Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 100/2001, whereby the accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the sentence has been imposed upon him of life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 1,000/- 2. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Vijaysinh and the accused Ajabsinh were brothers and they had some exchange of hot words on account of the regular drinking of liquor by accused - Ajabsinh. The deceased, prior to the incident, had told Ajabsinh - accused that he might stop taking liquor and he should not come to home after taking liquor. Thereafter, the deceased and one Ramsing Ratansinh, who is the nephew of the deceased had gone to the field for sleeping. While both were sleeping in the house, which was in the agricultural field, in different cots, at about 11 O’clock, because of the shouts of hitting and of giving blows, Ramsing got up from his sleep and he saw that his uncle, Vijaysinh, was being beaten with a stick by somebody. The said Ramsing threw torch-light and he saw that his another uncle, Ajabsinh was beating Vijaysinh on the face. He wanted to separate both, but the accused Ajabsinh came forward to beat him also and, therefore, he ran away. Thereafter, Ramsing Ratansinh informed the other members of the family and all came once again at the place and they saw the deceased Vijaysinh lying in the cot, where his face was totally smashed and he did not speak anything. The Sarpanch, Raijibhai was informed by him, but the Sarpanch told him to come in the morning. They also locked the accused - Ajabsinh in the house with a view to see that he might not run away. The Sarpanch thereafter informed the police on telephone and the complaint subsequently was registered with Halol Police Station. The police thereafter investigated the complaint. Ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the accused - Ajabsinh. 3. The prosecution in support of the case examined the following witnesses:— (a) Nareshkumar Sureshchandra Joshi - P.W. 1, who prepared panchnama of the map of the site. (b) Ramsing Ratansinh - P.W. 2 (complainant - eye-witness). (c) Ramanbhai Gamanbhai - P.W. 3, Panch-witness to the Inquest Panchnama and Site Panchnama. Ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the accused - Ajabsinh. 3. The prosecution in support of the case examined the following witnesses:— (a) Nareshkumar Sureshchandra Joshi - P.W. 1, who prepared panchnama of the map of the site. (b) Ramsing Ratansinh - P.W. 2 (complainant - eye-witness). (c) Ramanbhai Gamanbhai - P.W. 3, Panch-witness to the Inquest Panchnama and Site Panchnama. (d) Udesing Kabhai - P.W. 4 Panch Witness for discovery panchnama. (e) Prabhatsinh Narvatsinh - P.W. 5, Panch-witness for discovery of the clothes of the accused. (f) Dr.Dinesh Kanjibhai Patel - P.W. 6, who performed Postmortem. (g) Babubhai Kanubhai Pardar - I.O. - P.W. 7, who conducted the investigation. 4. The prosecution, in support of the case, has produced following documents:— i. Original Complaint with Notice - Exhibit 15 ii. Inquest Panchnama of the dead body - Exhibit 15 iii Panchnama of the place of office - Exhibit 18. iv Panchnama of physical condition of the accused and panchnama of the muddamal article - stick produced by him - Exhibit 20 v A copy of the yadi sent for performing postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Vijaysinh - Exhibit 28 vi Recovery Panchnama of the clothes of the dead body - Exhibit 22 vii Copy of the yadi sent for performing medical examination of the accused - Exhibit 31. viii Copy of the forwarding letter of the muddamal - Exhibit 32 ix Original acknolwedgement for the receipt of muddamal by FSL - Exhibit 33 x Report of the FSL along with Serology Report - Exhibit 34 x Map of the place of incident - Exhibit 11 x Original P.M. Note - Exhibit 27. x Yadi sent to Mamlatdar, Halol for preparing map of the place of incident - Exhibit 13. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused has denied accusation and the evidence against him and in the further statement, the accused has stated that he has not committed any offence and the police has filed a false case against him. The learned Sessions Judge, after giving hearing to both the sides, found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge, after giving hearing to both the sides, found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the accused for imposition of penalty and thereafter has imposed sentence for the life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 1,000/- upon the accused for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 6. It appears that as per Ramsing Ratansinh, the complainant (P.W. 2), he was sleeping with his uncle in the house at the field. When he was sleeping, because of the shouts due to the blow, he got up and with his torch, he saw that the accused Ajabsinh was beating the deceased Vijaysinh with the stick and he wanted to stop, but he also got afraid of and, therefore, he went away. The said part of the statement of the said eye-witness has not been contradicted even in the cross-examination. He has also identified muddamal article No. 4, which was the stick and he has stated that the very stick was used for beating the deceased by the accused. He has also identified the accused Ajabsinh, who was present in the Court. The said witness has admitted the complaint having been filed by him with the police and has also identified his thumb impression on the complaint. As stated above, his statement in his capacity as the eye-witness to the incident is not, in any manner, contradicted even if the statement made in the FIR by himself is taken into consideration. The FIR is exhibited at Exhibit 15. 