JUDGMENT : SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 18.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1997 vide Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1997 which arose out of G. R. Case No. 1421 of 1990 corresponding to Kotwali P.S. Case No. 501 of 1990 dated 20th November, 1990 convicting the accused appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution case leading to the instant appeal is that on the basis of a written complaint of one Dhekibala Roy, Jalpaiguri Kotwali P.S. case no. 501/90 dated 20.11.1990 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was started and on usual investigation Charge-sheet no. 49/94 dated 22.04.1994 under section 302 IPC was submitted against four accused persons including the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 20th November, 1990 at 13.25 hours the de facto complainant submitted written complaint to this effect that on 3rd Agrahayan, 1397 B.S. at about 10.00 hours one Jagat Roy, Bijoy Roy and others were seen by the complainant with dismay blood smeared clothes on their person near Kalimandir of that village who were going to North from the house of Jagat Roy. On suspicion the de facto complainant went to the spot where she saw Pramatha Nath Roy lying dead with bleeding injuries on his person in the paddy field where the deceased had been to harvest paddy. 4. After the said Charge-sheet was submitted, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after taking cognizance under the provision of Section 193 Cr.P.C., transferred the same to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. Thereafter, Sessions trial was started with the framing charge under Section 302 IPC against all the accused persons to which they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses out of 22 C.S. witnesses to substantiate the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons. 5. Thereafter, Sessions trial was started with the framing charge under Section 302 IPC against all the accused persons to which they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses out of 22 C.S. witnesses to substantiate the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons. 5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which they declined to adduce D.W. Learned Sessions Judge on hearing both sides found the accused persons, namely, Ragat Roy and Sari Kanta Roy @ Tuleshwar Roy guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC by the impugned judgment. 6. It would not be out of the context to mention here that the accused Jagat Roy died during the pendency of this appeal and his son Sari Kanta Roy appellant herein is before us. 7. The appellants preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge failed to consider that P.W.-3 de facto complainant and only eyewitness P.W.-4 Bulu Roy are the relations of the deceased and as such, both are interested witnesses. 8. According to P.W.-3 he saw Jagat Roy and others going from the field with blood stained clothes but no blood stained wearing apparels have been recovered from the accused persons. It is further submitted that as per evidence of P.W.-2 police seized two sickles from the side of the dead body in his presence but P.W.-3 and P.W.-13 did not say anything in respect of the seizure of said sickles. P.W.-13 specifically stated that nothing was seized in his presence from the place of occurrence on the date of incident. 9. Accordingly it is submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider the evidence of the witnesses in its right perspective and the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC is illegal and bad in law and thus has prayed for setting aside the judgment impugned. 10. Now the point for decision is as to whether prosecution has been able to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and whether the judgment impugned is tenable in law and in fact. 10. Now the point for decision is as to whether prosecution has been able to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and whether the judgment impugned is tenable in law and in fact. Now, let us critically scrutinize the evidence on record. 11. In the present case P.W.-4 is the only eyewitness for the prosecution. According to him, he has landed property by the side of the plot of land belonging to the deceased who was murdered about 6/7 years back at about 10 A.M. from the date of his deposition on 01.06.1998. P.W.-4 was working in his paddy field while the deceased was also in his land. He saw the accused Jagat and Sari Kanta committing murder of said deceased Promotha Nath Roy with the help of sickles. The accused persons were also identified by this witness during trial. But he could not narrate the incident to anybody out of fear on the very day. P.W.-3 the de facto complainant stated on oath that she was going towards Kali temple of her village and when she reached near paddy field found Jagat going towards North whose cloths were stained with blood and also found some other persons with him but could not recognize. On seeing this she rushed to the paddy field to enquire about him who was found lying dead with bleeding injury. She raised alarm and villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. Her cross-examination on behalf of appellant was declined at the time of trial. She narrated the incident to one Babulal Kumar Deb P.W.-6 of her locality who wrote an FIR, contents of which were read over and explained to her and then she put her LTI. Said Babulal has also proved the said fact that written complaint was ascribed by him as per instruction of P.W.-3 and he read over and explained the contents to her and then she put her LTI on the complaint which was lodged with the P.S. and specific police case was started against the accused persons. Thus, we find that FIR finds corroboration by its maker as the evidence deposed by P.W.