JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mukhtar Ahmad, J.—This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.10.1982 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 1981, convicting the appellants namely 1-Inam Ullah 2- Shafiq @ Gama 3-Rais and 4- Mehandi @ Bhatia, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. sentencing each of them to the imprisonment for life. Further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. sentencing each of them to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences of each appellants are also ordered to run concurrently. Appellant No. 1 Inamullah died during pendency of this appeal as such appeal against him has been abated vide order dated 24-10-2008. 2. A synoptical resume of prosecution case is that on wednesday Aziz s/o Majid Pehelwan took the luggage of Rais Pahelwan to patti bazar in his tonga but Rais Pehelwan had not given the fair charges. Two days before the incident Aziz near the State Bank premises in Suar, demanded the fair charges from Rais Pehelwan but Rais Pahelwan abused him by saying that how he dared to demand the money ? and there was some oral altercation between them but one Nazeer Ahmed belonging to the same locality had intervened and resolved the matter. 3. First Information Report of the incident was got lodged by Iqrar PW1 stating that on 2.5.1981 at about 4.15 PM some abuses were exchanged between his brother Abrar and Shareef @ Dilphar brother of Rais Pahelwan in which Abrar had slapped Shareef @ Dilphar. Thereafter Shareef @ Dilphar had gone to his house and Abrar came to the Taal of one Doola Mian and sat on a cot near Aziz. After some time brothers of Sharif @ Dilphar namely Rais Pahelwan armed with chhuri, Shafiq @ Gama having Tamancha (country made pistol) his father Inam Ullah having knife alongwith one Mehandi @ Bhatia came there and started to abuse his brother.He also reached there. Rais Pahalwan threatened Aziz by saying that they shall also give payment to him. Thereafter altercation took place and all of them went towards Dak Bunglow Tiraha exchanging the abuses. Aziz was started to be assaulted with knife and chhuris. He, his brother Abrar and Manjoo tried to save Aziz but meanwhile fire was opened on Abrar. Rais, Inamullah and Mehndi @Bhatia also assaulted them with knife and chhuris. Thereafter altercation took place and all of them went towards Dak Bunglow Tiraha exchanging the abuses. Aziz was started to be assaulted with knife and chhuris. He, his brother Abrar and Manjoo tried to save Aziz but meanwhile fire was opened on Abrar. Rais, Inamullah and Mehndi @Bhatia also assaulted them with knife and chhuris. On hue and cry Ali Jan, Amin PW3 Doola Mian PW4 and Mohammad Yusuf PW5 of the same locality came there and saved them. Aziz succumbed to the injuries on the spot. First informant Iqrar, his brother Abrar and Manjoo sustained serious injuries. Iqrar took Abrar Hussain and Manjoo Khan in a rickshaw to the police station Suar, Rampur where a criminal case bearing case crime no 61 under Sections 302, 307/34 I.P.C. was registered against accused persons. Chick F.I.R. was transcribed by Head Muharrir Parshu Ram Sharma (PW-13), who also made entries in G.D. Injured Abrar and Manzoo were sent for medical treatment to Primary Health Care Centre Saur. 4. The investigation was initially taken over by Sub-Inspector H.S. Pawar (PW-10), he went to the Hospital Suar, Rampur and recorded the statements of injured Abrar and Manjoo Khan. He then visited to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest of dead body of Aziz and prepared inquest report (Ex-Ka11) and other relevant papers and sent the dead body to the District Hospital Suar Rampur through Constable Harpal Singh and constable Suresh Chandra (PW-14) for post-mortem. He also prepared the site plan (Ex-Ka-12) of the spot and made recovery of plastic shoes (Ex.3) belonging to the deceased Aziz,one empty bag, one pair of black chhapal left by accused persons and prepared Memo to that effect He also took in his possession the blood stained and simple earth from the spot, duly sealed them in separate containers (Ex.6 and 7) and prepared a Memo (Ex-Ka 13) to that effect. He thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 3.5.1981 Manjoo Khan also died due to the injuries sustained in District Hospital Rampur during his treatment. The investigating Officer after knowing this fact went to the hospital and conducted inquest of the deceased and sent dead body for post-mortem examination through constable Ram Bahadur (PW-8) and Jagdish Saran alongwith other relevant papers prepared by him. He also recorded the statement of the accused persons in the lock up. Subsequently the investigation was conducted by Parveen Singh (PW-11). He also recorded the statement of the accused persons in the lock up. Subsequently the investigation was conducted by Parveen Singh (PW-11). He after concluding the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against accused persons under Section 302/307 and 324 I.P.C. The Magistrate concerned committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions where charges of the offenses as stated above were framed against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution with a view to prove his case has examined as many as 14 witnesses namely Iqrar (PW-1) the first informant and brother of injured Abrar Hussain. He is the eye-witness to the incident. Abrar Hussain (PW-2) who is injured and eye-witness of the incident. Ameen (PW-3), Doola Miyan (PW-4) and Mohammad Yusuf (PW-5) are also examined as eye-witnesses of the incident. Doctor P.S. Thakur (PW-6), had examined Iqrar and Manjoo khan. He proved their injury reports. S.I. K.P. Singh (PW-7) had conducted the inquest of Manjoo Khan. Constable Ram Bahadur (PW-8) had taken the dead body of Manzoo Khan in a sealed position alongwith other papers for post-mortem. Doctor H.B. Bhutt (PW-9) has been examined to prove the post-mortem report of the deceased Aziz. Sub Inspector H.S. Pawar (PW-10) is the First Investigating Officer of the case. S.I. Parvin Singh (PW-11), who is the second Investigating Officer. Doctor A.U. Khan (PW-12), had examined injured Abrar Khan. Parsho Ram (PW-13) Head Moharrir had recorded the Chick FIR and made entries in the concerning General Diary. Constable Suresh Chandra (PW-14) has been examined to prove the fact that he had taken the dead body of Aziz in sealed position for post-mortem. 6. After concluding the prosecution evidence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons were recorded in which they pleads their innosense and false implication. Accused Rais Pahelwan stated that he is the prosecution witness in a case No. 305 of 1981 (State v. Sabir Baba and others) under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. Accused Inamullah also stated additionally that he was living separately from his sons Rais, Shafiq and Shareef for the last 12 years with his second wife and his sons were residing with his first wife. He also contended that he had no concern with his sons. Accused Mehandi Bhatia stated additionally that he is permanent resident of Kashi Pur of Suar. He also contended that he had no concern with his sons. Accused Mehandi Bhatia stated additionally that he is permanent resident of Kashi Pur of Suar. His name was not Mehandi Bhatia but his name is Mehadsi Hussain. Mr. Madan Mohan Chobey Advocate (C.W.1) was summoned by the Court and he was examined to prove the fact that second bail on behalf of the accused Mehndi was moved by him in Court of Sessions, Rampur which was rejected. No evidence was adduced by accused persons in their defence. 7. After evaluating the evidence made available on record learned Trial Court observed that prosecution had succeeded in proving his case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and held them guilty and awarded the punishment as stated above. Feeling aggrieved with that judgement and order the instant appeal has been preferred. 8. We have heard Mr. Raghuraj Kishore, learned Amicus Curie on behalf of the appellant No. 2 and 3 and Mohd. Irfan Khan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant No. 4 and Mr. M.S. Yadav learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 9. In this matter Aziz died on spot while first informant Iqrar (PW-1), Abrar Hussain (PW-2) and Manjoo sustained injuries. Manjoo, during the treatment also died due to the injuries sustained. 10. Injured Iqrar (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. P.S. Thakur (PW-6) on 2.5.1981 at 5.25 PM in Primary Health Centre Suar, Rampur and found the following injury on his person: 1. Incised wound on the back of right thigh 15cm x 1/2 cm x 2 cm deep 37 cm above crease of the knee. Fresh blood was coming out. 11. In the opinion of the Doctor the injury was simple and could be caused by some sharp edged weapon like chhuri or knife and was fresh in its duration. The injury could be caused on 2.5.1981 at about 4-15 PM. He also examined Manjoo Khan on the same day at 5.40 PM and found the following injuries on his person. 1. A lacerated wound on the head 1cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x dept 13 cm above bridge of nose and 15 cm above the left ear. 2. A traumatic swelling 5-1/2 cm x 4 cm on the left side of fore head 5 cm x above the left eye brow. 3. 1. A lacerated wound on the head 1cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x dept 13 cm above bridge of nose and 15 cm above the left ear. 2. A traumatic swelling 5-1/2 cm x 4 cm on the left side of fore head 5 cm x above the left eye brow. 3. A traumatic swealing 5 cm x 5 cm on left side of head 6 cm above left ear and 8 cm above the left ear brow. 4. A lacerated wound on the back of head 1.5 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm deep 12 cm above right ear and 15 cm above left ear. 5. An insided wound on the right hip 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm deep 13 cm below anterior superior iliac spine and 12 cm away from the mid line. 12. In the opinion of the Doctor the injury No. 5 could be caused by some sharp edged weapon like Chhuri and knife and injury No. 1 to 4 which were kept under observation could be caused with some blunt weapon. All these injuries were fresh and could be caused at about 4.15 PM on 2.5.1981. The Doctor has stated in his cross-examination that Manjoo Khan was referred to the District Hospital, Rampur. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of the Doctor which would go to shake his credit. 13. Doctor A.U. Khan (PW-12) has proved the injury report (Ex. Ka 23) of the injured Abrar Hussain. The doctor medically examined Abrar Hussain on 2.5.1981 at 6.30 PM in the District Hospital, Rampur and found the following injuries on his person; 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1cm x bone deep over the middle of the back of the skull. Injury was kept under observation and x-ray was advised. 2. Incised wound 5 cmx 2.5 cm x musle deep over the outer part of the right fore-arm on its upper part. 3. Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm depth not proved over the inner part of the right fore arm at its upper part. 4. Liner abrasion 4 cm x 0.25 cm over the front of the upper part of the neck. 5. Liner abrasion 2.5 cm x 0.24 cm x over the front of the left side neck lower part. 6. 4. Liner abrasion 4 cm x 0.25 cm over the front of the upper part of the neck. 5. Liner abrasion 2.5 cm x 0.24 cm x over the front of the left side neck lower part. 6. Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x dept not proved over the outer part of the right side chest 8 cm away from the right nipple. 7. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm dept not proved over the inner part of the right upper arm upper part. 8. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm x dept not proved over the front of abdanment lower part 10 cm below the umblicus. Injury kept under observation. 9. Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep over the right side hip 12 cm below from anterior. 10. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over the outer part of the right foot in its front. 14. In the opinion of the Doctor, injuries number 1,3, 6, 7 and 8 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised. All other injuries were simple. All the injuries except injury No. 1 and 10 could be caused by some sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 could be caused by some blunt weapon and injury No. 10 by friction. The doctor meant by sharp edged weapon as Chhuri and knife. All the injuries were fresh and could be caused at 4.15 PM on 2.5.1981. In his cross-examination the Doctor stated that the injury No. 4 and 5 could also be caused by some pointed and sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 10 could also be caused by friction of lathi. The statement of doctor was not challenged in his cross-examination. 15. Doctor H.B. Bhutt (PW-9) has proved the post-mortem examination report (Ex-Ka 9) of deceased Aziz. He conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Aziz on 3.5.1981 at 9 AM in the District Hospital, Rampur. In his opinion the age of the deceased was about 45 years and about half day had passed since the death of Aziz. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of Aziz. 1. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm bone -deep on right side of head 7 cm above from the right ear. 2. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep on back of left side head 9 cm behind the right ear. 3. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of Aziz. 1. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm bone -deep on right side of head 7 cm above from the right ear. 2. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep on back of left side head 9 cm behind the right ear. 3. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the back of middle of head, 17 cm above the right ear. 4. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side of chest, 11 cm below the left axilla. 5. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm abdominal cavity deep on right side of abdomen, 9 cm below the umblicus. 6. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x musle deep on outer aspect of right thigh, 2 cm above the right knee. 7. Incised wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep on inner aspect of front of left thigh 17 cm x below the greater trouchenter. 8. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm skin deep on the back of left fore arm, 11 cm below the left elbow. 9. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm musle deep on the back of left thigh upper part 17 cm below the left greater trochenter. 16. On internal examination, the doctor found that left pleura was cut under injury No. 4. There was a cut on the left lung under injury No. 4. There was a cut on left lung under injury No. 4. There was about half pint blood fluid present on left side of chest cavity. 17. There was about 4 once semi digested material in the abdomen. The other organs were found normal. In the opinion of the doctgor the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injury to the lungs. Injuries fond on the person of the deceased, in the opinion of the doctor were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The Anti mortem injuries could be caused with knife and Chhuris. 