JUDGMENT : 1. In the present Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of conviction dated 15.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case No. 1 of 2003 under Section 302, IPC and consequent sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.6.2001 at about 3 P.M., the deceased (Brahmananda) came to the house of the appellant and challenged him as to why appellant was defaming him in the locality by telling that the deceased was practicing witchcraft (sorcery). There was exchange of words between the appellant and the deceased. When the deceased was returning home, the appellant brought a hatchet (small axe) from his house and gave a blow on the blunt side of that hatchet on the back side of head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down on the ground. The appellant thereafter dealt successive blows to the deceased, dragged him to the back side of the house of Gurubari Bewa and dealt blows on the head and chest of the deceased. The appellant also attacked the chest of the deceased by a boulder. Thereafter, he jumped over the chest and belly of the deceased and finding him dead, left the place. On 25.6.2011, Gurucharan Paradhan (P.W.5), nephew of the deceased lodged a written report before the O.I.C., Pallahara Police Station basing on which the case was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the present appellant under Section 302, IPC. The defence plea is one of complete denial. 3. The prosecution in order to prove charges examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Doctor (P.W.8) and the I.O. (P.W.9) and exhibited 15 documents including the Post-Mortem Report (Ext. 8) and Chemical Examination Report (Ext. 15). The defence examined none. On completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher convicted the present appellant under Section 302, IPC basing upon proof relating to leading to discovery, evidence of P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.8. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds : (a) P.Ws.3 and 7, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, have not seen the occurrence and moreover P.W.3, being the son of deceased is an interested witness. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds : (a) P.Ws.3 and 7, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, have not seen the occurrence and moreover P.W.3, being the son of deceased is an interested witness. (b) There is no legal proof of discovery of weapon of offence a the instance of appellant as his confessional statement leading to discovery was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (c) The case is not coming under Section 302, IPC but coming under Section 304, IPC since there was some quarrel between the parties prior to assault. 5. Mr. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 are very clear and cogent. The present appellant has assaulted the deceased by means of a hatchet and boulder and thereafter dragged the deceased to another place. While the appellant was in the custody, gave voluntary statement and led the police and witnesses to the place of concealment of weapon of offence and gave discovery of the same. Therefore, the information given by the appellant is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, he submitted that the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the case was not coming under Section 304, IPC but coming under Section 302, IPC. Thus, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the statements of the witnesses. P.W.1 was the Sarpanch of Nagira Gram Panchayat at the time of occurrence. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he heard about the incident from the Gram Rakhi (Sagar Kamal). After hearing the same, he sent Gurucharan Pradhan (P.W.5) to Pallahara Police Station to inform the matter. He accompanied the I.O. (P.W.9) to the spot. The dead body was lying on the road on the back side of the house of Gurubari Bewa. He further stated that the appellant stated before the I.O. (P.W.9) that he killed the deceased by means of a hatched and also gave information about concealment of the weapon of offence in his house. Thereafter, the appellant led the police, P.W.1 and other witnesses to the place of concealment of weapon of offence and gave discovery of the same from the corner of his house. Thereafter, the appellant led the police, P.W.1 and other witnesses to the place of concealment of weapon of offence and gave discovery of the same from the corner of his house. P.W.1 proved the disclosure statement of the appellant recorded by the I.O. under Ext. 1 and also proved the inquest report made by the I.O. under Ext. 2. The I.O. also seized the wearing apparels of the appellant which had been stained with blood. P.W.3 proved the Seizure list under Ext. 5. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1. P.W.2 is also a co-villager and witness to the inquest. He proved the inquest report under Ext. 2. In his examination-in-chief he stated that inquest was made over the dead body of the deceased in his presence. He also proved the wearing apparels of the appellant seized under Ext. 5. He-further stated that the appellant while in police custody gave information about concealment of the hatchet and gave recovery of the same. He proved Ext. 3 and statement of the appellant under Ext. 1. In the cross-examination he admitted that he signed on the documents shown to him as per the version of the police. Many people had assembled at that time. The contents of the seizure list were not read over and explained to him. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased and is an eye-witness to the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that about two and half years back at about 3 P.M. when the incident took place, he was in his house. Hearing the shout of the appellant which was coming from the back side of the house of Gurubari Bewa, he rushed to that place. He saw the appellant holding a boulder and a hatchet and assaulting his father with that boulder. Laxman Behera (P.W.7) told his elder brother that the appellant was assaulting his father. Then he found his father dead. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited. P.W.4 is a post-occurrence witness. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the deceased was his Samudi. About two and half years back during afternoon the incident happened. He had gone to attend call of nature. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the road. Then he found his father dead. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited. P.W.4 is a post-occurrence witness. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the deceased was his Samudi. About two and half years back during afternoon the incident happened. He had gone to attend call of nature. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the road. The appellant was dragging the body of the deceased holding a hatchet and kept it on the road on the back side of the house of Gurubari Bewa. P.W.4 did not come to the place due to feat. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say the distance from the house of Gurubari Bewa till his house. He did not raise alarm due to fear. P.W.5 is the informant and nephew of the deceased. In examination-in-chief he stated that while he was sitting in the house of Manika, who is also his uncle, Laxman Behera (P.W.7) came to that place and told that some body had assaulted his deceased uncle. P.W.5 rushed to that place and saw the dead body of the deceased lying of the road running back side of the house of Gurubari Bewa. His mother had also accompanied him. Thereafter, they returned to the house carrying. The appellant was shouting in his house and was in a drunken state. They suspected that the appellant might have killed the deceased. P.W.5 proved the written report under Ext. 7. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination. P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he was not present at the time of incident. After returning from the field, he ascertained from the family members that the appellant had killed his brother. He proceeded to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. He saw bleeding injuries on the portion of the deceased. A boulder stained with blood was lying by the side of the deceased. He sent his son Laxman Behera (P.W.7) to report the matter before the Pallarahara Police Station. He proved the inquest report under Ext. 2. In the cross-examination he admitted that there were residential houses in between his house and the house of Gurubari. None had guarded the dead body of the deceased when he first came to the place. He sent his son Laxman Behera (P.W.7) to report the matter before the Pallarahara Police Station. He proved the inquest report under Ext. 2. In the cross-examination he admitted that there were residential houses in between his house and the house of Gurubari. None had guarded the dead body of the deceased when he first came to the place. P.W.7 in his examination-in-chief stated that when the incident occurred he was sitting by the side of a road running from his village towards the Panchayat Office. The appellant was dragging the body of the deceased towards the house of Gurubari Bewa. On being confronted with his previous statement, he admitted that it is a fact that he has stated before the I.O. that while holding a hatchet in his hand the appellant was dragging Brahmananda (deceased) towards the house of Gurubari. The appellant assaulted Brahmananda by the hatchet making him fall on the back side of the house of Gurubari and that seeing the above, he was frightened. When the appellant brought the body of the deceased towards the house of Gurubari, P.W.7 could be able to identify that the injured was Brahmananda and told the matter to Guru, Pradhan (P.W.5). In the cross-examination P.W.7 admitted that he was sitting at a distance of about 100 meters from the place of dragging. Except the house of Gurubari no other residential house was located near the place. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries; "Incised wound on the scalp 1" x 1/2" x 1" above the right ear. Lacerated wound on the neck in back 2" x 1" x 1" Bruises - On the back 2" x 1' Bruise - On both buttocks 1" x 1/2" Fracture on the occipital bone. On dissection the brain was found congested. All other internal organs were intact." P.W.8 opined that the cause of the death was due to cardio respiratory failure due to brain stem injury. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. Except fracture other injuries were simple. The injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased were sufficient to ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that the injuries inflicted were possible by Tangia blows. In the cross-examination P.W.8 admitted that lacerated injuries were possible by fall on rough surface, so also bruises. Except fracture other injuries were simple. The injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased were sufficient to ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also stated that the injuries inflicted were possible by Tangia blows. In the cross-examination P.W.8 admitted that lacerated injuries were possible by fall on rough surface, so also bruises. Incised wound was possible by fall over a sharp cutting weapon. He denied a suggestion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. P.W.9 was the O.I.C. of Pallahara Police Station. He registered the case and took up investigation. Ext. 7/2 is his endorsement and signature on the F.I.R. He examined the informant and other witnesses. He visited the spot and prepared the spot map. He made inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post-mortem examination. He also seized the sample earth and blood stained earth. He arrested the appellant. He stated that while the appellant was in the custody, he gave information about concealment of one hatchet (M.O.I.) in a dark corner of his house and gave recovery of the same in presence of witnesses. He proved the seizure vide Ext. 3. He recorded the disclosure statement of the appellant under Ext. 1. He seized the wearing apparels of the appellant. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the house of Trilochan Behera was located near the house of Panu Behera. It was a rough surface on which the body was dragged. Except the wife of the appellant no other person was living with the appellant in that house. The following important guidelines are to be considered while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case; (1) The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire materials on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, he proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. (2) The Court can shift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. (2) The Court can shift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. (3) There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of different witnesses when they speak on details. Unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to reject the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal trial. On scrutinizing the evidence, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that the death is homicidal in nature. It appears that nothing has been elicited to demolish the evidence of prosecution witnesses. With regard to submission of Shri Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.3 and 7 are not eye-witnesses, we make it clear that we are not impressed by such argument. P.W.3, who is son of the deceased, has specifically stated that he saw the appellant, holding a boulder and a hatchet and was assaulting his father with that boulder. No suggestion was given from the side of the appellant that P.W.3 was inimically disposed towards him. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 remains un-demolished. Only because he is the son of the deceased his evidence with regard to assault cannot be ignored. He was a natural witness to the part of the occurrence. Similarly, P.W.7 despite being declared hostile has specifically stated that the appellant was dragging the deceased towards the house of Gurubari Bewa and he assaulted the deceased by the hatchet making him fall on the back side on the house of Gurubari Bewa and on seeing all these he got frightened. All these make it clear that both P.Ws.3 and 7 were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there exists no legal proof of discovery of weapon at the instance of appellant as his confessional statement has not been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Such a contention has no legs to stand as admissibility of information leading to discovery is covered by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is in the nature of an exception to Section 26 of the said Act. In the matters covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 there is no requirement under law that the information has to flow from a statement made under Section- 164 Cr.P.C. only. Therefore, the information given by the appellant while in police custody leading to discovery of weapon of offence is legally admissible. In the present case such information has been proved by P.Ws.1, 2 and 9. Further, the Doctor, P.W.8 has clearly deposed that the injuries suffered by the deceased were possible by Tangia blows. From the above, it is clear that the appellant is the author of the crime. Last contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the case is coming under Exception-1 of Section 300, IPC as there were some altercations between the appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand, whereafter the appellant assaulted the deceased by a hatchet. It is interesting to note that none of the P.Ws. has deposed about any such altercation provoking the appellant to attack the deceased. Even in his reply to first 3 questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant himself has denied any altercation and provocation. Hence, the case cannot come under Exception-I of Section 300, IPC. Though there are some contradictions in the prosecution evidence but those being minor in nature would not affect core prosecution case. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction of the trial Court is confirmed and the appellant is directed to surrender to the custody to undergo the remainder of sentence. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed