Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant Arjun Ram against the judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and he has been senten-ced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. The FIR, in the present case, has been registered on the statement of Pratap Ram S/o. Jina Ram, elder brother of Dhana Ram (deceased). As per statement of complainant, his younger brother Dhana Ram who had separate dwelling went to look after his agricultural fields at 10 a.m., which is situated at the western side of the village. At the same time, Arjun Ram, Naval S/o Arjun Ram, Baudi W/o. Arjun Ram Bhala Ram S/o. Gopa Ram Jat, all four armed with sharp-edged weapons-sword and barchhi, arrived at the field on a tractor which was being driven by Arjun Ram. It was stated that Dhanna Ram was actively chased by the same tractor and finally he was hit from behind and meanwhile inflicted injury on the head by the barchhi as a result he fell down. Thereafter, the tractor started pounding over the body of Dhana Ram which made him to shriek with pain, which alerted Jina Ram, Pratap Ram and Chuna Ram who were working hereby. However, the accused people fled away from the spot on the same tractor. It was also stated that Arjun Ram and Naval inflicted barchhi blows on the head of Dhana Ram due to which he sustained injuries on his head. After that, the complainant and other persons took Dhana Ram at Nagaur Hospital for treatment where Doctor declared him dead. The above Statements of Pratap Ram were recorded by the S.H.O. Police Station, Kotwali in Roznamcha Ex. P.21 and on it FIR No. 223/2003 was registered and investigation was started. 3. During course of investigation Police inspected the place of incidence and prepared site plan Ex. P.22 and site inspection memo Ex. P.26. Blood stained soil and controlled soil were taken in possession from the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. P.23. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem report Ex. P.24 was taken on record. Accused Arjun Ram was arrested. On information (Ex. P.22 and site inspection memo Ex. P.26. Blood stained soil and controlled soil were taken in possession from the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. P.23. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem report Ex. P.24 was taken on record. Accused Arjun Ram was arrested. On information (Ex. P.28) furnished by accused, a tractor `Messy' without number, was taken in possession by the Police vide memo Ex. P.29. The tractor was mechanically inspected and report thereto as Ex. P.31 was taken on record. A notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was issued to the registered owner of the tractor and reply thereto Ex. P.32 was taken on record. The wearing apparels of deceased Dhanna Ram were also taken in possession by the Police. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The blood stained soil, controlled soil, dhoti, kamiz, under wear and banayan, belonging to deceased, were sent to FSL, Jodhpur for chemical examination, where from report Ex. P.33 was received. After completion of investigation challan was filed against the accused Arjun Ram for offence under Section 302 IPC on 23rd August, 2003 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagaur. 4. Since offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate, after complying the provisions envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur vide its order dated 9th September. Thereafter, the case was transferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur, (hereinafter referred as "learned trial court."). 5. Learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 24th November, 2003 framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and for incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution and stated that he has been implicated falsely due to enmity regarding agricultural field. In defence, he examined three witnesses viz. DW-1 Kishan Narayan Rakawat, DW-2 Jeevan Ram and DW-3 Pokar Ram. After hearing, the learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 30th September, 2004, convicted the accused appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. In defence, he examined three witnesses viz. DW-1 Kishan Narayan Rakawat, DW-2 Jeevan Ram and DW-3 Pokar Ram. After hearing, the learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 30th September, 2004, convicted the accused appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused, as appellant, preferred this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant stated that prosecution has come up with the case that the appellant Arjun Ram hit the deceased by the tractor, whereupon, he fell down and accused plied the tractor on his body 3 to 4 times. He submitted that there is no crush injury on the body of deceased. Not only this, no marks of tractor tyres were found on the body of the deceased. No blood stains were found on