JUDGMENT Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by sole accused/convict against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.1982 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. No. 347 of 1981, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC and was sentenced with life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. 2. The brief facts relating to the appeal are that on 31.7.1981, on written report submitted by Suresh Chandra Singh, the F.I.R. was lodged at case crime No. 171 of 1981 in P.S. Karvi, District Banda at 7:15 p.m. on 31.7.1981, under Section 307 IPC against one named accused Keddi. The averments made in F.I.R. in brief are as under : “I Suresh Chandra Singh, Kamlesh, Ram Singh, Awadh Bihari and Prem on return from Chitrakoot, were on way to their villages at about 6:45 p.m., were purchasing PRASAD from the shop of Ram Charan near Pechghar Temple; that in the meantime accused Keddi resident of Shankar Bazaar, Karvi came from behind and stabbed me in back and on left side of abdomen, and when Prem proceeded for his rescue, the accused also gave 2-3 knife blows to him; that the applicant fell unconscious and was brought by rickshaw puller Bhaiyya Lal to police station; that there were some hot talks between the applicant and accused Keddi about 3-4 days ago at the time of playing cards, on account of which he made an attempt on the life of applicant.” 3. Upon lodging of F.I.R., investigation was started, the first informant Suresh Chandra Singh was medically examined, his dying declaration was recorded and considering his serious condition, he was referred to Allahabad for further treatment. The blood stained and simple mud was collected from the spot and upon receiving the information of death of Prem due to incised wounds caused by accused, Section 302 IPC was added. The post-mortem of body of Prem was conducted, statements of witnesses were recorded and upon collecting evidence with the completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against sole accused under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. 4. The case was committed to sessions, where charges under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to first informant Suresh Chandra and under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Prem, were framed. 4. The case was committed to sessions, where charges under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to first informant Suresh Chandra and under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Prem, were framed. In order to prove its case, prosecution produced first informant Suresh Chandra Singh as P.W.1, eye-witness Kamlesh Kumar as P.W.2, Medical Officer Dr. S.D.S. Chauhan, who conducted the post-mortem of Prem and prepared injury report of first informant upon his medical examination, as P.W.3, another eye-witness Awadh Bihari as P.W.4, Naib Tehsildar V.N. Chaudhary, who recorded dying declaration of first informant as P.W.5, Investigating Officer D.S. Verma as P.W.6, constable Chandrika Prasad, who took the dead body of Prem for post-mortem as P.W.7 and constable Jai Prakash, who prepared chik F.I.R. and made entry in general diary as P.W.8. 5. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of sole accused Kedar Nath @ Keddi was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and produced two witnesses in defence evidence, (1) Madho Ram Chandra Marathe, the photographer, as D.W.1 and (2) Sri Akhtar Siddiqui Advocate as D.W.2. 6. After completion of defence evidences, learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the penal lawyer for the State and learned counsel for the accused and upon analysing the evidence on record and evidence, the argument advanced before him came to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully established the charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against the accused and holding him guilty of the two offences, convicted him under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. No fine was imposed on the accused/appellant by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the sole accused/convict has preferred this appeal. 7. Heard Sri R.K. Vaishya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rajeev Gupta and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 8. No fine was imposed on the accused/appellant by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the sole accused/convict has preferred this appeal. 7. Heard Sri R.K. Vaishya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rajeev Gupta and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated; that the impugned judgment and order of conviction are bad on fact and law; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted wrongly and illegally in relying on the untrustworthy testimonies of prosecution witnesses; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted wrongly and illegally in discarding the reliable and trustworthy evidence produced by defence witnesses; that there are several contradictions in the prosecution evidence; that the medical evidence on record suggests that injuries of first informant Suresh Chandra Singh and those of deceased Prem, could have been sustained by different knives; that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellant had any motive to make attempt on the life of first informant or cause death of Prem; that no independent witnesses of the spot has been produced by the prosecution while there were several houses and shops around the alleged place of occurrence; that for non-production of natural and independent witnesses, adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution; that there are several discrepancies in the investigation, which shows that F.I.R. has been