JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been file by accused-appellants, namely, Ratti, Farooq, Chahat and Sheru, against judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur, Camp Kaman, whereby they were convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341, 324/34 and 302/34 IPC. For offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ each-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months SI; for offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to six months RI; for offence under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to six months RI; for offence under Section 341 Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to one month RI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand submitted a written report (Exhibit P-16) to Police Station Kaman, on 27.07.2002, stating therein that one Mohan Singh S/o Bhagwat Singh was driver of Vehicle No.RJ-02 G 3955, which was a full-body truck. Informant and his brother Param were working as labourer on that vehicle. The conductor of the vehicle was Devi Ram S/o Ram Kishore. A quarrel took place between Mohan Singh and another truck driver Ratti at 7.00 PM on 26.07.2002 on the question of giving side. The informant, his brother Param and owner of the vehicle Gajendra Kumar intervened and settled the dispute. Driver Ratti had threatened Mohan Singh of dire consequences. Thereafter at 10.30 in the night of that very day, when they were going to Mathura with loaded truck, driver Ratti, Sheru, Chahat, Farooq accompanied with 5-7 persons, by bringing their vehicle on the way, intercepted their vehicle. They gave merciless beating to Mohan Singh by 'lathis' and iron rods and pulled him out of the truck. Informant and his brother rushed from there to save their own lives and came to their village. They narrated the entire story to villagers. It is further stated that they were so frightened that they could not do anything. Thereafter, they came to police station with villagers to lodge the case. Action be taken against guilty. 3. On receipt of aforesaid written report, a regular first information report was registered by the police for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. It is further stated that they were so frightened that they could not do anything. Thereafter, they came to police station with villagers to lodge the case. Action be taken against guilty. 3. On receipt of aforesaid written report, a regular first information report was registered by the police for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, all the accused were arrested. Challan against them was filed for offence under Sections 323, 341, 324, 302, 34 IPC. Accused were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial, wherefrom the case was made over to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. Learned trial court framed charges against aforesaid four accused persons under Section 323, 341, 324/41 and 302/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 20 witnesses and got 31 documents exhibited; as against which, the defence produced two witnesses, apart from recording statement of accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code in which they denied the charges. Learned trial court, after concluding trial, convicted and sentenced all aforesaid four accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for appellants and Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecution. 6. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for accused-appellants, argued that most of prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and therefore they have been declared hostile. Informant PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand Jat and PW-16 Param are in fact not the eye witnesses. They have been only implanted as eye witnesses. The only person, who could be accepted as an eye witness is PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, who too has been declared hostile. He has not fully supported the prosecution case and has made allegation only against accused Ratti. Accused-appellants were not known to the witnesses from before. No 'test identification parade' was conducted during investigation. PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan has identified only accused Ratti and declined to identify other three accused. All 'motbirs', who were witnesses to recovery of various articles, have not supported the prosecution and been declared hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt and consequential acquittal. 7. All 'motbirs', who were witnesses to recovery of various articles, have not supported the prosecution and been declared hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt and consequential acquittal. 7. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for accused-appellants, submitted that PW-2 Abdul Mannan has denied the fact that he was witness to seizure of clothes of deceased Mohan Singh vide Exhibit P-3 and preparation of the site plan. He was declared hostile. PW-3 Rajjak has also denied having been a witness to seizure of clothes of the deceased and stated that his thumb impressions were obtained by the police in the police station on Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-3, which are recovery-memos. PW-4 Hajir Khan has denied being witness to recovery of 'lathi' at the instance of accused Farooq and stated that his thumb impressions were obtained by the police on recovery memo of lathi vide Exhibit P-4 at the instance of Farooq; recovery memo of iron rod vide Exhibit P-5 at the instance of Sheru and recovery of 'lathi' vide Exhibit P-6 at the instance of Chahat and has stated that at that time the recovered articles were not available. Recovery of weapons of offence, clothes and other articles of deceased has thus become highly doubtful. Learned counsel also referred to statement of PW-7 Amar and argued that this witness was resident of same village Pasta, the very and same place of which deceased was also a native. He stated that he reached the hospital at 9.00 in morning along-with Deendayal, Shersingh and other 50 villagers on a tractor but he was not aware who murdered Mohan Singh. Learned counsel submitted that, according to the prosecution, the FIR was submitted at 6.45 AM on 27.07.2002 whereas the incident took place at 10.30 PM on 26.07.2002. When the informant PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param reached his village and informed the villagers about the incident on the same night, there was no reason why this witness PW-7 would not be aware of the same. 8. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel submitted that genesis of the incident has thus been suppressed by the prosecution. After submitting written-report (Exhibit P-16), substantial improvements were made by the informant himself upon his original version when his statement was recorded in the court. 8. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel submitted that genesis of the incident has thus been suppressed by the prosecution. After submitting written-report (Exhibit P-16), substantial improvements were made by the informant himself upon his original version when his statement was recorded in the court. While in the written-report it was submitted by the informant that accused-appellants and other persons intercepted the vehicle of deceased Mohan Singh and that they stopped him and gave merciless beating by 'lathis' and iron rods and thrown him on the road and ran away. In his court statement, PW-13 Devi Singh has made significant improvement by stating that Ratti and Sheru intercepted their truck. Farooq and Chahat were also with them. Two of them entered the cabin of the truck and gave beating to deceased Mohan Singh with 'lathis' and iron rods. They forcibly pulled out Mohan Singh from the truck and then subjected him to merciless beating. Ratti then boarded the vehicle of Mohan Singh and remaining three accused caught hold of Mohan Singh. Ratti then ran the truck over his body from reverse side and thereafter they fled from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand has stated that he reached village Pasta late in night of 26th July, 2002 and informed Bhagwat Singh, father of deceased Mohan Singh and that he got written report prepared from Sohan Lal. Neither Bhagwat Singh nor Sohan Lal has been produced by the prosecution as witness. It is submitted that though FIR does not constitute substantive evidence and can be only used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating or contradicting its maker, yet omission of material facts pertaining to the crime is undoubtedly relevant for judging veracity of the prosecution case. Learned counsel in support of this argument, relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan and Others - (2009) 14 SCC 267 and Bankey Lal and Others v. State of U.P. - (1971) 3 SCC 184 . 9. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact father of PW-13 Devi Singh and father of deceased Mohan Singh happened to be real brothers and PW-13 Devi Singh and PW-16 Param, who are real brothers, actually did not accompany Mohan Singh. They were implanted as witnesses subsequently. 9. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact father of PW-13 Devi Singh and father of deceased Mohan Singh happened to be real brothers and PW-13 Devi Singh and PW-16 Param, who are real brothers, actually did not accompany Mohan Singh. They were implanted as witnesses subsequently. Another witness PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan has not named either of these two witnesses to be on the truck at the time of incident. In fact, PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand has admitted in his cross-examination that he was engaged as a labour on the truck by deceased driver Mohan Singh, and that on this full body truck, grits used to be mechanically loaded by crasher, which means that no labour was required for loading the truck. PW-16 Param, another brother of informant, also claimed to be a labour on the truck and has stated that he too was engaged by driver Mohan Singh. He stated that quarrel between Mohan Singh and Ratti took place at 7.00 PM on 26.07.2002 on the question of giving side to the truck. This was sorted out by intervention of PW-14 Gajendra Kumar, owner of truck, but Gajendra Kumar has denied having engaged PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param as labour. There is another significant contradiction between statements of all these witnesses. While PW-1 Devi Singh stated that initially when dispute arose between the deceased Mohan Singh and accused-appellants, PW-14 Gajendra Kumar, owner of truck, intervened and settled the dispute. PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param have also stated the same fact but PW-14 Gajendra Kumar is not very clear as to role of mediator played by him. He stated that he was informed about the dispute between deceased Mohan Singh and accused Ratti on phone but he has not disclosed as to who called him on telephone. While all other witness are saying that quarrel took place at about 7.00 PM but this witness has stated the time to be 6.00 PM, but at the time stated that when he went to the place of quarrel nobody was found there. Similar quarrel took place between them when the truck was again sent for loading at about 6.30 PM. He received another phone call but this time again PW-14 Gajendra Kumar has not specified as to who called him on telephone. Similar quarrel took place between them when the truck was again sent for loading at about 6.30 PM. He received another phone call but this time again PW-14 Gajendra Kumar has not specified as to who called him on telephone. PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand has stated that accused intercepted the vehicle near a speed breaker but in the site plan (Exhibit P-2), no speed breaker is indicated. This witness has stated that two of the accused entered the cabin but he could not see as to what happened inside the cabin as he was standing on the main body of the truck in backside of the cabin of truck and watched the entire incident while standing on the heap of grits that was loaded on the truck, meaning thereby this witness continued to stay there till the body of deceased Mohan Singh was ran-over by the truck. Such a version hardly inspires confidence. It would thus be evident that PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand was never an eye witness of the incident. It is only when none came forward to become eye witness for the false accusation of murder against accused appellants, that PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param were implanted as witnesses. PW-16 Param also connived with PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand to become false witness and made exactly the same statement as made by PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand. 10. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for appellants argued that in fact it was a pure and simple case of accident, which has been given colour of a murder. In this connection learned counsel referred to statement of DW-1 Mehtab and argued that house of this witness was situated close to the place where this incident took place. This witness stated that the truck driver descended the truck to go to other side of the road to purchase certain goods. While crossing the road, he was hit by another truck coming from opposite direction and his head was crushed. A police personnel came about half an hour thereafter . He did not make any query from any one. About an hour thereafter the SHO, Police Station, Kaman, reached there and identified the deceased by his driving license in his pocket. While crossing the road, he was hit by another truck coming from opposite direction and his head was crushed. A police personnel came about half an hour thereafter . He did not make any query from any one. About an hour thereafter the SHO, Police Station, Kaman, reached there and identified the deceased by his driving license in his pocket. Learned counsel referred to statement of DW-2 Harmukhlal, ASI, Police Station, Nadbai, who has stated that he was on escort duty with the then Cabinet Minister of the State Shri Tayab Hussein and when his caravan passed through the place of incident at about 11.30 in the night, there was a traffic jam and lot of people were gathered. On reaching place of incident, he noticed a dead body lying there and a truck standing nearby. People were talking that he has died due to accident. Learned counsel argued that it was this witness, who immediately narrated the true story to the SHO, Police Station, Kaman, vide QST message, who reached at the place of incident. The prosecution did not deliberately produce him as a witness from prosecution side and appellants have produced him as a witness to bring the truth on record. Learned counsel in this connection also invited attention of the court towards the statement of PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan. It was argued that while PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan has stated that they were transporting the grits to be delivered at Firozabad whereas PW-16 Param has stated that they were going to deliver the same at Mathura. This is a serious discrepancy in statements of prosecution witnesses. PW-16 Param has stated that his brother PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand was also with him and when they ran away from the place of occurrence, they first reached the octroi post at Deeg gate of Kaman and then took a vehicle to reach their village where they reached about 2 or 2.30 AM in the night. It is very surprising. If they reached Kaman and also octroi post of Deeg gate of Kaman, why they did not inform the police. It is very surprising. If they reached Kaman and also octroi post of Deeg gate of Kaman, why they did not inform the police. It was argued that statement of PW-16 Param has been recorded after 18 days of the incident i.e. 14.08.2002 (Exhibit D-4A), which raises serious doubt about genuineness of this witness and corroborates the allegation of the appellants that he did not witness the incident and has never been an eye witness. PW-14 Gajendra stated that he himself employed labour on truck and made payment to them. 11. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel submitted that the site plan (Exhibit P-2) cannot be read in evidence because it is hit by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code. The site plan was prepared on 27.07.2002. This would not be a relevant fact in the meaning of Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act. Referring to site plan (Exhibit P-2), learned counsel argued that the investigating officer has in the site plan stated that it indicated the place where dead-body was found as per information given by PW-13 Devi Singh, whereas the dead-body was already removed earlier in the night of 26th itself. The investigating officer could not have for that purpose relied on information given by informant and was required to himself verify the facts on the ground. Neither any blood stained soil was lifted from the scene of occurrence nor any mark of blood was found on the wheels of the truck. The allegation that the body of the deceased was ran-over by the truck, therefore, cannot be believed. Referring to the postmortem report (Exhibit P-17) and statement of PW-15 Dr. Yogendra and another postmortem report (Exhibit P-15) of the Medical Board, proved in evidence by PW-12 Dr. Suresh Garg. Learned counsel argued that neither of the two reports have opined that injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. PW-12 Dr. Suresh Garg, in his statement, has for the first time given statement to that effect before the court and that opinion would hit by Section 59 of the Evidence Act, which cannot be read in evidence. The fact that deceased died of accident, was a relevant fact as disclosed by DW-2, which would be a relevant fact as per Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The fact that deceased died of accident, was a relevant fact as disclosed by DW-2, which would be a relevant fact as per Section 6 of the Evidence Act. In this connection learned counsel referred to illustration (a) given below to Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in view of aforesaid discrepancies in statements of prosecution witnesses and number of lacunae and loopholes in the prosecution case, the offence against accused-appellants cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order is therefore liable to be set aside and accused appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, Shri J.R. Bijarniya, opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of the learned trial court. He argued that guilt of accused-appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. Despite the fact that some of witnesses of recovery of clothes of deceased and weapons of offence, have been declared hostile, the statements of three eye-witnesses, namely, PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param, are consistent as regards the allegation against accused-appellants. Learned Public Prosecution submitted that merely because PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param happened to be relatives of the deceased, does not mean that they could not have been engaged by deceased as labourer on the truck for the purpose of loading and unloading of grits or that they would not speak the truth before the court when appearing as witnesses. In fact, it would be their earnest endeavour to see that the culprit does not escape from the clutches of law and get punished. There is no reason why they would falsely implicate anyone. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Ali and Another v. State of Kerala - (2010) 4 SCC 573 . There is no reason why they would falsely implicate anyone. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Ali and Another v. State of Kerala - (2010) 4 SCC 573 . Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand in the written report submitted before the police at 6.45 pm on 27.07.2002, has not stated in so many words in the written report (Exhibit P-16) that deceased was ran-over by the truck at the hands of accused Ratti with the help of other accused-appellants, that would not be fatal to the prosecution case because statement of this witness under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on the same day i.e. 27.07.2002 itself where he has specifically stated that deceased was ran-over by the truck and it was the act of accused-appellant Ratti in which remaining accused actively assisted him. In this connection learned Public Prosecutor referred to Exhibit D-2 which is the statement of PW-13 Devi Singh recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code to show why this witness ran away from the place of occurrence to his native place instead of going to the police. It has to be appreciated from the fact that PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param and even PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan were horribly frightened from the roughshod and gruesome manner in which deceased Mohan Singh was murdered by accused-appellants, and therefore the first thing for them to do would naturally be to go to their close relatives for support. Learned counsel submitted that they have honestly stated that they reached their native place at 2 or 2.30 AM in the night and informed the father of the deceased and other villagers. This cannot be read against the prosecution case. 14. Shri J.R. Bijarniya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that mere fact that the site plan was prepared by the investigating officer in presence of informant PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand, cannot be fatal to the prosecution case because the very same officer, who prepared the site plan, had visited the place of occurrence in the previous night of 26th July, and had removed the dead body of deceased Mohan Singh to the hospital, pursuant to the QST message that was received from DW-2 Harmukhlal. Indication in the site plan showing the dead body of deceased at place "XA" and the truck at place "XB", has to be therefore accepted as correct because it was PW-20 Mehtab who on previous night had seen the dead body lying at place "XA" and the truck was still available there at place "XB". He has candidly stated in the site plan that since it was raining and mud wet, therefore, blood stained soil could not be found on the ground, which fact he has reiterated in his court statement while proving site plan (Exhibit P-2). It was argued that iron sheet fitted with body of truck, that was found close to the tyre, had blood-stains and this iron sheet was recovered vide Exhibit P-26 and has been proved in evidence. Statement of DW-1 Mehtab is not reliable because he stated that deceased Mohan Singh, while crossing the road to go to other side to purchase certain goods, was hit by another truck coming from opposite side and died. Only his head was crushed. Referring to postmortem report, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the chest, head and entire body of deceased Mohan Singh was crushed. All his ribs were found broken. There were multiple fractures. All bones of skull and face were crushed into multiple pieces. Both clavicles were fractured. Apart from ribs on left side, ribs of right side were found fractured. There was fracture of left shaft of hummers; fracture of right neck and shaft of femur, fracture pelvis muscle deep, which could be possible only in the event of crushing of dead-body by a heavy weigh vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor in this connection referred to statement of PW-15 Dr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, who stated that such injuries cannot be sustained by 'lathis' or 'pharsis' but can be received only when body is ran-over by a vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that mere fact that medical officer/medical board in either of postmortem reports, has not specifically mentioned the fact that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death would not make any difference in the facts of the present case when dead body of the deceased was found to have been crushed all over. Even otherwise learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW-12 Dr. Even otherwise learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW-12 Dr. Suresh Garg, in his cross-examination by the defence, has clarified this fact that the injuries were cumulatively sufficient to cause death. It was argued that DW-2 Harmukhlal cannot be said to be a witness of the accident of deceased. He has based his statement on the information said to be given to him by certain residents of nearby place whereas no such residents came forward to depose before the court. DW-2 Harmukhlal therefore is a witness of hearsay. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that conviction of accused-appellants in fact can be recorded on sole testimony of a single witness whereas in present case there are three eye witnesses who have throughout supported the prosecution case and stood the scrutiny of the cross-examination. Notwithstanding the fact that some of 'motbir' witnesses have not supported the recovery of articles of deceased and weapons of offence, the guilt of the accused appellants must be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that minor discrepancies and contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses have to be ignored and cannot be given undue significance. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Another - AIR 1999 SC 3717 . 