JUDGMENT : Rakesh Saksena, J.;- Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.10.2002 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Katni in Sessions Trial No. 153/2002, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 30.3.2002, at about 11 O' clock in the day, complainant Rajendra (PW1) and his father Chetram (deceased) were digging a well in their field. Harchhat (PW19) and Madan (PW18), who happened to pass from there, invited Chetram to eat betelnuts. Chetram left the work and went with them. When Chetram was eating betel-nuts with them near the `Khalihan' of appellants, suddenly appellants viz. Badri Yadav, his sons Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua @ Sugreev reached there armed with axe and sticks. Over the past enmity, Badri Yadav assaulted Chetram with axe and Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him. Looking at this, Rajendra and his mother Beti Bai rushed to the spot and intervened, whereupon Kishori and Boua assaulted to Rajendra also with sticks. The incident was witnessed by his mother and his wife viz. Panno Bai. Out of fear, Rajendra ran towards the village and informed the incident to other persons. As a result of injuries, Chetram died at the spot. Somebody informed police on telephone. Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector B. D. Pandey proceeded to spot. Rajendra (PW1) met him on way and tendered Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/2 to him. A dehati merg Ex. P/2 was also recorded. When these informations were sent to police station, first information report Ex. P/20 was registered. 3. Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector B.D. Pandey (PW24) reached at the spot, prepared the spot map and conducted inquest proceedings. Thereafter, he referred the dead body of Chetram for postmortem examination. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Athya (PW23) of District Hospital, Badwara conducted postmortem examination of the body and tendered his report Ex. P/36. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. 4. During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication due to enmity. 5. Upon trial and after appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Judge held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed the present appeal. 6. 4. During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication due to enmity. 5. Upon trial and after appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Judge held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge mis-appreciated the evidence on record and erred in holding the appellants guilty. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the conviction of appellants on the basis of evidence of only relative witnesses was not proper. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge committed further error in convicting appellants Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the facts and circumstances of the case, they could not have been held liable for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, justified the impugned judgment of conviction of appellants and submitted that no interference in it was called for. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. 8. It has not been disputed that deceased Chetram died of a homicidal death. Dr. Rajesh Athya (PW23), who conducted autopsy of the dead body of Chetram found following injuries on his body: (i) Incised wound 6 x 1 x 2 cm deep on posterior aspect of the skull with compound fracture of the skull bone. (ii) Incised wound 4 x 1 cm x bone deep about 1.5 cm medial to injury no.1. (iii) Incised wound 2.5 x 1/2 x 1 cm deep on 6 cm above the left ankle joint on medial aspect. (iv) Incised wound causing partial amputation of left little finger of left hand. (v) Contusion 6 x 2 cm on left scapular region. (vi) Contusion 4 x 1 cm on right iliac crest. Injury nos. 1 to 4 were caused by sharp cutting object and injury nos. 5 and 6 were caused by hard and blunt object. In his opinion, injury no.1 was fatal to life. Injury nos. 2 to 4 were grievous in nature, whereas injury nos. 5 and 6 were simple in nature. Injury nos. 1 to 4 were caused by sharp cutting object and injury nos. 5 and 6 were caused by hard and blunt object. In his opinion, injury no.1 was fatal to life. Injury nos. 2 to 4 were grievous in nature, whereas injury nos. 5 and 6 were simple in nature. The death of deceased was due to massive external heamorrhage causing shock and the death was homicidal in nature. 9. From the aforesaid medical evidence, it stood established that the deceased met with the homicidal death. 10. The next question before us is whether appellants caused aforesaid injuries to deceased which resulted into his death. Prosecution, to prove its case examined five eye witnesses viz. Rajendra (PW1), Madan (PW18), Harchhat (PW19), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21). Madan (PW18) and Harchhat (PW19) did not support the prosecution case. As such, they were declared hostile. PW1, PW20 and PW21 are respectively the son, wife and daughter-in-law of deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence of close relatives, who were inimical to appellants and whose evidence was discrepant and contradictory was not credit-worthy. In Bijoy Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar- (2002) 9 SCC 147 , the Apex Court observed that “merely being relatives of the deceased or injured is no ground to reject the testimony of the witnesses who are otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable.” In view of the aforesaid, we are supposed to critically scrutinize the evidence of these witnesses to find out whether they are truthful witnesses. 