Anil Kumar Sharma, J. Both these appeals emanate from common judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Meerut on 16.09.2004 in S.T. No. 177/2002, State vs. Rajeev and two others ( Crime No. 135/2001, P.S. Phalawada, District Meerut) under section 302 IPC, S.T. No. 178/2002, State vs. Jitendra Kumar ( Crime No. 152/2001, P.S. Phalawada, District Meerut) under section 25 Arms Act and S.T. No. 179/2002, State vs. Ranvir ( Crime No. 151/2001, P.S. Phalawada, District Meerut) under section 25 Arms Act, whereby the appellants Ranvir and Jitendra have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and Rajeev under section 302/34 IPC and each had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Accused Ranvir and Jitendra have further been convicted under section 25 Arms Act and each had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation. 2. Facts germane to the appeal are that on 20.09.2001 at 8.50 P.M. Rajendra s/o Surja, r/o village Sakauti, P.S. Phalawada, District Meerut submitted a written report in P.S. Phalawada stating that today he had gone to Mowana along with his father Surja for shopping and when they were returning back, Suresh s/o Ramphal of their village accompanied them from village Pilona. While returning back home on foot in the jungle of village Pilona 100 paces before Shiv temple near Rajwaha on metalled road at about 7.30 P.M. they found Ranvir Singh, Jitendra and Rajiv standing by the side of the road. Accused Rajiv caught hold Surja and immediately Ranvir Singh fired shot and thereafter Jitendra also fired one shot on Surja. They raised alarm and with the help of other people they took the injured to government hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The complainant has further stated that he and his wife Ranbiri have identified the aforesaid assailants. On the basis of this report case at crime no. 135/2001 under section 302 IPC was registered at P.S. Phalawada, investigation whereof was taken up by S.O. S. K. Singh himself. He immediately reached at the spot and seized a bullet 0.315 bore and also the simple and blood stained earth from the spot through recovery memo. He interrogated the complainant and at his instance prepared site plan. 135/2001 under section 302 IPC was registered at P.S. Phalawada, investigation whereof was taken up by S.O. S. K. Singh himself. He immediately reached at the spot and seized a bullet 0.315 bore and also the simple and blood stained earth from the spot through recovery memo. He interrogated the complainant and at his instance prepared site plan. The inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by S.I. Virendra Singh Rathore and he sent the dead body of Surja in sealed cover along with relevant papers for post mortem examination. 3. Dr. B. S. Chaudhary conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased on 21.09.2001 at 3.30 P.M. He found that 60-years old deceased was having average built body, rigor mortis was present in both the extremities and there was no decomposition. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: ( 1) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on top of skull, middle part clotted blood present. ( 2) Gun shot wound 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep surrounding by blackening and tattooing 7 cm x 4 cm around the wound front of left upper arm 15 cm below shoulder joint, clotted blood present. ( 3) Gun shot wound of exit 5 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep inner part in front of left upper arm, adjoining to injury no.2. Clotted blood present edge everted. ( 4) Gun shot wound of entry 0.7 x 0.7 cm x thoracic cavity deep on left side back of chest. Middle part near mid line. It is surrounded by 7 cm circular blackening and tattooing. Clotted blood present. On opening the injury. It cause forward medially and blackening, piercing diaphragm of lower lobes of right lung and medial part entering right lobe of lower facing it coming out through 9th intra coastal space side of chest wall. Clotted blood present en route. ( 5) Gun shot wound of exit 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x abdomen cavity deep on right side 7 cm from right nipple at 7 O' clock position, clotted blood present. ( 6) Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on front of right fore arm just above wrist joint. Clotted blood present. Doctor opined that the deceased suffered death about a day before as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. 4. ( 6) Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on front of right fore arm just above wrist joint. Clotted blood present. Doctor opined that the deceased suffered death about a day before as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. 4. On 01.10.2001 accused Ranvir and Jitendra were arrested by the police at 6.55 A.M. in the vicinity of village Pilona and on personal search a country made pistol of 0.315 bore and one live cartridge from accused Ranvir Singh and 0.303 bore country made pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from the possession of accused Jitendra Kumar. The recovery memo was prepared on the spot and its copy was furnished to the accused persons. On the basis of this recovery memo cases under section 25 Arms Act at crimes no. 151/2001 and 152/2001 were registered against accused Ranvir Singh and Jitendra Kumar respectively at 8.35 A.M. the same day. Investigation of these cases was entrusted to A.S.I. Ratan Singh Solanki. Both the investigating officers after completing the investigation submitted charge sheets against the accused-appellants. 5. After committal of the case to the Court of Session charges under section 302 IPC against accused Ranvir and Jitendra and under section 302/34 IPC against accused Rajiv were framed. Accused Ranvir and Jitendra were further charge sheeted for the offence punishable under section 25 of Arms Act. All the accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 6. In support of the charges the prosecution examined complainant Rajendra Singh as PW-1, Smt. Ranbiri PW-2, Dr. B.S. Chaudhary PW-3, S.I. S. K. Singh PW-4, S. I. Ratan Singh Solanki PW-5 and S.I. Virendra Singh Rathore PW-6. 