-3 is in general agreement with the FIR. 12. Thus, we find that FIR finds corroboration by its maker as the evidence deposed by P.W.-3 is in general agreement with the FIR. 12. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant that PW-3 had admitted about long standing land dispute between the accused persons and the deceased and submitted that motive of the de facto complainant is to falsely implicate the accused persons and relied on a decision in case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2007)13 SCC 501 by adverting our attention to paragraph 11 of the cited decision wherein it has been observed at para 26 thus – “26. Proof of motive by itself may not be a ground to hold the accused guilty. Enmity, as is well known, is a double-edged weapon. Whereas existence of a motive on the part of the accused may be held to be the reason for committing crime, the same may also lead to false implication. Suspicion against the accused on the basis of their motive to commit the crime cannot by itself lead to a judgment of conviction.” It has been held, thus— “An information received by the officer in charge of a police station for commission of a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing so as enable him to start investigation. Lodging of a first information report is necessary for setting the criminal law in motion. It can be lodged by anybody. It, however, should not be too sketchy so as to make initiation of investigation on the basis thereof impossible. Only information in regard to commission of an offence may not for all intent and purport satisfy the requirement of the first information report. When, however, the first information report is lodged by a person who claims himself to be aware of not only the commission of the offence, the name of the deceased and at least one of the accused who had committed the same, could have been recorded on the basis thereof. It may, however, be another thing to say that any information in regard to the commission of an offence is given by way of a telephone or by a person who does not disclose his identity and such massage is so cryptic that it may not satisfy the requirement of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may, however, be another thing to say that any information in regard to the commission of an offence is given by way of a telephone or by a person who does not disclose his identity and such massage is so cryptic that it may not satisfy the requirement of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A first information report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held.” 13. In the cited decision there was delay of more than three days to send the first information report to the Court of Magistrate which indicated that the first information report was antedated and it was considered having been lodged afterthought and antedated hit by provision of Section 161 of Indian Penal Code as despite knowledge of all the details of incident known to the first informant, he did not furnish the name and lodged another report at the spot. 14. In our view, the cited decision is distinguishable from the instant case because in the case in hand, the written complaint was lodged on 20.11.1990 at 13.25 hours and Kotwali P.S. case no. 501 of 1990 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was started and the formal FIR was drawn up which shows that occurrence took place on 20.11.1990 on that day at about 11.00 hours. Inquest Report Exhibit-1/2 reveals that it was held at 16:30 hours. Therefore, it cannot be said that the First Information Report was lodged after the inquest was held afterthought and antedated. P.W.-6 is scribe of the First Information Report. According to him, he knew Pramatha Nath Roy who has been murdered on 20.11.1990 at about 10.00 A.M. in the paddy field when the deceased had been to his land to harvest the paddy. He was attacked by Jagat and others. According to the de facto complainant, he wrote the complaint and the content of which was read over and explained to her and she put her LTI in his presence. P.W.-6 has proved his endorsement on the written complaint as Exhibit- 4. Therefore, there is no delay in lodgment of the FIR. 15. He was attacked by Jagat and others. According to the de facto complainant, he wrote the complaint and the content of which was read over and explained to her and she put her LTI in his presence. P.W.-6 has proved his endorsement on the written complaint as Exhibit- 4. Therefore, there is no delay in lodgment of the FIR. 15. P.W.-1 was declared hostile, nevertheless, he has stated that he knew the deceased who was murdered about eight years ago from the date of his deposition on 30th March, 1998 but according to him, on the date of murder he was working in the field and had heard a noise besides he does not know anything else. This witness although identified all the accused persons during trial. It shows that the deceased was murdered. Therefore, there is no denial that the deceased was murdered in the village. 16. P.W.-16, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kotwali P.S. was endorsed to investigate the case on 20.11.1990. After taking up investigation he visited place of occurrence drew up sketch map of the P.O. with explanatory index Exhibit-6 and held inquest over the dead body of Pramatha Nath Roy vide Exhibit-1/2 in presence of witnesses and then sent the dead body through Constable no. 1304 Dwijendra Nath Majumdar P.W.-9 for Post-Mortem examination under a dead body challan Exhibit- 5/1. It would appear from the evidence of Dr. Gananath Dasgupta P.W.