lodged at a subsequent time and has been ante dated and ante timed; that the site plan of the place of occurrence is not correct; that the dying declaration of first informant has no evidenciary value, as the first informant is alive; that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses, which make their testimonies untrustworthy; that the prosecution story that first informant and his associates were going to purchase ‘PRASAD’ from the shop of Ram Charan, is absolutely wrong and highly improbable; that the first informant and his associates, who allegedly visited Chitrakoot and completed Parikrama of “Kamadgiri” (taken a round of Kamadgiri) did not purchase PRASAD from there and were going to purchase PRASAD from the shop of Ram Charan after returning from Chitrakoot and before leaving to their villages; that prosecution story to above effect has been, concocted, in order to falsely implicate the appellant; that it appears that the first informant and his associates were gambling with playing cards and during gambling, over some dispute in heat of passion/sudden provocation, the injuries were caused to deceased and first informant by each other and after deciding the dispute amicably, just to explain their injuries and death of Prem to the police, since a third person was required, so the appellant with whom the first informant had inimical terms since school times and on account of party bandi, has been falsely implicated; that it appears that villagers of village Kashai got the matter compromised between the persons sustained injuries and falsely roped the appellant in collusion with police; that the learned trial Court failed to bring out the real culprits by not deeply appreciating the evidence on record the suggestions put by defence as well as the circumstances of the case; that the lodging of F.I.R. within half an hour of the occurrence, is highly improbable and creates dbout, while the distance between the place of occurrence and police station is around 3 kms; that Ram Charan from whose shop the PRASAD was allegedly being purchased, has not been examined by the I.O., which shows that the investigation is tainted; that the admitted fact of hot talks between the appellant and the first informant about 4-5 days ago, upon objection of appellant over gambling by first informant and his associates near the temple, may be a root cause for false implication, but may not be sufficient cause or motive for committing alleged incident; that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by any reliable and cogent evidence; that the learned trial Court acted wrongly in not relying on the defence witnesses from whose evidence it was proved that the occurrence in question did not take place at the above place or in the manner mentioned in F.I.R.; that the sentence imposed is too severe; that by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 9. Per contra, learned AGA contends that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt beyond any reasonable doubt; that in this appeal, the correctness of prosecution case has been questioned by the accused-appellant on various baseless and flimsy grounds; that the F.I.R. of the incident has been lodged promptly naming the sole accused therein and it is absolutely wrong to say that the F.I.R. is ante timed or ante dated; that it is settled principle of law that due to latches if any on the part of Investigating Officer, the prosecution case, may not be adversely affected; that the alleged discrepancies as pointed out by the accused-appellant do not exist at all and minor discrepancies, if any, do neither give benefit to the accused-appellant nor adversely affect the prosecution case; that the prosecution has proved the motive of appellant behind the crime; that since it is a case of direct evidence in which the first informant as well as two other eye-witnesses have been produced and there are no contradiction in their statements, so the prosecution evidence cannot be be seen with an eye of suspicion; that it is wrong to say that different weapons or knives were used for causing injuries to first informant and the deceased Prem and no such inference can be drawn from the statement of P.W.3 Medical Officer, who has only stated that the injuries of first informant Suresh Chandra and deceased Prem Chandra, may be sustained by two different weapons, particularly while he has specifically stated that injuries of deceased Prem Chandra and injured Suresh Chandra Singh (first informant), may have been sustained from one and the same weapon; that the appeal has been filed with absolutely wrong and baseless allegations; that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been passed on detailed discussion and analysis of evidence on record as well as legal position; that the defence evidence produced by accused-appellant is meaningless and is neither reliable nor admissible in evidence, and has been rightly discarded; that there is no illegality or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order; that adequate sentence has been imposed by trial Court keeping pity on accused-appellant and punishing him with life imprisonment instead of capital punishment; that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order, are liable to be affirmed. 10. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, we find that the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has discussed and analyzed the prosecution evidences in detail and has dealt with each and every minor and major point raised in the arguments by the learned counsel for the accused. It is noteworthy that the first informant as well as the deceased both sustained two punctured wounds, which are alleged to have been caused by the accused-appellant with the knife in his hand. As per prosecution case, at the time of occurrence, when first informant Suresh Chandra Singh, alongwith Kamlesh, Ram Singh, Awadh Bihari and Prem, was going to purchase PRASAD from the shop of Ram Charan, near Pechghar Temple, all of a sudden, the accused-appellant came from behind, gave two knife blows to him in his back and left side of abdomen, and when Prem proceeded for rescue of first informant, he also gave 2-3 knife blows to him. 11. As per medical evidence on record, as has been proved by P.W.3 Dr. S.D.S. Chauhan, after medical examination of the first informant, prepared injury report, and also conducted post-mortem of Prem Chandra and prepared post-mortem report. Following injuries were found on the person of injured/first informant Suresh Chandra Singh and deceased, respectively: Injuries as per injury report of Suresh Chandra Singh 1. Punctured wound with sharp margin 1-1/2 cm x ½ cm x depth uncertain on about mid line of back vertically about middle. Observation. Pointed sharp edged. 2. Punctured wound with sharp margin 1 cm x 1/3 cm x depth uncertain on Lt. internal side of abdomen obliquely 26 cms below Lt. axilla. Observation, pointed sharp edged wounds bleeded on touch. Duration fresh (within ¼ day). Injuries of deceased as per Post-mortem report of Prem Chandra 1. Punctured wound with sharp margins 2 ½ cm x ¾ cm x chest cavity horizontally 7-1/2 cm below supra-eternal notch. Depth of wound directed back and downward. 2. Punctured wound with sharp margin. 3 cm x 1cm x chest cavity horizontally on Lt. Shouldering blade lower part 5 cms Lt. to mid line of back. 12. Punctured wound with sharp margins 2 ½ cm x ¾ cm x chest cavity horizontally 7-1/2 cm below supra-eternal notch. Depth of wound directed back and downward. 2. Punctured wound with sharp margin. 3 cm x 1cm x chest cavity horizontally on Lt. Shouldering blade lower part 5 cms Lt. to mid line of back. 12. According to the post-mortem report conducted on 1.8.1981 at 12:30 p.m., the death of 20 years old Prem Chandra took place about 3/4th of a day before the time of post-mortem, due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. According to the injury report of first informant, which was prepared upon medical examination at 7:30 p.m. on 31.7.1981 upon examination on reference from the police station, his injuries were found fresh, which could have been sustained at about 6:45 p.m. on 31.7.1981. 13. From above description of injuries in the injury report of first informant and post-mortem report of Prem Chandra deceased, merely due to some difference in size of punctured wounds, it may not be inferred that different weapons would have been used in causing injuries to the two persons. It is quite natural and possible that at the time of causing of injuries with the same weapon, due to difference of force and angle as well as the attempt of injured to escape, the size of injuries with the same weapon may differ. Since, the Medical Officer has specifically stated that the injuries of both, could have been sustained by one and the same weapon, in view of the unambiguous evidence on record that injuries with the knife in his hand were firstly caused to the first informant thereafter to Prem Chandra, when he came for his rescue and there is no reason at all to unnecessarily doubt the prosecution case, in order to search a ground to give benefit of doubt to the accused-applicant. 14. It is pertinent to mention that P.W.1 is the first informant and being injured witness, is a natural eye-witness of the occurrence and his statement is totally corroborated by the medical evidence on record as well as by the statements of two other eye-witnesses Kamlesh and Awadh Bihari, who were accompanying him at the time of occurrence. 14. It is pertinent to mention that P.W.1 is the first informant and being injured witness, is a natural eye-witness of the occurrence and his statement is totally corroborated by the medical evidence on record as well as by the statements of two other eye-witnesses Kamlesh and Awadh Bihari, who were accompanying him at the time of occurrence. The argument that neither the first informant nor the deceased nor anybody else sustained injuries on their palms so the prosecution case may not be accepted because naturally at the time of attack, the injured uses his hands in defence for avoiding injuries and gets his palms injured. This argument has no force, because as per prosecution case when the first informant and his associates were going towards shop of Ram Charan for purchasing PRASAD, the accused-appellant suddenly came from behind, stabbed him in back and immediately thereafter on left side of abdomen and when Prem Chandra came for his rescue, he was also stabbed repeatedly on his chest, resulting in his death and so in these circumstances, it could not have been possible either for the injured or for the deceased, to first get their hands/palms injured, before sustaining the injuries on their back, side or on the chest. Otherwise also, there is no rule that first injury will be caused on palm and, thereafter, on other parts of the body. It is also pertinent to mention that in this case, first informant had no opportunity to make any resistance or defence. Otherwise also in the set of circumstances, every person reacts differently in his own manner and even if the person attacked tries his best to avoid injuries by putting his hands, the culprit escaping the hand causes injuries on the intended part of body. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 all eye-witnesses is consistent with regard to place and manner of occurrence and is fully corroborated with medical and other evidence on record, which establishes the prosecution case to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt. 15. As far as the motive is concerned, since it is a case based on ocular evidence, the motive looses its importance. 