Judgment : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th December, 2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.T. No. 284 of 1995, whereby this appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he was to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further six months. 2. Case of the Prosecution: Case of the prosecution is that on 18th March, 1995 at about 14.45 hrs (i.e. 2.45 p.m.) informant Lal Singh Tiu (P.W.-3) gave Fardbayan before the police that on 18th March, 1995 at about 12.00 hrs. (Noon), while he was in conversation with his mother Pangala Tiu (deceased) and his sister Sukarmani Tiu (P.W.3) in the courtyard of his house, his cousin (son of his elder uncle) Sona Ram Tiu (accused) came there with a Bhujali in his hand and started assaulting mother of the informant on the chest and stomach to kill her and in that course, he got her injured. When informant raised hulla, Sona Ram Tiu tried to escape. Informant and the local people chased him but he was successful in fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The informant further alleged that few days before the occurrence some altercation had taken place between his mother (deceased) and Sona Ram Tiu (accused) which continued for two to three days regarding 'Shradh' ceremony (last rites) of three members of his family, who died few days back, to be performed jointly and regarding invitees to the said ceremony and due to this reason, on 18th March, 1995, accused Sonaram Tiu assaulted her mother with Bhujali to kill her, as a result of which she died on the spot. 3. Details regarding eight witnesses examined by the prosecution in a tabular chart. Sr. No. Name of the witness Details PW-1 Dr. BIshambher Dayal He is doctor, who conducted the Post-mortem examination of deceased Pangala Tiu and has proved the Post mortem report at Ext.-1. PW-2 Sukarmani Tiu She is the daughter of deceased Pangala Tiu and is Eye witness to the occurrence. PW.3 Lal Singh Banra He is informant of his case and is son of cased Pangala Tiu. He is the Eye witness to the occurrence. PW-2 Sukarmani Tiu She is the daughter of deceased Pangala Tiu and is Eye witness to the occurrence. PW.3 Lal Singh Banra He is informant of his case and is son of cased Pangala Tiu. He is the Eye witness to the occurrence. He has Proved his signature and signature of Baidhnath Singh Deb (marked as Extd.-2 and 2/1 respectively) in the fardbayan (Ext.-3). PW-4 Man Singh Banra He has proved his signature and signature of Baidhnath Singh Deb (Ext.-2/2 and 2/3 respectively) in seizure list (Ext.-5). PW-5 Krishna Chandra Banra He has Proved His signature (Ext.2/4) in the carbon copy of Inquest report (Ext.-4) PW-6 Baidyanath Singh Deb Tendered witness. PW-7 Pandary Kudada Formal witness. PW-8 Kailash Tiu Tendered witness. PW-9 Ram Abadh Singh He is Investigation officer of his case. He has proved the fardbayan i.e. marked as Ext.-3 and has also proved the carbon copy of Inquest Report i.e. marked as Ext.-5 and has also proved the Formal FIR i.e. marked as Ext.-6. Arguments of the counsel for the Appellant : 4. Major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions: Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. Interested witnesses : It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has examined only highly interested witnesses, e.g. P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are daughter and son of the deceased respectively and no independent witness have been examined by the prosecution. Inimical terms between the parties : It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that there was inimical terms between the victim side and this appellant accused. Tutored witnesses: P.W. 2 and 3, i.e. the so called eye witnesses, are tutored witnesses and Parrot type deposition was given by them before the learned trial court. Motive remains unestablished: Prosecution has also not established the motive behind the occurrence. Tutored witnesses: P.W. 2 and 3, i.e. the so called eye witnesses, are tutored witnesses and Parrot type deposition was given by them before the learned trial court. Motive remains unestablished: Prosecution has also not established the motive behind the occurrence. Time of occurrence : It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that time of occurrence is also doubtful mainly because at Paragraph 1 of the deposition given by P.W. 5., he has referred to the time of occurrence as 10 a.m., whereas, as per P.W.2 and P.W.3, it is 12 Noon. Absence of F.S.L. Report :Moreover, there is no Forensic Science Laboratory report on record and therefore Seizure list has got no evidential value. The bloodstained earth recovered by the Investigating officer P.W.9, was never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and therefore, neither the Seizure List and Seized articles are helpful to prove the prosecution case nor they are corroborative piece of evidence. Prosecution case not supported by independent witnesses: It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that as per F.I.R. and deposition of P.W.2 and P.W.3, several persons rushed to the place of occurrence including P.W.5, 7 and 8, but none of these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the whole story and narration of the incident by P.W.2 and P.W.3 is highly doubtful because these independent witnesses, who have rushed to the place of occurrence, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Doubt regarding Post-Mortem report: It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that on perusal of postmortem report (Ext.1), it appears that it was issued in some U.D. Case (Unnatural Death case), registered by the same Police Station i.e. Raj Nagar Police Station, which registered the P.S. case in connection with the present offence. Present case is Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 12 of 1995, but, this P.S. Case number has not been referred to in the postmortem report. Thus, there is a doubt about the veracity of the Post Mortem report as to whether this Post Mortem report is actually issued in connection with the present occurrence. These aspects of the matter have also not been appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Arguments of the State: 5. Thus, there is a doubt about the veracity of the Post Mortem report as to whether this Post Mortem report is actually issued in connection with the present occurrence. These aspects of the matter have also not been appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Arguments of the State: 5. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidences on record and prosecution has proved the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution case based upon eye-witnesses: It is further submitted that case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye witness, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the eye witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) have narrated the whole incident in detail that when they were sitting with their mother Smt. Pangala Tiu, this appellant accused came with a 'Bhujali' (sharp cutting instrument) in his hand and started assaulting his mother on chest and stomach. She fell down and expired on the spot. They raised alarm and other witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence. No chance of false implication: It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that immediate was the First Information Report, which is registered only a couple of hours after the date and time of occurrence. The F.I.R. was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate immediately as required under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. and thus, there is no chance of false implication at all. Moreover, this accused is named in the F.I.R. Ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence: It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that nature of injuries narrated by the eye witnesses P.W.2 and P.W. 3 is sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence given by P.W.1, i.e. Dr. Bishambher Dayal, who has carried out post-mortem examination (report at Ext. 1) of the deceased. Place of occurrence proved: It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution witnesses and sufficiently corroborated by the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) in his deposition. Seizure List, Inquest report proved: The Seizure List, Inquest Report have also been proved by the prosecution with the help of P.W.4 and P.W.5. Place of occurrence proved: It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution witnesses and sufficiently corroborated by the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) in his deposition. Seizure List, Inquest report proved: The Seizure List, Inquest Report have also been proved by the prosecution with the help of P.W.4 and P.W.5. Thus, the prosecution has proved the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt and the evidences have been correctly appreciated by the trial court and therefore, this criminal appeal may not be entertained by this court. Observation of the court: 6. Having heard counsel for both sides and taking into consideration the evidences on record, following facts emerge : Facts on record: It appears that P.W.3 is informant of the case, who put the criminal law in motion with his Fardbayan recorded before Rajnagar Police Station of District West Singhbhum (Now Seraikella). He is son of the deceased and on 18th March, 1995 at 14.45 hours when he, his sister and his mother-Smt. Pangla Tiu (deceased) were sitting in the courtyard of their house and discussing about 'Shradh' ceremony of three members of their family, who died sometime back. At that time, this appellant came to their house with a sharp cutting weapon (Bhujali) in his hand with which he started assaulting mother of the informant and inflicted injuries on her chest and stomach, i.e. on the vital part of her body, as a result of which Smt. Pangla Tiu fell down and ultimately expired on the spot. The sister and the brother (P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively) started raising alarm and upon hearing this alarm, several persons, including P.W.5, P.W. 7 and P.W.8 rushed to the place of occurrence and they tried to catch hold of this appellant, but, he was successful in fleeing away. As submitted by the learned A.P.P., later on this appellant has surrendered on 4.4.1995. The motive of offence was also narrated by the informant in F.I.R that there was some dispute between the victim side and the appellant accused regarding persons to be invited in a 'Shardh' ceremony of three members of their family, who died couple days back. On the basis of the Fardbayan, F.I.R. was lodged in Rajnagar Police Station as Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 12 of 1995. Statement of several witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the Fardbayan, F.I.R. was lodged in Rajnagar Police Station as Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 12 of 1995. Statement of several witnesses were recorded. Chargesheet was filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the court of Sessions being Sessions Case No. 284 of 1995. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.9 and taking into consideration other documentary evidences on record, i.e. Ext. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella has convicted this appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default, this appellant accused was to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of further six months. From the facts discussed above, it appears that prosecution case is based on eye witnesses, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3. 7. Sukarmani Tiu (P.W.2): On perusal of the deposition of P.W.2, who is daughter of the deceased, it appears that she has narrated the whole incident in detail. We have also perused her cross-examination. Summarized deposition: It has been stated by this witness that when she, along with her brother (P.W.3), were sitting in the courtyard with her mother in their own house on 18th March, 1995 at 12 Noon and discussing as to who should be invited to the Shradh Ceremony of their three relatives who died couple of days back, this appellant accused came with a Bhujali in his hand and assaulted the mother of P.W.2 on chest and stomach. Victim fell down. This witness, P.W. 2 and her brother (P.W.3) started raising alarm-“Bachao Bachao”. In the meantime, victim expired. Other persons, including P.W.5, 7 and 8, rushed to the place of occurrence and tried to catch hold of this appellant, but this appellant ran away and thereafter, P.W.2 and other persons chased this appellant, but he could not be arrested by these persons. Ultimately, this appellant surrendered on 4.4.1995. Observation :A perusal of her deposition makes it apparent that this witness has proved the date of occurrence, time of occurrence, place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. Further, weapon in the hands of the accused and the fact as to on which part of the body of the deceased the injuries were caused by this appellant have also been proved. Further, weapon in the hands of the accused and the fact as to on which part of the body of the deceased the injuries were caused by this appellant have also been proved. Taking into consideration over all examination of this P.W.2 and her cross-examination, nothing can be detected in favour of this appellant. On the contrary, in her cross examination also she has maintained what she has stated in her examination in chief. Her presence at the place of occurrence is also natural and we see no reason to disbelieve this witness, who is a trustworthy and reliable witness and though she is a rustic witness, she has narrated all the facts of the case in detail without any major omission, contradiction and improvement. Therefore, it can safely be said that no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating her deposition. 8. Lal Singh Tiu (P.W.3)-informant of the case: We have perused the deposition of P.W.3, who is the informant and the son of the deceased. On perusal of his examination-in-Chief and cross-examination, this witness has narrated the whole incident in detail. Summarized deposition: The incident has taken place on 18th March, 1995, at about 12 Noon, when he was sitting in the courtyard of their house along with his sister (P.W.2) and his mother (deceased), discussing as to who should be invited to the 'Shradh' ceremony of the persons who expired in their family few day back, this appellant rushed to their house with a sharp cutting weapon (Bhujali) in his hand, with which he started assaulting Smt. Pangla Tiu (deceased) inflicting injuries on the chest and stomach of the victim, who fell down. The informant and his sister (P.W.2) started raising alarm-'Bachao Bachao'. Hearing this alarm several persons, including P.W. 5, 7 and 8, rushed to the place of occurrence. They tried to catch hold of this appellant, but he ran away. P.W.3 and other persons chased the appellant, but they were not successful in arresting him and this appellant ultimately surrendered on 4.4.1995. Observation: On perusal of the cross-examination of this witness, nothing comes in favour of this appellant. On the contrary, this witness, in his cross-examination, has confirmed whatever he stated in his examination-in-Chief. He has also stated that an altercation took place between the appellant and the victim side few days before the occurrence. Observation: On perusal of the cross-examination of this witness, nothing comes in favour of this appellant. On the contrary, this witness, in his cross-examination, has confirmed whatever he stated in his examination-in-Chief. He has also stated that an altercation took place between the appellant and the victim side few days before the occurrence. This witness has also narrated that the appellant has inflicted injuries on the chest and stomach of his mother. Taking into consideration overall evidence given by P.W.3 before the learned trial court, it appears that he has stated about the place of occurrence, date of occurrence, time of occurrence, manner of occurrence, weapon used by this appellant and his deposition is also corroborated by the evidence given by P.W.2 and by the medical evidence given by P.W.1. His presence at his own house, i.e. at the place of occurrence is also natural and P.W.3 appears to be a trustworthy and reliable witness and therefore, no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence of P.W.3. 