JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.1983 passed by then Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1982 (State v. Munna) arising out of Case crime No. 287 of 1982, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur whereby appellant was held guilty of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Amanat Khan used to ply rickshaw. His son Babboo (PW-2) had a tea stall (hotel) at Bilaspur Gate at the time of occurrence. It is alleged that on 22.8.1982 at about 9:00 p.m. informant Babboo son of deceased Amanat Khan was on the brink of closing his tea stall and had already cooled the furnace (bhatti). Suddenly, appellant Munna arrived at the tea stall accompanied with 4-5 companions and asked Babboo to serve tea. Babboo expressed his inability because of cooling of furnace. But Munna continued to insist. His father Amanat Khan, a rickshaw puller was sitting on his rickshaw at the tea stall. He also intervened by scolding Munna whereupon irate Munna feeling insulted in front of his friends, threatened both Amanat Khan as well as informant Babboo and left with his companions. 3. It is alleged that on next day i.e. on 23.8.1982 at about 8:30am in the morning both deceased Amanat Khan and his son informant Babboo left home at the same time for attending their respective occupations. Deceased Amanat Khan was plying his rickshaw and informant Babboo was following him on bicycle though bicycle is not mentioned in the First Information Report (in short, FIR). As soon as they reached at tri-junction (Tiraha) of Mohalla Sarai Jahangir, appellant Munna son of Asad Khan surfaced from the lane of Sarai Jahagir and opened fire upon Amanat Khan deceased resulting in his almost instantaneous death. Part of body of deceased fell down on the road but his one leg got entangled in the rickshaw frame. 4. This incident occurred sometime at 8:30am. Police Station was one kilometer away from the place of occurrence. Report was lodged within 45 minutes. Police arrived immediately and investigation ensued. Post-mortem was conducted on the same day at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening. 4. This incident occurred sometime at 8:30am. Police Station was one kilometer away from the place of occurrence. Report was lodged within 45 minutes. Police arrived immediately and investigation ensued. Post-mortem was conducted on the same day at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening. Following injuries were found on the person of deceased : “Multiple fire-arm wound of entry ¼ cm x ¼ cm x few chest cavity and few muscle deep in an area of 30cm x 15 cm on the right side back just below right scapular region extending to right axillary line. There was no blackening, no tattooing and no charring present. The margins were found inverted.” 5. Investigating Officer D.S.Malik (PW-13) recorded the statement of various witnesses including Babboo immediately in the aftermath of incident. Samples of blood stained concrete and simple concrete of road were taken. A search for appellant Munna was initiated on the same day i.e. on 23.8.1982 but he was not found. It is pertinent to point out that appellant Munna surrendered of his own directly in the Court on 24.8.1982 and was sent to jail. On 27.8.1982, his statement was recorded inside the jail by the Investigating Officer and thereafter charge-sheet (Ex Ka 14) was submitted against him in the Court. 6. Trial Judge charged him under Section 302 IPC. He denied the charge and claimed trial. The trial was conducted wherein statements of as many as 13 witnesses on behalf of prosecution were recorded. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement of two witnesses namely, Haji Babban (DW-1) and Dulahjan (DW-2) were recorded in defence. Trial Court concluded that despite the existence of some minor discrepancies, there was sufficient evidence on record to hold that appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. He was accordingly held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.2.1983. 7. Heard Sri Rajrishi Gupta, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Advocate for appellant and Sri Syed Murtuza Ali, learned Additional Government Advocate (in short, AGA) on behalf of State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was not a single scratch on the person of deceased Amanat Khan despite his fall from Rickshaw on the road. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was not a single scratch on the person of deceased Amanat Khan despite his fall from Rickshaw on the road. Ex Ka-8 the memorandum of custody of Rickshaw does not indicate that part of body of deceased Amanat Khan was found entangled in the frame of Rickshaw. He also claimed that Rickshaw was not stained with blood despite the fact that as per prosecution story deceased Amanat Khan was peddling rickshaw at the time of murder. He argued, that prosecution claim, that informant Babboo (PW-2) was following his father on bicycle is not borne out of the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence which belies the presence of witnesses on the spot. He has further submitted that some witnesses are related to informant Babboo, therefore, their evidence should not be believed. Learned counsel has stressed that time of incident is not established. According to him incident occurred very early in morning and some unknown person had killed deceased Amanat Khan. Subsequently, appellant has been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. 