16. .We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 17. Fact that present one is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder, is clearly proved from two postmortem reports available on record, namely, Exhibit P-15 (conducted by medical board), and Exhibit P-17 (conducted by PW-15 Dr. Yogendra Kumar Verma). On external examination of body of deceased, the doctor found damaged eye balls which came out from orbit. He found blood coming from both nostrils and mouth; he also found bleeding from ears. There was laceration of brain material which protruded out of skull. On examination of thorax, the doctor found laceration of inter-coastal muscles on both sides with bilateral fracture of ribs with fracture of both clavicles, right and left. On examination of abdomen, the doctor found abdominal cavity with full of clotted blood; distorted buccal cavity tongue in lacerated and protruded out. The cause of death was opined to be neurological and hypovolumic shock due to extensive injuries to brain and heart and spleen. On examination of abdomen, the doctor found abdominal cavity with full of clotted blood; distorted buccal cavity tongue in lacerated and protruded out. The cause of death was opined to be neurological and hypovolumic shock due to extensive injuries to brain and heart and spleen. This postmortem report has been proved by Dr. Yogendra Kumar Verma (PW-15). The postmortem report of medical board (Exhibit P-15) has also extensively detailed out totally torn state of body of the deceased. It stated that all skull bones (vertex) of the deceased were crushed into multiple pieces. Torn bleeding in membranes was present (vault open); brain matter was crushed and protruded out. There was laceration of inter coastal muscles of both sides and fracture of ribs of both the sides. Lungs on bilateral side were having raptured of multiple side. Heart was raptured at multiple side. Cause of death, according to the medical board, was coma and shock as a result of extensive crush; injuries of brain and other vital organs including both lungs, heart and spleen. The postmortem report (Exhibit P-15) has been proved by PW-12 Dr. Suresh Garg. 18. In view of this kind of opinion expressed by the medical board and medical officer on examination of dead-body, there can be hardly any scope for the argument that death in present case should be held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with or without intention and knowledge and not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder, just because the medical officer in the postmortem report has omitted to mention that injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, which opinion in any case has been spelt out by PW-12 Dr. Suresh Garg. In fact, entertaining any opinion to that effect would be doing violation of observation so made by team of doctors, which they have so extensively recorded in the postmortem report, which fully meets the requirement of a homicidal death amounting to murder in all its medico legal aspect. The argument to that effect raised by learned counsel for appellants is therefore rejected at the outset. 19. Next argument that since witnesses of recovery of clothes of deceased and weapons of offence i.e. iron rod and 'lathis' etc. The argument to that effect raised by learned counsel for appellants is therefore rejected at the outset. 19. Next argument that since witnesses of recovery of clothes of deceased and weapons of offence i.e. iron rod and 'lathis' etc. have not supported the prosecution case therefore such recovery has become doubtful and conviction of accused-appellants on the basis of such recovery cannot be sustained. No doubt, PW-2 Abdul Mannan, 'motbir' witness of recovery of clothes of deceased, PW-3 Rajjak, motbir witness of recovery of clothes of deceased, and PW-4 Hajir Khan, motbir witness of recovery of bamboo 'lathi', have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. However, at the same time, PW-5 Lekhraj, who is 'motbir' witness of recovery of dead body (Exhibit P-7) and 'panchayat-nama' (Exhibit P-8), PW-6 Deendayal, PW-7 Amar, PW-8 Sher Singh, who were other witnesses of recovery, PW-9 Lokesh, who was witness of recovery of knife at the instance of accused Ratti, have supported the prosecution case. In view of that, just because the witnesses of recovery of clothes of the deceased and weapons of offence have not supported the prosecution case, trust inspiring testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param and evidence of the truck owner PW-14 Gajendra Kumar and Investigating Officer PW-20 Mehtab Singh, cannot be ignored or rejected to hold that offence against accused-appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Contention that PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param are close relatives i.e. first cousin of deceased Mohan Singh, therefore they should not be believed as eye witnesses and further contention that owner of the truck PW-14 Gajendra Kumar, having denied to have them engaged as labourers on the truck, they should not be taken as eye witnesses, cannot be accepted for the reason that PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, conductor on the truck, has categorically stated that apart from himself and the deceased driver Mohan Singh, there were two more labourers. He could not name them because he was engaged on the truck on that very day. He could not name them because he was engaged on the truck on that very day. PW-14 Gajendra Kumar, owner of truck, has stated that even though he did not engage PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param, in practice the driver was free to engage the labour for his efficient working and in that case he himself was to make payment of their wages. PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param, in their statements, have mentioned about presence of PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan as conductor on the truck. These witnesses thus corroborated each other not only in respect of presence of each other but also on material particulars and contents of their statements. 