the tractor tyres. This not only clearly shows that a false case has been concocted by the prosecution against the appellant but also gives reasonable doubt about the story, narrated by the alleged eye-witnesses. He further submitted that the prosecution has also changed the place of incident. As per the prosecution story the incident took place in the field of Dhana Ram whereas, the dead body was found at "Angor" which is a public place. He further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the incident took place at 10 a.m. and at that time, all the prosecution witnesses and the deceased were present in the field. In the instant case, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution whereas it was day time when other persons i.e. independent witnesses or neighbours of the field also must have been present on the spot. Therefore, adverse inference must have been drawn against the prosecution and the conduct of alleged eye-witnesses is also doubtful. It creates reasonable doubt about their presence on the spot. As per prosecution, appellant alongwith three other persons arrived on the tractor. Meanwhile the witnesses were standing as mere spectators but no one turned in rescue of the deceased. Inspite of all being the close relatives of him. As per prosecution witnesses, Bala Ram gave barchhi blow on the head of Dhana Ram but neither the Police in its investigation nor the learned trial court has found the accused Bala Ram guilty. Meanwhile the witnesses were standing as mere spectators but no one turned in rescue of the deceased. Inspite of all being the close relatives of him. As per prosecution witnesses, Bala Ram gave barchhi blow on the head of Dhana Ram but neither the Police in its investigation nor the learned trial court has found the accused Bala Ram guilty. This clearly shows that a false crime story has been fabricated against the appellant and no reliance can be placed on the statements of the eye-witnesses. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses. The prosecution story does not corroborate from the medical evidence. PW.14 Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary has specifically stated in his statement that if a heavy vehicle is plied over the body of deceased then certainly impression of tyre marks must be there. Dr. Choudhary, further admitted that he did not find any such marks on the body of deceased. Deceased has sustained head injury but if timely medical aid would have been provided then he could have been saved. 9. Learned counsel for appellant further stated that the alleged agricultural field was in possession of appellant accused and there was injunction order by the Civil Court in his favour and presence of deceased in the agricultural field of appellant shows that he was the aggressor. In such circumstances the case does not travel beyond Section 304 IPC. No weapon of offences has been recovered, so in the alternate he submitted that at the most appellant accused can be convicted under Section 304 IPC and he is in custody since 31st July, 2003 i.e. about since last10 years as such sentence may be reduced to already undergone. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal may be allowed and appellant accused may be acquitted from the alleged charge. 10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for complainant supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The submitted that the incident took place at the agricultural field belonging to deceased and at the time of incident Jina Ram, Pratap Ram and Chunna Ram, who were cutting the grass in agricultural field, saw the incident. Thereafter, other witnesses were called upon by Deena Ram, they also witnessed the incident. The submitted that the incident took place at the agricultural field belonging to deceased and at the time of incident Jina Ram, Pratap Ram and Chunna Ram, who were cutting the grass in agricultural field, saw the incident. Thereafter, other witnesses were called upon by Deena Ram, they also witnessed the incident. They further stated that the place of incident was agricultural field so the marks of tyre on the body of deceased could not be found. They further submitted that the tractor was seized on the next day and from the post mortem report revealed that there were fractures in the upper and lower limps of the decease which shown that the tractor pounded the limbs of the deceased. They submitted that it was not possible that in the field of deceased where the incident took place, if any independent witness would have present. They further submitted that merely because the witnesses are close relatives of deceased, they cannot be disbelieved. 11. To decide the issues raised by the respective counsel, a brief synopsis of evidence on record as led by the prosecution may be apposite. 12. As per FIR at the time of incident Vijay Singh @ Chunna Ram (PW.6), Pratap Ram (PW.11) and Jeena Ram, were weeding the field said to be belonging to deceased Dhanna Ram near the place of occurrence i.e. Angor. Out of these three, prosecution examined only (PW.6) Vijay Singh @ Chuna Ram, (PW.11) Pratap Ram and where as Jeena Ram has not been examined. 13. Apart from this, as per prosecution story, at the time, of incident Santosh (PW-13) was following Dhanna Ram for the agricultural field. (PW-21) Deena Ram, child aged about 12-13 years, was grazing the herd at the Angor where the incident took place. He also claimed that the witnessed the incident. Apart from these four witnesses Smt. Raju (PW-3), Vimla (PW-4), Aai Dan Ram (PW-5), Sukha Ram (PW-7), Daula Ram (PW-9) and Smt. Parma (PW-10) have also been examined by prosecution as eye witnesses. Though they were not initially present at the spot of the incident but when reached there after being informed by Deena Ram, they saw the accused absconding on tractor. 14. Vijay Singh (PW-6) and Pratap Ram (PW-11) both stated that they were weeding in the agricultural field belonging to Dhanna Ram with Jeena Ram. Though they were not initially present at the spot of the incident but when reached there after being informed by Deena Ram, they saw the accused absconding on tractor. 14. Vijay Singh (PW-6) and Pratap Ram (PW-11) both stated that they were weeding in the agricultural field belonging to Dhanna Ram with Jeena Ram. At about 10-10.30 a.m. when Dhanna Ram and Smt. Santosh W/o. Vijay Singh were coming to look after the agricultural field, then Arjun Ram, Bala Ram, Naval, and Baudi came from the southern side on tractor driven by Arjun Ram when Dhanna Ram was about 100 paunda away from his field. Arjun Ram chased him by the tractor and hit him due to which he fell down. Thereafter, Arjun Ram inflicted a barsi blow from its reverse side. When Dhanna Ram fell down, Bhala Ram inflicted an injury by sword on the left arm of Dhanna Ram and Naval inflicted injuries from the reverse side of barchhi on right hand and left leg when they rushed to intervene, accused Arjun Ram started driving tractor and crushed Dhanna Ram. When they tried to stop accused persons, they warned that if they come close they will also be murdered. Still they tried to resist, but Arjun Ram chased them too by his tractor and so they ran away. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away on tractor towards southern side. At that time, on call of Deena Ram, Dola Ram, Pratap Ram, Raju, Vimla and Aai Dan Ram also reached there. It was also stated that Vijay Singh (PW.6) sent Deena Ram to call them. 15. Deena Ram (PW.21) also supported the statements of PW.6 and PW.11 and stated that he was grazing the herd in the western side of village at about 10 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. Dhanna Ram was coming from his house for his agricultural field with Smt. Santosh Pratap Ram, Jeena Ram and Chunna Ram were also weeding their agricultural field. No-one was there in the nearby agricultural fields when Dhanna Ram was about 100 paunda away from his agricultural field, from western side; Arjun Ram, Bala Ram, Naval and Baudi came on tractor, which was driven by Arjun Ram and tried to hit Dhanna Ram when Dhanna Ram started running, Arjun Ram, chased with tractor and inflicted farsi blow on head of Dhanna Ram from its reverse side. Chunna Ram, Pratap Ram and Jeena Ram also came there. He further stated that he was asked to reaching house he cried "Dhanna Baba ko mare re mare re, Dhanna Baba ko mare re mare re." On hearing this, Dola Ram, Birma Ram, Raju and Aai Dan Ram rushed to place of incident. Sukh Dev also reached there by tractor. When they reached at the place of incident, accused were running and Dhanna Ram was having injuries and there were marks of four rounds of tractor on one place and one round of tractor on the center place. Thereafter, a jeep was called and Dhanna Ram was shifted to Hospital at Nagaur, where Dhanna Ram died. 16. PW.3 Smt. Raju, PW.4 Vimla, PW.5 Aai Ram, PW.7 Sukha Ram, PW.9 Daula Ram and PW. 10 Smt. Parma stated in their statements that Deena Ram came at the village Chatra Majra and told that Dhanna Ram is being murdered by Arjun Ram, Bala Ram, Navala Ram and Baudi W/o Arjun Ram at Angor situated near the agricultural field of Dhanna Ram deceased. On hearing they rushed to place of occurrence with Deena Ram and saw that the tractor was moving in southern side towards Baswani and was being driven by Arjun Ram. They further stated that there were marks of tractor tyres. The blood was seen on the place of incident and there were injuries on the body of Dhanna Ram who was shifted to Hospital at Nagaur, by jeep. They further stated that there was enmity between both the parties over the issue of agricultural field since 7-8 years and previously too Arjun Ram hit Dhanna Ram by the tractor when Dhanna Ram was going on motor cycle. They further stated that Jeena Ram, Pratap Ram, Chunna Ram and Santosh were also there. 