JUDGMENT SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. :- This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 358 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The deceased in the present case is Chandrashekhar Pille. PW 3 Kumar was the son of Chandrashekhar Pille. The appellant was the brother of Chandrashekhar Pille. The appellant and the deceased had one more brother whose name was Murty. Murty had expired prior to the incident. Murty had one son by name Ravindra (PW 4). Kamlabai was the mother of the appellant, the deceased and Murty. Kamlabai had four rooms in her name. One of the rooms was in the name of Kamlabai, another room was given by Kamlabai to the deceased, another room was given by Kamlabai to the appellant and the last room was given to Murty who was the third son of Kamlabai. The room given to the appellant was sold by Kamlabai to meet the marriage expenses of the appellant. The room given by Kamlabai to the deceased was sold by the deceased. The room given by Kamlabai to Murty was also sold by him. In the 4th room, Kamlabai was residing along with Ravindra, son of Murty and daughter of Murty. By putting partition in the room, Kamlabai had allowed the appellant to live in the partitioned portion after his marriage. The appellant was insisting that his mother Kamlabai should transfer the partitioned portion of the room in his name. Kamlabai wished to give that portion to Ravindra, the son of Murty. On account of this, the appellant used to quarrel with his mother Kamlabai as well as his brother Chandrashekhar (the deceased). The appellant was insisting that his mother Kamlabai should transfer the partitioned portion of the room in his name. Kamlabai wished to give that portion to Ravindra, the son of Murty. On account of this, the appellant used to quarrel with his mother Kamlabai as well as his brother Chandrashekhar (the deceased). The appellant had quarrelled on many occasions with his mother and Chandrashekhar and hurled abuses at them. He then left the room of his mother Kamlabai and went to reside with his father-in-law at Kopari, Thane. (b) On 7.5.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., the appellant along with his wife and sister of his wife came to the room of Kamlabai. They started giving abuses to Kamlabai and Chandrashekhar and also quarreled with them. The appellant then threatened his mother and his brother Chandrashekhar that he will see them if the room is not given to him. The sister-in-law of the accused gave threat to Chandrashekhar that if the room is not given to the appellant, she will see that head of Chandrashekhar will be broken within a week. (c) The incident occurred on 14.5.2007. On that day at about 9.30 p.m., PW 3 Kumar, his father deceased Chandrashekhar, Kamlabai and PW 4 Ravindra were at their house at Ekvira Building. Ekvira Building was situated at a distance of about 5 minutes from the room of Kamlabai. The appellant hurled abuses at his brother Chandrashekhar and his nephew PW 4 Ravindra. The appellant gave threats that he would see that they are finished if the room is not given to the appellant. The appellant then went away. Chandrashekhar and PW 4 Ravindra then came down the building to inform the incident to Meena who was the sister of deceased Chandrashekhar and the appellant. After waiting till 10.20 p.m., PW 3 Kumar went towards Hajuri Darga road to see why his father Chandrashekhar and PW 4 Ravindra had not returned home. At that time, he saw that the appellant was assaulting his father Chandrashekhar by wooden danda in front of the shop of Asha Tailor. The appellant was dealing blows with danda on the head of Chandrashekhar. When PW 4 Ravindra went to intervene, the appellant gave blows to Ravindra on his head, hands and feet with the same wooden danda. Chandrashekhar fell down in pool of blood. The appellant then ran away. The appellant was dealing blows with danda on the head of Chandrashekhar. When PW 4 Ravindra went to intervene, the appellant gave blows to Ravindra on his head, hands and feet with the same wooden danda. Chandrashekhar fell down in pool of blood. The appellant then ran away. Thereafter, Chandrashekhar and PW 4 Ravindra were taken to the hospital. PW 3 Kumar then lodged FIR Exh. 33. Thereafter investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested on 15.5.2007. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of Chandrashekhar and Section 307 of IPC for causing injuries to PW 4 Ravindra. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant had caused the death of his brother Chandrashekhar and during the incident, the appellant also caused injuries to his nephew PW 4 Ravindra. 