18. Doctor H.B. Bhutt (PW-9) has also proved post-mortem examination report (Ex-Ka 10) of the deceased Manjoo. The Doctor performed the autopsy on his dead body at 12 O’clock noon on 3.5.1981 in the District Hospital, Rampur. The Anti mortem injuries could be caused with knife and Chhuris. 18. Doctor H.B. Bhutt (PW-9) has also proved post-mortem examination report (Ex-Ka 10) of the deceased Manjoo. The Doctor performed the autopsy on his dead body at 12 O’clock noon on 3.5.1981 in the District Hospital, Rampur. In his opinion, the age of deceased was about 33 years and the death of the deceased occurred at 3.25 AM on 3.5.1981 in the District Hospital, Rampur. The Doctor found the following anti mortem injuries on his person. 1. Multiple abraded contusions present in an area of 10 cm x 7 cm on the front end middle of head 8 cm above the root of the nose. 2. Abrasion 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm on the bridge of nose 0.5 cm below the root of nose. 3. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.25 cm on the left side of the nose 0.5 cm away from the root of the nose. 4. Multiple abrasion in an area of 11 cm x 4 cm in front of the knee left and upper part of left leg. 5. Multiple abrasion in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm on front of right knee. 6. One stitched wound 2 cm long on the right hip 4 cm below the greater trochenter. 19. On internal examination, the Doctor found the fracture of frontal bone under injury No. 1 Membranes were congested. The brain was congested. Blood clott were found on the surface of the brain. The other organs of the body were normal. 20. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of the death of the deceased was come as a result of head injury. In his opinion injuries No. 1 to 5 could be caused with some blunt object like butt of Tamancha. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In his cross-examination the Doctor said that the injury No. 4 of Aziz was fatal and the other injuries were simple. Injury No. 1 of deceased Manjoo was fatal and other injuries were simple. The doctor said that the injuries found on the person of Manjoo Khan could be more probably caused with lathi and the butts of Tamancha. In the opinion of the doctor it was not necessary that Manjoo would have become unconscious immediately after sustaining the injury No. 1. The doctor said that the injuries found on the person of Manjoo Khan could be more probably caused with lathi and the butts of Tamancha. In the opinion of the doctor it was not necessary that Manjoo would have become unconscious immediately after sustaining the injury No. 1. The statement of the Doctor has not been challenged in any other point. 21. The manner of occurrence was deposed to at the trial by Iqrar (PW-1), Abrar (PW-2), Amin (PW-4), Doola Mian (PW-4) and Mohammad Yusuf (PW-5). 22. Iqrar (PW-1) is the informant of this case, who had also received injuries in the alleged occurrence. He stated that on Wednesday about 2 days before the incident Aziz Pahelwan had taken the luggage in tonga of Rais Pahelwan to Patti Bazar. On Thursday Aziz demanded the fair charges on which Rais Pahelwan had threatened Aziz by saying that how he dare to demand the money? And some oral altercation took place between them but the matter was intervened by Nazeer Ahmad. He also stated that on Saturday at about 4-4.30 PM some altercation took place between his brother Abrar and Shareef @ Dilphar and abuses were exchanged and his brother slapped to Shareef @ Dilphar, the matter was intervened by some persons, thereafter Shareef @ Dilphar went to his house. He further stated that his brother Abrar sat on a cot in Taal of Dula Mian (PW-4). That thereafter appellants Inamulla, Rais, Shafiq @ Gama and Mehndi Bhatia came there. Rais and Mehndi were having chhuri in their hands while Shafiq was having country made pistol and Inamulla was having knife. Dula Mian and Amin was also present in the Taal. Shafiq abuses Abrar and Rais said to Aziz as he shall also be given payment thereafter altercation took place between them and all of them went therefrom towaeds the Tiraha of Dak Bunglow. In continuation of such altercation Inamullah, Rais and Mehndi started to assault Aziz by knife and chhuris. First informant Iqrar, his brother Abrar and Manjoo Khan tried to save Aziz but Shafiq opened fire on Abrar but it could not hit him. Thereafter Manjoo caught hold Shafiq then Shafiq caused injuries on his head by Butt of Tamancha. In continuation of such altercation Inamullah, Rais and Mehndi started to assault Aziz by knife and chhuris. First informant Iqrar, his brother Abrar and Manjoo Khan tried to save Aziz but Shafiq opened fire on Abrar but it could not hit him. Thereafter Manjoo caught hold Shafiq then Shafiq caused injuries on his head by Butt of Tamancha. It is also stated by him that he and his brother Abrar further tried to save Aziz but all the three accused persons also assaulted them and Aziz scummed to the injuries sustained. Manjoo Khan was also badly injured. He and Abrar had also received injuries; that Ali Jaan, Amin, Doola Mian and other resident of locality and nearby came on the spot thereafter accused persons went away towards Rock. He also stated that he took Abrar and Manjoo in a Rickshaw thereafter bring them concerning police station where First Information Report was got lodged. Manjoo and Abrar were sent for medical examination and Manjoo expired subsequently during treatment. 