17. PW.2 Razab Ali, though turned hostile but stated that he is owing a jeep. Two persons came to him and asked that a patient has to be shifted to Hospital at Nagaur. On their request he went to Angor situated at Chatra Majara where a person was lying in injured condition and men and women were also there. The injured was shifted to Hospital at Nagaur by jeep. 18. Two persons came to him and asked that a patient has to be shifted to Hospital at Nagaur. On their request he went to Angor situated at Chatra Majara where a person was lying in injured condition and men and women were also there. The injured was shifted to Hospital at Nagaur by jeep. 18. PW.22 Vidhya Prakash, S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali, Nagaur, who investigated the case, has stated that on 30th July, 2003 at 1.15 p.m. Pratap Ram Jat lodged an oral report which was entered in Roznamcha at Report No. 1398 (Ex. P.21). He further stated that he investigated the matter and during investigation, he sent Ram Karan A.S.I. to Government Hospital, Nagaur for doing needful. He himself visited the place of incident at Village Chatra Majra and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the inspection memo Ex.PW.22, Rough site plan vide Ex. P.26. Controlled soil and blood stained soil were also taken in possession in presence of motbirs. Post-mortem report Ex. P-24 was sought and taken on record; Accused Arjun Ram was arrested. He furnished an information which was reduced in writing as Ex. P-28 in pursuance of which a Messy tractor, without registration number, was seized from the tube-well belonging to accused Arjun Ram vide memo Ex. p. 29. The rough site plan of place of recovery was also prepared as Ex.P.30. The tractor was mechanically examined by M.T.O. vide report Ex.P.31 a notice under Section 133 M.V. Act was issued. FSL report Ex. P.33 was also obtained. Thereafter for further investigation, the file was sent to Additional Superintendent of police, Nagaur. 19. PW.1 Madan Lal, Malkhana Incharge, stated that on 30th July, 2003 A.S.I. Ram Karan deposited one packet having wearing appeals of deceased market as "C", two packets marked as "A" & B" having blood stained soil and controlled soil. One tractor Messy Farguns without numbers. was deposited by S.H.O. Shri Vidhya Prakash which were entered in Malkhana register as Ex.P.1A. He further stated he handed over the packet A, B and C to Constable Chenna Ram to deposit in FSL Jodhpur who after depositing the same at FSL, Jodhpur handed over the receipt. He further stated that after examination, the packets were returned with report on 1st September, 2003 which was handed-over to L.C. Mahaveen Singh for submitting in the Court. 20. He further stated that after examination, the packets were returned with report on 1st September, 2003 which was handed-over to L.C. Mahaveen Singh for submitting in the Court. 20. PW.8 Chandragupt, Constable, stated that on 4th August, 2003 when he was posted at Crime Branch in S.P. Office, on that day Constable Chenna Ram came to him with sealed packets marked, A,B and C on which he prepared forwarding letter Ex. P.7 for depositing the same at FSL, Jodhpur, and handed-over all the sealed packets to Chenna Ram, who is return, submitted receipt Ex. P.8. 21. PW.12 Chenna Ram also stated that on 14th August, 2009 received three sealed packets from Head Constable Madan Lal as marked A, B and C with forwarding letter. After receiving the same, he went to Office of S.P. Nagaur and received forwarding letter Ex. P. 7 from there and deposited the packets in sealed condition at FSL, Jodhpur against receipt Ex. P.8. 22. PW.19 Mani Ram and PW.20 Ram Kumar both turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 23. PW.15 Gena Ram, PW.16 Ram Karan and PW.17 Jagdev stated that Police prepared dead body inspection memo Ex. P.3 in their presence and also prepared inquest report Ex. P.4 and the wearing apparels of deceased were seized and after post-mortem the dead body of Dhanna Ram was handed over to his son vide receipt Ex. P.5. 24. PW.14 Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary, Medical Jurist stated in his statement that on 30th July, 2003 he conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased Dhana Ram at 4.30 p.m. and stated that Dhanna Ram died 4-6 hours earlier and found following anti mortem injuries on the body of deceased:- (i) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep situated over occipital region of scalp, obliquely placed. Fracture of occipital bone. Bleeding from the wound from inside brain. (ii) Abrated bruise 1" x 1" round over upper part of right arm laterally. (iii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over lower part of right arm laterally. (iv) Multiple abrated bruises over whole of right forearm, wrist and right hand. Closed fracture of right hand. (v) Punctured wound with deformity over lower part of left arm. Fracture of lower 1/3rd of humerous bone. (vi) Abraded bruise 1" x 1/2" over left elbow