9. Both the witnesses, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have proved the murder committed by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and they are not interested and tutored witness as claimed by the appellant. 10. P.W.4: On perusal of the deposition given by P.W.4, it appears that he has proved the Seizure List prepared by the Investigating Officer. His signature is at Ext. 2/2 and Ext. 2/3. Blood stained earth was also recovered from the place of occurrence. 11. P.W.5: This witness has proved his signature on Inquest Panchnama and his signature is at Ext. 2/4. This witness has narrated in paragraph 1 of his deposition that at about 10 a.m. he heard a noise (Hulla). He rushed to the place of occurrence. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the deposition of this witness regarding hearing the 'Hullah' at 10 a.m. and expressed his doubt about the time of occurrence. Observation: This contention is not accepted by the court mainly for the reason that the narration of a villager regarding time might not be always correct. There is every chance that first thing a witness will do on hearing a Hullah is to rush to the place of occurrence and it is most unlikely that before rushing to the place of occurrence he will check his watch. There is every chance that first thing a witness will do on hearing a Hullah is to rush to the place of occurrence and it is most unlikely that before rushing to the place of occurrence he will check his watch. Narration of an incident by a witness, so far time is concerned, is based on approximation. In the present case the witness is a rustic villager and not an employee of an office or any institution where everything runs according to time and the employees are compelled to develop a habit of checking time frequently. We have to keep in mind as to how the witness is deposing and the locality and social strata he belongs to. Moreover, deposition of this witness was recorded two years after the incident and therefore, it might be prone to minor discrepancies and exaggerations here and there, depending upon the memory of the witness but that does not mean that it will affect the credibility of the evidences tendered by such witness. Certain discrepancy in this case regarding the time of occurrence does not mean that this particular witness is untrustworthy. The maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in criminal jurisprudence, which means false in one thing, false in everything. There may be slightly wrong narration of the facts or there may be slight exaggeration here and there. But, the slight exaggerated version given by the prosecution has to be separated by the court from the true facts taking into consideration other evidences given by all the prosecution witnesses on record. It is a duty of the court, in criminal matters to separate grain and chaff. In criminal matters, there may be embroidery of untruth, but, it is a duty of the court to separate truth and falsehood from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses Therefore, in the present case, on considering over all evidences of the prosecution witnesses, including documentary evidences on record, like Fardbayan and First Information Report, it appears that the time of occurrence referred to by P.W. 5 in para 1 of his deposition, i.e. 10 a.m. is wrong. In fact, the time of the incident is 12 noon as narrated by the eye witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) and also taking into consideration the Fardbayan, First Information Report and the evidence adduced by the Investigating officer slight discrepancy and exaggeration in referring the time of occurrence is not a material contradiction in deposition of this witness as per Explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the plea taken by the counsel for the appellant regarding time of occurrence is not helpful to the appellant. 12. P.W.9: Is the Investigating Officer, who has proved the Fardbayan, at Ext.3, Inquest Report at Ext. 4, Seizure List at Ext.5 and First Information Report at Ext.6. This Investigating Officer has also proved the place of occurrence, date of occurrence, time of Fardbayan in the F.I.R. 13. P.W.1: On perusal of the deposition of Dr. Bishmbhar Dayal (P.W.1-the doctor who conducted Post-Mortem examination of the deceased) and the post mortem report (Ext. 1), following are the injuries and the opinion of Ante Mortem injuries - (I) An incised wound over left side of chest horisontal at mid clavicular line at the level of 5th inter costal space elliptical in size 1 ½” X ¼” X viscera deep. (ii) an incised wound over below xiphisternum 1 ½” X ¼” X viscera deep elliptical in shape. On dissection : Abdominal and thoracic cavity full of blood & clot. Left lung ruptured. Heart ruptured. Stomach ruptured and empty. Urinary bladder empty. Uterus- Non gravid, small in size. Other visceras intact. (3) Time since death – within 24 hrs. Cause of death – Due to above injuries Weapon used – Sharp cutting and penetrating weapon such as Bhujali. Injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Aforesaid evidence on record shows that the victim had sustained two injuries. Both are incised wounds and in all likelihood caused by a sharp cutting weapon and in the ordinary course of nature are grievous enough to cause death of the deceased. Thus, medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence given by P.W.2 and P.W. 3. 