5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly founded on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra. PW 3 Kumar was the son of deceased Chandrashekhar and nephew of the appellant. He is also the first informant in the present case. PW 4 Ravindra was the nephew of the appellant as well as the deceased. He is an injured witness. As far as PW 3 Kumar is concerned, the prosecution story in paragraph 2 above has been taken from examination-in-chief of PW 3 Kumar, hence, we do not wish to overburden this judgment by repeating the same. PW 4 Ravindra was the nephew of the appellant as well as the deceased. He is an injured witness. As far as PW 3 Kumar is concerned, the prosecution story in paragraph 2 above has been taken from examination-in-chief of PW 3 Kumar, hence, we do not wish to overburden this judgment by repeating the same. Suffice to say that his evidence shows that on 14.5.2007 at about 9.30 p.m., the appellant hurled abuses and gave threats to deceased Chandrashekhar and the injured witness PW 4 Ravindra. The appellant gave threats that they are finished if the room is not given to the appellant. The evidence of Kumar shows that at about 10.20 p.m., he saw the appellant assaulting his father with wooden danda on the head. The appellant also assaulted PW 4 Ravindra on the head, hands and feet with the same danda. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of PW 3 Kumar so as to cause us to disbelieve his testimony. We find that his testimony inspires implicit confidence and we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 6. The other eye witness in the present case is PW 4 Ravindra who is also an injured witness. Ravindra was the nephew of the appellant as well as the deceased. Ravindra has stated that on 14.5.2007 at about 10.15 p.m., when he and his uncle Chandrashekhar were proceeding towards Indiranagar to go to the house of his father's sister, the incident took place in front of Asha Tailors. A blow with danda was given on the backside of his head. When he turned back, he saw the appellant was standing behind him. On receiving blow on his head when he fell down, his uncle Chandrashekhar came to lift him. The appellant then assaulted Chandrashekhar also with the same danda. His uncle Chandrashekhar fell down in pool of blood. Then he and Chandrashekhar were taken to the hospital. 7. Learned Advocate Mrs. Koparkar submitted that the evidence of PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra cannot be relied upon because there is serious discrepancy in their evidence. The appellant then assaulted Chandrashekhar also with the same danda. His uncle Chandrashekhar fell down in pool of blood. Then he and Chandrashekhar were taken to the hospital. 7. Learned Advocate Mrs. Koparkar submitted that the evidence of PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra cannot be relied upon because there is serious discrepancy in their evidence. She submitted that PW 4 Ravindra who is the injured witness states that on receiving blow on his head when he turned back, he found the appellant with a stick in his hand at his backside and thereafter the appellant assaulted his uncle Chandrashekhar whereas PW 3 Kumar states that his father Chandrashekhar was first assaulted and when Ravindra tried to intervene, Ravindra was assaulted by the appellant. Advocate Mrs. Koparkar submitted that in view of this variance in the version of PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra and in absence of evidence of independent witness, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful. It is true that there is variance in the version of PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra as to who was assaulted first. It is also true that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. As far as the discrepancy between the evidence of PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra is concerned, it is significant to note that their evidence was recorded after about three years of the incident and therefore, there is bound to be some discrepancy. Occurrence of such discrepancy is inbuilt assurance of they being witnesses to the incident. Had they spoken without any inconsistency, it would have led the Court to feel that they are giving stereotyped evidence and as such cannot be believed. What is material here is whether they had occasion to witness the incident and identify the assailant. The assailant was none else than brother of deceased Chandrashekhar and uncle of PW 3 Kumar as well as PW 4 Ravindra. Moreover, PW 4 Ravindra is the person who received injuries in the very same incident. These injuries have been characterized by the medical officer