laterally. (vii) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" over middle of right thigh anteriorly. (iv) Multiple abrated bruises over whole of right forearm, wrist and right hand. Closed fracture of right hand. (v) Punctured wound with deformity over lower part of left arm. Fracture of lower 1/3rd of humerous bone. (vi) Abraded bruise 1" x 1/2" over left elbow laterally. (vii) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" over middle of right thigh anteriorly. (viii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" over left knee anteriorly. (ix) Multiple superficial bruises over right leg anteriorly. (x) Abrasion 1" x 1/8" just below left knee. (xi) Lacerated wound 2" x 3/4" x bone deep over upper 1/3rd of left leg. Compound fracture of tibia bone. Bone exposed. (xii) Abrasion 1 1/4" x 1/2" over lower part of left let anteriorly. (xiii) Abraded bruise 2" x 1" over left wrist. (xiv) All defined swelling over left foot. (xv) Bruise 1 1/2" x 1/2" over upper part of right thigh." He opined that the cause of death of Dhanna Ram was head injury and brain hemorrhage and the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the post-mortem report as Ex. P. 24. From the statements of PW.14 the death of deceased Dhanna Ram was homicidal. 25. As per statements of Vijay Singh (PW.6) and Pratap Ram (PW.11), who were working nearby the place of occurrence, Smt. Santosh (PW.13) was coming behind the deceased Dhanna Ram and Deena Ram (PW-21), who was grazing his herd, witnessed the incident and their presence was natural. Thereafter, on hearing from Deena Ram (PW.21); Smt. Raju (PW.3), Vimla (PW. 4), Aaidan Ram (PW. 5), Sukha Ram (PW.7), Daula Ram (PW. 9) and Smt. Parma (PW. 10) reached there. They saw the accused absconding on tractor and found Dhanna Ram having injuries on his body. From the statements of above witnesses it is clear that the injuries found on the body of Dhanna Ram were caused by accused Arjun Ram. 26. Ex. P.3 dead body examination report also shows that there were injuries on the body of deceased Dhanna Ram. As per postmortem report Ex. P.24, there were 15 injuries on the body of deceased as mentioned above and they were in the shape of lacerated wounds, bruises and abrasions and as per eye-witnesses these injuries were caused by the tractor which pounded over the body of Dhanna Ram. As per postmortem report Ex. P.24, there were 15 injuries on the body of deceased as mentioned above and they were in the shape of lacerated wounds, bruises and abrasions and as per eye-witnesses these injuries were caused by the tractor which pounded over the body of Dhanna Ram. As such, it is also proved that the injuries were caused by appellant accused Arjun Ram. 27. Though learned Defence Counsel submitted that there is no crush injury on the body of the deceased and in absence of it, it cannot be said that appellant accused pounded tractor over the body of deceased and as such the statements of so called eye-witnesses are not supported by the medical evidence. 28. Suffice to say that Angor i.e. the place of incident situated near the fields, is a sandy area. At such grounds if a vehicle over runs over a human body need not necessarily crush it in same manner as if it would have done on hard rocky surface. Added that heavy vehicle's tyre impressions may also not imprint clearly on the body lying on sandy surface. The postmortem report states that there are lacerated wounds, bruises and abrasions, which are also counted under the category of crush injuries. Further the injuries caused by a motor vehicle depends upon the speed, the position of hitting, the place where the injured fell down and surface on which the incident took place and part of the vehicle from which he was hit. It is also true that no soil was repor-ted by the Medical Jurist on the body of deceased in the postmortem report. Since the Medical Jurist is concerned with the injuries only and it cannot be ruled out that he may not have found necessary to notice this fact because it is not concerned with the Medical Jurist. As such not mentioning having soil on the body or wearing apparels of the deceased is of no consequence specially when the number of witnesses deposing that accused caused injuries. The injuries found on the body of deceased were on the upper and the lower limbs which bore fractures and shows that these injuries were caused by the tyres of the tractor pounded over the limbs of the deceased. 29. So far as head injuries are concerned, all the witnesses clearly stated that it was inflicted with barchhi by the accused. 