JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th of April, 1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 62/92 by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, appellant No. 1 has been convicted u/S 302 IPC and appellant No. 2 has been convicted u/Ss 302/34 IPC and both have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :- 2.1 The accused persons (A-1 to A-3) are real brothers. They were tried for the offences punishable u/Ss 302 & 302/34 IPC. Mohan Thakur (A-3) absconded during the pendency of the trial, therefore, the trial continued against the two appellants (A-1 & A-2) who have been convicted as above. 2.2 There was a land dispute between the accused persons and deceased-Makhanlal. On 1.9.91 at about 1.30 p.m. Makhanlal and his son, Vishnu (PW-5), were taking bath on a well situated in the badi of their house. Ramla Bai (PW-4), daughter-in-law of Makhanlal, was present in the house. The allegations are that the accused persons came there with sword and lathi and assaulted the deceased who sustained multiple serious injuries. Seeing the assault, Vishnu (PW-5) ran away from that place and saw from a distance that after the first part of the assault was over, Bedusingh (A-1) again came to the well and he again assaulted the deceased by the sword. Bedusingh was holding the sword and other two accused (A-2 & A-3) were holding lathi(s). The incident was witnessed by Vishnu (PW-5) and Ramla Bai (PW-4). Gautarhin Bai (PW-9) had also seen some part of the incident. Many villagers gathered there after the assault was over. 2.3 The deceased was taken to the hospital and was examined by Dr. Rajnikant Verma (PW-8). He noticed multiple incised injuries and abrasions on the person of the deceased. X-ray Examination of various injuries was advised. However, the deceased could not survive. 2.4 Report was sent to the police station. The Investigating Officer came to the hospital, gave notice (Ex.-P/13) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/14) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. Bhatacharya (PW-11). However, the deceased could not survive. 2.4 Report was sent to the police station. The Investigating Officer came to the hospital, gave notice (Ex.-P/13) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/14) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. Bhatacharya (PW-11). He noticed following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- (i) Incised wound of 4 x 1 1/3 inch on the front portion of skull; muscles were deeply cut and there was fracture over the corresponding bone; (ii) Incised wound of 5 x 1½ x 1 inch on the front portion of left forearm; the muscles and blood vessels were completely cut; (iii) Incised wound of 3 x ½ x ½ inch on the left thumb, blood clot was present; (iv) Incised wound of 5 x ½ x ½ inch on the front portion of left leg; blood clots were present; (v) Incised wound of 7 x 1/3 x 1/3 inch on the left portion of back; (vi) Incised wound of 2½ x 1/3 x 1/3 on the axillary line on left portion of chest; (vii) Incised wound of 1½ x ½ x ½ inch on the left elbow; & (viii) Multiple abrasions of the size in between ¼ inch to 1/3 cm over the chest and back. On internal examination, he found that there was fracture over left parietal bone and blood clots were present in the area of 10 x 6 x 4 cm in the scalp corresponding to the above injury. Left portion of brain was pressed on account of said injury. Blood clots were also present on spleen in the area of 10 x 8 cm, this was on account of rupture of spleen. Cut injuries were present on both the bones of left forearm. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was shock as a result of extensive haemorrhage from the above injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/27. 2.5 Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by Shankarlal (another son of the deceased - PW -1) who met them on the way when the deceased was being taken to the hospital. It contains the names of the accused persons as also details of weapons used and the manner of assault. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/27. 2.5 Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by Shankarlal (another son of the deceased - PW -1) who met them on the way when the deceased was being taken to the hospital. It contains the names of the accused persons as also details of weapons used and the manner of assault. Based on this information, First Information Report (F.I.R. - Ex.-P/10) was registered in the police station. Firstly the offence was registered u/Ss 307/34 IPC, but, later on it was converted to Ss. 302/34 IPC after death of the deceased-Makhanlal. 2.6 In further investigation, the appellants were taken into custody and their memorandum statements (Ex.-P/17, P/2 & P/3) were recorded u/S 27 of the Evidence Act and a sword was seized from the possession of accused-Bedusingh (A-1) and lathi (s) were seized from the possession of other accused persons (A-2 & A-3) vide seizure memo(s) (Ex.-P/18, P/5 & P/4). 2.7 The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Sagar and a report (Ex.-P/31) was received. According to the FSL report, blood stains were found on almost all the articles except plain soil seized from the place of occurrence and lathi seized from the possession of accused-Mohan (A-3). 