Judgment : Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. On 29th May, 2001 one Sirajul Sk. was returning home with Jamadar Sk., the victim, riding on separate bicycles at about 8 p.m. When they reached the garden house of one Chhaya Ghosh, the appellant and some others started assaulting Jamadar Sk. with a chopper (hasua) and pasli. They hit the cycle on which Sirajul Sk. Was riding and told him to flee away. Accordingly Sirajul Sk. left the place in order to save himself. He rushed to tell Nur Mahammad Sk., the son of Jamadar Sk., that his father was being killed. Nur Mahammad Sk. rushed to the spot and found his father with his throat and belly slit open. The FIR was lodged by Nur Mahammad Sk. at about 9.15 p.m. The police reached the spot immediately and conducted an inquest in the light of a hurricane lamp. The body was sent for the post mortem examination. The Doctor who conducted post mortem opined that the death was due to cardio respiratory failure, shock and haemorrhage from multiple injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The appellant and other accused persons, namely, Alauddin Mallick, Altab Mallick and Minaruddin Mallick were arrested soon thereafter. The case against the accused was committed to the Sessions Court. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Lalbag, Murshidabad. The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Alauddin died during the trial and the case against him has been filed forever. The other two accused persons Altab Mallick and Minaruddin Mallick were acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only); in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution has relied on the testimonies of 10 witnesses in order to establish the offence against the appellant. PW 1, Sirajul Sk. Is the eye-witness to the incident. He has narrated the incident and reiterated the incident mentioned in the FIR. He has stated that he and Jamadar Sk. were riding on separate bicycles on 29th May, 2001. They were returning home at around 8 p.m. from Kadamsorif More. PW 1, Sirajul Sk. Is the eye-witness to the incident. He has narrated the incident and reiterated the incident mentioned in the FIR. He has stated that he and Jamadar Sk. were riding on separate bicycles on 29th May, 2001. They were returning home at around 8 p.m. from Kadamsorif More. They reached Chhaya Ghosh’s garden house when Jangli, the appellant herein, and his son Alauddin started assaulting Jamadar Sk. with a chopper and pasli. He has identified the appellant and Alauddin who was the other accused in this case in Court. He has mentioned that they told him to flee away and then he “ran away out of fear.” He returned to the spot after informing the members of the family of Jamadar Sk. that he was being killed. Other people had also rushed to the spot. He saw Jamadar lying there injured with marks of injuries on his chest and the back of the neck. Jamadar’s cycle was seized by the police and he was a witness to that seizure. The witness has candidly stated that when he saw Jamadar Sk. Who was his neighbour being assaulted mercilessly, he fled out of fear. He was able to identify the appellant in the moonlight. He has mentioned the names of the persons who rushed there besides Nur Mahammad Sk., the son of Jamadar Sk. He has described a pasli as a semi-circular sharp edged weapon. According to this witness, Nur Mahammad Sk. had a long standing dispute with Jangli Sk. and his son. 3. PW 2 is Nur Mahammad Sk, the son of the victim. He claims to be an eye-witness and is the complainant. His complaint was written by PW 3. This witness has stated that Sirajul Sk. informed him that his father was killed by the appellant and his brothers and sons. He has denied that Sirajul Sk. was his relative. 4. PW 3 is the scribe of the complaint. He has stated that he went to the police station to write the FIR at about 10 p.m. However, the FIR itself indicates that it was lodged at 9.15 p.m. 5. PW 4 is a villager and a relative of Jamadar Sk. PW 5 lived ten minutes away from the spot where the body was found. These witnesses ane PW 6 are witnesses to the inquest report. 6. PW 4 is a villager and a relative of Jamadar Sk. PW 5 lived ten minutes away from the spot where the body was found. These witnesses ane PW 6 are witnesses to the inquest report. 6. PW 7 is a constable who escorted the dead body of the victim to Lalbag Hospital for the post mortem. 7. PW 9 is the Autopsy Surgeon. He has described the injuries sustained by the victim thus in the Post Mortem Report: 1. Almost total Decapitating injury at neck at the level of 1/3-1/4 he tral. 2. Penetrating injury across the lower chest and left abdomen height 8”x3”x4” with expulsion of intestinal tissue. Small multiple penetrating injury four (4) in no about 3” depth on right hypochondriacal right side. Larynx and trachea injured (cut out) – penetrating injury peritoneum – opened. The Doctor has mentioned that injury nos.1 and 2 were inflicted by a sharp edged weapon. He has admitted that he did not mention the whether rigor mortis had overcome the body in his report. 8. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer in this case. 9. Mr. Mohan Kumar Sanyal, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that there are too many contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution and, therefore, a conviction based on such evidence is not tenable. He has drawn our attention to the fact that while the FIR mentions the names of five persons along with Jangli Sk. who assaulted the victim, PW 1 who is supposedly an eye-witness has spoken only about two persons assaulting the victim, Jamadar Sk. The learned Counsel submitted that PW 2 being the son of the victim has embellished his version of the incident by naming five other persons not only in the FIR but also in his evidence before the Court. The learned Counsel then submitted that the point of time of lodging of the FIR is also not definite. He pointed out the contradiction in the time of recipt of the first information; while it is noted as 21.15 hrs. The learned Counsel then submitted that the point of time of lodging of the FIR is also not definite. He pointed out the contradiction in the time of recipt of the first information; while it is noted as 21.15 hrs. on 29th May, 2001 in the FIR, PW 3, the scribe of the FIR, has testified that he went to the police station with PW 2 to write the FIR at about 10 p.m. The learned Counsel then submitted that if the FIR is lodged after 10 p.m. as mentioned by PW 3, the inquest could not have been held at 9.45 p.m. According to the learned Counsel, these contradictions and discrepancies go to the root of the matter and therefore, the evidence of the witnesses is unbelievable and the conviction based on such evidence must be set aside. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ashrit & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1981 SC 942 where the Supreme Court has observed that where there is an absence of corroboration to a material extent in all particulars it was extremely hazardous to convict a person on the basis of such testimony of partisan witnesses. 10. It is true that the FIR mentions five persons and PW 2 also speaks of there being five assailants of the deceased. On perusing the deposition of PW 2 it is evident that he was not any eye witness to the incident but a post occurrence witness. PW 1 who is the eye-witness has mentioned only two persons as the assailants, one of whom was the appellant. The Trial Court has acquitted the other accused and convicted only the appellant. His son Alauddin who was also one of the accused died during the trial. If PW 1 wanted to embellish his version of the incident, he could have done so, being an eye-witness. Instead, he chose to remain faithful to what actually occurred when the victim was assaulted. The evidence of PW 1 as a whole does not create any doubt or suspicion with regard to the role attributed to the appellant. He has spoken about the appellant and his son striking the victim with a chopper and pasli which are both sharp edged weapons. The evidence of PW 1 as a whole does not create any doubt or suspicion with regard to the role attributed to the appellant. He has spoken about the appellant and his son striking the victim with a chopper and pasli which are both sharp edged weapons. The gruesome manner in which they assaulted the victim is amply proved by the fact that the victim was nearly decapitated as seen from the post mortem report. The medical evidence on record supports the version of PW 1. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve him. His testimony is credible and has a ring of truth to it. 11. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, the learned Counsel for the State, has rightly submitted that the contradictions which may be present in the evidence led before the Trial Court are not vital and it was natural that the witnesses had forgotten some minor details after the lapse of time. The learned Counsel pointed out that though the evidence on record establishes the fact that there was some enmity between the victim and the appellant, PW 1 was not related to the victim and was not inimical to the appellant. Therefore, his evidence cannot be considered to be a coloured version of the incident, urged Mr. Gupta. The learned Counsel submitted that the testimony of PW 1 is corroborated by his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, according to Mr. Gupta, the version of PW 1 must be accepted. 12. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. However, the contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are minor. Moreover, the evidence of these witnesses has been recorded about six years after the incident. Therefore, it may not have been possible for the witnesses to remember each minor detail of the incident. The criticism of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the evidence of PW 1 is unfounded. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant harped upon the fact that there was a seizure of only one cycle whereas the victim and Sirajul Sk. were riding on two separate bicycles. According to the learned Counsel, had PW 1 in fact witnessed the incident, his cycle would also have been seized by the police. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant harped upon the fact that there was a seizure of only one cycle whereas the victim and Sirajul Sk. were riding on two separate bicycles. According to the learned Counsel, had PW 1 in fact witnessed the incident, his cycle would also have been seized by the police. He urged that PW 1 was not an eye witness as he had stated in his evidence that the assailants hit his cycle and told him to flee away. The words used by the PW 1 are “I ran away out of fear”. The Counsel submitted that if the witness was in fact cycling, the question of him “running away” would not have arisen. He submitted that the very fact that PW 1 has mentioned that he ran away from the spot of occurrence shows that he would have dropped his cycle there and then run away. The learned Counsel also submitted that because no other cycle found at the spot it shows that PW 1 was not present at the place of the occurrence. This submission of the learned Counsel is unsustainable. A glance at the testimony of PW 1 indicates that while he was cycling, the appellant hit his cycle and directed him to flee away from the place. Although the words “ran away” have been stated to be used by the witness, the actual meaning appears to have been lost in translation. The witness obviously meant that he cycled away fearing for his life. Therefore, his cycle was not found at the spot of the incident. Even assuming the prosecution had failed to recover the second cycle, i.e., the one which PW 1 was riding; it would not necessarily lead to the inference that PW 1 had not witnessed the assault. 14. There is no recovery of the weapons allegedly used in the assault on the victim. However, the injuries sustained by the victim which are described in the post mortem report as well as by PW 9, the autopsy surgeon, leave no manner of doubt that the death of the victim occurred due to these injuries. Those injuries were inflicted by the appellant and Alaudin as narrated by PW1. 15. On scanning the evidence and the impugned judgment critically, in our opinion, the Sessions Court has marshalled the facts in this case properly. Those injuries were inflicted by the appellant and Alaudin as narrated by PW1. 15. On scanning the evidence and the impugned judgment critically, in our opinion, the Sessions Court has marshalled the facts in this case properly. The evidence has been scrutinised and assessed properly by the Sessions Court and we have no reason to differ with the view of the Trial Court. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Sessions Court is affirmed. 17. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.