29. So far as head injuries are concerned, all the witnesses clearly stated that it was inflicted with barchhi by the accused. It is true that barchhi has not been recovered but mere not recovery of barchhi does not falsify the eye-witnesses. The witnesses also deposed that Dhanna Ram, after seeing Arjun Ram, started running and accused chased him by tractor and hit from behind due to which Dhanna Ram fell down. It seems that hitting from behind led Dhanna Ram fell down infront of the tractor resulting in the head injury after having barchhi blow. 30. Further a medical witness called as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is of an advisory character given on the basis of symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to out before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert, may form its own judgments on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the Medical Officer but of the Court. (Pratap Mishra vs. State of Orrisa reported in AIR 1977 SC 1307 ). 31. Though eye-witnesses named other persons and after investigation, police did not file challan against them and their involvement was not found true. During the course of trial, witnesses again named the other persons but prosecution or complainant did not file any application for summoning them under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. As such it attained finality that they were not involved in the incident and only appellant accused inflicted the injuries. It is admitted fact that there is dispute regarding agricultural land between complainant party and accused party. So it cannot be ruled out that prosecution witnesses implicated other persons falsely but that does not mean that their entire statements are unbelievable. It is the duty of the Court to thresh the truth from the falsehood. The maxim "falsus uno falsus ominous" does not apply in India. The part of evidence which seems to be true should be relied upon. It is the duty of the Court to thresh the truth from the falsehood. The maxim "falsus uno falsus ominous" does not apply in India. The part of evidence which seems to be true should be relied upon. Applying this principle, the statements of eye-witnesses regarding inflicting injuries to Dhanna Ram by the barchhi and tractor is corroborated by medical evidence and that cannot be disbelieved. As such this argument is also of no consequence. 32. So far as interested witnesses are concerned, it is true that all the eye witnesses are relatives of the deceased and there is previous enimity over agricultural land between deceased and complainant party but that does not mean that the relatives of the deceased are implicating a person falsely in the case of murder. It is also true that there are minor discrepancies in the state-ments of witnesses and few improvements which may be due to time gap and that also does not mean that their statements are entirely disbelievable. 33. In the matter of State represented by Inspector of Police vs. Saravanram and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 832/2002) date of judgment 14th October, 2008 has reiterated two principles with regard to appreciation of evidence in a criminal case the evidence of witnesses cases and minor discrepancies as well as improvements in the statements of witnesses and it was held as under:- "10...There is no rule of any presumption that the evidence of a related witness will always be an interested one or that such witness will have only a hostile attitude towards the accused facing trial." The court quoted a decision State of Raj. vs. Teja Ram, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 507 = RLW 1999(2) SC 276 to establish the principle in the present case where the witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased. Thus, when any incident happens in a dwelling house, the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen anything. The position of appreciation of evidence with minor discrepancies is held as follows:- "1.... while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. The position of appreciation of evidence with minor discrepancies is held as follows:- "1.... while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies." We are of the view that mere fact that eye-witnesses are interested witnesses being relatives is not a reason to discard their evidence, if the evidence is trustoworthy. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Breathe vs. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519 held that the mechanical rejection of the evidence on the sole ground that it is interested would invariably lead to the failure of justice. In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. S. Mohan Singh & Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 272 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a murder trial, merely because a witness is interested or inimical, his evidence cannot be discarded unless the same is otherwise found to be trustworthy. In Shaymal Gosh State of West Bengal (2012) 7 SCC 646 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because three witnesses were related to the deceased, the other witnesses who not similarly paced would not attract any suspicion of the Court on the creditability and worthiness of their statements. 