JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1995 whereby the accused have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under section 302 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, as per the prosecution are that on 10.07.1995 at about 6.30 pm, while deceased Jayantibhai was returning after attending the natural call, the respondent No. 1-accused, with an intention to kill Jayantibhai, gave knife blows on his chest and abdomen. Respondents No. 2 and 3 caught hold of Jayantibhai facilitating respondent No. 1-accused to inflict knife blows. It was alleged that the accused No. 1, with an intention to kill Jayantibhai, inflicted knife blows on his chest and abdomen. A complaint was registered against the accused vide C.R. No. I-115 of 1995 for the offence under section302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2.1 As the offence was triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied all the charges and pleased to be tried. Hence the prosecution was asked to prove the guilt against the accused. 2.2 To prove the guilt against the accused prosecution examined following witnesses: P.W. No Name Exh. No 1 Amrutji Shakraji 17 2 Parvatiben Ishwarji 18 3 Shivaji Shakarji 20 4 Rameshji Babaji 21 5 Laxmanji Shanaji 22 6 Shanaji Joitaji 27 7 Savitaben Shivaji 23 8 Dr. Pratik Ravjibhai Patel 28 9 Parbatbhai Ravjibhai Rajput 30 10 Akhtarkhan Aalamkhan 32 11 Purshottambhai Bhimjibhai Mer 33 2.3 The prosecution also relied on following documentary evidence. Sr. No. Description Exh. No. 1 Complaint 18 2 Inquest Panchnama 10 3 Panchnama of scene of offence 24 4 Maps of scene of offence 34 5 Panchnama of clothes of deceased 6 Discovery Panchnama (weapon) 31 7 Cause of death slip 12 8 P.M. Note 29 9 Ravangi Nondh 13 10 Receipt of F.S.L. 14 11 Panchnama of body condition of the accused. No. 1 Complaint 18 2 Inquest Panchnama 10 3 Panchnama of scene of offence 24 4 Maps of scene of offence 34 5 Panchnama of clothes of deceased 6 Discovery Panchnama (weapon) 31 7 Cause of death slip 12 8 P.M. Note 29 9 Ravangi Nondh 13 10 Receipt of F.S.L. 14 11 Panchnama of body condition of the accused. 25 12 Rawangi Nondh 12 13 Report of FSL with letter 16 2.4 On submission of closing pursis by the prosecution, learned Sessions Judge recorded further statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure qua incriminating evidence. Upon affording opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the impugned judgment and order as aforesaid was delivered giving rise to prefer the present appeal. 3. Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in acquitting the respondents accused. It was contended by Ms. Shah, that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law and the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the offence alleged against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 3.1 Ms. Shah, Learned APP has mainly taken this court through the evidence of PW 2-Parvatiben Ishwarji (Exh. 18), PW 3-Shivaji Shakraji-(Exh.20), PW 4-Rameshji Babaji (Exh. 21), PW 5 (Laxmanji Shanaji (Exh. 22), PW 6-Shanaji Joitaji (Exh. 23) and PW 7-Savitaben Shivaji (Exh. 27). She contended that even evidence of the complainant and eye witness (PW 2) and other two persons mainly PW 3-Shivaji Shakraji (Exh. 20) before whom the deceased has given oral dying declaration in presence of PW 7-Savitaben Shivaji-(Exh. 27) support the case of the prosecution. 3.2 Ms. Shah has also taken us to the medical evidence of PW 8-Dr. Pratik Ravjibhai Patel (Exh. 28) who had performed Postmortem of the deceased. The PM Note shows eight injuries and those injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased and it was possible with the knife. She has also taken us to the cause of death as well as injuries shown on column No. 17 which is reproduced herein-below. Pratik Ravjibhai Patel (Exh. 28) who had performed Postmortem of the deceased. The PM Note shows eight injuries and those injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased and it was possible with the knife. She has also taken us to the cause of death as well as injuries shown on column No. 17 which is reproduced herein-below. Stab wound about transverse found 10 cm above umbilicus and just right to midplane. Margins sharply cut, Medical angle broad and bruised lateral angle acute size 2.5 cm x 0.8 cm. (2) 1.5 cm above external injury (1) stab wound 4.1 cm x 0.8 cm size, nearly transverse found. Medial angle broad and bruised and lateral angle acute. Margins sharply cut. (3) 5 km deep 1.2 cm. X 0.2 cm incise wound abruptly downward to left found about 4.6 cm below umbilicus and 2 cm right to midplane. (4) stab wound on left front chest 1.51 m above and right to left nipple nearly transverse on 3rd intercostal size. Margins sharply cut angles acute size 4 cm x 1.2. cm. (5) on right side of front of chest at about 7.5 cm below right nipple nearly