JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri K.D.Tewari on behalf of the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad made in Sessions Trial No. 640 of 1986. Under the said judgment and order the appellant Ghulam Hussain has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, it may be recorded that Session Trial No. 640 of 1986 was connected with Sessions Trial No. 641 of 1986 whereunder Ghulam Hussain was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has been acquitted of the said charge under the judgment in question. Therefore, this appeal is confined to the order passed in Sessions Trial No. 640 of 1986 only. 3. The prosecution story as reflected from the records is as follows : A First Information Report was registered at 11:15 a.m. at Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad by one Afzal. In the F.I.R. it was stated that at 10:00 a.m., the son of the first informant namely Majid Hussain informed that the father-in-law of his daughter Salma namely Ghulam Hussain caused large number of injuries by knife to the daughter-in-law. The informant alongwith Islam, Anjar Hussain and other persons on reaching the spot found that the elder brother of the Anwar and his son Jahid have taken Salma for medical treatment to Dr. Ashok and thereafter to the District Government Hospital where she was declared dead. 4. The First Information Report records that the brother of the informant Babu Anwar, the son of the informant Jahid and one Sayeed Ahmad r/o. Kachcha Bagh had seen Ghulam Hussain inflicting injuries by knife upon Salma. On their reaching the spot, Ghulam Hussain ran way. Ghulam Hussain has killed Salma by inflicting blows by knife. The dead body was lying at the hospital. Sub Inspector Dashrath Singh went to the District Hospital where he appointed Abdul Hameed, Anzal Hussain and others as Panches and prepared the inquest. Photograph of the dead body was also taken and after conclusion of the inquest, list was prepared. The dead body was put in a sealed cover. The document alongwith dead body were handed over to Constable Mahavir Singh and Mushir Ahmad Khan for being taken for postmortem. Photograph of the dead body was also taken and after conclusion of the inquest, list was prepared. The dead body was put in a sealed cover. The document alongwith dead body were handed over to Constable Mahavir Singh and Mushir Ahmad Khan for being taken for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. A.K.Goyal on 2.8.1986 at 10:00 a.m. He found 24 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. In the opinion of the medical officer death of Salma was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries. 5. The site plan of the place of arrest of accused Ghulam Hussain and the recovery of the knife was done by R.S.Chauhan on 5.8.1986. 6. The Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 840 of 1986 under Section 302 I.P.C., R.S.Chauhan forwarded the blood stains clothes of the deceased and of accused Ghulam Hussain for chemical analysis. 7. The investigation of the case was taken by K.K.Gautam, Senior Inspector of Police who after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet. The prosecution in support of its case examined Afzal the informant and the father of the deceased as PW-1, Abrar Hussain as PW-2, Jameel as PW-3 the eye-witness, Dashrath Singh who had prepared the inquest was examined as PW-4. The husband of the deceased and son of the accused Akbar Hussain was examined as PW-5. Sayeed Ahmad another eye-witness was examined as PW-6. Zahid Hussain, brother of the deceased was examined as PW-7. The first Investigating Officer Ratan Singh Chauhan was examined as PW-8. Mahavir Singh who had taken the dead body was examined as PW-9. Mohd. Tauseef Ali who was the Investigating Officer in respect of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was examined as PW-10. Mohd. Idrish who had prepared the chik F.I.R. was examined as PW-11. Dr. A.K.Goel who had conducted the postmortem was examined as PW-12 and Dr. Y.C.Gupta who had examined the accused was examined as PW-13. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the offence as alleged and submitted that he has been falsely implicated. One Abdul Shakoor was produced as defence witness and examined as DW-1. 8. The Trial Court after considering the material evidence on record found that the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. to have been brought home against the accused with certainty and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him with life imprisonment. One Abdul Shakoor was produced as defence witness and examined as DW-1. 8. The Trial Court after considering the material evidence on record found that the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. to have been brought home against the accused with certainty and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him with life imprisonment. 