7. In their separate statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused persons have again denied the entire prosecution story and claimed their false implication in the case on account of enmity. They have examined Lekhpal Ashok Kumar Gautam as DW-1 in their defence. 7. After hearing the parties counsel the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had found all the three accused appellants guilty and sentenced them as indicated in para-1 of the judgment. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the original record of the case carefully. 9. 7. After hearing the parties counsel the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had found all the three accused appellants guilty and sentenced them as indicated in para-1 of the judgment. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the original record of the case carefully. 9. Castigating the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel for the appellants have argued, the following points before us: i) that motive to commit murder of the deceased is not proved; ii) that the time and place of occurrence are doubtful; iii) that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the time of alleged incident is highly doubtful, they are interested and partisan witnesses and the prosecution has not examined Suresh another alleged eye witness of the incident; iv) that manner of assault is not proved; v) that the bullet, plain and blood stained earth recovered from the spot were not produced in the Court; vi) that there are infirmities in investigation, which create shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story; and vii) that the alleged ocular account of the incident do not corroborate the medical evidence. Per contra learned AGA has contended that the accused are known to complainant and his wife from before as they are residents of the same village; that although the complainant has not stated motive for the accused to commit crime, but it has come in evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that there was enmity between the parties as the deceased had obtained sale deed of property executed from the uncles of accused Jitendra and Rajiv; that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 is well proved through their testimony; that minor discrepancies in the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 which have been alleged do not erode their otherwise reliable testimony; that it is prerogative of the prosecution to chose witnesses for examination in the Court; that if there are any infirmity in the investigation it would not affect the prosecution story and the eye witness account of the incident find full corroboration from the medical evidence. 10. The incident had taken place at about 7.30 p.m. The deceased was taken by the complainant in injured condition to Mowana for treatment but he was declared dead by the doctor. 10. The incident had taken place at about 7.30 p.m. The deceased was taken by the complainant in injured condition to Mowana for treatment but he was declared dead by the doctor. Thereafter the complainant came to Phalawada police station and submitted his written report at 8.50 p.m. So there is no inordinate delay in reporting the crime to the police. It is true that in the written report the complainant has not noted in any motive for the accused persons to eliminate his father, but that is not the end of the matter. The story of the prosecution depends upon the testimony of eye witnesses. It is now not res integra that where prosecution relies upon ocular evidence, the motive becomes meaningless. It is also true that no incident takes place without any motive, but some times the prosecution finds it difficult to unearth the motive behind the crime, as it is locked in the mind and heart of the accused persons and some times the deceased also know as to why he is being killed. In the instant case, the defence itself has brought motive for themselves through cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2. The learned trial Court has also dealt with this point in the impugned judgment. The pedigree of accused Jitendra and Rajiv as elicited by them in cross-examination of PW-1 shows that their grand father Harpal had two wives and three sons. Father of these accused was born from one wife and the other gave birth to Ram Kala and Ram Karan. Ram Kala had no issue. The deceased got sale deed of land executed from Ram Kala and Ram Karan about a month before the incident. Accused Jitendra and Rajiv were enraged with this transaction as they thought that the property would be inherited by them. In the end of deposition of PW-1, a suggestion had been given to him by the defence counsel that false report against the accused persons had been lodged at the instance of Ram Kala and Ram Karan. It means that on account of execution of sale deed in favour of the deceased, the accused persons were not happy with their uncles. Experience show that nowadays murders are being committed on very trivial matters. People are losing patience and self-restraint. Further, motive is not an ingredient of any crime. It means that on account of execution of sale deed in favour of the deceased, the accused persons were not happy with their uncles. Experience show that nowadays murders are being committed on very trivial matters. People are losing patience and self-restraint. Further, motive is not an ingredient of any crime. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable evidence available on record unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the time and place of occurrence by cogent and reliable evidence. His contention is that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, which show that the incident had not taken place at the given time and place. He has drawn our attention to the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2. After carefully scrutinizing their evidence, we find that there are no material discrepancies in their testimonies. The case of the prosecution is that on the day of incident the family of complainant had gone to Mowana for shopping. They were to purchase some jewellery and other house-hold goods. The deceased left the village early. PW-1 and PW-2 had gone later in the day. They had scheduled to meet at the jewellery shop of Ashok in Mowana in the after-noon. PW-2 has stated that she observed parda from her deceased father-in-law. Minor discrepancies have crept with regard to time when the couple left the village for Mowana and the jewellery items purchased by them. It is trite law that if the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony. If the inconsistencies, contradictions, exaggerations, embellishments and discrepancies in the testimony are only normal and not material in nature, then the testimony of an eye witness has to be accepted and acted upon. Distinctions between normal discrepancies and material discrepancies are that while normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. Further we found that PW-2 is a rustic and illiterate lady. She had put thumb-marks on her deposition recorded by the trial Court. Distinctions between normal discrepancies and material discrepancies are that while normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. Further we found that PW-2 is a rustic and illiterate lady. She had put thumb-marks on her deposition recorded by the trial Court. It is impossible for an illiterate villager or rustic lady to state with precision the chain of events as such witnesses do not have sense of accuracy of time etc. Expecting hyper technical calculation regarding dates and time of events from illiterate/rustic/villager witnesses is an insult to justice-oriented judicial system and detached from the realities of life. Since the jewellery items were meant for ladies, so if the deceased and PW-1 opted to take PW-2 with them for shopping, it is not unnatural. 12. The place of occurrence is proved through the testimony of investigating officer S.K. Singh PW-4, who had also collected samples of plain and blood stained earth as also a bullet .315 bore. No suggestion had been given to this witness by the defence that the incident had not occurred at the place shown by him in the site plan. It is true that this witness has committed some lapses in investigation and preparation of site plan, but that is no ground to reject the entire prosecution story on board. Recovery of articles having direct bearing on the crime fixes the place of incident. Even if these articles were not sent for scientific examination to Forensic Science Laboratory or were not produced in the Court, it would not create any dent in the prosecution story. No doubt it should have been done, but it would not be just and proper to acquit the accused merely on the latches of the investigating officer or the Prosecutor conducting trial before the Court below. Why the poor victim or the complainant should suffer, for shortcomings with which they have no concern? Production of these articles would have further strengthened the prosecution story but their non-production would not lead to its total rejection. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has next argued that both the witnesses of fact examined in the case are closely related with the deceased and no independent witness had been examined in the case. Production of these articles would have further strengthened the prosecution story but their non-production would not lead to its total rejection. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has next argued that both the witnesses of fact examined in the case are closely related with the deceased and no independent witness had been examined in the case. He has further submitted that Suresh was allegedly an eye witness of the incident, but he has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Suffice it to say that if a witness examined in the court is otherwise found reliable and trustworthy, the fact sought to be proved by that witness need not be further proved through other witnesses though there may be other witnesses available who could have been examined but were not examined. Non-examination of material witness is not a mathematical formula for discarding the weight of the testimony available on record however natural, trustworthy and convincing it may be. It is settled law that non-examination of eye-witness cannot be pressed into service like a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case with a stroke of pen. It is now well-settled principle of law that whom to cite as a witness and whom not to cite is within the domain of the prosecution. It is primarily for the prosecutor to decide which witness it should examine in order to unfold the prosecution story. ( Vide State of UP v Ganga Ram ( 2005) 13 SCC 239 ). 14. Merely because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that affects the credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. A party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication. The defence could not elicit anything from the testimony of PW-1 as to why he had falsely nominated the accused persons. However, in such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 15. The defence could not elicit anything from the testimony of PW-1 as to why he had falsely nominated the accused persons. However, in such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 15. As regards manner of assault, the consistent case of the prosecution is that the accused persons met the complainant and others near Shiv temple in the jungle of village Pilona. The incident had taken place on 20.9.