Dr. PW 6 Dr. Chavan as grievous. It is unthinkable that PW 4 Ravindra would allow the real assailant to go scot free and name the appellant as assailant of his uncle Chandrashekhar. Moreover, PW 4 Ravindra is the person who received injuries in the very same incident. These injuries have been characterized by the medical officer Dr. PW 6 Dr. Chavan as grievous. It is unthinkable that PW 4 Ravindra would allow the real assailant to go scot free and name the appellant as assailant of his uncle Chandrashekhar. In short, the evidence of PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra shows that the appellant had assaulted both Chandrashekhar as well as Ravindra. There is no variance in the evidence of both PW 3 Kumar and PW 4 Ravindra that the appellant assaulted Chandrashekhar as well as Ravindra. On this aspect, there is no discrepancy. The discrepancy pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellant is minor in nature and is not such as to affect the prosecution case. 8. The evidence of both the eye witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 6 Dr. Chandrashekhar examined the injured witness PW 4 Ravindra. He found following injuries on his person:-. i. CLW on occipital area of head, 3 x 1 cm oblique, hard and blunt object, simple one; ii. CLW on right temporal region of head, 7.05 cm., longitudinal hand and blunt object, simple one; iii. CLW on left temporal region of head 12 x 0.5 c.m., longitudinal hard and blunt object, simple one; iv. Contusion on right eye 3 x 2 cm, irregular, hard and blunt object, simple one; v. X-ray of right hand showed fracture on 3rd metacarpal bone, grievous one, fracture of proximal phalanx of ring finger, grievous one; vi. C.T. Scan of head showed fracture of bilateral temporal bone with extra dural haemotoma and subar acharoid hemorrhage. Injured Ravindra was advised to be referred to J.J. Hospital for Neurological opinion and cranitomy. In relation to Injury No.6 found on body of Ravindra mentioned in Exh. 45, Dr. Chavan has stated that it was grievous. It would have been fatal had injured not received timely treatment. Dr. Chavan has further stated that injuries mentioned in Exh. 45 are possible by wooden stick (Article No. 1). 9. Dr. Chavan also conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Chandrashekhar. On external examination, he found following injuries:- i. CLW on scalp in left occipital region, 2 x 2 cm. By way of palpation through CLW fracture of skull was noticeable. On internal examination, on opening of the head, Dr. 9. Dr. Chavan also conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Chandrashekhar. On external examination, he found following injuries:- i. CLW on scalp in left occipital region, 2 x 2 cm. By way of palpation through CLW fracture of skull was noticeable. On internal examination, on opening of the head, Dr. Chavan noticed following injuries:- i. Scalp CLW on left occipital region, 2 x 2 cm. Skull vault is fractured. A fissure fracture line is seen extending from left mastoid bone to left temporal bone to left parietal to right parietal and right temporal bone. The skull vault is split into two by fracture line. Fracture line is seen extending into the base of skull in the middle cranial fossa from left mastoid process; ii. Both the cerebral hemospheres of brain covered with blood. Subarachroid hemorrhage of around 170 cc was seen. Hemorrhage conductions seen over left parieto occipital region of brain. On cut section, blood was seen in both lateral ventricles and in the third ventricles. CLW on scalp mentioned in Col. No. 17 was corresponding to all the internal injuries. CLW corresponding to brain injury was in the ordinary course and events sufficient to cause death. In the opinion of Dr. Chavan, the cause of death was intra cranial bleeding due to fracture of skull due to head injury. Dr. Chavan further stated that the injuries were possible by wooden stick (Article No. 1). Thus, it is seen that the medical evidence is also totally consistent with the prosecution case. 10. On going through the entire evidence, we find that there is sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the death of Chandrashekhar and injuries caused to PW 4 Ravindra. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 11. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison Authorities and to the appellant who is injail. 12. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Mrs. Indrayani Koparkar who is on the panel of Advocates of High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed by us to represent the appellant in this appeal. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.5000/-. Appeal dismissed.