Judgment Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by judgment impugned dated 11th September, 2003/15th September, 2003 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, II, Khunti in connection with Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2002 arising out of Arki P.S. Case No. 23 of 2001 recorded on the basis of Fardbeyan of informant, Durga Munda on 23rd August, 2001 at 1.30 P.M. 2. The prosecution story, inter alia, alleges that on 22nd August, 2001 in the night, the informant, his father Sanika Mundadeceased aged about 45 years and his elder brother, Samu Munda aged about 15 years were crushing paddy on the eastern side of Veranda of their house in the light of Dibri. On the southern direction his three sisters, namely, Bina Kumari aged 18 years (blind), Parvati Kumari aged 7 years and Sukru Kumari aged 3 years were having their food. At 8.30 P.M. suddenly Chamara Munda and his brother Jura Munda of the same village, aged 40 years and 37 years respectively, came armed with Tangi and Balua in their respective hands and without any statement started assaulting the informant's father, Sanika Munda with Tangi and Balua. The informant and other members of the family started crying and shouting at them not to kill him but they did not relent and threatened that if they kept on shouting they would also be killed. It is alleged that these two accused persons killed his father by making serious assault upon him with Tangi and Balua and thereafter fled away. According to the informant, the reason for such an incidence is a dispute relating to land. Thereafter, while the informant proceeded to the police station along with Chaukidar Budhu Mahua the police came. 3. After completion of investigation and submission of chargesheet cognizance was taken under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons by learned A.C.J.M. Khunti and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 14th February, 2002. On denial of their involvement in the incidence the trial proceeded. 4. The prosecution has produced 9 witnesses, of whom the informant, Durga Munda is P.W.8 and his elder brother, Samu Munda is P.W. 1, both of them are eye witnesses to the occurrence. On denial of their involvement in the incidence the trial proceeded. 4. The prosecution has produced 9 witnesses, of whom the informant, Durga Munda is P.W.8 and his elder brother, Samu Munda is P.W. 1, both of them are eye witnesses to the occurrence. The mother of the informant, Jabni Mundaian is P.W. 2 also claims to have seen the occurrence while she was giving meal to her children and has also referred to the land dispute as being cause of murder. P.W. 3, Daud Pahan has proved his signature on the seizurelist marked as Ext.1 and P.W. 4, Masidas Munda has proved his signature on the carbon copy of the seizurelist marked as Ext. 1/1. P.W. 5, Ramay Munda has proved his signature on the inquest report marked as Ext. 2 while P.W. 6, Ashina Munda has proved his signature on the carbon copy of inquest report marked as Ext. 2/1. 5. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutt, who has deposed as P.W. 7 and exhibited the same as Ext.3. He has found the following injuries: (i) Head from rest part of the body decapitated at neck caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon from posterior side cutting trachea, spinal cord vertebra and great vessels besides all tissue of neck; (ii) One incised wound on left side of thumb 1/2" x 1/2" x1/3'. He has found no other injuries on any part of the body. The stomach was filled with fluid and part from food material. Time since death around 36 hrs. The postmortem was conducted on 24th August, 2001 at 1.30 P.M. Rigor Mortis was found to be present. The cause of death in the opinion of the Medical Officer is due to cut through neck causing cessation of vital function caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. In his crossexamination, he opined that the injuries were such which may be caused by Kulhari as well. 6. The Investigating Officer, Rameshwar Ram appeared as P.W. 9 and proved the Fardbeyan as Ext. 4 as also the formal F.I.R. as Ext. 5. He also proved the carbon copy of the inquest report as Ext. 2/2 and seizurelist Ext. 1/2. He also proved certain pages of case diary as Ext. 6. 7. 6. The Investigating Officer, Rameshwar Ram appeared as P.W. 9 and proved the Fardbeyan as Ext. 4 as also the formal F.I.R. as Ext. 5. He also proved the carbon copy of the inquest report as Ext. 2/2 and seizurelist Ext. 1/2. He also proved certain pages of case diary as Ext. 6. 7. The learned Trial court upon appreciation of the material evidence came to the conclusion that P.W. 1 Samu Munda and P.W. 8 the informant Durga Munda along with P.W.2 Jabni Mundaian are eye witnesses to the occurrence, who have fully supported the manner of occurrence, the date and time of occurrence and as also identified the accused persons. The learned trial court has found the presence of P.W. 2, mother of the informant, at the place of occurrence as wholly credible as she was serving food to the children. The learned trial court did not find any reason to doubt the statement of P.W. 1, who had given different name of weapon used as he had stated that weapon of sharp edged was used in making assault on the neck of his father by the accused persons which resulted in his death. The learned trial court also found from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 that they had seen the dead body of the deceased in his house having injuries on the neck and they had also signed as witnesses on the carbon copy of the inquest report. The learned trial court after consideration of the grounds raised by defence counsel, did not find any serious contradiction in the prosecution story to disbelieve the act of killing by the accused appellants at around 8.30 in the night on 22nd August, 2001 by sharp cutting weapon on the neck, while the family members of the deceased namely his elder son P.W.1, P.W. 8 the informant, and his wife P.W.2 were very much present on the spot. He also found the injuries on the neck caused by sharp cutting weapon corroborated by medical evidence. In such circumstances, the learned trial court did not find the minor inconsistencies in certain statements of the prosecution witnesses of any serious consequence when there was enough direct evidence to uphold the culpability of the accused persons of the act of murder of the informant's father. 