (Bom), (1983) 1 Crimes 116 . 17. It was contended that FIR came into existence during investigation and that there is every possibility that FIR could have been fabricated to implicate the accused, after preliminary investigation. In support his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon Mehtabbi, wife of Khajamiya v. State of Maharashtra (Bom), (1983) 1 Crimes 116 . Drawing our attention to evidence of P.W.1, learned counsel for appellants submitted that in his evidence P.W. 1 has stated that I.O. came to the scene of occurrence at 11.00 a.m., but FIR was registered at 11.30 a.m. It was also submitted that intimation was sent to Police when P.W.3 was admitted in hospital and that Village President had also sent Intimation to Police about the occurrence over telephone, which would show that investigation was al-ready commenced. Learned counsel would further submit that after getting intimation about occurrence and after preliminary investigation, Exhibit P-23-FIR came into existence and there is every possibility that after preliminary investigation FIR was fabricated to implicate the accused. 18. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced by appellants. The occurrence was on 111. 2003. The witnesses deposed in Court in June-July 2007, nearly 3/2 years after the occurrence. Regarding intimation to police, time of visit of Investigating Officer to the scene of occurrence, there might have been fading memory. Answers elicited during cross-examination would not lead to the conclusion that there was preliminary investigation and FIR came into existence after deliberation. In any event, telephonic information does not mean that a formal complaint has been lodged so as to presume that investigation commenced even before registration of FIR. 19. P.W.3-Lakshmi was admitted in Uthangarai Government Hospital at 7.40 a.m., later she was referred to Dharmapuri Hospital for further treatment. In his evidence, P.W. 15-Inspector of Police had stated that he had seized M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal and M.O.3-Thadi and M.O.7-Saree Piece under Exhibit P-13-Seizure Mahazar. P.W.15-10 has stated that M.O.7-Saree Piece was produced by P.W.3-Lakshmi at 2.00 p.m. 20. On behalf of appellants, it was therefore contended that P.W.3 was admitted in hospital on the morning of 111. 2003 and while so, it would have been quite improbable that P.W.3 would have come back to Ramakrishnampathl Village at 2.00 p.m. to produce the material objects. It was therefore contended that there are several lapses in investigation and prosecution has not come out with true version. 21. 2003 and while so, it would have been quite improbable that P.W.3 would have come back to Ramakrishnampathl Village at 2.00 p.m. to produce the material objects. It was therefore contended that there are several lapses in investigation and prosecution has not come out with true version. 21. Of course P.W.3 was admitted in hospital at 7.40 a.m. on 111. 2003. Thereafter, she was referred to Dharmapuri Hospital, at that time, P.W.3 might have gone to Village and might have produced M.O.7-Saree Piece. It is pertinent to note that as seen from Exhibit P-11-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-24-Rough Plan, M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal and M.O.3-Thadi and M.O.7-Saree Piece were very much available in the scene of occurrence. In such circumstances, as to who produced M.Os.1, 3, 7 is of no consequence. 22. It was nextly contended that arrest of accused is stage-managed. As per evidence of P.W.15-K.Muthupandiyan, Investigating Officer, A1to A3 were arrested on 30.11.2003 at 8.00 a.m. and confession statement of A1 was recorded between 8.00 and 10.00 a.m., which lead to recovery of M.O.4-Kuthu Eetti. Certain answers were elicited from P.W.1 to the effect that A2 was arrested on 111. 2003. During cross-examination, it was elicited from P.W.3 that A1 and A2 were in the Police Station on 211. 2003. Drawing our attention to evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, learned counsel for appellants contended that arrest of accused on 30.11.2003 was stage-managed and concocted. It was further argued that arrest, confession and recovery of M.O.4-Kuthu Eetti were cooked up to suit the convenience of prosecution and that I.O. had indulged in unfair and partial investigation. There is no force in the contention that the arrest of accused were stage-managed. P.W.11-Village Administrative Officer has spoken clearly about the arrest of A1 to A3 and the confession statement recorded from them and recovery of M.O.4-Kuthu Eetti. The consistent version of P.W.15-IO and P. W.11-VAO cannot be doubted. As we have pointed out earlier, P.Ws.1 and 3 were deposing in Court nearly 3 ½ years after the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 3 being ruralites might not have exactly recollected the dates regarding the arrest of A1 and A2. In any event, variation in the dates of arrest of A1 and A2 would only amount to deficiency in investigation and it cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version, which is otherwise based upon the credible testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. 23. In any event, variation in the dates of arrest of A1 and A2 would only amount to deficiency in investigation and it cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version, which is otherwise based upon the credible testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. 23. Deceased Chennammal sustained lacerated injury over the left side forehead with fracture of Vault. She also sustained depression over left side of face with fracture of facial bones. According to P.Ws.1 to 3, there was only one blow by M.O.1. In her cross-examination, P.W.7-Dr. Gunasundari has stated that by one blow two injuries found on deceased could not have been caused. Laying emphasis upon answers elicited from P.W.7-Dr. Gunasundari, it was contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as to the overt act of accused is not corroborated by medical evidence and there is material variation between medical evidence and ocular evidence. 24. The alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that since medical evidence is basically opinionative, oral evidence has to get primacy. Medical evidence is hardly conclusive. On the touchstone of medical evidence, eye witnesses account cannot be adversely viewed. 25. When there was a blow by a very blunt object like M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal, with primary impact causing injury, there would be secondary impact causing secondary injury. When there was one blow with heavy blunt object like M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal, the secondary injury cannot be ruled out. 26. Drawing our attention to MODES MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if mechanical force is applied on one side of the head, when it is pressed on the other side against a hard sub-stance or when he is in a lying posture, there would be depressed fracture on the other side. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance upon the following passage from MODIs MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE (Twenty-first Edition by C.A. FRANKLIN, Page 307): "Vault.—Fracture of the vault occurs at the place of contract by direct violence or at its opposite side by contre-coup (counter side), when the head is not supported. It may be depressed, crushed or fissured. It may be depressed, crushed or fissured. An extensive fracture running parallel to the two points of contact (bursting fracture) will occur, if mechanical force is applied on one side of the head, when it is pressed on the other side against a hard substance, such as a wall, while the individual is standing, or against the hard ground or floor when he is in a lying posture. In such cases the fracture may extend transversely to the base of the skull. 27. Having regard to above views of learned Author, we find no substance in the contention of appellants that there is wide variation between medical evidence and ocular evidence. We have no hesitation in confirming the findings of learned Sessions Judge that A1 has caused fatal injury to deceased first appellant has come to Ramakrishnampathi in mid-night. Though, he was not armed, he has taken the heavy blunt object, viz., M.O.1-Ammikulavikkal incidentally. Having regard to the object used, causing injury to vital organ viz., the head clearly manifests the intention of Al in causing death of deceased Chennammal. 28. Insofar as A2 is concerned, we are of the view that evidence is prevaricating. In his evidence P.W.I has stated that A3 has instigated A1 to throw the Ammikulavikal by say-- ("Throw"), whereas, P.W.2 has stated that A2 has instigated A1 to throw M.O.I. P.W.3-lnjured Witness had not stated anything about the alleged instigation by A2. She has only stated that her husband (P.W.1) chased A2. As against A3 (since acquitted) atleast an overt act was attributed that he beat P.W.2 with M.O.3-Thadi. Insofar as A2-Sekar is concerned, absolutely there is no overt act excepting the words allegedly uttered by him. A2 is son-in-law of the family of accused, who is re-siding in Nagavedu, a far away place from the place of residence of A1. The common intention is essentially a question of fact in each case. To convict a person under Section 302 read with 34 IPC existence of common intention is essential. Excepting the words allegedly uttered by A2 regarding which the evidence is prevaricating, there is no other material to show that there was pre-arranged plan and sharing of common intention and in furtherance of which, A2 has acted. In such facts and circumstances, the conviction of A2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC cannot be sustained. 29. Excepting the words allegedly uttered by A2 regarding which the evidence is prevaricating, there is no other material to show that there was pre-arranged plan and sharing of common intention and in furtherance of which, A2 has acted. In such facts and circumstances, the conviction of A2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC cannot be sustained. 29. In the result, The conviction of A1/first appellant-Elumalai under Section 302 IPC is con-firmed and appeal is dismissed as against first appellant. The conviction of A2/second appellant-Sekar in S.C. No. 82 of 2005 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, dated 27. 2007, is set aside and A2 is acquitted and Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to that extent. Fine amount (if any) paid by A2 is ordered to be refunded to him. Insofar as A1 is concerned, the fine imposed shall stand confirmed. The Bail Bond (if any) executed by A2 shall stand terminated. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, shall take steps to secure the presence of A 1-Elumalai and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.