-5 that he held Post-Mortem examination in respect of the dead body of the deceased who was brought and identified by P.W.-9 in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no. 501/90 dated 20.11.1990 and found the following injuries – 1. One sharp cutting jury on right upper limb about 2”x1” around the wrist with a fracture both radius and ulna. 2. Sharp cutting injury over the scalp on parietal region. 3. One cut injury about the size of 3”x1” in the left upper limb at the wrist. 4. Penetrating injury over the right hypochondria about the size of 2”x1½” with laceration of right lobe of Lever and huge heamo peritoneum. 17. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon death was due to shock and injuries caused to him, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 4. Penetrating injury over the right hypochondria about the size of 2”x1½” with laceration of right lobe of Lever and huge heamo peritoneum. 17. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon death was due to shock and injuries caused to him, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He has specifically opined that all the above noted injuries can be caused to a person by means of sickles which were shown to the doctor at the time of trial as the material exhibits of the case seized by the Investigating Officer. 18. Inquest report, FIR, Sketch-map of the P.O. with explanatory index reflect the place of occurrence, situs of the dead body at the paddy field and finds corroboration by the medical evidence of the said Autopsy Surgeon with regard to the injuries on the person of the deceased. 19. Learned Counsel for the appellants adverted to certain contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses, viz, i. During cross-examination the de facto complainant P.W.-3 stated that First Information Report was written by one Babul in the house of Chilka at night. But said Babul P.W.-6 stated that P.W.-3 reported the incident to him at about 12 hours on 20.11.1990 and F.I.R Exhibit 4 was written under her instruction and that it was received at the police station at about 13.25 hours on the said date. ii. P.W.-4 stated that he had narrated the incident to the son of Pramatha Roy on the following date of incident but P.W.-8, the son of the deceased stated in his evidence that after two days of incident said P.W.-4 told him that accused Jagat Roy and Srikanta had murdered his father. iii. P.W.-2 deposed that the dead body of the deceased was found on the land of one Swaraj Chandra Ghosh. P.W.-12 stated that the paddy fields belong to Ranglal and Kunjalal but according to P.W.-10 said land belonged to Ranglal Roy. iv. P.W.-2 stated that police seized two sickles from the side of the dead body in his presence but others did not say anything in respect of sickles whereas P.W.-13 stated otherwise that nothing was seized in his presence at the P.O. on the very date of incident. 20. iv. P.W.-2 stated that police seized two sickles from the side of the dead body in his presence but others did not say anything in respect of sickles whereas P.W.-13 stated otherwise that nothing was seized in his presence at the P.O. on the very date of incident. 20. While considering the aforesaid contradictions in the prosecution evidence, learned Judge has observed that the witnesses were examined in the year 1998, almost after eight years of incident and such discrepancies in their statements of the witnesses do occur but are not fatal to the prosecution case by adhering to the principle that minor discrepancies in the testimonies of eye witnesses can be overlooked when credibility of their version is not shaken. Mere insignificant omission and minor discrepancies in their statement is no ground for disbelieving the ocular testimony of the witnesses and they are not sufficient to disbelieve the eye witnesses particularly when they corroborate one another on material aspects. Minor discrepancies are bound to appear in course of lapse of time when the ignorant and illiterate witnesses are giving evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 that in the depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies were those which were not normal and not expected of a normal person. As elicited above by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that contradictions or improvements in minor details cannot be regarded as very material or as positive of mendacity of the witness and whole case cannot be thrown out on that account. 21. As regards the FIR, mere contradiction regarding time of lodging of the FIR would not discredit the main prosecution case which was otherwise reliable and trustworthy. 22. That apart, we are of the considered opinion and hold that an FIR becomes immaterial when the accused is committed to a Court of Sessions. 23. 21. As regards the FIR, mere contradiction regarding time of lodging of the FIR would not discredit the main prosecution case which was otherwise reliable and trustworthy. 22. That apart, we are of the considered opinion and hold that an FIR becomes immaterial when the accused is committed to a Court of Sessions. 23. Inviting our attention to the evidence of eye witness P.W.-4, it is pointed out that his conduct in not telling anyone about the occurrence till the next date is unnatural creating an impression that he had not witnessed the incident of murder allegedly committed by Jagat and the present appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of Alil Molla and another versus State of West Bengal reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1028. In the cited decision the alleged eyewitness was an employee of the deceased who was present when the deceased was being assaulted by the appellants and he also admitted that after committing the crime the appellants and their associates had fled away. Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the witness not only did not raise any alarm when his master was being assaulted, he did not go near his employer even after the assailants had fled away to see the condition in which the employer was after having suffered the assault. According to him he got frightened and fled away to his home. He also admitted in his cross-examination that neither at his home nor in the village did he disclose what he had seen in the evening to anyone. Though in the morning of the following day, the witness went to the brick-fields of the deceased-employer and many of his co-employees were also present there, he admitted that he did not disclose the occurrence to anyone of them and went on to concede that even to the Manager of the brick-fields he gave the information about the occurrence only 2-3 days after the occurrence. His statement was recorded by the police on the next day in the afternoon. This conduct of the witness that he did not tell anyone about the occurrence till the next day appears to be rather unnatural and creates an impression that he had not witnessed the occurrence. His statement was recorded by the police on the next day in the afternoon. This conduct of the witness that he did not tell anyone about the occurrence till the next day appears to be rather unnatural and creates an impression that he had not witnessed the occurrence. The witness however tried to take shelter on the plea that he was ‘frightened’ and therefore till he appeared before the police, he did not pick up courage to inform anyone either in the village or in the brick-fields regarding the occurrence. This plea did not impress the Hon’ble Apex Court because the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and went to the village where the witnesses resides and remained there till the next day. It was not understandable why the witness who was in the village did not appear before the investigating officer, when he was camping in the village throughout the night or even the next morning. 24. We have respectfully gone through the decision cited above and we are of the view that there was no corroboration of the evidence of alleged eyewitness whereas in the instant case we have found that the evidence of eye witness P.W.-4 finds corroboration by P.W.-8 the son of the deceased to whom the eyewitness had narrated the fact of having witnessed the occurrence of crime of murder of his father by the accused appellant along with his father Jagat Roy, since died. It is true that P.W.-4 had also stated about the incident to one Kenu but said Kenu has not been examined by the prosecution but non-examination of said Kenu is not fatal to the instant case in our considered view. 25. Yet, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on case of Rajindra and others v. State of Haryana and another reported in JT 2001(3) 262 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence objectively. He failed to see that all the male members of the two families of the accused were involved because of enmity on account of land dispute. The evidence of the P.W.-7, the sole eyewitness without any corroboration ought to have been scrutinized with great caution who has given the graphic details as to the injuries caused by each accused when he himself was frightened and was running away. The evidence of the P.W.-7, the sole eyewitness without any corroboration ought to have been scrutinized with great caution who has given the graphic details as to the injuries caused by each accused when he himself was frightened and was running away. The trial court partly believed the recovery of weapons and clothes but the High Court totally disbelieved the recovery. This was also a strong circumstance against the prosecution. 26. The prosecution case entirely rested on the sole evidence of PW-7, who was not only interested being the cousin of the deceased and was inimical too to the accused in view of the civil litigation referred to above. It was unsafe to act on his evidence without any corroboration. Although there were material witnesses available to corroborate, their non-examination on withholding their evidence was a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. Non-examination of another eyewitness, Sumer, whose name was mentioned in the FIR and who had witnessed the occurrence according to PW-7, was also fatal. 27. This case in our view is also distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We have found on evidence that P.W.-4 who had witnessed the occurrence taking place in which the deceased was inflicted with injury by the accused Jagat Roy and Sari Kanta Roy on the date of occurrence by means of sickles. Those sickles were also seized under seizure list by the Investigating Officer during trial in presence of witnesses and identified at the trial. Thus, the evidence of the PW-4 finds corroboration by PW-3, the FIR maker and so also by the son of the deceased P.W.-8 who have categorically stated on oath and their ocular testimonies which instill the confidence of the court to hold that P.W.-4 disclosed to the son of the deceased within proximity of time. It is not the case that P.W.-4 made statement to I.O. but failed to disclose the said fact of his witnessing the occurrence and allegedly improved his version in court. 28. It would be pertinent to take note of the fact that prosecution eyewitness PW-4 is no way related to the deceased and has no land dispute with the accused persons, ergo, it cannot be said that he was largely interested in seeing to it that the accused appellants gets sufferance from custody in jail for life. 28. It would be pertinent to take note of the fact that prosecution eyewitness PW-4 is no way related to the deceased and has no land dispute with the accused persons, ergo, it cannot be said that he was largely interested in seeing to it that the accused appellants gets sufferance from custody in jail for life. That apart, it is well settled that enmity of the eye witnesses with accused cannot be a ground to reject their testimony out right. Thus, case reported in JT 2001 (3) 263 is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 29. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the observation in paragraph 9 in case of Rajkumar Pandey versus the state of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1026 which reads thus— “9. No doubt, an F.I.R. is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were known up to 9.15 p.m. on 23-3-1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the applicant inflicting a blow on Harbinder Singh the father would certainly have mentioned it in the F.I.R.. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.” 30. We observe that the Hon’ble Court was of the view that credence to the version of the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be placed as they were not mentioned as eyewitnesses in the FIR made in the circumstances of the case. In our view this cited decision is also distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case as P.W.-3 had seen the accused persons coming from the paddy fields and their cloth stained with blood and rushed to the place of occurrence where the deceased had been to harvest the paddy in the field having apprehension in her mind due to long standing dispute in land with the accused persons and found the deceased lying dead with bleeding injury. Having raised alarm villagers gathered at that spot and all prosecution witnesses have testified the fact of having seen the deceased lying dead with bleeding injury in the paddy fields on the fateful day. Thus the prosecution case finds corroboration with that of the eyewitness P.W.-4 who was also working in his paddy field situated by the side at the place of occurrence, who deposed that he saw the crime of murder perpetrated by the present appellant and his deceased father Jagat. In the FIR the de facto complainant has narrated the name of Jagat Roy and others who were seen coming from the paddy field. 31. It is settled principle of law that there is no law which lays down that in the absence of any independent witness, evidence of interested witnesses should be thrown out at the behest of or should not be relied upon for convicting an accused. What the law requires is that where the witnesses are interested, the court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. The evidence of interested witness is not like that of an approver which is presumed to be tainted and requires corroboration, but the said evidence as good as any other evidence. We do find that P.W.-7 has stated in his cross-examination that he stated before the police that he saw four accused persons fleeing towards the north of paddy fields but the IO has categorically stated that said witness has not stated so. P.W.-7 of Lahiripara has testified the fact that on hearing the news of death of his elder brother rushed to the P.O. and found the accused persons fleeing towards north but the I.O. did not support the fact. We do find that P.W.-7 has not made statement to the I.O. at the earliest point of time whereas stated before the trial court. So reliance may not be placed on his testimony, but that by itself do not shake the prosecution case as a whole. Therefore, we held that the deceased died a homicidal death due to injury inflicted on him. 32. So reliance may not be placed on his testimony, but that by itself do not shake the prosecution case as a whole. Therefore, we held that the deceased died a homicidal death due to injury inflicted on him. 32. Learned Trial Judge has rightly taken note of the evidence on record with the following observation— i. P.W.-3 de facto complainant saw accused Jagat Roy with other persons with blood stained cloths over their person in the morning at 10 A.M. on the date of incident. ii. On suspicion she went to the paddy field and found Pramatha Nath Roy lying dead with bleeding injuries. iii. P.W.-3 narrated the incident to P.W.-6, who scribed the complaint on her instruction. iv. P.W.-4 saw the accused Jagat Roy & Sari Kanta Roy to commit murder of the deceased with the help of sickles. v. Two sickles were seized by the police in presence of P.W.-2 who was Headman of the Village Panchayat vide seizure list and identified on proof as Material Exhibit-I collectively by P.W.-2 and I.O. P.W.-16. vi. Prosecution witnesses have seen the dead body of Pramatha Nath Roy in the paddy field and testified the fact that he was murdered in the morning of the 20th November, 1990. vii. P.W.-5 Autopsy Surgeon has also corroborated the prosecution case that injuries found on the body of the dead person might be caused by means of the said sickles. 33. In the context of the above discussion and on critical analysis of the statements of P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-8 taken together with the medical evidence, we came to conclusion that there is no material improvement, much less contradiction in the deposition of said eyewitness P.W.-4 made before the trial court and thus, we do not find any ground to interfere into the findings of the trial court in the judgment impugned and affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence not being devoid of any merit. In the result, Appeal fails. 34. Let the Lower Court Record together with a copy of this Judgment be sent down to the learned Trial Court and to the concerned Superintendent of Correctional Home forthwith for information and compliance. 35. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. I agree