JUDGMENT Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. 1) The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Convict Hopna Soren being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Malda in Session Case No.101 of 1998(Sessions Trial No.47 of 2001) on 20.07.2002 holding the appellant/convict guilty and thereby convicting him for committing an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default R.I. for five months more. 2) A brief resume of the prosecution case emerging from the F.I.R. and evidence is that on 24.04.1991 at about 8.30 A.M. while the defacto complainant Lakshmiram Tudu was constructing his room’s wall, his co-villager Kulen Roy reported to him that Hopna Soren, son of Late Gobi Soren had assaulted Maiku Murmu, wife of Changu Soren. He then went to the place of occurrence along with Kulen and saw that Maiku Soren was lying on the ground in a pool of blood near the well in front of the house of Khokan Roy. Blood was oozing out from her forehead and nose. They then called the villagers and arranged for shifting the injured to hospital for treatment. In the mean time, the de-facto complainant came to learn from Mongli Soren, daughter of the injured Maiku Murmu that while Maiku was returning home carrying two pitchers full of water - one on her head and another in her armpit and when she reached near the house of Hopna Soren, he suddenly assaulted her with a bamboo lathi on her head. Maiku Soren fell down and the pitchers were broken. After that Hopna Soren took out a spade from his house. Seeing that Maiku Murmu attempted to run away towards the house of Khokan Roy when Hopna Soren assaulted her with the spade below her forehead and Maiku fell down sustaining bleeding injury. Thereafter, Hopna Soren fled away with the spade towards western field. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and the other villagers lifted Maiku Murmu in a cot and proceeded towards Gazole hospital for treatment. While they reached near Balarampur village, Maiku Murmu succumbed to her injuries. 3) The de facto complainant thereafter, lodged oral complaint on the basis of which Gazole P.S. Case No.30/91 dated 24.04.91 under Section 304 I.P.C. was started. That case was investigated into. While they reached near Balarampur village, Maiku Murmu succumbed to her injuries. 3) The de facto complainant thereafter, lodged oral complaint on the basis of which Gazole P.S. Case No.30/91 dated 24.04.91 under Section 304 I.P.C. was started. That case was investigated into. During the course of investigation, on the prayer of the I.O., the charge was altered under Section 302 IPC in place of Section 304 IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC against the accused/convict. 4) The Ld. Trial Judge on appearance of the accused and on perusal of the materials available on record including the police papers as well as upon hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties framed charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who however pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. 5) In the Trial Court in all 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The inquest report, two seizure lists, post mortem report, F.I.R., dead body challan and sketch map were admitted into evidence on behalf of the prosecution and were marked Exhibits 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7 respectively and the signatures of the witnesses appearing on those documents were marked accordingly. 6) The Ld. Trial Court proceeded with the trial and after considering all the evidence led by the prosecution including oral testimonies of the eye witnesses and other supporting oral as well as the documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the charge levelled against the present accused/appellant and accordingly recorded his conviction as aforesaid by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2002. Hence the present appeal. 7) The accused/appellant has challenged the sustainability of the impugned judgment mainly on the following grounds:- a) That the Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective; b) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and that there are serious discrepancies and infirmities between the prosecution witnesses; c) That the Ld. Trial Court put unnecessary stress upon the evidence adduced by P.W.2 and P.W.3 without taking into consideration serious discrepancies and infirmities; d) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and that there are serious discrepancies and infirmities between the prosecution witnesses; c) That the Ld. Trial Court put unnecessary stress upon the evidence adduced by P.W.2 and P.W.3 without taking into consideration serious discrepancies and infirmities; d) That the Ld. Trial Court ought to have held that the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant does not lie in the facts and circumstances of the instant case; That the judgment and order of conviction being otherwise bad in law is liable to be set aside. 8) We have heard Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused while the respondent state has been represented by the Ld. Public Prosecutor Mr. Manjit Singh. 9) Ld. Advocate Mr. Bhattacharyya for the appellant/accused has taken us through the oral testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.10. He has submitted that no ‘motive’ is attributed to the accused for committing the alleged offence. According to him, P.W.1 was admittedly a child witness at the relevant time. She herself disclosed in her cross-examination that at the time of incident she was aged about 7/8 years. She further stated that while she reached at the spot, persons of adjacent houses did not come. Also she did not name the other alleged eye witnesses. Therefore, it would be very much unsafe to place reliance upon her testimony as her presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful. He has further pointed out that P.W.2’s evidence is hearsay. P.W.3 came to the place of occurrence after the incident and he did not state about presence of P.W.7. In cross-examination P.W.3 made it clear that he did not see the incident. P.W.4’s narration does not find place in his previous statement made before the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which gets confirmation from the deposition of the Recording Officer, P.W.10 who in his deposition has clearly stated that what was stated by P.W.4 before the Court was not stated before the I.O. P.W.7 did not mention about the role or presence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and vice versa. Also his claim that he stated before the I.O. that he saw Maiku to be injured by the assault of bamboo from behind and spade on forehead by Hopna was negated by R.O., P.W.10 in clear terms. Also his claim that he stated before the I.O. that he saw Maiku to be injured by the assault of bamboo from behind and spade on forehead by Hopna was negated by R.O., P.W.10 in clear terms. P.W.8 stated that he was inside the house and on hearing abusive words he came alone from his house and no one was there and that he waited on the spot for one minute and subsequently he went to the spot where Maiku’s body was lying. Mr. Bhattacharyya has therefore, contended that the evidence of alleged eye witnesses is contradictory to each other and they did not state about each others presence and so they are not trustworthy witnesses and the conviction cannot be based upon such evidence. He contended yet further that there is no mention in the F.I.R. that there was any eye witness which is very much improbable on the backdrop that the informant heard from P.W.1. He has also pointed out that the inquest report which was prepared after lodging of the F.I.R. also does not bear any reference about the so-called eye witness. Summing up all these, he thus concluded by submitting that there is no clear, cogent or clinching evidence to sustain the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. 10) As against this, Ld. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Singh has opposed the present appeal and has submitted that taking into consideration the totality of the evidence on record the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt to its hilt and has successfully established the charge levelled against the appellant. He has further pointed out that oral testimony of P.W.1 cannot be discarded simply on the ground that she was a child of 7/8 years at the time of incident specially when she witnessed the murderous assault upon her mother by the accused and when the account rendered by her is otherwise trustworthy and inspires confidence. He has further pointed out that P.W.2 is an independent eye witness and the other eye witnesses i.e. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have supported the case of the prosecution in all material particulars. He has further pointed out that P.W.2 is an independent eye witness and the other eye witnesses i.e. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have supported the case of the prosecution in all material particulars. He has submitted that there is no improvement or contradiction in the evidence of those witnesses and even if there is some those are minor discrepancies which do not affect the prosecution case adversely. He has submitted yet further that if the F.I.R. is not lodged by an eye witness, it is not fatal for the prosecution for non mention of the names of the eye witnesses in the F.I.R. He placed reliance on the decision reported in A.I.R.1970 Supreme Court, 1305 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Kartar Singh) in support of such submission. His further submission was that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic and absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the Prosecution case. He cited the decision reported in A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court-2499 (Molu Vs. State of Haryana) and A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2780 (State of Gujarat Vs. Anirudhsing & Ors.) on this score. Therefore, according to him, the charge levelled against the appellant/ accused is amply corroborated by the prosecution witnesses and that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and emphasized that the appeal should be dismissed. 11) We have perused the record and proceedings in the context of the rival submissions in the light of the decisions placed. We have also meticulously scrutinized the oral testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.10. 12) P.W.4 and P.W.7 although claimed that they have witnessed the incident of assault upon the deceased by the accused/appellant but we find that P.W.10 S.I. Pronoy Krishna Dutta (R.O.) being confronted with the statements of P.W.4 and P.W.7 disclosed that those two witnesses did not narrate such incident to the I.O. Hence, these are material omissions and therefore implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7. 