transverse 3 x 0.8 cm size stab-wound with margin sharply cut a lateral angle broad and bruised and medical angle acute. (6) Transverse 2 cm long x 0.5 cm x muscle deep incise wound at inner end of left clavicle region. (7) Obliquely downward to lateral direction incise wounds about 4.5 cm apart from each other on back of right forearm size 5.5 cm and 6.2 cm apart from each other on back of left forearm near elbow size 5.5 cm and 6.2 cm and were gaping. (8) nearly horizontal two incise wounds of 4.5 cm and 5 cm size and 1.2 cm apart from each other on back of right elbow and are gaping extra injuries No. 7 and 8 were S.C. trans deep. 3.3 She contended that in the recovery panchnama and the scene of incident which was shown at Exh. 34 clearly establishes that the accused had run away from the scene of offence. 3.4 Ms. Shah further submitted that the trial court ought to have considered that there was a motive for the alleged offence committed by the accused. 3.5 Ms. 3.3 She contended that in the recovery panchnama and the scene of incident which was shown at Exh. 34 clearly establishes that the accused had run away from the scene of offence. 3.4 Ms. Shah further submitted that the trial court ought to have considered that there was a motive for the alleged offence committed by the accused. 3.5 Ms. Shah has also submitted that this Court may consider this case as a rarest of rare one in view of the clinching evidences against the accused and award suitable punishment so as to be a deterrent to the society at large. 4. Mr. Manoj Danak, learned advocate appearing for the respondents-accused has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Mr. Danak, submitted that there are serious discrepancies in the medical evidence and evidence of eye witnesses. They are relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses. He also submitted that motive is not proved. He relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Patel Chela Viram versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994 CRI.L.J 2252. He has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. versus Naresh & Others reported in 2011 Cri.L.J 2162 more Particularly paras 23, 24 and 25 which are reproduced herein-below. "23. The High Court has disbelieved Balak Ram (PW.5), who had suffered the gun shot injuries. His evidence could not have been brushed aside by the High Court without assigning cogent reasons. Mere contradictions on trivial matters could not render his deposition untrustworthy. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : ( AIR 2010 SC 3699 ); Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010 AIR SCW 3707) and Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 ] : (2010 AIR SCW 5701). 24. The High Court disbelieved both the witnesses Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram (PW.5) as being closely related to the deceased and for not examining any independent witnesses. In a case like this, it may be difficult for the prosecution to procure an independent witness, wherein the accused had killed one person at the spot and seriously injured the other. The independent witness may not muster the courage to come forward and depose against such accused. A mere relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh (AIR SC 3699) (supra), Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2009 AIR SCW 6363); and Balraje @ Trimbak (2010 AIR SCW 3707) (supra)]. 25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152 ; Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331 ; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 ; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287]; (2011 Cri.LJ 705 (SC)). 5. Mr. Danak, learned advocate for respondent has further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1996) SCC (Cri.) 972, Maniram and others vs. State of U.P. reported in (1994) SCC (Cri,) 1242 and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and another with Subhash Chandra Ananda vs. Sanjay Thakran and another -(2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 162. 6. In the case of STATE OF GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR., reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, he has relied on para 16 of the said decision, which reads as under; 16. 6. In the case of STATE OF GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR., reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, he has relied on para 16 of the said decision, which reads as under; 16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the parties at considerable length and given out thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them. We have also perused the record of this case and closely scrutinised the evidence led by both the parties. We have heard Ms. Shah, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Danak, learned advocate for the respondents. 