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. when it is not so dark, as stated by PW-1. The assailants were well known to the complainant and his wife being co-villagers. Accused Rajiv caught hold the hands of the victim while accused Jitendra and Ranvir fired one shot each on him causing fatal injuries to him. Blackening and tattooing had been found on both the gun shot wound of entry. Further, the visible capacity of urban people who are acclimatized to fluorescent light is not the standard to be applied to villagers whose optical potency is attuned to country made lamps. Visibility of villagers is conditioned to such lights and hence it would be quite possible for them to identify men and matters in less light. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that eye witnesses are not consistent about the manner in which deceased was caught by accused Rajiv. He submits that PW-1 has stated that Rajiv caught hold one hand of his father and the other was not caught by any one, while PW-2 has stated both hands of deceased were caught by accused Rajiv from the front as if someone forcibly stops someone. This discrepancy is insignificant and has no bearing with the core case of the prosecution, which is that accused Rajiv caught hold hands of the deceased, while the other two fired one shot each on him. Further it has been pointed out that according to PW-1 before firing shots the accused persons did not abuse or threaten him, while PW-2 stated that after catching hold his hands Rajiv abused her father-in-law. This contradiction also does not affect the broad spectrum of the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that these witnesses are not consistent about the place where the accused were, when they were seen by them. This contradiction also does not affect the broad spectrum of the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submitted that these witnesses are not consistent about the place where the accused were, when they were seen by them. He submitted that according to PW-1 he saw them from a distance of 10-12 paces standing on western side of the road, while PW-2 states this distance as 15-20 yards and saw the accused coming out from the sugar-cane field. Suffice it to say that it is not at all any discrepancy which may discredit the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any one of them is telling lie. The power of observation and retention in memory of every individual is not the same. It depends on variety of factors. If for the sake of argument, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, then the alleged discrepancies listed by him during course of arguments are not at material affecting the prosecution case adversely. 16. Now coming to the last leg of argument of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to non-corroboration of medical evidence with eye witness account of the incident, this contention of the learned counsel too has no force. The deceased had sustained two guns shot wounds of entry and two of exit, which have been attributed to accused Jitender and Ranvir. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to injury no. 1 and 6, which are lacerated wound on top of skull and an abraded contusion on front of right fore-arm of the deceased. It has come in evidence of PW-1 that after sustaining fire-arm injuries his father fell down on the ground. His upper part was on metalled road and the lower on muddy road. PW-2 has stated that the deceased was lying flat on the ground. Although Dr. Chaudhary has stated that injury no. 1 could not be caused by falling, but it could be caused by blunt object. The learned trial Court did not found favour with this opinion of the doctor. It is well settled that ocular account of the incident would have primacy over medical evidence, unless it rules out all other hypothesis. If the direct testimony of eye witnesses is reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence. The learned trial Court did not found favour with this opinion of the doctor. It is well settled that ocular account of the incident would have primacy over medical evidence, unless it rules out all other hypothesis. If the direct testimony of eye witnesses is reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence. Opinion given by a medical witness ( doctor) need not be the last word on the subject. It is of only advisory character. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. Injuries nos. 1 and 6 could be sustained by the deceased by falling on metalled road. Thus, we find that there is no discrepancy worth the name in ocular account of the incident and the medical evidence adduced in the case. The learned trial Court has taken correct view in this regard. 17. In view of the above discussion, we found that the testimony PW-1 and PW-2 is wholly reliable with regard to time and place of incident, role of each accused in murderous assault of the deceased. Their testimony finds full corroboration from the medical evidence. The defence could not point out any ground for false implication of the accused in the written report of the complainant which was lodged without any inordinate delay with the police. Thus, we uphold the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned trial Court. The appeals san merit and are accordingly dismissed. Accused-appellant Jitendra is in jail and would serve out the sentence imposed on him. Accused Rajiv is on bail under the orders of this Court and accused Ranvir was granted bail by Apex Court vide order dated 3.7.2012 in Criminal Appeal no. 345 of 2012 for six months from the date of his release, therefore, bail of both these accused-appellants is cancelled. Steps should immediately be taken to take them into custody and sent to jail for serving out the sentence awarded to each of them. 18. Sri K. K. Singh and Sri Durgesh Pandey, Amicus Curiae would be paid Rs.2,100/- each by the State as remuneration for arguing the Criminal Appeals no. 1089 of 2005 and 5051 of 2004 within a month from today. 19. 18. Sri K. K. Singh and Sri Durgesh Pandey, Amicus Curiae would be paid Rs.2,100/- each by the State as remuneration for arguing the Criminal Appeals no. 1089 of 2005 and 5051 of 2004 within a month from today. 19. Let certified copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut for compliance, which should be communicated to the Court within 4-weeks.