9. Challenging the order so made by the Trial Court, Shri K.D.Tripathi, counsel for the appellant tried to take the Court to various evidence on record and to point out various discrepancies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses. 10. It was contended that the accused himself had gone to lodge an F.I.R. with the police station regarding the murder of the wife of his son Akbar Hussain but the police illegally detained him in the police station and implicated him falsely in the murder of the daughter-in-law. In support of his version he produced Abdul Shakoor as DW-1. It was the case of the accused that one Sayeed wanted to have illicit connection with Salma and since she did not oblige him, he developed an enmity with Salma. It was also his case that some bad character persons were frequently visiting the house of the deceased which the husband Akbar Hussain did not relish. With the help of the said suggestion it was sought to be contended that the cause for putting Salma to death, if any, was with the husband, the son of the accused and not upon the father-in-law. It was stated that when some others were inflicting blows upon Salma, the accused resisted, this caused injuries to the accused himself. The injury report submitted by Dr. Y.C.Gupta, PW-13 was already on record. It was, therefore, the case of the accused that somebody else done Salma to death with blows of knife and the accused has been falsely implicated. 11. Akbar Hussain in his testimony specifically denied the allegations so made by his father in respect of the character of his deceased wife. Sayeed and Abdul Shakoor, DW-1 also denied the suggestion of having illicit intimacy with the deceased Salma. Allegations of giving false evidence because of having illicit relations with Salma were also denied by Zahid Hussain PW-7. 12. Akbar Hussain in his testimony specifically denied the allegations so made by his father in respect of the character of his deceased wife. Sayeed and Abdul Shakoor, DW-1 also denied the suggestion of having illicit intimacy with the deceased Salma. Allegations of giving false evidence because of having illicit relations with Salma were also denied by Zahid Hussain PW-7. 12. What has been argued before us and is borne out from the records is that Salma had been done to death by inflicting knife blows on the fateful day which as per the postmortem report were 24 in number. The issue that survives for consideration in the present appeal is as to who had actually done Salma to death. From the testimony of the eyewitness who had seen the accused inflicting the injuries with the help of knife namely Sayeed PW-6, Zahid Hussain PW-7 have been examined in great detail by us. There is sufficient ocular evidence worthy of credit and free from all infirmities to implicate the appellant with the offence. 13. We may also record that the First Information Report had been lodged just after 1 hours from the date and time of incident. Specific role had been assigned to the accused of inflicting injuries upon Salma. The prosecution story is well supported with the eyewitness account of PW-6 and PW-7. The ocular testimony finds collaboration from the medical report and the ante-mortem injuries reported therein. 14. The defence story as set up by the accused qua somebody else having done Salma to death could not be established before the Trial Court nor much could be added before us to take a different view on the basis of the evidence on record. The discrepancies pointed out in the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses are too trivial and do not effect the veracity of the prosecution story. 15. We may record that the incident had taken place at 10:00 a.m. as per the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged within a period of less than 2 hours on the same day. The F.I.R. is prompt and specifically refers to the person who killed at the deceased. 15. We may record that the incident had taken place at 10:00 a.m. as per the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged within a period of less than 2 hours on the same day. The F.I.R. is prompt and specifically refers to the person who killed at the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another, (2012) 4 SCC 379 , in paragraph 12 has specifically held that FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. We are also satisfied that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on true and correct appreciation of evidence on record. Minor discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statement are too trivial in nature to dislodge the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 , has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false, sense of observation differs from person to person. Discrepancy in testimony of a witness caused by lapse of memory are acceptable. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Sayed Darain Ahsan alias Darain v. State of West Bengal and another, (2012) 4 SCC 352 , has held that if the medical evidence in the facts of the case only supports the ocular evidence, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved on minor discrepancies. Consequently the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the eyewitnesses corroborated by the medical report has to be sustained. 17. In the totality of the circumstances on record we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused with certainty. No material discrepancy could be pointed out so as to discredit the same. In such circumstances we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The accused is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Let the accused be arrested to undergo the sentence. —————