13) Looking into the oral testimony of P.W.1 Mongli Soren who is the stepdaughter of the deceased Maiku Soren and who is an eye witness has categorically stated while deposing on 17th June, 2002 that her mother was murdered by Hopna Soren in the month of Baisakh 11 years back. 13) Looking into the oral testimony of P.W.1 Mongli Soren who is the stepdaughter of the deceased Maiku Soren and who is an eye witness has categorically stated while deposing on 17th June, 2002 that her mother was murdered by Hopna Soren in the month of Baisakh 11 years back. At about 7/8 AM in the morning, her mother went to bring water from the well in front of the house of Kulen Roy. She had two pitchers one in head and one in the left side arm. At that time she was in the house. On hearing the abusive words from Hopna to her mother, she rushed to the place and Hopna assaulted her mother by lathi. Also Hopna assaulted her mother by spade (Kodal) on her forehead and her mother became unconscious with bleeding injuries. Subsequently, her father Dugru came with others at the spot and removed her mother from the said place by a Khatia for medical treatment. On the way to hospital, she succumbed. She further stated that Hopna assaulted her mother by lathi and spade in front of the house of Kulen Roy where she had gone to fetch water from well. In her cross-examination there are no material omissions or contradictions. In fact, her cross-examination revolves round the location of houses of the neighbouring people and some irrelevant facts. It is very much surprising to see that she was not confronted with reference to her previous statement save and except that she stated to the police after receiving assault her mother became unconscious. Surprisingly enough she was not even put any suggestion that she did not at all see any incident or that no such incident took place at all. Further interesting and noticable fact is that P.W.10 was also not confronted with reference to statement made by P.W.1. Yet further no query was made on behalf of the defence to P.W.1 as to how she could recall the incident which she witnessed while she was 7/8 years old after a long lapse of 11 years. Be that as it may, she was so ill fated that she had to witness at her childhood a brutal and harrowing incident of killing her mother. Be that as it may, she was so ill fated that she had to witness at her childhood a brutal and harrowing incident of killing her mother. It is quite natural that it has left a deep and lasting impression on her memory which she can never forget so long she remains alive we find her evidence to be impeccable and trustworthy and can be safely relied upon. We also find P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.8 have made consistent, cohesive and corroborative statements and faced the test of cross-examination quite confidently. P.W.8 was also left unassailed in the cross-examination of the R.O. (P.W.10). To be more precise all the aforesaid witnesses supported the prosecution case and their evidence was found by the Ld. Trial Court trustworthy, credible and consistent. We also find no reason to disbelieve their oral testimonies. As has already been stated P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased, P.W.2 was an employee of P.W.3 and is an independent witness, P.W.3 and P.W.8 are neighbours. So their appearance in the scene of occurrence was quite natural and normal. Rather their absence would have been abnormal and unmatched with the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary cumulatively we find that there is ring of truth in the oral testimonies of those eye witnesses which cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there are minor contradictions or improvements. It is trite law that evidence of close relation cannot be discarded simply because of their relationship. Further it is well settled position of law that a close relative who is natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for the term ‘interested’ postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reasons (2012 Cr.L.J.3492). In this connection the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 Cr.L.J.4403 / 2012 Cr.L.J.4707 (Kuria and another Vs. State of Rajasthan) and in Prem Prakash @ Lillu and another Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 4281 can well be referred to. In this connection the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 Cr.L.J.4403 / 2012 Cr.L.J.4707 (Kuria and another Vs. State of Rajasthan) and in Prem Prakash @ Lillu and another Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 4281 can well be referred to. It was observed that it is settled principle that the variations in the statement of the witnesses which are neither material nor serious enough to affect the case of the prosecution adversely are to be ignored by the courts and that the evidence, essentially, must be viewed collectively. The statement of a witness must be read as a whole. Reliance on a mere line in the statement of the witness, out of context, would not serve the ends of justice and the conclusion of the court based on such appreciation of evidence could be faulted. 14) Dr. Ajoy Kumar Das conducted post mortem examination (Ext.4) over the dead body of Maiku Murmu on 24.04.1991 and found the following injuries:- i) Lacerated wound, 4 ?” X 1 ?” bone deep at left forehead and nose with fracture of nasal bone, frontal bone and upper jaw. ii) Lacerated wound, 4 ?” X 1 ?” bone deep at right parital region of scalp with fractures at parital bone. On dissection he found brain membrane tissue ruptured haemorrhage and laceration in brain. iii) Dr. Das opined that cause of death was due to the aforesaid injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He has further deposed that the cause of injury may be done by ‘Bnas’ and spade and that in ordinary course of nature the injury is sufficient to cause death of human being. In the cross-examination he further stated that the age of injuries are same at a time and that such type of injury was not caused