8. PW 2 Parvatiben Ishwarji who was examined at Exh.19 deposed that on 10.07.1995 when she was returning after attending the natural call, Jayantibhai (deceased) was walking ahead of her about 10 to 15 feet. At that time, all the accused came there. Accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold of Jayantibhai and accused No. 1 gave knife blows on both sides of chest and on the abdomen. When she shouted, the accused ran away from the place of incident. The deceased started to run but he fell down. Shivaji and Rameshji Shakraji came there and took the deceased home. When Shivaji asked Jayantibhai, he gave the name of the accused as having said by Parvatiben. When she shouted, the accused ran away from the place of incident. The deceased started to run but he fell down. Shivaji and Rameshji Shakraji came there and took the deceased home. When Shivaji asked Jayantibhai, he gave the name of the accused as having said by Parvatiben. She had identified the accused in the Court. She has also identified the knife which was used at the time of incident. In her presence, the deceased stated in dying declaration before his brother that the accused had given blows on his chest. Thereafter he was not in a position to say anything. 9. PW 3 Shivaji Shakraji who was examined at Exh. 20 stated that he has seen the accused running away from the place of incident and the deceased was also running. When he asked Jayantibhai (deceased) as to who has given blows to him, he stated name of the accused and told that accused No. 1 had given blows on the chest and abdomen. The deceased was first taken to his home and he was made to lie down on the bed and there was blood on the bed. The clothes were also bloodstained when he has brought the deceased to the hospital. The deceased told him that accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold him and accused No. 1 gave two knife blows on the chest and one on abdomen. 10. PW 4 Rameshji Babaji Thakore was examined at Exh. 21. He stated that he had rushed to the place of incident on hearing the shout. At that time the accused were chasing the deceased. When Jayantibhai fell down, the accused started to run towards their home. He stated that when Shivaji had asked Jayantibhai as to who had given blows, he was present there at that time. He told that there were two blows on the chest and one blow on the abdomen of the deceased. He also stated that the incident occurred as there was an altercation between the accused No. 1 and Raiben who is wife of Amratji 15 days prior to the incident. 11. PW 5 Laxmanji Shanaji Thakore who was examined at Exh.22 stated that he had seen that the accused were chasing Jayantibhai and when Jayantibhai fell down, the accused ran towards their home. 11. PW 5 Laxmanji Shanaji Thakore who was examined at Exh.22 stated that he had seen that the accused were chasing Jayantibhai and when Jayantibhai fell down, the accused ran towards their home. He also supported the case of PW 2, 3 and 4 that when Shivaji (PW 3) asked Jayantibhai as to who had given blows, Jayantibhai gave the name of the accused. PW 6 Shanai Joitaji who was examined at Exh. 23 is the panch witness. 12. PW 7 Savitaben Shivaji was examined at Exh. 2 who stated that on hearing the shouts, her husband had gone to the place of incident. She has also gone there. At that time the deceased was in the pool of blood and he was brought by Parvatiben PW 2, Shivaji PW 3 and Rameshji PW 4. There were two blows on the chest and one on abdomen with the knife. She also stated that when Jayantibhai was asked by Shivaji as to who has given the blow, he specifically told that accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold of him and accused No. 1 gave knife blows to him. 13. Thus, it is evident from the Postmortem Note that the cause of death is knife injury. PW2 Parvatiben Ishwarji had clearly stated that the accused came to the spot and inflicted knife blows on both sides of chest and on the abdomen. The doctor confirmed that the injuries are possible with knife. According to this witness Shivaji had asked to name the accused and Jayantibhai had given the name of the accused No. 1. This witness had also identified the accused in the Court. She has also identified the knife used for the alleged offence. The defence could not controvert any of these depositions. PW3 Shiavaji Shakarji has also fully supported the evidence of PW2 Parvatiben. He also described about the injuries inflicted by the accused. PW4 Rameshji Babaji Thakore deposed that on hearing the shouts he had rushed to the place. He also noticed the injuries. He also stated that when Shivaji had asked Jayantibhai as to who had inflicted the blows, Jayantibhai clearly stated the name of the accused No. 1. Further, PW5 Laxmanji Shanaji Thakore also supported the evidence of PW 2, 3 and 4. Thus, PW2 was at the scene of offence as Jayantibhai was walking in front