11. Rajendra (PW1) deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 9.30 A.M., when he and his father were digging a well and his mother Beti Bai and wife Panno Bai were also present, Harchhat and Madan reached there and offered him to have betel-nuts. On the pretext of it, they took him and his father (deceased) near the `Galla' (Khalihan) of appellant Badri. As soon as they reached there appellant Badri dealt axe blows on the head of his father from back side. When he, his wife and mother shouted and ran towards them, appellants Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him. He went running and shouting towards the village and narrated the incident to Kotwar of village Keolari. PW-1 deposed that Ram Kishore and Boua had also assaulted his father. When he, his wife and mother shouted and ran towards them, appellants Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him. He went running and shouting towards the village and narrated the incident to Kotwar of village Keolari. PW-1 deposed that Ram Kishore and Boua had also assaulted his father. Due to injuries caused by axe, his father died at the spot. When he was going to lodge the report, on way, he met police officers. He informed them about the incident which was recorded by them as report Ex. P/1. A dehati merg Ex. P/2 was also recorded. When police reached the spot and people of the village also reached there, inquest memorandum Ex. P/5 was recorded. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW-1 stated that he did not mind as to who 7-8 persons were sitting at the platform of Banyan tree situated near the place of occurrence, whereas he in his police statement Ex. D/1 mentioned the names of those persons. Learned counsel further pointed out that this witness was contradicted on the point that at the time of incident appellants were mending their hedge. These contradictions, in our opinion, can not be said to be material affecting the veracity of the witness about the core of the prosecution story. Evidence of Rajendra (PW1) appears cogent, consistent and credit-worthy much more because he also received injuries in the same incident at the hands of accused Kishori and Boua. The narration given by him in the Court stood corroborated from Dehati Nalishi report Ex. P/1, from the postmortem report of the deceased and also from his injury report Ex. P/37-A. Dr. Rajesh Athya (PW23) testified that on 30.3.2002, Rajendra Yadav was brought by police for medical examination. On examining him, he found (1) an abrasion 3 x 1 cm on middle part of his left hand and (2) a contusion 2 x 1 cm on his left scapular region. These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature. Thus, the presence of Rajendra (PW1) stood established at the place of incident. 12. The evidence of Rajendra (PW1) stood further corroborated from the evidence of Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21), respectively the widow and daughter-in-law of deceased. Beti Bai (PW20) deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 11 A.M., her husband and daughter-in-law were working in the well. 12. The evidence of Rajendra (PW1) stood further corroborated from the evidence of Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21), respectively the widow and daughter-in-law of deceased. Beti Bai (PW20) deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 11 A.M., her husband and daughter-in-law were working in the well. Harchhat Yadav and Madan reached there and took her husband for eating betel-nuts towards the village. When they reached near the `Khalihan' of Badri, suddenly Badri assaulted her husband with axe, Boua and Kishori also dealt stick blows to him. When her son Rajendra went to intervene, he was also assaulted by Kishori and Boua. Similar facts were narrated by Panno Bai (PW21). Some discrepancies were pointed out in the cross examination of these witnesses pertaining to distance from which they saw the occurrence and whether at the time of assault deceased had eaten betel-nut or not. In our opinion, these discrepancies were not material as they did not pertain to basic facts of the prosecution case. The Apex Court in the case of Rizan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh- (2003) 2 SCC 661 observed “normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category into which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do.” In the present case when the witnesses were cross examined and they tried to explain by saying something, they were confronted with their previous statements, in these circumstances, the discrepancies occurring in their evidence cannot be labeled as material since they do not go to effect the core of the prosecution case. 13. Evidence of Rajendra (PW1), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21) stood corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Rajesh Athya, who testified that there were four injuries on the body of deceased which were caused by sharp edged weapon and two injuries were caused by hard and blunt object like sticks. 