23. Abrar Hussain (PW-2), who was injured in this incident, Amin (PW-3), Dulla (PW-4) and Mohammad Yusuf (PW-5), who also witnessed the incident have re-iterated the version in the First Information Report. 24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that there are inconsistency in the evidence of PW1- Iqrar, PW-2 Abrar Hussain, PW-3 Amin, PW-4 Dulla and PW-5 Mohd. Yusuf and their statements are photographic in nature which should not be accepted. The description of the incident given by witnesses is also suspected as some of the statements made by them were not disclosed to the investigation officer as would also appear from the evidence of Investigating Officer.It is also submitted that all the eye-witnesses are interested and inimical and there are discrepancies in their oral testimony as such their evidence is not trustworthy and reliable. 25. The further submission is that the First Information Report is ante timed as in Chitti Majroobi, whereby informant Iqram, Manoo were sent for medical examination does not bear the description of case such as case crime number and Sections. The statements of injured are that they went to the police station, where report was lodged then they were sent for medical examination. The statements of injured are that they went to the police station, where report was lodged then they were sent for medical examination. The fact that the crime number has not been mentioned in the letters addressed to the doctor for medical examination clearly shows that the FIR is ante timed and it was lodged after inquest and post-mortem. 26. Learned A.G.A. per contra submits that the discrepancies as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are minor discrepancies. It is a day light murder case. Injured as well as the witnesses present on the spot at the time of occurrence have given actual true version of the incident. It is also submitted that presence of injured witness PW-1 Iqrar and PW-2 Abrar Hussain cannot be disputed as they received the injuries in the same incident. Further PW-3 Amin and PW-5 Yusuf are the witnesses shown in the First Information Report, where as Dulla PW-4 is the Taal owner where incident started and all the witnesses of fact have supported prosecution version by way of reliable and clinching evidence. 27. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that First Information Report is anti timed cannot be accepted for the reason that the time of incident mention in it is around 4-15 PM and chick FIR was prepared at 4-45 PM. After lodging the First Information Report, the injured were sent for medical and injured Iqrar and Manjoo Khan were examined at Primary Health Centre, Suar at 5.25 and 5.40 pm respectively. The statements of injured witnesses is that they first went to the police station, where First Information Report was lodged by PW-1 Iqrar then they were sent by the police for medical examination. Time of chick FIR mentioned in the inquest was 9.45 pm. Time of commencement of the inquest of Aziz was mentioned as 6 pm and completion was 7 pm. As such there is no missing link in the sequence of events and the time mentioned in the FIR does not suggest that it is anti timed. There are consistent statements of injured witnesses, Investigating Officer and doctors proving the sequence of events and merely because crime number was not mentioned in the letters sent to doctor alongwith injured witnesses for medical examination as such it cannot be inferred that FIR is ante timed. 28. There are consistent statements of injured witnesses, Investigating Officer and doctors proving the sequence of events and merely because crime number was not mentioned in the letters sent to doctor alongwith injured witnesses for medical examination as such it cannot be inferred that FIR is ante timed. 28. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants regarding relation of witnesses or they are interested/inimical witnesses, in fact, can be discussed together inasmuch as they are based upon somewhat common submissions. There is no doubt that PW1 and PW2, both are real brothers, PW3 is neighbour of deceased Aziz. PW4 Dulla is tall owner where deceased Aziz and Abrar were sitting at the time when accused persons came. In the same way deceased Aziz was maternal uncle of Pw5. The contention raised before us is that all of the witnesses are interested witnesses and have not stated true facts before the Court and thus, their statements should be entirely disbelieved. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. It has come on record that initial altercation just before the incident had taken place between PW2and brother of accused Rais and Shafiq and thereafter all the accused persons came with preparation. There was apparently some anger and rift between the Aziz, Abrar and Accused rais and other accused persons. The deceased was attacked by the accused in the presence of the witness of fact adduced by prosecution and PW1,PW2 and Manjoo tried to save Aziz but they were also belaboured and Manju died subsequently due to injuries sustained in the same incident. It was but natural for the prosecution to produce PW1 and PW2 as the main eye-witnesses as they had actually not only seen the occurrence but received injuries in the same incident and they have been believed by the trial Court.In the same way presence of other eye-witness is also established. Even before us, no serious attempt has been made and in fact, nothing appears from the record to show that aforesaid witnesses of fact were not present on the site. There is no hard and fast rule that family members or relative witnesses can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsity before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. There is no hard and fast rule that family members or relative witnesses can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsity before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. Union teritorry, (2010)1 SCC 199 , Hon’ble Apex Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim”. 29. In so far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants regarding the discrepancies of prosecution witness is concerned, the witness are in fact on the main points as to how the accused person came on the spot having weapons of assault and inflicted injuries intact.No such a grave contradiction could have been shown in the evidence of witnesses which effect the entire prosecution version adversely. In our view minor contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses are bound to occur. Minor discrepancies not touching the core of the case cannot be the ground for rejection of evidence in entirety. 30. A reference may be made to the judgement of Apex Court delivered in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, M.P. Thakkar, J. observed : “13. 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. 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. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important “probabilities-factor” echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.” 31. From a perusal of the record, we find that the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 is clear and categorical in reference to the manner of incident and the role played by accused persons. They have clearly and consistently supported the prosecution version and have unequivocally stated that the deceased Aziz was caused multiple injuries resulting his death on spot and PW1,PW2 alongwith Manjoo, who tried to save Aziz were also asaulted causing serious injuries due to which Manjoo also died subsequently.The aforesaid version narrated by the prosecution witnesses, viz. PWs 1 to 5 also finds corroboration from the facts stated in first Information Report. Their statements about weapons of assault, as well as the injuries caused by the appellants are duly supported by the medical evidence, as well as by the statements of the investigating officers. Thus, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellants is liable to be rejected. 32. It further comes out that the incident occurred at about 4-15 pm. Injured Iqram (PW-1) alongwith injured Abrar Hussain (PW-2) and Manjoo Khan, who died subsequently during treatment reached to the police station, lodged the FIR and were taken by police for medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Suar where they were examined by Dr. P.S. Thakar (PW-6). Incident happened in day light, therefore it is improbable that the appellants have been falsely implicated as promptness in lodging of the First Information Report shows that there was no time for manipulation. P.S. Thakar (PW-6). Incident happened in day light, therefore it is improbable that the appellants have been falsely implicated as promptness in lodging of the First Information Report shows that there was no time for manipulation. Further it does not appeal to reason as to why injured witnesses would falsely implicate the appellants and spare the real culprits to go scot free. 33. In view of the discussions made above, we reach an inescapable conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the commission of the offence for which they have been charged, we do not find any force in the present appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 34. The impugned judgement and order dated 14.10.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 1981 District-Rampur convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants is affirmed. Appellants have to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by this Court. 35. The certified copy be sent to the learned Court below within a week. The record of the case be also transmitted the Court below alongwith certified copy of the judgment.