JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.1982 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No.156 of 1981 (State Vs. Garib) P.S.Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years and two years respectively in aforesaid offences. However, both sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 19.8.1980 complainant, Munna was busy in making arrangements for pilgrims in his capacity as Pariwal at Vindhyawasini Devi temple district Mirzapur around 3 pm. It is stated that appellant, Garib also arrived there and threw a bomb upon the complainant, Munna from northern stairs of the temple. The complainant hid himself behind the pillar of temple and thereby saved himself. But a constable of Provincial Armed Constabulary (in short P.A.C.) namely, Ram Asre Singh (P.W. 5) sustained minor injuries in his left hand from splinters of the bombs. Police Station Vindhyachal is nearby, therefore, a prompt F.I.R.(Ex. Ka-1) was lodged at 3: 30 p.m. Injured Ram Asre Singh (P.W. 5) also accompanied complainant, Munna (P.W. 1). A chick report (Exh. Ka-3) was carved out. The incident was investigated by Chandra Bhan Dubey (P.W. 6). During course of investigation, the remains of exploded bombs(Ex.-1) were also collected and sealed in the presence of witnesses after preparation of memo of recovery as Ex. Ka-6. The constable Ram Asre Singh was examined by Dr. Amichand Gupta (P.W. 4) on 19.8.1980 at about 8: 25 pm. and medical report was prepared as Ex. Ka-3. The medical report contains following injuries on the person of Ram Asre Singh: (i) Multiple abrasions in an area of 5 Cm.*3 cm. on the back of middle of left fore arm. 3. On completion of investigation, the trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 324 I.P.C. The appellant denied charges and claimed to be tried. During course of trial prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, complainant, Munna (P.W. 1), Moti (P.W. 2), Diwakar Mishra (P.W. 3), Dr. Amichand (P.W. 4), Constable Ram Asre Singh, injured (P.W.5) and Chandra Bhan Dubey (P.W. 6). During course of trial prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, complainant, Munna (P.W. 1), Moti (P.W. 2), Diwakar Mishra (P.W. 3), Dr. Amichand (P.W. 4), Constable Ram Asre Singh, injured (P.W.5) and Chandra Bhan Dubey (P.W. 6). On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant, Garib was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all allegations but conceded that he was employee of one Lal Saheb and also admitted that there was enmity between Chhabile, father-in-law of complainant, Munna and his employer Lal Saheb. No evidence was given on behalf of appellant in defence. On conclusion of trial, the trial Judge found sufficient evidence against the appellant, Garib and therefore, convicted him under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 324 I.P.C. as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 29.11.1982. This judgment is under challenge before this Court in this criminal appeal. 4. Heard Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel holding brief for Sri Vinay Prakash Shukla, learned Senior counsel on behalf of appellant and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant Garib has been falsely implicated on account of enmity and that; he had no motive to commit the offence. This argument is contradictory as both prosecution and appellant, Garib have admitted factum of bad blood between rival parties. This fact has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and conceded by the appellant during course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was admitted enmity between Lal Saheb and Chhabile, father-in-law of complainant, Munna. It has further been argued that some incident had taken place during night time but appellant was falsely implicated by manipulating the official documents. Submission is that prosecution evidence is full of material discrepancies which have not been explained by prosecution. Proper appraisal of these discrepancies has not been done by the trial court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that as many as four eye witnesses have supported the prosecution allegations including one constable Ram Asre Singh, injured. There was no occasion for P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh to go along with false implication as he was the member of P.A.C. and had been posted there in his official capacity. 7. Coming to the facts of the case, it is evident that complainant, Munna did not sustain injury in the incident. There was no occasion for P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh to go along with false implication as he was the member of P.A.C. and had been posted there in his official capacity. 