Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The accused namely, Antariyabhai Bhangdabhai Rathva was charged with offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The accused was found to be guilty of the offence with which he was charged by the Additional Sessions Judge & Fourth Fast Track Judge, Fast Track Court, Chhota Udaipur vide its judgment dated 06.08.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 and was awarded life imprisonment and was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. For the offence under Section 135 of B.P. Act, no separate punishment has been imposed. The appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, by the said judgement and order of conviction dated 06.08.2004 has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:— 2.1 A complaint was lodged by one Medliben Mithiyabhai on 29.11.2002 with Rangpur Police Station inter alia alleging that while she along with her husband, sister, brother-in-law and some other persons of her faliya were standing near Rangpur bus stand at around 2.30 pm waiting for transport, a jeep came there and they started loading the jeep with their luggage. At that time, the accused-Antariya Bhangda Rathva came there with dhariya and inflicted two blows on the head of the husband of the complainant with the dhariya. The husband of the complainant fell down on the road. The accused-appellant fled away from the scene of offence. 2.2 It is further stated in the complaint that she started shouting for help and many shopkeepers who had their shops nearby came there. She, thereafter, frantically ran to her sister’s house who lived nearby to inform her sister and brother-in-law. When she reached her sister’s house, she was told that her brother-in-law (sister’s husband) had gone for work and she therefore narrated the entire incident to her sister. The complainant and her sister thereafter reached Rangpur bus stand and it is stated that by that time police authorities had arrived at the scene of offence. When she reached her sister’s house, she was told that her brother-in-law (sister’s husband) had gone for work and she therefore narrated the entire incident to her sister. The complainant and her sister thereafter reached Rangpur bus stand and it is stated that by that time police authorities had arrived at the scene of offence. 2.3 It is further stated in the complaint that the dead body of the deceased was taken in a vehicle and that her sister as well as daughters of elder brother-in-law (jeth) accompanied the deceased whereas the complainant, her sister and other persons went to the police station to lodge a complaint in this regard. 2.4 The complainant in her complaint has stated the motive of the accused-appellant in committing the alleged offence. She has stated that two years back the family of the deceased was involved in the murder of the nephew of the accused involving a lady Remliben and therefore the accused was holding a grudge against the deceased and his family members. 2.5 Thereafter, the offence was registered against the present appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of B.P. Act. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court which was thereafter transferred to Fast Track Court, Chhota Udepur. 2.6 The trial was initiated against the appellant and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses as oral evidences: (i) P.W. 1 – Dr. Kishore Desai Ex. 09 (ii) P.W. 2 – Jinkiben Metabhai Ex. 13 (iii) P.W. 3 – Tersinghbhai Rathva Ex. 14 (iv) P.W. 4 – Mendliben Bhuvansingh Ex. 15 (v) P.W. 5 – Bharatsinh Mithiyabhai Ex. 16 (vi) P.W. 6 – Virsinghbhai Vajubhai Ex. 17 (vii) P.W. 7 – Jorliyabhai Rathva Ex. 18 (viii) P.W. 8 – Bhailalbhai Gatubhai Ex. 19 (ix) P.W. 9 – Dr. Avaniben Vyas Ex. 24 (x) P.W. 10 – Dr. Sunilkumar Patel Ex. 30 (xi) P.W. 11 – Akmabhai Damor Ex. 33 2.7 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences: (i) Complaint Ex. 42 (ii) Police Yadi Ex. 25 (iii) Medical Certificate (Bhuvansingh) Ex. 27 (iv) Wireless Message for DD (SSG) Ex. 34 (v) Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 20 (vi) Telephone Vardhi Ex. Sunilkumar Patel Ex. 30 (xi) P.W. 11 – Akmabhai Damor Ex. 33 2.7 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences: (i) Complaint Ex. 42 (ii) Police Yadi Ex. 25 (iii) Medical Certificate (Bhuvansingh) Ex. 27 (iv) Wireless Message for DD (SSG) Ex. 34 (v) Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 20 (vi) Telephone Vardhi Ex. 44 (vii) Inquest Panchnama Ex. 43 (viii) Police Yadi for P.M. Ex. 10 (ix) P.M. Note Ex. 11 (x) Panchnama of clothes on deceased Ex. 36 (xi) Panchnama of body condition of accused Ex. 21 (xii) Police Yadi for taking blood sample of accused Ex. 35 (xiii) Panchnama of blood sample Ex. 37 (xiv) Dispatch note Ex. 38 (xv) FSL Report Ex. 39 (xvi) Notification by District Magistrate Ex. 41 (xvii) Police Yadi for map Ex. 40 2.8 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Court Judge convicted the appellant of the charges leveled against him vide impugned judgement and order. 3. Mr. Harnish Darji, learned advocate for the accused appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the two alleged eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and they have wrongly involved the appellant in the offence. He submitted that even their presence at the scene of offence is doubtful. He further submitted that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution though they were available. 3.1 Mr. Darji submitted that the panch witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution; hence the prosecution has failed to prove the panchnama. He submitted that under these circumstances, the impugned judgement and order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3.2 Mr. Darji submitted that there are variations in the statements made by the witnesses. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the time of incidence and submitted that the complainant in her complaint has stated that the offence was committed around 02.30 pm whereas one of the witnesses has stated that the incident occurred at around 01.30 pm. Darji submitted that there are variations in the statements made by the witnesses. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the time of incidence and submitted that the complainant in her complaint has stated that the offence was committed around 02.30 pm whereas one of the witnesses has stated that the incident occurred at around 01.30 pm. He submitted that in fact the medical papers show that the deceased was brought to the hospital by 02.45 pm and it is stated therein that the incident occurred around an hour back. He contended that therefore the versions given by the complainant and witnesses cannot be relied upon as there are variations in the same. 3.3 Mr. Darji has submitted that the brother of the deceased P.W. 5 and the wife of the deceased P.W. 1 did not accompany the deceased to the hospital and that they had sent some other persons to the hospital with the deceased which creates doubt about the complainant being the eye witness in the said incident. He submitted that in fact she was at her sister’s place when the alleged incident happened and therefore her evidence cannot be relied upon. 3.4 Mr. Darji submitted that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case benefit of doubt is required to be given to the present appellants and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Ms. Chetna Shah, learned APP has strongly supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. She has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the present appellants beyond doubt. 4.1 Ms. Shah has categorically pointed out that the complainant is an eye witness in the incident and that her conduct in going to call her sister and sending other persons along with the deceased to hospital and herself going to the police station to lodge complaint is very much natural. She submitted that the complainant has narrated the entire chain of events completely which was supported by the evidence of brother of deceased P.W. 5. 4.2 Ms. Shah has submitted that considering the cumulative effect of evidence of P.W. 4, P.W 5, complaint and the medical papers, the case against the accused-appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. She submitted that the complainant has narrated the entire chain of events completely which was supported by the evidence of brother of deceased P.W. 5. 4.2 Ms. Shah has submitted that considering the cumulative effect of evidence of P.W. 4, P.W 5, complaint and the medical papers, the case against the accused-appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. We have gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial Court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence perused by the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocates for both the sides. 6. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was standing at Rangpur bus stand when the accused-appellant came there and inflicted two dharia blows on the head of the deceased. The complainant who had accompanied the deceased and other relatives immediately rushed to her sister’s place to inform about the incident and seek help from her brother-in-law. This conduct of the complainant seems very natural and cannot be doubted. It is further borne out that the complainant arrived at the scene of offence with her sister when she saw that the police had arrived by then. It is further natural for the complainant to go to the police station immediately for lodging the complaint and to send other close relatives along with the deceased to the hospital. We do not find any unreasonableness in the said conduct of the complainant. 7. Considering the injuries sustained by the deceased on his head, it shall be relevant to peruse the nature of injuries as per the post mortem report which is as under: “17. Stitched wound Rt Parietal Temporal region at Dome, Perpendicular Limbs 6 cm long verticle limb 13 cm long surgically operated. Stitched wound Lt. Parietal occipital region 3cm behind lt ear-8 cm long margins are clean cut, oblique wedge cutting in shape with opening stitches. Wound upto bone beneath.” 8. P.W. 1, Dr. Kishore Desai vide his testimony at Ex. 09 has mentioned the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. According to him the cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him on the head and brain cerebellum. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by the deceased is possible by way of pointed and sharp weapon. He has also agreed that such injuries can be possible by way of muddamal dhariya. According to him the cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him on the head and brain cerebellum. He has deposed that the injuries sustained by the deceased is possible by way of pointed and sharp weapon. He has also agreed that such injuries can be possible by way of muddamal dhariya. 8.1 P.W. 2, Jinkiben Metabhai though has been declared hostile has mentioned certain facts which support the case of the prosecution such as the place of offence, time of incident, the arrival of the complainant at her house to inform about the assault on the deceased. This information from hostile witness thus puts to rest the contention that the complainant was not an eye witness to the offence and that she was already present at her sister’s house as submitted by learned advocate for the appellant. 