2.8 The case of the prosecution was based on eye-witness account of Ramla Bai (PW-4) and Vishnu (PW-5). The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that appellants had assaulted the deceased by sword and lathi(s), and were liable for punishment as above. The appellants, thus, were convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that there are material discrepancies in the eyewitness account and the medical evidence, therefore, the eye-witnesses should be disbelieved and the entire case of prosecution should be thrown out. He also pointed towards contradictions in the evidence of two eye-witnesses. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. Vishnu (PW-5) was a child witness. He was aged about 10-11 years on the date of incident. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. Vishnu (PW-5) was a child witness. He was aged about 10-11 years on the date of incident. He deposed that on the fateful day, he was taking bath on the well along with his father-Makhanlal (deceased). The well was situated at a distance of 10 feet from their house. The accused persons came to the well. Accused- Bedusingh (A-1) was holding a sword and the other two accused namely-Chhote and Mohan (A-2 & A-3) were holding lathi(s). They had come together from their house. The accused started assaulting his father. Accused-Bedusingh (A-1) had assaulted his father by the sword on his head, hand, leg, back and on many other places. Accused-Mohan and Chhote (A-3 & A-2) had also assaulted his father by lathi(s). Seeing the attack over his father, he ran away from the well to the road and started making cries, but, no person came to rescue him. The accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence after the assault was over. Thereafter he returned to the well and found that his father was lying in mud near the well. At that time accused-Bedusingh (A-1) again came there and assaulted his father by sword. Bedusingh was blowing the sword giving threats. He and his sister-in-law, Ramla Bai (PW-4), only two persons were present in the house at the time of the incident. Many villagers gathered there after the incident was over. They washed mud from the body of his father. Thereafter a Rickshaw was called and he was taken to the hospital. His two brothers namely-Shiv and Shankar (PW-1) met him on the way. He narrated the incident to them. 7. Ramla Bai (PW-4) is daughter-in-law of the deceased. She is wife of Shankar (PW-1). She corroborated the version of Vishnu (PW-5) and deposed that when she heard some noise on the well, she came out from the house and saw that the accused persons namely Bedusingh (A-1), Mohan (A-3) and Chhote (A-2) were assaulting her father-in-law. Bedusingh (A-1) was assaulting by a sword and the other two accused persons were assaulting by lathi(s). She corroborated the version of Vishnu (PW-5) and deposed that when she heard some noise on the well, she came out from the house and saw that the accused persons namely Bedusingh (A-1), Mohan (A-3) and Chhote (A-2) were assaulting her father-in-law. Bedusingh (A-1) was assaulting by a sword and the other two accused persons were assaulting by lathi(s). When she was seeing the incident, Chhote and Mohan (A-2 & A-3) had chased her, on which, she rushed inside the house and closed the door from inside. She was crying from inside the house, but nobody came to rescue. The accused persons ran away after the assault was over. Thereafter appellant-Bedusingh (A-1) again came to their house and assaulted the deceased by sword and went away blowing the sword. She came to the well. The deceased was lying on mud near the well. His body was smeared with mud. Vishnu (PW-5) was washing the mud. Thereafter many villagers gathered there. The mud was washed, a Rickshaw was arranged and the deceased was taken to the hospital. She identified the present accused persons on the dock. 8. The above two eye-witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Some small contradictions and omissions were put to them. Though, Mr. Verma has argued that the above contradictions in the evidence of these two eye-witnesses were fatal to the prosecution, but it does not appear to be like that. For example it comes in the evidence of Ramla Bai (PW-4) that she had narrated the incident to her husband, Shankar (PW-1), but this portion was an omission in her diary statement (Ex.-D/1). There was also some omission on the fact that who were washing the mud from the persons of the deceased. Similar is the position with the evidence of Vishnu (PW-5). Many small omissions in his diary statement (Ex.-D/2) were put to him which he had suitably explained. 