on falling on burnt or hard substances or receiving dash by any running motor vehicle. Supporting evidence in this regard is also furnished by the Inquest Report (Ext.1) in which the I.O. noted the injuries seen by him on Maiku’s dead body during the inquest. The defence did not make any cross-examination to the Doctor (P.W.6) on his opinion so as to rule out the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Maiku Murmu. Supporting evidence in this regard is also furnished by the Inquest Report (Ext.1) in which the I.O. noted the injuries seen by him on Maiku’s dead body during the inquest. The defence did not make any cross-examination to the Doctor (P.W.6) on his opinion so as to rule out the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Maiku Murmu. The accused also did not offer any explanation during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and he simply pleaded ignorance and innocence. 15) The oral testimony of Dr. Das as well as the Ext.4 altogether unerringly leads to the only conclusion that the injuries on the left forehead and nose and right parital region of scalp of Maiku Murmu were caused by weapon like ‘Bnas’ and spade and caused her death and the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and those were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 16) Relevant in this context to mention is that the F.I.R., the Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report are not substantive pieces of evidence and variance in those documents without causing prejudice to the accused is always not fatal to the prosecution. The F.I.R. is an earliest version of cognizable offence given to police by the informant which puts the law in motion. It is for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the informant in Court. Further, in a case of murder, preparation of inquest report is part of investigation and its very purpose is to record apparent cause of the death of the deceased, the visible injuries, the place and circumstances in which the dead body is noticed by a police officer, the wearing apparels of the deceased and other formal informalities disclosing the cause of death of the deceased. The Inquest Report is prepared by a police officer who took the charge of investigation or accompanied the I.O. and he is not a ballistic or medical expert to give his opinion regarding weapon used or nature of injuries causing death of the deceased. Therefore, Inquest Report can be said to be a formal document which is being prepared by a police officer in course of the investigation. Therefore, Inquest Report can be said to be a formal document which is being prepared by a police officer in course of the investigation. The Post Mortem Report is the evidence of medical expert, who after noticing the injury appearing on the dead body gives his opinion regarding cause of death, possible weapon used for causing the injuries, tentative time of death and the possible information which the medical expert note down while conducting post mortem examination. The prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only because there are discrepancies in the Inquest Report, F.I.R. and the Post Mortem Report. 17) The evidence of the eye witnesses received full corroboration from the medical evidence which leaves no room for harbouring any doubt that on 24.04.1991 at about 8.30 A.M. the appellant had hit the deceased Maiku Murmu with a bamboo lathi on her head while she was returning home carrying two pitchers full of water and she fell down. After that appellant brought a spade from his house and while Maiku tried to escape, he mounted assault with the spade below her forehead. Maiku sustained bleeding injury and fell down. P.W.s. rushed to the spot on hearing abusive words used by the appellant to the deceased and witnessed the assault and shifted the injured Maiku Murmu to hospital but she succumbed to her injuries on the way to hospital. 18) We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused to its hilt and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that the guilt is proved against the accused. 19) The injuries indicated above, the weapon of offence, the part of body chosen to inflict such injuries and the nature and gravity thereof, coupled with the circumstances in which they were caused, clearly establish with the requisite ingredients of clause ‘Thirdly’ of Section 300 of IPC and the act of the accused was nothing short of a murder. It also clearly transpires from the evidence on record that the bodily injuries of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also evident from the evidence on record that there was an intention to inflict those particular bodily injuries with a deadly weapon with a knowledge that the same would result into death. It is also evident from the evidence on record that there was an intention to inflict those particular bodily injuries with a deadly weapon with a knowledge that the same would result into death. Hence, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the purview of Section 300 ‘Thirdly’ punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution has thus, been able to prove the guilt of the accused and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that the guilt is proved against the accused. 20) The sum total of the foregoing discussion is that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has held the appellant guilty. We do not find any merit in the appeal. No interference is called for in exercise of our appellate powers. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed. The office is directed to send down the Lower Court Records at once. Aniruddha Bose, J I agree