34. So far as non-examination of independent witnesses is concerned, suffice to say that eye-witnesses categorically stated that there was no person in the neighbouring fields who witnessed the incident. 35. From the perusal of plaint Ex. P.7, temporary injunction order dated 17.9.1999 Ex. P.8 plaint Ex. P.10, it reveals that there was land dispute between appellant accused and deceased, and several litigations were also pending and as per Ex. 35. From the perusal of plaint Ex. P.7, temporary injunction order dated 17.9.1999 Ex. P.8 plaint Ex. P.10, it reveals that there was land dispute between appellant accused and deceased, and several litigations were also pending and as per Ex. P.-8 the temporary injunction application preferred by Dhanna Ram was partly accepted by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagaur and appellant accused Arjun Ram and one Ram Pyari were directed to maintain status quo till final disposal of the suit regarding disputed land bearing kharsra No. 90 measuring, 16 bighas, 13 biswas situated at Chatra Manjra and when possession of disputed land was of appellant accused and deceased was entered in the possession of accused even after status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). It further reveals that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nagaur after hearing the parties on the application of temporary injunction preferred by deceased Dhanna Ram reached on the prima facie conclusion that the possession of disputed land bearing khasra No. 90 is of appellant accused Arjun Ram and having regard to the possession of appellant accused Arjun Ram passed the order of status quo till final disposal of the land suit. It seems that accused saw deceased entering in the agricultural field possessed by him. He ran behind him and on this count, all of sudden without any premeditation, accused hit Dhanna Ram and chased by tractor and gave barchhi blow and pounded the tractor over him and as mentioned above caused injuries which resulted into death of Dhanna Ram. 36. From the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 186/2004 decided on 13.5.2009 preferred by present accused appellant Arjun Ram against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th February, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 201/2001 (49/01) by which the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine to Rs. 15,000/- and for other offences also, was partly allowed to the extent of the sentence only. 15,000/- and for other offences also, was partly allowed to the extent of the sentence only. From the perusal of the judgment dated 13.5.2009, it also reveals that the manner in which the previous incident relating to judgment dated 13.5.2009 was caused by the accused appellant, in the same manner the present offence was also caused by the accused appellant. As per the eye-witnesses accused appellant pounded tractor on the body of Dhanna Ram for five times, still no vital part was crushed except upper and lower limbs. No weapon was possessed by the accused and as per eye-witnesses the barchhi blow was given from it reverse side which shows that the intention of accused was not to commit murder and he was not having premeditation for killing Dhanna Ram. 37. So far as defence witnesses are concerned DW-1 Kishan Narayan Rakawat, Patwari, deposed that Angor is situated in nadi which falls in the area of Village Chatra Manjra bearing khasra No. 138 and Khasra No. of nadi is 137 and khasra No. of pasture land is 155. 38. DW-2 Jeevan Ram, stated that the saw Dhanna Ram lying at the place of occurrence having injuries. As such, this witness corroborated the prose-cution case to the extent that Dhanna Ram was having injuries on his body and was lying on the place of occurrence. Though he is giving different time. 39. DW-3 Pokar Ram, also supported the prosecution case to the extent that a tractor was seized by the police though he deposed that tractor was seized due to want of papers. As such these defence witnesses DW-2 and DW-3 does not help appellant accused in any manner and from the statements of DW-1 Patwari. It reveals that there was dispute regarding the land record. 40. Now the question is whether the appellant was guilty of committing murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. 41. It reveals that there was dispute regarding the land record. 40. Now the question is whether the appellant was guilty of committing murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. 41. Except in the cases, mentioned in Section 300, IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly,-if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of a person to whom the harm is caused; or- thirdly,- if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that if so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Section 300 IPC provides the following exceptions, "Exception 1.-When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisions- First.- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.-Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Thirdly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.-Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 2.-Culpable homicide is not murder- if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Exception 3.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.-It immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5.-Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Under the first exception culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of the self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Similarly, under the fourth exception, if the death is caused without any premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the death does not amount to murder. Culpable homicide and murder involves the killing of a person. Similarly, under the fourth exception, if the death is caused without any premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the death does not amount to murder. Culpable homicide and murder involves the killing of a person. What distinguishes these two offences is the presence of a special mens rea, which consists of four mental attitudes in the presence of any of which, the lesser offence becomes greater. These four mental attitudes are stated in Section 300 IPC distinguishing murder from culpable homicide. 42. The punishment for culpable homicide, not amounted to murder, has been prescribed in Section 304 IPC. Section 304 IPC reads as follows:- "304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.-Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be lible to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." Under Section 304 IPC, depending upon different circumstances, two kinds of punishments have been prescribed. Firstly, under Part I of Section 304 IPC, if the act by which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine. Secondly, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death, for such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. Secondly, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death, for such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. Therefore, if the act is done with intention of causing death, for such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death, then the offender is liable for Part-I of Section 304 IPC. Whereas, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death, then the offence committed by the person would fall under Part II of Section 304 IPC. 43. As per Ex. P.8 the agricultural field bearing khasra No. 90 was in possession of accused appellant and deceased Dhanna Ram was entering in the field having possession of accused. On it accused chased him by the tractor and inflicted barchhi blow from its reverse side on his head and hit him from behind by the tractor due to which Dhanna Ram fell down. Thereafter tractor was pounded over the limbs of Dhanna Ram resulting in his death. This shows that seeing Dhanna Ram entering in agricultural field having possession of accused, he deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation inflicted injuries in the manner mentioned above to Dhanna Ram resulting in his death without any pre-meditation and without having taken undue advantage. Further injuries inflicted by Barchhi were from its reverse side and pounding over tractor on limbs also shows that accused was not having intention to murder of Dhanna Ram. 44. From the above legal position, act of the accused appellant comes in the purview of exceptions first and fourth of the Section 300. As such appellant accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II instead of 302 IPC. 45. Accused appellant was arrested on 31.7.2003, at that time he was about 43 years old and is behind the bars since then. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, he is sentenced for ten years' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC with fine amounting to Rs.5,000/- in the event of default in payment of fine, he will further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, he is sentenced for ten years' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC with fine amounting to Rs.5,000/- in the event of default in payment of fine, he will further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The period during investigation and trial he remained in custody will be set off as per the provisions of Sec.428 Cr.P.C. If the amount of fine is deposited by the accused appellant, the same shall be paid to PW.6 Vijay Singh S/o Dhanna Ram (deceased). 46. Accordingly, the appellant is partly allowed and appellant accused is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II instead of 302 IPC and sentenced as indicated above. A Copy of judgment be sent to the Superintendent of concerned jail where the accused is undergoing the sentence for his information. Record of the trial court be returned with the copy of the judgment forthwith.