9. What is contradiction is to be understood. The Supreme Court deliberating on the issue in Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde and Another Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 12 SCC 492 , held in Para-12 that : “12. The word "contradiction" is of a wide connotation which takes within its ambit all material omissions and under the circumstances of a case, a court can decide whether there is one such omission as to amount to contradiction. (See- State of Maharashtra Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 12 SCC 492 , held in Para-12 that : “12. The word "contradiction" is of a wide connotation which takes within its ambit all material omissions and under the circumstances of a case, a court can decide whether there is one such omission as to amount to contradiction. (See- State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, (200 I) 9 SCC 1) and Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 ). The explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") is relevant. "Contradiction" means the setting of one, statement against another and not the setting up of a statement against nothing at all. As noted in Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 all omissions are not contradictions. As the explanation to Section 162 of the Code shows, an omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant or otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which the omission occurs. The provision itself makes it clear that whether any omission amounts to contradiction in the particular context is a question of fact." 10. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses in context with their previous statements (Ex.-D/1 & D/2) recorded u/S 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. None of the omissions and contradictions brought on record in the cross-examination of these witnesses appear to be vital. The contradictions so brought on record do not appear to be significant or otherwise relevant in so much which may go against context of the case and may make evidence of these witnesses as unreliable. We are of the view that on account of the minor contradictions coming in the evidence of these witnesses, their main evidence, which has fully supported the case of the prosecution, cannot be held to be unreliable. 11. Mr. Verma has vehemently argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of these two witnesses and the medical evidence. These witnesses have deposed that the deceased was also assaulted by A-2 and A-3 by lathi(s), whereas, there is no injury of lathi on the person of the deceased. 11. Mr. Verma has vehemently argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of these two witnesses and the medical evidence. These witnesses have deposed that the deceased was also assaulted by A-2 and A-3 by lathi(s), whereas, there is no injury of lathi on the person of the deceased. We may note that apart from the incised wounds found on the person of the deceased, the Autopsy Surgeon had also found multiple abrasions of the size in between ¼ inch to 1/3 cm over the chest and back of the deceased. It does not come in the evidence that these abrasions could not have been caused by lathi. There is absolutely not cross-examination on above account. Simply 3-4 formal lines have been asked in the cross-examination of Dr. R. Bhatacharya (PW-11) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 12. In State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal and Another (1988)4 SCC 302 , it was held that "Where the eye witnesses" account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Importance and primacy should be given to the orality of the trial process. Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inhererit consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Also see - Ramakant Rai Vs. Madan Rai and Others AIR 2004 SC 77 )". 13. In Atami Laxman Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2007 Cri.L.J. 1036, summarizing the issue of such discrepancies, this Court held in Para-14 that : "14. Therefore, it is clear that the eye witness testimony may contain inaccuracies and exaggerations; there may be errors or omissions on account of lapse of memory or poor power of observations or inability to recount and recite accurately. State of Chhattisgarh 2007 Cri.L.J. 1036, summarizing the issue of such discrepancies, this Court held in Para-14 that : "14. Therefore, it is clear that the eye witness testimony may contain inaccuracies and exaggerations; there may be errors or omissions on account of lapse of memory or poor power of observations or inability to recount and recite accurately. Sometimes, doctors also may not bestow sufficient care while performing examination or preparing records and their opinion may be based on inadequate or incomplete or defective examination or lack of complete knowledge. It is indeed not fair to expect a total correspondence between these two items of evidence. Court must carefully examine the discrepancies and if it is reasonably possible to arrive at the substantial and true version. Court should not throw out the prosecution case on the basis of such discrepancies. Accuracy of medical witnesses and ocular witnesses depends upon several factors. Inconsistency is not sufficient to discredit an eye witness. Sometimes an eye witness may allege a blow or stab etc., but there may not be corresponding injuries. The possibility of weapon not actually striking and not causing injury cannot be ruled out. Eye witness may err in details like direction or the blow etc. Inconsistency regarding such details between the two items of evidence may not be important. There may be discrepancies regarding the weapon or manner of attack. If the eye witness testimony is clear and convincing, discrepancies cannot matter. Doctor is a witness of both fact and opinion. Medical evidence acts as a check upon testimony of eye witness; it is also independent evidence insofar as it establishes facts e.g., tattooing marks, nature and dimensions of injury etc. Medical evidence is also corroborative of eye witness testimony, inasmuch as it may show that the injury might have been caused in the manner alleged. Defence could use the medical evidence to show that the injury could not have been caused as alleged and thereby discredit eye witness testimony. However, unless the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility whatsoever of the injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the eye witness, the prosecution version cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between the two items of evidence. Court has to remember that medical evidence is mainly opinion evidence on which the Court could form its own independent conclusion. Court has to remember that medical evidence is mainly opinion evidence on which the Court could form its own independent conclusion. In case of divergence, the Court must try to reconcile the two; if that is not possible the Court has to appreciate the evidence like any other evidence, having regard to reasons and data provided by the doctor and the cogency or otherwise of eye witness testimony. If eye witnesses are credible and trustworthy, medical opinion suggesting alternative possibility may not be accepted as conclusive. Primacy should be given to oral evidence." 14. Therefore, it is clear that if the version of the eye-witnesses are found credible, the medical opinion pointing to some other possibility is not to be accepted as conclusive and the primacy has to be given to the eye-witness account, however, a careful independent assessment and evaluation of their evidence is required and the medical evidence is not to be treated as final check for the test of their credibility. Their evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency taking into account the evidence of other reliable witnesses on record. 15. In the instant case, the evidence of these two eye-witnesses is duly corroborated by the evidence of Shankar (PW-1). Shankar (PW-1) was working in a motor-garage in Bilaspur. Shiv was also working in the garage. He (PW-1) deposed that his cousin, Laxmi Prasad, came there and narrated the incident. They immediately rushed towards their house in village Mangla. At that time Mangla was a nearer village of Bilaspur City. On the way they met their father, who was being brought to the hospital on a Rickshaw. Vishnu (PW-5) was also present with his father. Vishnu (PW-5) stated them that his father was assaulted by the accused persons by using sword and lathi(s). Even it was narrated that Bedusingh (A-1) had assaulted by sword and the other two accused had assaulted by lathi. 16. Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1) was the first document prepared by the police. It was lodged by Shankar (PW-1). Shankar mentioned all these facts in Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1) with all details using sword and lathi by particular accused persons. We find his evidence to be wholly reliable as nothing material has been brought in his cross-examination. Thus the version of the above two eye witnesses was fully corroborated by the evidence of Shankar (PW-1) as also by the contents of Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1). 17. We find his evidence to be wholly reliable as nothing material has been brought in his cross-examination. Thus the version of the above two eye witnesses was fully corroborated by the evidence of Shankar (PW-1) as also by the contents of Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1). 17. All the accused persons are real brothers. They were neighbour of the deceased in the small village. Thus they were well known to the family members of the deceased, including the two eye-witnesses. The incident took place in the day time at about 12 Noon - 1.00 p.m. The eye witnesses had seen the incident from a very close distance, therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity. On due appreciation of the entire material available on record, we find the evidence of the above two eye-witnesses as fully reliable. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in resting the conviction on the testimonies of these two eye-witnesses. 18. The learned Sessions Judge has held in Para-20 of the impugned judgment that Chhote (A-2) was throughout present with Bedusingh (A-1) and he was holding a lathi. All the three brothers came together to the place of occurrence from their house holding the above weapons. Chhote (A-2) can be held to be sharing common intention with Bedusingh (A-1). In fact, the Sessions Judge has convicted Chhote (A-2) with the aid of Section 34 IPC for which we find sufficient evidence on record. Therefore, even if it is held that Chhote (A-2) had not participated in actual assault of the deceased by lathi, as alleged by the prosecution, he was liable for punishment with the aid of Section 34 IPC as has been held by the Sessions Court. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and findings recorded by the Sessions Court. The above findings are based on cogent, clinching and reliable evidence on record. The Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellant guilty of the above offence. 20. The appeal has not merits. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.