8.2 P.W. 3, Tersingbhai Rathva has also been declared hostile. However, a bare perusal of his deposition also confirms the place and time of the offence. He has stated that he came to know that a person has been murdered. 8.3 Prosecution witnesses 6, 7 & 8 are the panch witnesses who also have been declared hostile. P.W. 9, Dr. Avaniben Vyas is the Medical Officer who had treated the victim when he was brought to Primary Health Centre, Chhota Udepur. She has stated that the victim was brought to the hospital at around 02.45 pm in a very serious condition as he had sustained injuries on his head. However, considering the sensitivity of the case and the health of the deceased, he was referred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara where he was treated by P.W. 10, Dr. Sunil Kumar Patel. P.W. 9 has opined that such injuries as on the head of the deceased was possible by way of sharp and pointed weapon such as a dhariya. 9. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution puts forward its case through various witnesses as well as documentary evidence and if such facts are confirmed even by hostile witnesses, the prosecution can rely upon the same inasmuch as the duty cast upon the prosecution is to unearth true facts and prove it before the Court, the source being irrelevant. 9.1 The complaint is supported by the evidence of P.W. 5, Bharatsinh Mithiyabhai who has reiterated the occurrence of the alleged incident. In his deposition vide Ex. 9.1 The complaint is supported by the evidence of P.W. 5, Bharatsinh Mithiyabhai who has reiterated the occurrence of the alleged incident. In his deposition vide Ex. 16, he has stated that on the date of incident, he along with the deceased, the complainant and other relatives were standing at Rangpur bus stand. He has stated that while he and the complainant were loading luggage on the jeep and while the deceased was standing near the jeep, the accused-appellant came there and inflicted two hard blows on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased collapsed. He stated that the police authorities arrived and the deceased was taken to hospital. He has mentioned that he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital but instead went to the police station with the complainant. 9.2 P.W. 5 has mentioned that around 01.30 pm they had left village Tudva (parental house of the complainant) after lunch and had reached Rangpur bus stand where the alleged incident occurred. This witness was cross-examined at length. He has stated in the cross-examination that they had reached Rangpur bus stand at around 02.30 pm and the jeep had come at around 03.00 pm. 9.3 P.W. 5 has also stated in the cross examination that the son who was in the hands of the deceased also sustained certain minor injuries when the deceased collapsed pursuant to the assault. The child was treated at Chandpur Hospital. He has identified the accused-appellant in the court. 10. The presence of the complainant and the brother of the deceased at the scene of offence is quite natural. They had left Tudva village and were waiting at Rangpur Police Station when the alleged incident happened. P.W. 5 had informed the police and the complainant rushed to her sister’s house to seek help. The complainant and P.W. 5 went to the police station for lodging complaint whereas the other family members accompanied the deceased to hospital. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant as well as P.W. 5 who have been termed as interested witnesses by learned advocate for the appellant. 11. The complainant and P.W. 5 went to the police station for lodging complaint whereas the other family members accompanied the deceased to hospital. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant as well as P.W. 5 who have been termed as interested witnesses by learned advocate for the appellant. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the testimonies of the complainant (P.W. 4) and P.W. 5 on the ground that they are related to the deceased and are thereby interested witnesses and according to the learned Counsel, it was most unnatural that P.W 4 and P.W. 5 did not accompany the deceased to hospital. The further grounds for challenging the veracity of the statements of the complainant was that PW. 4 was at her sister’s house and thereby is a chance witness. The statements of the eye witnesses have also been challenged on the ground of alleged contradiction with the version given by them 11.1 We are unable to accept any of these submissions, so far as PW 4 and PW 5 are concerned inasmuch as it is no doubt true that they are closely related to the deceased, PW 4 Medliben being wife of the deceased and PW 5 Bharat Sinh being brother and for that reason they may be interested witnesses. However, the law is well settled that the testimony of a partisan or interested witness cannot be discarded merely on that account. The testimony of such a witness cannot be equated with that of a tainted witness. In Swaran Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 646 = (1976 Cri LJ 1757) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows in para 10 :— “More over, it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” 12. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” 12. We are also unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the prosecution does not produce independent witnesses and merely produces interested witnesses adverse inference be drawn. There is no law requiring the prosecution to necessarily produce independent witnesses and adverse inference be drawn merely on account of their non-production. 