9. Per contra, Sri Syed Ali Murtuza, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that incident occurred at 8:30 a.m. and a report was lodge at 9:15 a.m. i.e. within 45 minute of incident. Every important detail is available in the FIR. Such details were not required to be mentioned in the FIR. Sri Ali has also submitted that minor discrepancies indicated by defence do not demolish the credibility of the witnesses. Considering the fact that investigation commenced quickly, there was no occasion and opportunity for any person to manufacture the evidence or to concoct the prosecution case. He has also submitted that according to prosecution, one leg of deceased Amanat Khan was ensnared in the frame of rickshaw yet it did not cause any injury to person of deceased. He would submit that this argument is based on presumption that mere fall of body of deceased Amanat Khan on the road would necessitate injury on his person. 10. If we visualize the incident, it would be apparent that as soon as Munna Khan came out of lane of Sarai Jahagir, he opened fire upon Amanat Khan. He would submit that this argument is based on presumption that mere fall of body of deceased Amanat Khan on the road would necessitate injury on his person. 10. If we visualize the incident, it would be apparent that as soon as Munna Khan came out of lane of Sarai Jahagir, he opened fire upon Amanat Khan. Deceased Amanat Khan died instantaneously and his body fell down from rickshaw but it did not completely fell from rickshaw rather it merely touched the ground because one leg of deceased Amanat Khan got stuck in the frame of rickshaw. The instantaneous death and awkward fall of deceased Amanat Khan prevented any injury on the person of deceased other than fire-arm injury. The evidence indicates is that as soon as deceased Amanat Khan saw Munna, armed with fire-arm, he tried to step off the rickshaw but Munna shot him immediately. This evidence would also explain the absence of blood on rickshaw. The blood was indeed found on the road but as Amanat Khan was getting off the rickshaw after seeing armed Munna probably rickshaw was spared the stain of blood. 11. The prosecution case is primarily based on highly credible testimony of PW-2 Babboo. Informant Babboo has given two stories. One story discloses that the acrimony of previous night wherein it is alleged that Munna came to his tea stall at the time of its closure. Some persons were sitting inside the hotel. Babboo was winding up his work. He had already cooled furnace (Bhatti). His father deceased Amanat Khan was waiting for him outside the tea stall. Accused-appellant Munna came there alongwith 4-5 persons and asked him to serve tea. Babboo pleaded with them saying that his furnace had already cooled, therefore, it is not possible for him to prepare tea. This enraged Munna who felt insulted. He again insisted to serve him and his friend tea. Amanat Khan also intervened and admonished Munna. This further inflamed appellant. This incident was seen by some other witnesses as well. PW-3 Shahid Khan and PW-4 Zahid have also reinforced the story of previous night given by PW-2 Babboo though they have been denounced by defence as related and interested witnesses. We are afraid that this alone cannot be a ground for discarding the otherwise trustworthy testimony of both the witnesses. They have not given any evidence regarding murder of deceased. PW-3 Shahid Khan and PW-4 Zahid have also reinforced the story of previous night given by PW-2 Babboo though they have been denounced by defence as related and interested witnesses. We are afraid that this alone cannot be a ground for discarding the otherwise trustworthy testimony of both the witnesses. They have not given any evidence regarding murder of deceased. PW-3 Shahid Khan is probably cousin of PW-2 Babboo but PW-4 Zahid is a rickshaw puller and was present at the tea stall of Babboo Khan for imbibing his tea. It is obvious that this tea stall was not meant for elite classes. The tea stall was primarily meant for ordinary persons, therefore, it was natural for rickshaw pullers to frequent such place. Deceased Amanat Khan was also a rickshaw puller. His presence was also natural as he was waiting for his son. Next day, deceased Amanat Khan was shot and killed by appellant Munna in the morning. 