7. Dr. Dinesh Kanjibhai Patel, P.W. 6, who performed postmortem of the deceased, has stated that the postmortem has been performed by him and the said PM report is produced at Exhibit 27. As per the PM report, the external injuries sustained by the deceased, as was found by the doctor, are mentioned in Col. No. 17 as under:— “There is multiple fractures of frontal bone, maxillary bones of both sides, zygometric bones of both sides, spheroid bone in various directions. Fracture fragments are not separated, but they remain in place by fragments of skin facia and muscles. No. 17 as under:— “There is multiple fractures of frontal bone, maxillary bones of both sides, zygometric bones of both sides, spheroid bone in various directions. Fracture fragments are not separated, but they remain in place by fragments of skin facia and muscles. There is crushing of skin at multiple sites in whole face in various directions. There is 2 mm thick blood clot layer seen in whole face. There is totally crushing of both nostrils, eye-balls and mouth. Multiple marks of sticks seen on face in various directions. # of (L) ramus of mandible just above (L) angle of mandible fragments not separate but join in place by muscles and skin fragments, except six molar teeth on each side, other teeth not seen in sockets. 6 incisor and two canine teeth seen in cot. Other teeth seen in mouth cavity.” 8. The said doctor in his deposition stated that all injuries, which are mentioned in Col. No. 17 of the PM Report could be caused by hard and blunt substance. He has been shown the stick - Article 4 and he has opined that such injuries could be caused with the said stick. He has also stated that the injuries described were sufficient to cause death of a human being in natural course. The pertinent aspect is that in the deposition of the doctor, he has also stated that various injuries of the stick were found on the face of the dead body and such resulted into multiple fractures on the skull, nose, jaws, etc. In the cross-examination of the said doctor, the defence has not been able to show any material contradiction, except to the extent that the doctor has opined that such injuries could also be caused with sudden fall. Therefore, injuries on the body of the deceased are in corroboration and the evidence of the doctor has supported the case of the prosecution. 9. The inquest panchnama, the discovery of the weapon, the recovery of the clothes from the body of the deceased, the clothes of the accused are proved by the deposition of the respective panch witnesses and the defence has not been able to reveal any contradiction to the same. 10. 9. The inquest panchnama, the discovery of the weapon, the recovery of the clothes from the body of the deceased, the clothes of the accused are proved by the deposition of the respective panch witnesses and the defence has not been able to reveal any contradiction to the same. 10. I.O. is examined as P.W. 7, who has stated of having conducted the investigation, the registration of the complaint, of taking samples, discovery, inquest panchnama, forwarding of samples to FSL, report of FSL etc. in support of the case of the prosecution. No contradiction has been revealed in the cross-examination of the I.O., which may impair the case of the prosecution. 11. The aforesaid evidence shows that not only the statement of the complainant - Eye-witness, Ramsing Ratansinh - P.W. 2 is not contradicted, but is also corroborated by the other evidence led by the prosecution and it strengthens the case of the prosecution for proving the guilt of the accused. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contended that the eye-witness is a got-up eye-witness inasmuch as there are material contradiction in the statement made in the complaint, the statement made in examination-in-chief and statement made the cross-examination. It was contended that the statement made pertaining to the narration of the facts prior to the incident and after the incident are materially contradicted. It was, therefore, submitted that such contradiction in that regard would result into non-reliability of the creditworthiness of such witness and, therefore, his deposition may not be considered by this Court for considering the case of the prosecution. 13. It is by now well settled that for the appreciation of the evidence of the witness in support of the case of the prosecution, the contradiction has to be materially and directly relevant to that extent. If the witness has made contradictory statement, which does not result into dislodging his capacity as eye-witness of the incident, such contradiction may not assume importance to the extent of considering the case of the prosecution with the support of the deposition of such eye-witness. If the witness has made contradictory statement, which does not result into dislodging his capacity as eye-witness of the incident, such contradiction may not assume importance to the extent of considering the case of the prosecution with the support of the deposition of such eye-witness. Mere contradiction of some statement in other part of the case of the prosecution by any witness would not necessarily result into leaving the Court to record the conclusion that the whole deposition of such witness is to be discarded, unless the degree of such contradiction, is so much that the Court gets an impression that the witness has no sanctity for the truth, but his statements are full of falsehood. 14. As stated above, even in the cross-examination and the statement made in FIR is considered, the said witness has not contradicted the observance of the incident by him for giving blows by the accused to the deceased, when the said witness was sleeping together with the deceased in another cot at the same place. Further, the witness has clearly stated that he had applied torch and he saw the accused giving blow with the stick to the deceased Vijaysinh. There is absolutely no contradiction to the aforesaid statement made by the said witness in his deposition. 15. Further, if the above referred principles are considered for examining the degree contradiction made in the other part of the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the witness has no sanctity at all for the truth and the whole deposition of the said witness deserves to be discarded. It is also required to be mentioned that the witness is from a tribal area and the place of incident is also in a remote tribal area. Such witness would not possess intelligence as may be available with a qualified person or highly educated person. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in case of “Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in AIR 1973 2622 and more particularly the observations made at paragraph 8 as under:— “8. Now to the facts. The scene of murder is rural, the witnesses to the case are rustics and so their behavioural pattern and perceptive habits have to be judged as such. Now to the facts. The scene of murder is rural, the witnesses to the case are rustics and so their behavioural pattern and perceptive habits have to be judged as such. The too sophisticated approaches familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lethargic ways of our villages. When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses we have to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered. The learned Sessions Judge has at some length dissected the evidence, spun out contradictions and unnatural conduct, and tested with precision the time and sequence of the events connected with the crime, all on the touchstone of the medical evidence and the post-mortem certificate. Certainly, the court which has seen the witnesses depose, has a great advantage over the appellate Judge who reads the recorded evidence in cold print, and regard must be had to this advantage enjoyed by the trial Judge of observing the demeanour and delivery, of reading the straight forwardness and doubtful candour, rustic naivete and clever equivocation, manipulated conformity and ingenious unveracity’ of persons who swear to the facts before him. Nevertheless, where a judge draws his conclusions not so much on the directness or dubiety of the witness while on oath but upon general probabilities and on expert evidence the court of appeal is in as good a position to assess or arrive at legitimate conclusions as the court of first instance. Nor can we make a fetish of the trial Judge’s psychic insight.” 16. If the overall depositions of the examination-in-chief is considered, it cannot be said that in his capacity as eye-witness to the incident is dislodged in the cross-examination. Further, the contradictions as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused, are a part-version for dislodging the case of the prosecution and such cannot be accepted to throw away the deposition of the said witness. Further, the contradictions as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused, are a part-version for dislodging the case of the prosecution and such cannot be accepted to throw away the deposition of the said witness. Merely because the witness has not exactly stated the time or has not maintained chronology of the period prior to the incident of giving blow or the chronology after the incident of giving blow by the accused, it cannot be said that such contradictions are so material, which would make the case of the prosecution fatal to the extent of living the Court to record the conclusion to disbelieve such eye-witness. As such if the overall deposition of the witness is considered, we find that the witness Ramsing Ratansinh is eye-witness to the incident of commission of offence by the accused. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused cannot be accepted to the extent that such eye-witness is a got up witness and, therefore, he cannot be believed at all. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellant next contended that if the deposition of the eye-witness is excluded for considering the case of the prosecution the whole case would turn on only circumstantial evidence. It was submitted that in considering the case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, the motive would be the prime requirement. In the present case, mere dispute for having habit of drinking liquor could not be said as a sufficient motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, who is his real brother. It was, therefore, submitted that since strong motive is not proved, in any case, by the prosecution, no sufficient proof is available on record for proving the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence, for which he has been charge-sheeted. 