7. Coming to the facts of the case, it is evident that complainant, Munna did not sustain injury in the incident. However, P.W. 5, Constable Ram Asre Singh of 36 Battalion P.A.C. present in official capacity sustained minor injuries from the splinters of bomb which demonstrates his presence on the spot. P.W. 1, Munna has also testified that while he was busy in making arrangements for pilgrims, appellant, Garib threw a bomb upon the complainant from the distance of only 4-5 steps. He saved himself by hiding behind the pillar of a temple but explosion caused minor injuries to P.W. 5, constable Ram Asre Singh who was present there on official duty. The appellant immediately fled from the spot. Apparently the explosion of bombs resulted in chaos and perhaps the appellant managed to flee from the spot in this melee. P.W. 1, Munna has vividly delineated the entire brief episode. The cross examination was conducted but nothing worthwhile could be gathered from it. The fact that the appellant threw the bombs from distance of only 4 or 5 steps makes it abundantly clear that P.W. 1 Munna could not have committed any mistake in identifying the perpetrator of the crime. It is pertinent to point out that he was not alone in identifying the appellant, Garib. As many as three persons, namely, Diwakar Mishra (P.W. 3), Constable Ram Asre Singh of P.A.C. (P.W. 5) also identified the appellant. Moti, P.W. 2 (Barber) has also reiterated the allegations of complainant, Munna, P.W. 1. He has admitted that as a Barber he was present in the premises of temple for performing Mundan Sanskar (hair cut). Evidently pilgrims get the Mundan done within the premises of temple and barbers along with priests are present at any given time inside the temple. P.W. 2, Moti, barber has reinforced the allegations of P.W. 1, Munna complainant. He has stated that not only he was present inside the temple at the time of incident but had also witnessed it. He has testified that at the time of incident large number of pilgrims were not present inside the temple. P.W. 2, Moti, barber has reinforced the allegations of P.W. 1, Munna complainant. He has stated that not only he was present inside the temple at the time of incident but had also witnessed it. He has testified that at the time of incident large number of pilgrims were not present inside the temple. His testimony has also established that large number of barbers are normally present inside the premises of temple for the purposes of Mundan Sanskar (hair cutting). Therefore, the presence of P.W. 2, Moti inside the temple was hardly surprising. 8. P.W. 3, Diwakar Mishra has also testified against the appellant. He has stated that appellant threw the bomb towards complainant, Munna which caused injury to constable, Ram Asre Singh. However, complainant, Munna saved himself by hiding behind temple pillar. Diwakar Mishra has admitted his distant relationship with complainant, Munna (P.W.1). But the star witness for prosecution was of course constable, Ram Asre Singh of P.A.C. for the simple reason that this witness had sustained minor injuries from splinters of the bomb. Secondly, this witness was present on the spot in his official capacity as a part of security detail. Thirdly, this witness is not resident of Vindhyachal Town or had nothing to do with temple. He was present in the temple in his official capacity. He was not part of two groups as indicated by evidence. His posting in the temple precincts was not old enough to develop closer relationship with either groups yet he was in position to recognize the different players in the episode and he has indeed testified to this effect also. 9. P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh has deposed that he had sustained injuries from splinters of the bomb. He knew appellant because he used to be present in the temple premises quite frequently and that; he was also performing his security duties in the temple almost everyday. This testimony leaves no doubt that P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh injured was in the position to recognize and identify appellant, Garib. It is true that P.W. -5 Ram Asre Singh was not the intended victim of appellant but Ram Asre Singh did sustain minor injuries in the episode from the splinters of the exploded bomb. This fact has been reiterated by P.W. 6, Chandra Bhan Dubey as well as P.W. 4, Dr. Ami Chand Gupta. The incident took place on 19.8.1980. It is true that P.W. -5 Ram Asre Singh was not the intended victim of appellant but Ram Asre Singh did sustain minor injuries in the episode from the splinters of the exploded bomb. This fact has been reiterated by P.W. 6, Chandra Bhan Dubey as well as P.W. 4, Dr. Ami Chand Gupta. The incident took place on 19.8.1980. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly. The medical examination of victim was conducted on the same evening. There was hardly any time for concoction or false implication. 10. It is pertinent to point out that presence of all witnesses, namely, Munna (P.W. 1) Moti (P.W. 2), Diwakar Mishra, priest (P.W. 3) and Constable Ram Asre Singh (P.W.5) was quite natural. Moti (barber) was busy in search of his clients for Mundan Sanskar. Diwakar Mishra priest was involved with pilgrims and Munna was performing duty of Pariwal of the temple. Constable Ram Asre Singh of course was part of security detail. He was not beholden to any rival group. No such allegations has either been levelled or proved. There is absolutely no evidence on record to demonstrate that incident had taken place at some other time than at 3 pm. In fact no such suggestion has been given to any eye witnesses by defence counsel. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that two witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, Munna and P.W. 3, Diwakar Mishra are related and that is why there evidence should be discarded. I am afraid, there is no rule of evidence which contemplates that relationship of witnesses is a ground for rejection of their testimony. In any case, this argument itself is not sustainable for the simple reason that P.W. 3, Moti, barber and P.W. 5, Constable Ram Asre Singh are not related with any principal players in this incident. Even the testimony of P.W. 1, Munna and P.W. 3, Diwakar Mishra cannot be discarded merely because they are related to each other. Each, testimony has to be judged on the basis of quality and credibility. There is no legal requirement to discard the testimony of related witnesses. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are some discrepancies between the testimony of prosecution witnesses. It appears that P.W. 1, Munna has deposed that Constable had asked him about the identity of perpetrator of crime immediately after the incident. There is no legal requirement to discard the testimony of related witnesses. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are some discrepancies between the testimony of prosecution witnesses. It appears that P.W. 1, Munna has deposed that Constable had asked him about the identity of perpetrator of crime immediately after the incident. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this indicates that P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh was not aware of identity of the perpetrator of crime. I am afraid, this is not sufficient to discard the testimony of P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh. First, complainant Munna has not named any constable who had asked him about the identity of the perpetrator of crime. P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh has testified that at the time of incident, several other constables were present on the spot in their official capacity. It was incumbent upon the defence counsel to ascertain the identity of the constable who had asked P.W. 1, Munna about the name of perpetrator of the crime. No such thing was done by defence counsel. To cull out one sentence from middle of deposition and argue that constable Ram Asre Singh was given identity of perpetrator of the crime by P.W. 1, Munna, is not justified specifically in the light of the fact that P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh has consistently testified that he knew appellant, Garib since 5-6 months prior to the incident and that; he was consistently present in the temple for performing his duty as security personnel and that; he had been meeting appellant quite frequently. In fact he has testified that he had also been indulging in conversation with the appellant quite frequently. Apart from that, it is pertinent to point out that this witness, P.W. 5 Ram Asre Singh had emphatically denied the suggestion that he had implicated appellant in the false case at the instigation of complainant Munna and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve his testimony. He has narrated the entire episode in a credible and trustworthy manner which inspires confidence regarding his testimony. In any case, minor discrepancies and contradictions are available virtually in every trial and the minor discrepancies by themselves are not a reasonable ground for discarding the evidence of such witnesses. It is the duty of the Court to see whether these stated contradictions and discrepancies adversely affects the core of prosecution story or not. In any case, minor discrepancies and contradictions are available virtually in every trial and the minor discrepancies by themselves are not a reasonable ground for discarding the evidence of such witnesses. It is the duty of the Court to see whether these stated contradictions and discrepancies adversely affects the core of prosecution story or not. If no adverse, prejudice is caused to the prosecution story then such contradictions and discrepancies should be ignored. This Court cannot ignore the fact that P.W. 5, Ram Asre Singh has emphatically stated that appellant had thrown a bomb towards complainant, Munna and that; he had witnessed this incident. This emphatic statement by independent official person cannot be ignored unless there are compelling reasons and this Court believes that there are no compelling reason for doubting the testimony of P.W. 5, Constable Ram Asre Singh. 13. It is evident that trial court has gone through the entire evidence on record. The court has considered the existence of prior enmity, the existence of minor contradictions and other arguments and yet decided that there are sufficient material on record to conclude that appellant was the person who threw bomb on complainant Munna (P.W.1) which also resulted in injuries to Constable Ram Asre Singh, P.W.5. This Court is in agreement with the findings of trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that more than 32 years have elapsed, therefore, sentences should be reduced. I am afraid this plea cannot be accepted for the reason that trial court itself has awarded merely four years and two years of punishment in Sections 307 I.P.C. and 324 I.P.C. which means that appellant will have to undergo only four years of punishment which is not excessive for this kind of incident and in the analysis, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the findings of trial court. 14. Considering all facts and circumstances present criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. Let a certified copy of the order be sent to the concerned court through Sessions Judge, Mirzapur for compliance.