12. Second part of story has also been given by Babboo who was following his father. He has testified that his father was assassinated in his presence by appellant Munna. Learned counsel has disputed this fact saying that PW-2 Babboo has improved upon his earlier story during course of evidence. FIR simply says that he was following his father in the morning but during the course of his testimony, added that he was following his father on bicycle. We are afraid, this cannot be described as improvement. Father and son left together for their respective works. The father was peddling rickshaw and son was following him on bicycle. There was no necessity to mention this fact in the FIR. The FIR is not supposed to be encyclopedia. He has explained that he did not accompany his father on rickshaw for the simple reason that he owned a bicycle and therefore, left on bicycle and his father left on rickshaw for earning money. It was not possible for the father to take his son. It is pertinent to point out that city of Rampur is a small place even today. This incident occurred 34 years back and at that time Rampur was very quiet and small place. Judicial notice of this fact can be taken. PW-2 Babboo has testified that place of occurrence was 400 steps from his residence while tea stall was merely 200 steps from the place of occurrence. This incident occurred 34 years back and at that time Rampur was very quiet and small place. Judicial notice of this fact can be taken. PW-2 Babboo has testified that place of occurrence was 400 steps from his residence while tea stall was merely 200 steps from the place of occurrence. One can very easily understand that residence of deceased and informant was at short distance from tea stall. Therefore, informant used bicycle for such a small distance. We believe that non-mentioning of bicycle in the FIR is not detrimental to prosecution story at all. The evidence of PW-2 Babboo Khan is of high quality. It is natural, trustworthy and consistent with normal human conduct. Minor discrepancies indicated by learned counsel for appellant have not adversely affected the quality of testimony. It merely shows that this witness has not been tutored. 13. PW-3 Shahid has also testified regarding incident. His testimony is also natural and trustworthy. The minor discrepancies indicated by learned counsel for the appellant are certainly not detrimental to prosecution story. People do not see incident of murder routinely in their every day life. It is always not possible to give minute details of the incident with mathematical precision. Where the bullet hit deceased Amanat Khan is a question, ordinarily meant for doctor, who conducted autopsy. PW-3 Shahid Khan has testified that appellant fired shot which hit the deceased on his waist. He has also stated that appellant Munna opened fire from the distance of 3-4 steps. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that this story is not consistent with the medical report because medical report discloses that there was no blackening and tattoo on the person of deceased. We cannot countenance this attempt to compare ocular evidence with medical evidence in mechanical manner. If core of ocular testimony is not contrary to the medical evidence, then minor inconsistencies in description cannot be taken into consideration especially if ocular testimony is completely convincing. In the instant case, oral evidence of eye-witnesses is highly credible and trustworthy. 14. In G.S. Walia v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 5 SCC 150 , the Apex Court has held that the comparison of medial evidence with ocular testimony should not be done in mechanical manner. In the instant case, oral evidence of eye-witnesses is highly credible and trustworthy. 14. In G.S. Walia v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 5 SCC 150 , the Apex Court has held that the comparison of medial evidence with ocular testimony should not be done in mechanical manner. In the aforesaid case, some injuries caused by sharp edged weapon was found by doctor but in ocular testimony there was no mention of sharp edged weapon yet the Apex Court refused to reject the testimony of oral witnesses. 15. This view was again reiterated by Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Premi and others, 2003 Cri LJ 1554. In this case, medical opinion stated that margins of injuries were soft and probably caused by sharp edged weapon while the prosecution story said that injuries were caused by butt of revolver. This stated discrepancy was argued before the Apex Court but Apex Court rejected this minor discrepancy and affirmed the sentence against the accused persons. It is the present case too, the ocular evidence is completely trustworthy. Core of medical evidence is also consistent with oral evidence. We do not accept the contention of learned counsel on this score. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court towards testimony of PW-11 Afsar which has not supported prosecution version. Perusal of this testimony reveals that it does not help the appellant at all. The hostile testimony of any witness does not get automatically effaced from the face of record. The Court is empowered to rely on the part of testimony of such witness, if found reliable and credible. The gist of testimony of PW-11 Afsar has in fact supported prosecution story. The incident occurred sometime at about 8:30am. According to this witness when he reached the place of occurrence, he found corpse of Amanat Khan. His description of position of body of Amanat Khan is absolutely consistent with the prosecution story. He says that leg of deceased Amanat Khan was stuck in rickshaw and part of body was lying on the road. He has also admitted the presence of PW-2 Babboo, Wahid and PW-3 Shahid at the place of occurrence. His description of position of body of Amanat Khan is absolutely consistent with the prosecution story. He says that leg of deceased Amanat Khan was stuck in rickshaw and part of body was lying on the road. He has also admitted the presence of PW-2 Babboo, Wahid and PW-3 Shahid at the place of occurrence. The only discordant note is when he says that he did not see any body killing Amanat Khan and that Babboo, Wahid and Shahid reached the place of occurrence after him and none of them had actually seen the occurrence. A careful perusal of testimony of PW-11 Afsar would reveal that this witness is won over by Munna. During investigation, he stated that he had witnessed Munna Khan firing a shot on deceased Amanat Khan and that PW-2 Babboo was following his father; and that he also made an attempt to catch the accused but failed. This part of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was quoted to him during cross-examination by prosecution with the prior permission of the Court. He admitted the veracity of this statement and conceded that he did give this statement to Investigating Officer. Thereafter he again changed his version during cross-examination by defence counsel. He has changed his testimony far to often to place any reliance upon him. But one thing is clear that he has unwittingly buttressed the case of prosecution. It is trite law that testimony of hostile witness is not obliterated from the face of record. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that position of the body of deceased Amanat Khan has not been explained by witnesses. We do not agree with the learned counsel for appellant on this score also. We believe that testimony of PW-2 Babboo, PW-4 Shahid alongwith evidence of PW-13 D.S.Malik are sufficient to reveal the exact position of the corpse of deceased. PW-13 D.S. Mulik has submitted that body of deceased was partly stuck in his rickshaw and partly lying on the road (ground). The same story was given by PW-2 Babboo and PW-3 Shahid. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the memorandum of custody (Supurdginama) of rickshaw (Ex Ka-8) wherein this fact has not been mentioned. We believe that Ex Ka-8 was prepared for limited purpose. Rickshaw was found at the place of occurrence. The same story was given by PW-2 Babboo and PW-3 Shahid. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the memorandum of custody (Supurdginama) of rickshaw (Ex Ka-8) wherein this fact has not been mentioned. We believe that Ex Ka-8 was prepared for limited purpose. Rickshaw was found at the place of occurrence. This rickshaw was handed over to Babboo Khan son of deceased Amanat Khan after executing required documentation. This memorandum of custody of rickshaw has been proved as Ex.Ka-8. This document was not prepared for showing the exact position of dead body of deceased Amanat Khan. This paper was prepared for limited purpose of officially handing over rickshaw to the son of deceased. Any attempt to read more into it, is not justified. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that both PW-2 Babboo Khan and PW-3 Shahid Khan are chance witnesses. We are afraid, this argument is not sustainable for the simple reason that at small place like Rampur, especially 34 years back, ordinarily no one could be deemed to be chance witness. In such a small place most of the people are aware of others, especially neighbours or people belonging to same social group. In any case, Babboo and his deceased father had left their residence simultaneously for their respective occupations. The tea stall of Babboo Khan was not at great distance. His departure with his father was quite natural. Similarly evidence of PW-3 Shahid Khan also discloses that he is not chance witness. He was going from Bilaspur Gate to Chirimaran tri-junction. He has stated that he was going for work at Bilaspur Gate and that he also found two acquaintance there. One of them, Tahir Husain (PW-5) later on scribed the FIR dictated by Babboo Khan. PW-5 Tahir Husain has also reiterated that he reached the place of occurrence at 8:35am. Learned counsel for the appellant has claimed that this incident occurred very early in the morning and prosecution has deliberately shown it to have occurred at 8:30am. Police Station is at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that nearby shopkeepers open their shops at about 7:00am but even the defence witness DW-2 Dulahjan has debunked this claim by saying that shops in the area open at 8:00am. Police Station is at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that nearby shopkeepers open their shops at about 7:00am but even the defence witness DW-2 Dulahjan has debunked this claim by saying that shops in the area open at 8:00am. Both defence witnesses have given conflicting version about time of opening of the shops in the area. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the murder took place at 5:00am. There was no occasion for deceased Amanat Khan to go at the place of occurrence at 5:00am in the morning. The occurrence did not take place at a secluded place. Even if incident had occurred very early in the morning, somebody would have noticed it, especially in the light of the fact that Police Station is not far off. 19. We have carefully examined all the record. The evidence given by defence witnesses is not credible. The incident occurred on 23.8.1982. One of the witness,namely, DW-2 Dulahjan initially stated that he had gone to Pakistan on 20.8.1982. If he was in Pakistan on the date of incident, there was no occasion for him to witness the incident. Later on, he changed his version and said that he left for Pakistan on 28th of Moharrum. In fact, both the defence witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence. Both claim that they received information of murder of Amanat Khan when they reached their shops, alluding thereby that stated murder took place prior to the time shown by prosecution. Prosecution says the murder took place at 8:30am but both the defence witnesses say murder took place prior to 7:45am and 8:00am. Both the defence witnesses were not present at the time of incident. They have not disclosed from whom they received information of death of Amanat Khan. The quality of their evidence is poor. We are afraid, it is not possible to rely on their story. Their testimonies indicate an effort to manufacture evidence. 20. We have gone through the entire evidence. The fact that some of the witnesses are related is not sufficient ground for disbelieving their testimonies. Their trustworthy evidence can be taken into consideration for convicting the accused. (State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1988 (Supp) SCC 686). 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has repeatedly stated that there are some discrepancies in the prosecution version. The fact that some of the witnesses are related is not sufficient ground for disbelieving their testimonies. Their trustworthy evidence can be taken into consideration for convicting the accused. (State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1988 (Supp) SCC 686). 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has repeatedly stated that there are some discrepancies in the prosecution version. In the FIR, it is not mentioned as to how the body of the deceased was found. He has argued that cycle allegedly used by son of deceased is not mentioned in the FIR. These are minor discrepancies. We believe that testimony of the witnesses cannot be rejected on account of minor discrepancies only. Ordinarily witnesses are not be expected to give minute details of incident. The power of observation and description differs from person to person. In regard to exact time of an incident, or duration of an occurrence, people usually make estimate by guess-work and one cannot expect witnesses to give precise or reliable estimate in such matters. It depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person. The Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat. (1983) (Cri) 728, has held thus : “We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.” 22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that ordinarily witnesses are not expected to depose with mathematical precision. They are expected to give reasonable description of the incident already occurred. Prosecution is also expected to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We cannot expect prosecution to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt, for the simple reason that people can have fanciful doubts regarding anything, in any manner, and at any stage. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is according dismissed. Prosecution is also expected to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We cannot expect prosecution to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt, for the simple reason that people can have fanciful doubts regarding anything, in any manner, and at any stage. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is according dismissed. The judgment and order passed dated 5.2.1983 passed by then Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1982 (State v. Munna) arising out of Case crime No. 287 of 1982, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur whereby appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC is affirmed. The trial Court is directed to get the appellant arrested and lodge him to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. 24. Let this judgment be certified to the Court concerned through the Sessions Judge, Rampur within two weeks for compliance. Thereafter concerned Court shall report compliance within 30 days. ——————