JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27th April, 1998, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T. No. 465/96 whereby learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302 and 302/34 of the IPC respectively and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Three accused persons namely, Trinath, Phoolsingh and Khuti have committed murder of deceased Kamlochan at about 4 pm on 28.8.1996. As per the mere intimation and FIR Ex.-P/5 & P/1 respectively, case of the prosecution is that three accused persons came to the residence of the deceased at 2 pm and requested him to accompany them for outing. However, the deceased refused on account of the fact that he was tired as he had returned from the night duty. When the deceased refused to accompany them, all the accused persons abused and assaulted him by hands, fists and club. They again came back at 4 p.m., appellant Trinath dragged the deceased out of his house by encircling a belt around his neck and thereafter Trinath assaulted him by club. Appellant No. 2 Phoolsingh and third accused Khuti assaulted him by hands, fists and kicks. The deceased was treated by his wife in their residence. However, he could not survive and succumbed to the injuries on the next day i.e. 29.8.1996 at about 18.10 hours. 2. In course of investigation, the prosecution recorded memorandum statement of appellant No. 1 Trinath vide Ex.-P/3 and recovered belt and club from his possession vide Ex.-P/4. The SHO prepared crime detail form containing spot map vide Ex.-P/8. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination on which report Ex.-P/10 was submitted by Dr. Vijay Thakur (PW-7). The prosecution recorded case diary statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet. The appellant abjured the guilt and examined 2 defence witnesses namely, DW-1 Manchit and DW-2 Sukdev. 3. The trial Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the IPC respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, the witnesses are not reliable. He would submit that all the witnesses are relative of the deceased and PW-4 Dashoda has narrated different story about the time of occurrence, therefore, the entire prosecution case is doubtful. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, the witnesses are not reliable. He would submit that all the witnesses are relative of the deceased and PW-4 Dashoda has narrated different story about the time of occurrence, therefore, the entire prosecution case is doubtful. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment. 6. In Gali Venkataiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2008 SC 462 , it has been held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 7. In Dalip Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 , it has been laid down as under:- A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such an enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts. {See Guli Chand and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698 } 8. In Thoti Manohar Vs. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts. {See Guli Chand and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698 } 8. In Thoti Manohar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 7 SCC 723 , the Supreme Court has held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach. The Court, while appreciating the evidence, should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored. {See State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 , Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241, Rammi Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 , State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247 , Laxman Singh Vs. Poonam Singh (2004) 10 SCC 94 , Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 408 }. 9. Keeping in view the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, when the evidence available is evaluated, it would appear that PW-1 Sulochna, wife of the deceased, has supported the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused persons came to their residence at 2 pm, requested the deceased for outing and when he refused, he was assaulted by the hands, fists and kicks. The accused persons again came back at 4 pm and appellant No. 1 Trinath encircled the leather belt around his neck and dragged him out of the house and thereafter Trinath started beating the deceased with belt and 2 other accused persons started beating him by hands, fists and kicks. PW-2 Gendi Bai is an independent witness. Although she has turned hostile but before being declared hostile, she has supported the case of the prosecution by stating that appellant No. 1 Trinath had tied leather belt around the neck of the deceased and was assaulting him by club. She was declared hostile because she said that seeing this, she ran out of the spot, meaning thereby that she did not see the remaining incident. However, the fact remains that she supported the case of the prosecution to the extent she narrated the incident before being declared hostile. She was declared hostile because she said that seeing this, she ran out of the spot, meaning thereby that she did not see the remaining incident. However, the fact remains that she supported the case of the prosecution to the extent she narrated the incident before being declared hostile. Similarly, PW-3 Rukmani, mother of the deceased, also supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the appellants on the evidence of PW-4 Dashoda to argue that according to this witness, second incident of attack occurred just after 5 minutes of the first incident whereas, other witnesses have stated that the first incident took place at 2 pm and the second incident took place at 4 pm, therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful. 11. PW-4 Dashoda appears to be an illiterate tribal lady who does not even know Hindi language. Her evidence has been recorded with the assistance of interpreter, therefore, it may be possible that this witness could not properly relate the time gap between the first incident and the second incident. But for this isolated discrepancy, she had completely supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the assault made by the appellants. Therefore, her entire evidence cannot be disbelieved. 12. Learned counsel would also submit that PW-3 Rukmani has stated that the accused persons came to their residence only once i.e. at 4 pm. 13. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-3 Rukmani, it would appear that she speaks about only one incident which occurred at 4 pm. In the later part of her cross-examination, she has clarified the statement by saying that prior to this, the accused persons had come to their residence and assaulted the deceased. In any case, this particular aspect of the matter should not detain this Court too long because other witnesses namely, PW-1 Sulochna, wife of the deceased and PW-2 Gendi Bai have clearly stated that the accused persons assaulted the deceased. 14. PW-7 Dr. Vijay Thakur, who conducted postmortem, has found the following injuries over the person of the deceased:- • ligature mark, length 11" width 1 c.m. running horizontally upward below thyroid cartilage up to the left ear. • Abrasion over left eye in the size of 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. • Abrasions on both sides of the neck. 14. PW-7 Dr. Vijay Thakur, who conducted postmortem, has found the following injuries over the person of the deceased:- • ligature mark, length 11" width 1 c.m. running horizontally upward below thyroid cartilage up to the left ear. • Abrasion over left eye in the size of 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. • Abrasions on both sides of the neck. • Abrasion over right temporoparietal region of head • Abrasion in the size of 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. 1" above injury No. 1. 15. The injuries described above found by the doctor correspond to the narration of crime and the manner of assault disclosed by the witnesses to the police and before the Court. A ligature mark of 11" length was found around the neck of the deceased which was caused by the belt tied by Trinath and thereafter the deceased was dragged out of his house. Bruises were also found over body of the deceased. Although no injury corresponding to assault made by club was found, but the fact remains that cause of death is asphyxia on account of strangulation which was caused by the belt tied around the neck of the deceased. Therefore, non mention of injury of club becomes insignificant. 16. Case of the prosecution, as told by eyewitness is fully supported by the medical evidence. There is no circumstance which would belie the prosecution case or give any dent to its credibility. The case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court. In the result, the appeal has no substance, which fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence imposed upon them.