21. Contention that failure of the prosecution to recover bloodstained sand or soil from the place of occurrence is fatal to its case, cannot be accepted because as per the site plan (Exhibit P-2) itself, it was raining on that day and due to flow of water, the bloodstained soil could not be lifted from the ground which fact has been proved by PW-20 Mehtab Singh, investigating officer. The incident was of 26th July, 2002 and site plan was prepared on following day i.e. 27th July, 2002, which is when rainy season in this part of country is on its peak. PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan has also stated that it was raining on the day of incident and there was too much mud around. The version disclosed by the prosecution therefore cannot be disbelieved. The reason why dead body was not found at the place of occurrence when site plan (Exhibit P-2) was prepared on 27.07.2002, was that dead body was removed by the investigating officer PW-20 Mehtab Singh on the previous night when he received QST message from DW-2 Harmukhlal, and by that time no FIR was submitted before him by anyone and merely an entry was made by him in the 'rojnamcha' (Exhibit D-4). The investigating officer was the same police officer who had visited the site of incident on previous night and removed the dead body. The investigating officer was the same police officer who had visited the site of incident on previous night and removed the dead body. Merely because PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand, the informant, accompanied him at the time of preparation of site plan, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused by that reason because location of the dead body at place 'XA' given in the site plan was not just based on the information given by PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand but on the basis of actual personal knowledge gained by the Investigating Officer himself who visited the site and got the dead body lifted from there to be taken to hospital for postmortem, which is a fact not denied even by the defence. The truck in any case was found parked about ten steps away from there at place 'XB', which is again a factor corroborating the allegation that body of the deceased was ran-over by the truck. 22. Significantly enough, PW-20 Mehtab Singh has proved the recovery of tin-sheet that was attached with the truck just adjacent to the tyre. Even if the tyre did not contain the bloodstained marks, the tin sheet contained the bloodstained marks and that was recovered vide Exhibit P-26 and has been proved by PW-20 Mehtab Singh, which, according to him, contained fresh blood. DW-1 Mehtab when he states that deceased Mohan Singh died accidental death while crossing the road, does not at all inspire confidence because what he stated is that only his head was crushed and rest of his body was not crushed, whereas medical evidence proves to the contrary. When he so states, he does not tell the truth. Moreover, he states that after half an hour one police personnel reached and one hour thereafter the SHO reached there. If that was so, his conduct is suspicious why he did not inform the SHO about the accident. On the contrary, the SHO (PW-20), in his statement, stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw several persons surrounding the dead body, who informed him that the deceased and accused had a quarrel on giving side to the truck in evening of that very day. DW-2 Harmukhlal has merely stated that people standing there were stating that deceased had died of accident but he himself was not a witness to the accident. DW-2 Harmukhlal has merely stated that people standing there were stating that deceased had died of accident but he himself was not a witness to the accident. Argument of the learned counsel for appellants that his statement should be taken as evidence of a relevant fact with reference to Section 6 as part of the same transaction even if they occurred at different time, cannot be accepted. Section 6 provides that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. Such statement made by DW-2 Harmukhlal that people, standing at the place of occurrence, were discussing that the deceased had died of accident cannot be taken as a fact so connected with the fact in issue as to firm part of the same transaction. Illustration (a) given below Section 6 of the Act, merely state that where accused A of murder by beating B whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. Indigenous argument by learned counsel for appellants can possibly not be founded on the said illustration because DW-2 Harmukhlal was neither a by-standers nor it has been proved that he was informed of fact of accidental death by any by-standers because he has not named any such by-stander fact even otherwise, cannot be accepted because death of deceased Mohan Singh cannot at all be accepted as an accidental death on account of ocular as well as medical evidence discussed above. 23. Even if PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand while submitting the written report, has not mentioned in so many words that body of deceased Mohan Singh was ran-over by the truck at the hands of accused Ratti with the help of other three accused, this fact has to be held to have been proved on evidence that has come on record, which we shall presently discuss. Omission to mention this fact in the FIR may not be fatal to the prosecution case because PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand has stated this fact in his statement given to the police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code (Exhibit D-2), that was recorded on same day on which FIR was recorded and therefore this court cannot proceed on the footing that this witness has concocted a false story about the body of the deceased having been ran-over by the truck, which even otherwise cannot be accepted in view of the fact that this allegation is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-16 Param has reiterated those allegations. Although it may be true that his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded after 18 days of the incident but since all what he has stated was narration of the events given by PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand to the police substantially in the written report and also then fully in statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code recorded on the same day i.e. 27.07.2002 to which the defence had opportunity to confront him to the extent of there being any contradiction on this aspect of the matter, the allegation that the body of deceased Mohan Singh was ran-over by the truck at the hands of accused Ratti, has to be taken as proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if for that purpose we ignore the statement of PW-16 Param, whose statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded after 18 days thereafter, PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan nevertheless is a witness who has fully corroborated him on this aspect, who stated that on the fateful day, he was conductor on the truck on which deceased Mohan Singh was driver and deceased Mohan Singh had engaged two labourers on the truck whose names he did not know because he had joined the duties as conductor on that truck on that very day. While they were going to load grit from the crusher at about 7.00 PM, a quarrel took place between deceased Mohan Singh and accused Ratti driver on the question of giving side. Accused Ratti was driving vehicle No.3183. Then they physically quarreled. However, Gajendra (PW-14) owner of the truck, mediated between two and settled the dispute. At 10.30 in the night of that very day they were going to deliver grit at Firozabad. Accused Ratti was driving vehicle No.3183. Then they physically quarreled. However, Gajendra (PW-14) owner of the truck, mediated between two and settled the dispute. At 10.30 in the night of that very day they were going to deliver grit at Firozabad. Two persons forcibly mounted their truck and entered the cabin, they started beating Mohan Singh by 'lathi' and 'sabbal'. Mohan Singh was pushed out of the truck. Three persons caught hold of Mohan Singh and Ratti ran the truck over his body. This witness has mentioned the name of other accused Sheru but he stated that he did not remember names of other two accused. Although he stated that he identified only accused Ratti and did not identify other accused but in cross-examination he stated that accused Chahat and Farooq also gave beating to deceased Mohan Singh, though this time he did not identify accused Sheru. But, in cross-examination, he again stated that when quarrel of Mohan Singh took place with Ratti and other accused, he was there and stayed till dead body of Mohan Singh was ran-over by the truck. The police recorded his statement on that very day and thereafter again after fifteen days. In cross-examination, this witness again stated that accused Ratti and Sheru inflicted two or three blows of 'lathis' and 'sabbal' while he was in cabin of the truck. It is thus clear that this witness has remained consistent about accused Ratti in his statement. While in the examination in chief, he has mentioned name of Sheru as other assailant but declined to recognise him. However in the cross-examination he qualified that statement by saying that he knew Ratti and it was Ratti and Sheru who mounted the cabin of the truck and Ratti and Sheru inflicted two or three injuries on the person of deceased Mohan Singh. To that extent, therefore, his statement can be partly relied although it shall have to be read with corroboration from statements of other witnesses. 24. There is then the evidence of PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand in this respect who has remained unshaken and consistent, who categorically stated that the dispute between deceased Mohan Singh and accused Ratti arose at about 7.00 pm of that day on the question of giving side, then both of them started quarreling. PW-14 Gajendra mediated the matter and settled the dispute. PW-14 Gajendra mediated the matter and settled the dispute. Accused Ratti threatened deceased Mohan Singh of dire consequences. While they were going with loaded truck to Mathura and reached village Udaka, accused Ratti and Sheru intercepted their truck. They were accompanied by accused Farooq and Chahat. Two of them entered the cabin of the truck and gave beating to driver Mohan Singh by 'lathis' and iron road. They pulled him out of the truck and started him beating with 'lathis' and iron rod. All four of them started beating. This witness stated that he identified all the four accused who were present in the court. Accused Ratti had a bamboo stick of 2-21/2 arm length, and thereby he caused blow on the head, hand and legs of deceased Mohan Singh; then Ratti boarded the truck of accused Mohan Singh. Accused appellant Chahat, Sheru and Farooq caught hold of Mohan Singh and accused Ratti ran the truck over the body of deceased from reverse side. This witness stated that he was so frightened that he immediately rushed to his village Pasta. Mohan Singh was already dead by that time when he ran away from there. This witness stated that he was at the back side of the truck standing on the grits. He did not inform either of the owner of the truck or the police because of fear. PW-16 Param has also superficially corroborated this witness in all material particulars. He stated that accused appellants Ratti and Sheru entered the cabin of the truck from conductor side. Other accused-appellants Farooq and Chahat pulled deceased Mohan Singh out of the truck. They all started giving him beating with lathis, sariya and knife. Ratti had a lathi and knife. Sheru, Chahat and Farooq were having iron rods. Ratti inflicted injuries on leg and hands of the deceased. Other accused also gave him beating. Ratti then boarded the truck of Mohan Singh. While Farooq and Chahat caught hold of deceased Mohan Singh, accused Ratti ran the truck over his body from reverse side. He died instantaneously. 25. Sheru, Chahat and Farooq were having iron rods. Ratti inflicted injuries on leg and hands of the deceased. Other accused also gave him beating. Ratti then boarded the truck of Mohan Singh. While Farooq and Chahat caught hold of deceased Mohan Singh, accused Ratti ran the truck over his body from reverse side. He died instantaneously. 25. Contention that PW-13 and PW-16 were planted as witnesses later on and that since the owner of the truck PW-14 Gajendra has disowned them by stating that he did not engage them, cannot be accepted because he rather substantiated that driver of the truck was free to engage labour for his convenience and in that event driver has to make payment of the wages to such labour. PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan even though has been declared hostile but he nevertheless stated the truth though in a veil. This witness has stated that apart from himself and driver Mohan Singh, two labourers were also there in the truck. He did not know their names because he was engaged as conductor by the driver on that very day. This is corroborated from the fact that PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand apart from written report on 27.07.2002 also gave statement to the police on the same day and he has reiterated the same thing in his court statement. Merely because statement of PW-16 was recorded by the police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code with some delay, cannot be a reason to discard his testimony entirely. 