13. Evidence of Rajendra (PW1), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21) stood corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Rajesh Athya, who testified that there were four injuries on the body of deceased which were caused by sharp edged weapon and two injuries were caused by hard and blunt object like sticks. It is true that no blood was detected on the axe seized at the instance of appellant Badri Yadav, but in view of the reliable evidence of eye witnesses this fact does not assume much importance. After scanning and scrutinizing the evidence of eye witnesses we find their evidence consistent and credit-worthy. In our opinion, trial Court committed no error in holding that appellants assaulted deceased. Badri Yadav caused injuries with axe on the head, ankle joint and finger of deceased and Kishori and Boua caused injuries with sticks on scapular region and iliac crest of deceased. It also stood proved that Kishori and Boua caused simple hurts to Rajendra (PW1) with sticks. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the ratio of Babubhai Ranchodbhai Patel and another Vs. State of Gujarat- AIR 1994 SC 1400 argued that the conviction of appellants Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua @ Sugreev was not justified under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as it was not established that they shared common intention with appellant Badri, who dealt axe blows on the head of deceased. On perusal of evidence of Rajendra (PW1), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21), we find that they could give no genesis of the occurrence. According to Rajendra (PW1) when deceased, along with Madan and Harchhat reached near the `Khalihan' of Badri, Badri suddenly emerged from his `Khalihan' and dealt axe blows on his head. Simultaneously or a little later, Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him. Lathi blows were inflicted on scapular region and iliac crest which cannot be held to be vital parts of the body. It is true that it was just by chance that deceased happened to go with Harchhat and Madan for eating betel nuts near `Khalihan' of accused persons, therefore, it cannot be surmised that all the three appellants were waiting for deceased to come with a premeditation to assault him. It is true that it was just by chance that deceased happened to go with Harchhat and Madan for eating betel nuts near `Khalihan' of accused persons, therefore, it cannot be surmised that all the three appellants were waiting for deceased to come with a premeditation to assault him. Merely from the fact that father assaulted and sons also assaulted, no ground is made out to draw inference of their prior meeting of minds to commit murder of deceased. In Babubhai (supra) the Apex Court having regard to the facts of the case observed that since “it was a sudden affair and that A-2 inflicted only a simple injury, it is difficult to hold that he had the common intention with A-1 to commit murder of the deceased. We think it would be unsafe to convict A-2 also for the offence of murder. The injury inflicted by him endangered life and would be punishable under Section 326, of the Indian Penal Code.” 15. In view of the above, we find substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and hold that the conviction of appellant-2 Kishori @ Ram Kishore and appellant-3 Boua @ Sugreev under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not justified. They deserve to be acquitted of the said charge. Appellant-1 Badri Yadav, since dealt two axe blows on the head of deceased which proved fatal to the life of deceased, his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be affirmed. In the result, the conviction of appellant-1 Badri Yadav under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter but the sentence of imprisonment for life is confirmed. So far as appellant-2 Kishori @ Ram Kishore and appellant-3 Boua @ Sugreev is concerned, their conviction under Section 302/34, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder is set aside. Instead they are convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. From the record, it appears that both the said appellants have already remained in jail for a period more than 8 months. 16. Accordingly, the appeal in respect of appellant-1 Badri Yadav is dismissed and in respect of appellant-2 and appellant-3 viz. From the record, it appears that both the said appellants have already remained in jail for a period more than 8 months. 16. Accordingly, the appeal in respect of appellant-1 Badri Yadav is dismissed and in respect of appellant-2 and appellant-3 viz. Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua @ Sugreev is partly allowed. Bail bonds and surety bonds of Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua @ Sugreev shall stand discharged.