8. In such circumstances, the learned trial court did not find the minor inconsistencies in certain statements of the prosecution witnesses of any serious consequence when there was enough direct evidence to uphold the culpability of the accused persons of the act of murder of the informant's father. 8. We have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. We have also gone through the material evidence on record and re-appreciated the same. The prosecution case on hand hinges upon the testimony of ocular witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Samu Munda, P.W. 8 informant Durga Munda and P.W. 2 Jabni Mundaian, the wife of the deceased. The matrix of facts as narrated through the mouth of these witnesses reveal a clear natural sequence of events when at 8.30 in the evening on the fateful date while three sisters of the informant were having their meal being served by their mother P.W. 2, the informant along with elder brother and his father were indulged in crushing paddy on the eastern side of Veranda of their house where an earthen lamp (Dibri) was giving light. All these three prosecution witnesses are wholly natural eyewitnesses to the occurrence and their presence cannot be questioned on that account. The incidence did not occur in the mid night or dead of night when the presence of any one of them could be questioned. These P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 being the sons of the deceased were helping their father in crushing paddy at the relevant point of time when the fatal assault was inflicted by these two appellants through sharp cutting weapon i.e. Tangi and Balua with which they respectively assaulted. P.W. 8 informant is consistent regarding these two sharp cutting weapons used by the appellants to strike at the neck of his father which gave the fatal injuries. Though P.W. 1, Samu Munda has given a different name of weapon used by these two persons, namely, Kaunda and Kami, but he has also explained that they were sharp cutting weapons. The time, place and manner of occurrence have been consistently deposed by these witnesses which establishes the commission of the crime by the appellants. Though P.W. 1, Samu Munda has given a different name of weapon used by these two persons, namely, Kaunda and Kami, but he has also explained that they were sharp cutting weapons. The time, place and manner of occurrence have been consistently deposed by these witnesses which establishes the commission of the crime by the appellants. Inconsistency, if any, such as in the deposition of the P.W. 8 about nonexistence of land dispute will not dent the prosecution case as his presence and description of the manner of offence being a natural eye witness to the occurrence is otherwise unimpeachable. Similarly, the description of manner of commission of crime by other two eye witnesses and the presence of sharp cutting injuries on the neck of the deceased which was cause of death opined by the Medical Officer P.W. 7 Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutt, does not leave any iota of doubt relating to the involvement of these two accused appellants in the commission of crime. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid in catena of judgment that minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 288 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: Para 32: It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. “Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.” Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. 10. Learned counsel for the defence has laboured to impress that P.W. 8 had, in his cross-examination, stated that accused Chamara Munda had assaulted 56 times while Jura Munda had cut his father 34 times which was grossly inconsistent with the nature of injuries found on the deceased. However, such exaggeration, if any, on the part of the informant will not lead to disbelieve the prosecution case itself of assault by sharpcutting weapon by the accused appellants on the neck of the deceased in presence of other natural eyewitnesses to the incidence taking place at 8.30 P.M. in the night on the Veranda in their own house. Even after giving due consideration to the arguments of the appellants' counsel, we are not inclined to doubt the prosecution story in its essence when read as a whole along with material evidence on the point of date, time, place and manner of occurrence. It is quite logical that the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem at around 1.30 P.M. on 24th August, 2001, has found Rigor Mortis present on the body and time since death around 36 hours as the incidence is stated to have taken place on 22.8.2001 at 8.30 p.m. in the night. The prosecution, therefore, has been able to establish the charge of murder of deceased by two accused appellants with common intention beyond any reasonable doubt. We therefore confirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court upon the accused persons by the impugned judgment. 11. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.