26. The testimony of a hostile witness can be relied if part of his statement inspires confidence and receives corroboration from evidence of other witnesses and that can be segregated from that part where he does not support the prosecution case. In the present case, PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, in examination-in-chief, has fully proved the prosecution case as against accused appellant Ratti and partly supported against accused appellant Sheru, but, in his examination-in-chief, he again reiterated the allegation against three accused i.e. Sheru, Farooq and Chahat though with some what shaky version. His testimony can nevertheless be relied on to that extent. His testimony can nevertheless be relied on to that extent. It is trite law that when a witness is declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined with permission of the court and permission is granted to prosecution to cross-examine him, his evidence is still admissible and three is no legal bar to rely on his statement to record a conviction if his testimony is corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Supreme Court in Alagarsamy v. State represented by Police, Madurai - (2010) 12 SCC 427 , held that merely because the witness is declared hostile, whole of his evidence is not liable to be thrown away. 27. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2010) 6 SCC 1 , it was held by the Supreme Court that where a prosecution witness turns hostile, the court may rely upon so much of his testimony which supports prosecution case, which is corroborated by other witnesses. In the present case, statement of PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan not only to the extent where he alleges of accused Ratti having ran the truck over body of deceased Mohan Singh but also narrated the role played by other three accused, found sufficient corroboration from other statements. 28. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan and Others, supra, relied on by learned counsel for appellants, held that the fundamental object of an FIR is that it acts as a safeguard against embellishment, exaggeration and forgetfulness. True, that it is not the requirement of law that every minute detail of the occurrence needs to be recorded in the FIR but it must disclose the commission of an offence. Though, it is trite that the FIR does not constitute substantive evidence and can, strictly speaking, be only used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating or contradicting its maker, yet omission of material facts pertaining to the crime is undoubtedly relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case. In the present case there are two reasons why the ratio of aforesaid judgment cannot be applied herein. In the present case there are two reasons why the ratio of aforesaid judgment cannot be applied herein. Firstly that in the statement of informant PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand that was recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on that very day he has made same version about the body of the deceased having been ran over by the truck at the hands of the accused Ratti, which he reiterated in his court statement and secondly there is even otherwise enough corroboration of this allegation not only from the ocular but also the medical evidence. The Supreme Court in this case also observed that a close relative cannot be characterised as an interested witness. He is a natural witness. His evidence however must be scrutinised carefully. 29. .Another judgment of the Supreme Court in Bankey Lal's case, supra, relied on by learned counsel for appellants as regards omission of certain facts in the FIR also therefore cannot be applied to the facts of present case. In M.C. Ali's case, supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not, that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person, leaving a way for real accused to escape. 30. In Leela Ram's case, supra, it was held by the Supreme Court that there is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses, when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. As regards the fact why PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand, informant in present case, directly went to his village rather than going to police station, observations of the Supreme Court in this judgment may be useful to refer to, which are that the court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. So it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. It is in that light that the conduct of the witnesses has to be appreciated. 31. Contention that since identification of accused in the court for the first time was not proceeded by test identification parade and since the accused were not known to deceased and three eye witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that it has consistently been stated by not just three eye witnesses, namely, PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param, but also by truck owner PW-14 Gajendra that a quarrel had taken place between deceased Mohan Singh and accused Ratti and few others and in that quarrel, according to these eye witnesses, they assaulted each other. It was due to intervention of PW-14 Gajendra Kumar that the matter was sorted out. It was due to intervention of PW-14 Gajendra Kumar that the matter was sorted out. When the accused were already known to the deceased and the eye witnesses, the mere fact that test identification was not conducted by the police, cannot be a basis to discard their evidence particularly when all the four accused-appellants have been identified by PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan, PW-13 Devi Singh S/o Bal Mukand and PW-16 Param, and PW-1 Devi Singh S/o Ram Kishan has, in examination in chief, identified accused Ratti but in cross-examination he even made allegation against rest of the accused assigning them specific role. 32. In view of the above discussion, in our considered view, guilt of the accused-appellants was fully proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. This appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******