13. It is also true that there are variations in the time of the alleged incident as mentioned in the statements of these witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 13.1 In the case of Tapubhai Ravatbhai Kathi and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat ( 2006(1) GLR 740 ) this Court has held that when the assailants and witnesses are more in number, there is bound to be variation in the mention of their account and if the witnesses are from rural areas, and depose after many years, they cannot be expected to recount each and every injury. Suffice it for them to mention in the testimony that the weapons were used, accused and witnesses were present, injuries were caused to the person of the victim and those injuries were fatal. 13.2 In the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the Apex Court observed as under: “The sluggish chronometric sense of the country-side community in India is notorious since time is hardly of the essence of their slow life, and even urban folk make mistakes about time when no particular reason to observe and remember the hour of minor event like taking a morning meal existed.” 13.3 Thus we are unable to find any substance in this argument advanced by learned advocate for the appellant as in the present case the witnesses are deposing after a year and are from rural area. The witnesses are not expected to be meticulous about time of occurrence. Different people have different memory with a different way of looking at the things. Some may remember the exact occurrence or time while some may roughly remember the same. The witnesses are not expected to be meticulous about time of occurrence. Different people have different memory with a different way of looking at the things. Some may remember the exact occurrence or time while some may roughly remember the same. They have mentioned that the alleged incident occurred around 2.00 or 2.30 pm. It may happen that a person tends to forget the exact time of the incident. Moreover, when an assault on a family member happens before a person, it is not necessary that he shall be in such a state of mind so as to note the exact time of the assault. It is very natural for a person to try and give first aid to the victim, or seek help from people nearby or try and take the victim to hospital rather than keep a tab on the time. The time of incident thereafter which comes to be narrated to the police authorities is bound to be an approximate one. We do not think that such a variation can adversely affect the merits of the case as eventually it has come on record that the time of incident occurred during afternoon time somewhere before 2.45 pm when the deceased was brought to the hospital. The medical records suggest that it was stated before the doctor that the incident had taken place around an hour back which draws us to the conclusion that the incident should have happened around 01.45 to 02.00 pm. 13.4 In view of the above, it is clear that the deceased had died an unnatural death due to assault on him by way of a sharp and pointed weapon. The question now remains to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant was in fact the accusedappellant. 14. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the accused-appellant had surrendered before the police station in connection with the alleged offence. A panchnama was therefore done and the clothes of the accused and alleged muddamal dhariya both of which contained blood stains were seized. 14.1 A perusal of the FSL report on the blood stains on the accused’s shirt and muddamal weapon shows that the blood group on them matches with that of the deceased. A panchnama was therefore done and the clothes of the accused and alleged muddamal dhariya both of which contained blood stains were seized. 14.1 A perusal of the FSL report on the blood stains on the accused’s shirt and muddamal weapon shows that the blood group on them matches with that of the deceased. Even the mud collected from the scene of offence shows that the blood group is AB which is of the deceased’s. The same blood group is found on the stains on the clothes of the deceased. 14.2 It is true that the panchas in this case have turned hostile but just because the panchas turned hostile will not make much difference as the finding of fact is such. Even otherwise, in Vinugiri Motigiri vs. State of Gujarat (2002 (1) GLH 176), this Court has clearly laid down the proposition of law that for discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, corroboration is not necessary and if the articles are discovered as stated by accused, the discovery is admissible in evidence on the deposition of police witnesses alone. 15. Therefore, considering the fact that the accused had surrendered before the police station with the muddamal dhariya coupled with the fact that the dhariya and clothes worn by the accused contained blood stains which match the blood group of the deceased and is also supported by the evidence of witnesses, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 16. Moreover, as per the latest decision of the Apex Court, we have appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence led before the trial Court in its entirety but we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. Learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out any cogent evidence or circumstance so as to enable this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial court. 17. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. The judgement and order dated 06.08.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Fourth Fast Track Judge, Fast Track Court, Chhota Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellant may be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellant may be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. R & P, if lying with this Court, to be sent back forthwith. * * * * *