15. As far as the motive is concerned, since it is a case based on ocular evidence, the motive looses its importance. Moreover, the motive lies in the mind and heart of the offender/accused and the prosecution may only give a probable cause behind the motive and even in case the prosecution fails to establish motive, if the offence is proved by the prosecution evidence, the same cannot be ignored and no benefit can be given to accused for want of motive. The contention of accused-appellant that the alleged dispute which took place 4-5 days before the occurrence over playing of cards, was not so serious so as to form sufficient motive to cause incident however he has been falsely implicated due to above reason, is self contradictory. In the incident, in which hot-talks allegedly taken place between the first informant and accused-appellant, 4-5 days before the occurrence, possibility of accused-appellant having been hurt deep in heart by the abusive words allegedly uttered by first informant, may not be ruled out. Sometimes words uttered by mouth hurt the heart more piercingly than the physical injury and in such cases person having been hurt deep in heart with those words, may go to any extent. In any case, if the incident occurred 4-5 days before in occurrence, was not sufficient to form motive for committing the crime the question, the same may also not be sufficient for falsely implicating the accused-appellant. There is no evidence on record about the alleged old enmity of school times, between first informant and the accused-appellant and if it may be reason behind alleged false implication, the same may also be the reason behind the motive of accused-appellant to commit the incident in question. In any case since the case is based on ocular evidence the motive has lost its importance. 16. The contention of accused-appellant that the F.I.R. is anti-timed and anti-dated has no legs and there is no evidence on record to doubt the correctness of F.I.R. lodged promptly with naming the sole accused-appellant. There are no discrepancies with regard to preparation of inquest report or site plan and even if there is any omission by the I.O., the same does not adversely affect the prosecution case. 17. There are no discrepancies with regard to preparation of inquest report or site plan and even if there is any omission by the I.O., the same does not adversely affect the prosecution case. 17. It is settled principle of law as has been laid down by this Court in the case of Mangu v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) ACC 335, held that “lapse or carelessness on the part of I.O. in preparing inquest report could not be a ground to hold that F.I.R. was not in existence till the inquest report was prepared”. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 , held that “Any omission on the part of I.O. cannot go against the prosecution. Interest of justice demands that such acts or omission of I.O. should not be taken in favour of the accused or otherwise it would amount to placing a premium upon such omission.” 18. As far as the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, having not been relied by the trial Court, it is pertinent to mention that D.W.1 is a photographer, who is alleged to have taken several photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles in order to belie the site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by I.O. as well as the prosecution version. The D.W.2 is an advocate, who allegedly visited the place of occurrence and prepared a map in order to establish as above. The above two witnesses are alleged to have visited the spot at the instructions of learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Undisputedly neither any application for above purpose was moved by accused-appellant nor any direction was ever obtained from or given by the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) concerned in this regard, and so the above evidence has no worth and is not admissible in evidence. It is pertinent to mention that neither D.W.1 and D.W.2 are qualified for the purposes, and none of them is expert or holds any degree or diploma in this field, except that D.W.2 is stated to have worked as General Commissioner and (upon being appointed by the Court concerned in civil suits), has prepared maps and submitted reports in few civil cases. Admittedly he is neither a Survey Commissioner nor has been appointed survey commissioner in any civil suit nor has prepared any survey map or survey report in other cases nor in respect of the place of occurrence in question. The alleged private visit made by the two witnesses at the instance of accused-appellant upon instructions of his counsel, is also not alleged to have been made after informing the prosecution or in presence of first informant or the Government counsel/penal lawyer, as representative of prosecution. If the above reports of photographer or advocate were filed by defence in order to dispute the place or occurrence or to belie the prosecution case, the accused could have moved an application to the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) concerned for appointment of some Senior Survey, Advocate Commissioner for visiting the spot in presence of both parties and submitting report after preparing a survey map of the place of occurrence. In appropriate cases, even Presiding Officer of the trial Court concerned, may himself visit the place of occurrence, in order to ascertain the correctness of facts, if so required. The accused-appellant is neither alleged to have moved any such application before the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) nor any such application is alleged to have been rejected by the Trial Court. 