18. As observed earlier by us, we have negatived the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that Ramsing Ratansinh, who is the eye-witness to the incident is a got up or concocted witness. Therefore, the premise of the contention that the case of the prosecution would fall in the category of circumstantial evidence would fall to ground and under these circumstances, the basis of the argument would be on a non-existent premise. Therefore, the premise of the contention that the case of the prosecution would fall in the category of circumstantial evidence would fall to ground and under these circumstances, the basis of the argument would be on a non-existent premise. If the case of the prosecution is considered, keeping in view the deposition of the eye-witness, the motive would hardly assume any importance, more particularly in view of the brutal injuries caused by the accused to the deceased in such a manner that the head and the face were totally smashed resulting into various multiple fractures and injuries consequently resulting into the death. The intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased is apparent from the nature of serious injuries caused to the deceased. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Molu and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2499 . Therefore, considering the nature of injuries caused to the deceased, even if a strong motive is not proved by the prosecution, it will not be possible for the accused - appellant to come out from the guilt of commission of offence under Section of IPC. Under these circumstances, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused would be of no help to the defence. 19. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that the telephone-vardhi has not come on record and, therefore, such would result into impairing the case of the prosecution. She contended that, therefore, the subsequent version, including that of statement made in the FIR and of registration of FIR creates doubts and, therefore, this Court may not accept the case of the prosecution. It is not necessary for the prosecution to bring on record all evidence, which may exist. The discretion is left to the prosecution to prove its case. In a given circumstance, the prosecution may decide to drop the witness or may not bring a particular piece of evidence, if the prosecution finds that without such witness or without such particular piece of evidence, it would be in a position to prove its case for proving guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. In a given circumstance, the prosecution may decide to drop the witness or may not bring a particular piece of evidence, if the prosecution finds that without such witness or without such particular piece of evidence, it would be in a position to prove its case for proving guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. Such would not result into making the case of the prosecution fatal, nor the adverse inference would be drawn by the Court, unless the facts and circumstances so demonstrated for concealment of such evidence from the Court. Nothing has come out on record to show that the telephone-vardhi was for a different case altogether than as put forwarded by the prosecution before the Court. In any case, the police vardhi is already on Government record and the defence could request the Court to examine concerned police officer as Court witness. No attempt was also made in this regard. Under these circumstances, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that as telephone-vardhi has not come on record, it would make the whole case of the prosecution unreliable or non-creditworthy or, in any case, fatal so as to endure benefit to the accused. 20. It was lastly contended by the learned Counsel for appellant - accused that the prosecution has changed the whole site of the incident and, therefore, this Court may disbelieve the case of the prosecution and the evidence produced on record. In furtherance to the submission, it was contended by the learned Counsel that as stated by the eye-witness - P.W. 2, both the deceased and the eye-witness were sleeping in different cots and when the accused was giving blow to the deceased he was also in sleeping condition, but in the site panchnama there is no cot referred to or the recovery is also not made by the police of the cot, on which the deceased was sleeping. It was, therefore, submitted that the site panchnama or the scene of the offence was altogether changed by the prosecution and, therefore, the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 21. It was, therefore, submitted that the site panchnama or the scene of the offence was altogether changed by the prosecution and, therefore, the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 21. It is true that it has not come on record that the cot was recovered by the police and it is also true that the cot is not referred to in the panchnama of the site but, thereby it is difficult to record the conclusion that the site of the incident was changed by the prosecution. On the contrary it appears that it has come on record by a trustworthy evidence that the site of the incident is the house located at Bhoot Talav, agricultural field belonging to the deceased Vijaysinh. No contradiction is found in the deposition of any of the witnesses for the occurrence of the incident at such place. Not only that, but in the panchnama of the site there is reference to the other items, which were there in the said house namely; two big containers of the clay and two small containers and the blood stains were found even on such items. The blood stains were also found at the floor of the site. In the deposition of the eye-witness - P.W. 2, Ramsing Ratansinh, there is reference to the house of deceased Vijaysinh. The skech produced by P.W. 1 Nareshkumar, shows only one room. Therefore, merely because it has not come on record that the cot was recovered, or such cot was not referred in the panchnama of the site, it cannot be said that the whole site was changed by the prosecution. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused cannot be accepted. 22. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless and, therefore, dismissed.