14. Aforesaid evidence on record shows that the victim had sustained two injuries. Both are incised wounds and in all likelihood caused by a sharp cutting weapon and in the ordinary course of nature are grievous enough to cause death of the deceased. Thus, medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence given by P.W.2 and P.W. 3. 14. Observation regarding Independent witnesses not supporting the prosecution case: Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the witnesses like P.W.5 and P.W.7, P.W. 8, who rushed to the place of occurrence have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against this appellant may be set aside because deposition of the eye witnesses are not corroborated by deposition of P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8. This contention is not accepted for the following reasons: (a) P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8 are not eye witnesses. (b) Case of the prosecution is based on the deposition of P.W. 2 and P.W.3 and on perusal of their cross-examination and over all evidences on record, it appears that they are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. (c) The ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. (d) On perusal of the documentary evidences on record, it is apparent that First Information Report was lodged immediately after the occurrence. Appellant is named in the F.I.R. Copy of the F.I.R. Is immediately sent to the Magistrate. Therefore, looking to these evidences on record, even if P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have not supported the prosecution case, it does not make the prosecution case unreliable. Moreover, P.W.5 is an witness of the Inquest. P.W.7 has also stated in his deposition that he had gone to the place of occurrence. Thus, it cannot be said that these three witnesses, i.e. P.W. 5, P.W.7 and P.W. 8, did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, contention raised on this point by counsel for the appellant is not accepted by this court. 15. Observation regarding doubts raised about case number on the post mortem report: on appreciation of the evidences on record, especially that of P.W.1 (Dr. Bishambher Dayal) to be read with the Post-Mortem report, which is at Ext. 1 and also looking to the Fardbayan and First Information Report it appears that the doctor has inadvertently committed an error in recording the number of the case on the post mortem report. Bishambher Dayal) to be read with the Post-Mortem report, which is at Ext. 1 and also looking to the Fardbayan and First Information Report it appears that the doctor has inadvertently committed an error in recording the number of the case on the post mortem report. In the said report it has been mentioned as a unnumbered UD as well as PS. Case of the year 1995, whereas, in fact, it was Rajnagar P.S. Case No.12 of 1995. This is an technical error committed by the doctor and therefore, veracity of the post mortem report can not be doubted on this point and no benefit of this mistake can be given to the appellant accused. 16. Observation regarding absence of F.S.L. Report: it is a mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer. An error on the part of the investigating officer of not bringing F.S.L. Report on record does not make the accused innocent. There are cogent and convincing evidences on record, which proves the guilt of this appellant accused and the prosecution has based its case on the deposition of eye witnesses, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3, who deposed in the court clearly. The F.S.L. Report is a corroborative piece of evidence, which may not be required when trustworthy and reliable eye witnesses are adducing their evidences. Even otherwise also, there is enough corroboration of the deposition of the two eye witnesses. Hence, absence of F.S.L. Report is not fatal to the prosecution case in question. 17. Opinion regarding inimical terms: Regarding allegation of inimical terms between appellant side and the victim side, it appears that prosecution witnesses have deposed that there was no such inimical term. 18. View on the absence of a motive: The counsel for the appellant has argued on the point of absence of a motive behind the occurrence. When case of the prosecution is based on deposition of eye witnesses, motive may not be established by the prosecution. Nevertheless, in the present case one of the eye witnesses, i.e. P.W.3 (informant) in his deposition has stated that an altercation took place between the deceased side and the appellant regarding a Shradh ceremony three-four days prior to the occurrence 19. Nevertheless, in the present case one of the eye witnesses, i.e. P.W.3 (informant) in his deposition has stated that an altercation took place between the deceased side and the appellant regarding a Shradh ceremony three-four days prior to the occurrence 19. In the light of the aforesaid evidences on record, the prosecution has proved the charges levelled upon this appellant and the offence of murder of the deceased committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt and no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting this appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life. Accordingly the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not require any interference by this court. There being no substance, this criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.