19. It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution evidence commenced on 1.5.1982 with the statement of P.W.1 and concluded on 21.7.1982 with examination of P.W.8. However, no cross was made by any of the eye-witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 or P.W.4 or with I.O. P.W.6 regarding the alleged distances as well as alleged discrepancies with regard to spot position as were found by D.W.1 & D.W.2. It is also noteworthy that D.W.1 and D.W.2 allegedly visited the spot on 1.8.1982, 8.8.1982 and 25.8.1982 after a long wait until only after completion of prosecution evidence is closed. The maps and report as well as negatives and positive photographs filed by D.W.1 & D.W.2 have no evidenciary value as these documents were neither put to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor they had any opportunity to deny or explain the alleged discrepancies. The maps and report as well as negatives and positive photographs filed by D.W.1 & D.W.2 have no evidenciary value as these documents were neither put to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor they had any opportunity to deny or explain the alleged discrepancies. Since, no cross-examination was made from the prosecution witnesses with regard to alleged differences of distances from one spot to the other, as shown in above reports of D.W.1 and D.W.2, without any direction, authority or order of the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge), the above reports are neither relevant nor admissible in evidence nor may be considered for discarding the consistent and trustworthy evidence of prosecution. In the circumstances mentioned above, no reliance can be placed on above reports and statements of defence witnesses D.W.1 & D.W.2. 20. The P.W.2 & P.W.4 are independent witnesses, are neither alleged to be interested witnesses of first informant, nor alleged to be on inimical terms with accused-appellant. The accused-appellant has not stated any enmity with the prosecution witnesses No. 2 and 4 Kamlesh and Awadh Bihari, who were accompanying the injured/first informant and are most natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They have fully corroborated the first informant P.W.1 Suresh Chandra Singh, and there is no contradiction or discrepancies in their statements so as to disbelieve their testimonies, in absence of any enmity with the accused-appellant, particularly when they are not alleged to be interested witness. 21. They have fully corroborated the first informant P.W.1 Suresh Chandra Singh, and there is no contradiction or discrepancies in their statements so as to disbelieve their testimonies, in absence of any enmity with the accused-appellant, particularly when they are not alleged to be interested witness. 21. In the case of Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 , the Apex Court held that “the evidenciary value of testimony of son and brother-in-law of deceased in absence of any other factor to discredit the said witnesses, cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses and at the same time, the testimony of local Sarpanch witnessing the occurrence was also liable to be treated reliable, as of an independent witness and the fact that brother of accused was his rival candidate at the election, held to be too feeble a ground to doubt or discard his evidence” dismissing the appeal of convict, and upholding the judgment of High Court, wherein High Court setting aside acquittal had passed conviction order,the Apex Court further held that “the ocular account given by relative witness does not by itself loose its evidenciary value unless some other factor is brought on record to discredit the creditworthiness of the witness” and that “Trivial discrepancies cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witness if it is otherwise acceptable”. In the case of Gangadhar Behra v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , it was held by the Apex Court that “relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. However, Court has to adopt careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible”. It is settled principle of law that testimony of partisan or interested witness cannot be discarded outright, rather it should be examined with more care and caution. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. However, Court has to adopt careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible”. It is settled principle of law that testimony of partisan or interested witness cannot be discarded outright, rather it should be examined with more care and caution. In the case of Indra Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 (1) ALJ 666 SC, the Apex Court upholding the order of High Court converting into conviction, the order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, held that “minor inconsistencies appearing in statements of two eye-witnesses which are of very trivial nature must not be given undue importance and acquittal of the accused on such insignificant contradictions, is not proper” In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , the 3 Judges Bench of Apex Court has held “that in Criminal Trial a prosecutor is faced so many odds. Court shall not loose sight of the realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach of values in public life. Some discrepancy is inevitable - but a discrepancy existing in a prosecution case should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially effect the case. Duty of Courts is not only to see that no innocent man is punished but also to ensure that no person committing an offence should go scot free.” 22. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the incident appears to have taken place during gambling between the deceased, first informant and others of village Kashai during which they stabbed each other and upon compromise by the villagers in order to explain the injuries of first informant and deceased, a third person i.e. accused-appellant was falsely implicated, also has no force. Firstly, because there can be no reason with first informant or parents of deceased Prem Chandra for leaving the real culprit and falsely implicate the other innocent person. It is also pertinent to mention that there was no relationship between the first informant, injured and the deceased Prem Chandra, who was just 20 years old young boy. Firstly, because there can be no reason with first informant or parents of deceased Prem Chandra for leaving the real culprit and falsely implicate the other innocent person. It is also pertinent to mention that there was no relationship between the first informant, injured and the deceased Prem Chandra, who was just 20 years old young boy. Even in case of simple injuries nobody is expected to leave the real culprit and falsely implicate the other and in a case of murder of young boy, there can be no possibility of leaving the real culprit and falsely implicating another innocent person, by the parents and family members of the deceased upon getting information about sudden death of their young son due to stab injuries, no parents or their family members may ever enter into a compromise, so as to leave the real culprit and falsely implicate the other person particularly when the alleged culprit is not alleged to be their family member. There may be cases of false implication of a person alongwith real culprit but there cannot be a case of falsely implicating a person leaving the real culprit altogether. 23. In any case, in matters of false implication of a person, in place of real culprit, the other witnesses of occurrence would never come forward to corroborate and support, such false prosecution version. The argument so raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant at appellate stage has no force being based on highly improbable circumstances and surmises on conjectures which may not be made a ground to give benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant. It has been held by Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Behra v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , that “It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against innocent person.” 24. It is pertinent to mention that non-production of Ram Charan from whose shop the first informant and others were going to purchase PRASAD, does not adversely affect the prosecution case, because as per prosecution evidence at the time of occurrence, the first informant and others were going towards shop of Ram Charan for purchasing PRASAD and the occurrence is not alleged to have taken place at his shop at the time of purchasing PRASAD. Similarly, there is nothing unnatural in purchasing the PRASAD from Pechghar after return from Chitrakoot as quality of sweets near temples may rarely be good and sometime people prefer to purchase PRASAD from the shop of their choice, for distributing amongst their nears and dears. 25. It is settled principle of law that “in order to acquit the accused by giving him benefit of doubt, there must be some reasonable doubt, and every suspicion on the basis of minor discrepancies, if any, or minor points raised by the accused may not be made basis to acquit the accused.” In the case of Gangadhar Behra (supra) it has been further laid down by the Apex Court that “there should be reasonable doubt for acquitting an accused and acquittal on the basis of a imaginary doubt should not be allowed.” “Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law.” “Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. “ Similarly, in the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (4) Crimes 41 SC, the Apex Court has held that “every suspicion is not a doubt. Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge.” “In a case based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete - it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence.” 26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case to the hilt and bringing home the charges against accused-appellant by consistent, trustworthy and cogent evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case to the hilt and bringing home the charges against accused-appellant by consistent, trustworthy and cogent evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in making proper and correct appreciation of evidence on record. We find that neither there is any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order of conviction nor the sentence imposed is too severe, rather appropriate sentences have been rightly imposed. The appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 27. Accordingly the appeal filed by accused-appellant is dismissed and conviction and sentences are affirmed. All the interim orders, including order granting bail to appellant or staying operation of impugned order of conviction, if any, or otherwise stand discharged. 28. The appellant is on bail pending appeal. His personal bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve out of remaining term of sentences imposed upon him by trial Court and if he fails to surrender as directed, the trial Court shall take necessary coercive actions against him for ascertaining compliance of order of conviction and sentence. 29. Let the lower Court record be transmitted to Court below forthwith alongwith a copy of judgment, with a direction that it shall take immediate steps for arrest of appellant for serving the remaining term of sentence. ———————