Judgment :- Oral Judgment: 1. By this Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 1st July 2008 passed by learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2007, whereby the appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. Furthermore, the appellant was also held guilty for offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is : First informant-Ishwar Mohan Gokhale was residing with his parents Mohan and Asha Gokhale at village Nerpinglai. On 31.3.2007 at about 12.00 p.m. after Mohan Gokhale had returned from the agricultural field and was resting on the cot in front of his house as his house was under construction and while Ishwar was sleeping on the slab of the house, appellant Dilip came and assaulted Mohan Gokhale by means of a knife. First stab blow was given on the chest of Mohan; second stab blow was given on his stomach and third blow landed on palm of left hand, which resulted in bleeding injuries. Kumari Vandana (sister of first informant) gave call to him informing that their father was being assaulted. Ishwar came down immediately from the slab of the house. Injured Mohan was carried by an autorickshaw to Government Hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that dying declaration of Mohan was recorded by Anuradha Vidhate (PW 5) in presence of Dr. Manish Rathi (PW 6). Ishwar had reported the incident giving rise to Crime No.46/2007 registered at Police Station, initially under section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation followed. The appellant was arrested on 2nd April, 2007. Further, according to prosecution, blood-stained clothes of the accused and weapon of offence were recovered. Muddemal articles seized during the course of investigation were referred for Expert’s opinion. Upon completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-1 Morshi who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Amravati. 3. Further, according to prosecution, blood-stained clothes of the accused and weapon of offence were recovered. Muddemal articles seized during the course of investigation were referred for Expert’s opinion. Upon completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-1 Morshi who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Amravati. 3. The charge was framed on 24.08.2007 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses; whereas, the appellant/ accused led evidence of Gajanan (DW 1) in defence. 4. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of injured witness Mohan (PW 2), Asha wife of injured (PW 3); Ishwar-first informant, who is the son of Mohan and Asha (PW 1) and medical evidence of Dr. Prakash (PW 4). According to prosecution, Smt. Anuradha Vidhate, a senior Clerk of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PW 5), had recorded a statement of injured while he was receiving medical treatment in presence of Doctor Manish (PW 6). The prosecution also relied upon the circumstantial evidence, such as, discovery of blood-stained knife, weapon of offence from heap of bricks, during the course of investigation, Panchnamas (Exh.39 & Exh.40). Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court ordered conviction and sentence as afore-stated. 5. In support of the appeal, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the incident had occurred at the time when due to darkness witnesses could not have seen the assailant. First informant who is son of the injured admitted that there was load-shedding in the village between 6.00 p.m. and 12.00 in the midnight. Learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted that even otherwise first informant was at the relevant time sleeping on slab and not actually seen the occurrence of assault, therefore, his evidence ought to have been kept out of consideration. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, the trial Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of first informant. On the other hand, learned APP contended that there was no question of total darkness as the incident had occurred on 31.03.2007 at the end of March, when sunset would be quite late in the evening and visibility remains for longer period of daytime. On the other hand, learned APP contended that there was no question of total darkness as the incident had occurred on 31.03.2007 at the end of March, when sunset would be quite late in the evening and visibility remains for longer period of daytime. According to learned APP first informant was sleeping on slab and on hearing the shouts from his sister, was a natural witness to the prosecution to corroborate the incident of assault. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant criticized the evidence of injured witness-Mohan (PW 2) on the ground that PW-2 Mohan stated about three blows inflicted by appellant and further stated about catching hold of the appellant when he was allegedly giving fourth blow and about arrival of his wife (Asha PW-3). To my mind, the submission deserves to be rejected outright as injured person is not expected to count number of blows, that too with mathematical precision. Minor discrepancies or omissions or improvement can not be given much importance. The prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard merely because of minor discrepancy or omission here or there. Asha (PW 3) has also deposed having seen appellant coming suddenly and mounting blow by knife on chest and stomach of injured Mohan before she caught hold the appellant. Medical evidence as deposed by Dr. Prakash Chincholkar, (PW 4), is corroborative to indicate the injuries described as under in Exh.25: (i) H/O unconscious; (ii) H/O deep sharp injury on the middle side of chest (bleeding to wound) (iii) H/O sharp injury on to middle side for abdomen (bleeding to wound) Dr. Suresh (PW-8) also corroborate the direct evidence about the incident as deposed by PW-2 Mohan; and PW3 Asha. The injuries were on the vital parts of the body like chest and abdomen caused by knife, which were grievous and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. Learned Advocate for appellant also submitted that no independent witness was examined as eye witness and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant. 8. Learned APP, on the other hand, contended that the witnesses who had seen the incident or knew about it were family members and they had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Their evidence was natural, credible, trustworthy and the trial Court rightly accepted it, considering corroborative evidence in the case. 8. Learned APP, on the other hand, contended that the witnesses who had seen the incident or knew about it were family members and they had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Their evidence was natural, credible, trustworthy and the trial Court rightly accepted it, considering corroborative evidence in the case. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, statement of accused (memorandum) recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act did not bear signature /thumb impression of accused and, therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been granted to the accused as offence was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It is contended that conviction ought not to have been based upon evidence of interested close relative witnesses of injured Mohan. Alternatively, it is submitted that the offence would not amount to an attempt to commit murder but of less gravity, punishable under section 324 of the IPC. Reference is made to ruling in Omprakash vs. State : 1998 Cr.L.J. 2625 (Delhi High Court). In this ruling, it appears that version of the prosecution case suffered due to non-examination of Doctor to prove that injury caused to the complainant in that case was dangerous to life. There was no material to show that injury caused was dangerous to life. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of that case, conviction was altered from one punishable under section 307 IPC to that of Sec.324 of the IPC. In the present case, however, there was adequate and reliable material to believe that the appellant committed attempt to commit murder by causing stab blows to injured Mohan (PW 2) on the vital part of the body like chest and abdomen. No one has license to run around, inflict blows by knife on vital part of body and then say that he had no intention to commit murder. There were clear and convincing evidence before the trial Court which was found credible and trustworthy. Witnesses are not expected to give parrot like statements, contradictions of minor nature are bound to occur in every criminal case. Normal discrepancies do not corrode credibility of witnesses. It is the duty of the trial Court appreciating evidence to sift grain from the chaff and where it can be separated from the grain, it is open for the trial Court to convict if witnesses are found creditworthy. Proof does not mean rigid mathematical calculations, that is impossible. Normal discrepancies do not corrode credibility of witnesses. It is the duty of the trial Court appreciating evidence to sift grain from the chaff and where it can be separated from the grain, it is open for the trial Court to convict if witnesses are found creditworthy. Proof does not mean rigid mathematical calculations, that is impossible. No criminal case is free from minor discrepancies or insignificant aspects. Considering the background of facts in the light of principles stated above, the judgment and order of conviction is well-founded and does not warrant interference. In the result, Appeal is dismissed.