of her. He also stated that when Shivaji had asked Jayantibhai as to who had inflicted the blows, Jayantibhai clearly stated the name of the accused No. 1. Further, PW5 Laxmanji Shanaji Thakore also supported the evidence of PW 2, 3 and 4. Thus, PW2 was at the scene of offence as Jayantibhai was walking in front of her. She also described about the accused coming to the place and inflicting blows on Jayantibhai. She shouted and thereupon the accused ran away. She had no reason to involve the accused No. 1. She has identified the accused No. 1 and also the knife used by the accused No. 1. Her presence at the place of incident is not doubted by anybody. The injured has also given the name of accused No. 1. The injuries are on vital part of the body. It was also established that there was motive as there was an altercation between the accused No. 1 and Raiben who is wife of Amratji about 15 days prior to the incident. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge should not have discarded the evidence of the said witnesses. 14. The first and foremost evidence is of PW 7-Savitaben Shivaji Exh. 27, who is the eyewitness. In her cross examination she has admitted that incident has happened at 6.30 p.m. She has stated that her brother-in-law had come at 10 o clock. However, it was at around 7.30 p.m. Merely because she has stated the wrong time, her presence cannot be disputed and the acquittal cannot be based on the same. The same is supported by the brother of the deceased who has reached to the scene of offence and son of the accused. Their evidence is also supported by PW 7 Savitaben Shivaji (Exh. 27). Accused No. 2 and 3 have also caught hold the deceased however their names were not reflected in the first Vardhy and hence their involvement is doubtful. Thought the witnesses are close relatives, they have stood firm despite incisive cross-examination. There can be no doubt over the proposition that when the witnesses are related and interested, their testimony should be closely scrutinized, but as we find, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their version. There was no reason for the witnesses to involve the accused in the alleged offence. There can be no doubt over the proposition that when the witnesses are related and interested, their testimony should be closely scrutinized, but as we find, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their version. There was no reason for the witnesses to involve the accused in the alleged offence. On a studied scrutiny of their evidence, it can be said with certitude that they have lent support to each other's version in all material particulars. There are some minor contradictions and omissions which have been emphasized by the learned trial Judge. We treat the said discrepancies and the minor contradictions as natural. That apart, their evidence also find support from the medical evidence. We are of the opinion that there is no inconsistency in the version of witnesses. The learned trial Judge, has attached immense emphasis to such omissions and contradictions. In our considered opinion, in the present case, the same cannot be a ground for not placing reliance on the eye witnesses who has supported the prosecution. 15. As far as medical evidence is concerned, injuries were described in column No. 17 of the PM Note. The doctor who was examined at PW 28 stated that there were as many as eight injuries found on the body of the deceased and the opinion of the doctor was that the death of the deceased was possible with the knife. 16. The aforesaid evidences are so clinching that the learned trial court ought not to have acquitted the accused as the prosecution had proved the case against the respondents on the basis of dying declaration, medical evidence and other evidence on record. 17. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been successfully able to prove the motive and the presence of accused at the scene of offence at the time of alleged incident took place which clearly prove the guilt of the accused No. 1 in the alleged offence. 18. However, in light of the contents first Vardhy, there is serious dispute regarding the presence of accused No. 2 and 3, who are father and brother of the accused No. 1. Therefore they are required to be given benefit of doubt especially because after 21 years from the incident the whole family may not be put behind bars without concrete evidence against them. Therefore they are required to be given benefit of doubt especially because after 21 years from the incident the whole family may not be put behind bars without concrete evidence against them. Therefore, we grant them benefit of doubt. The presence of the accused No. 1 is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the motive is also established beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Thus we are of the opinion that the trial court committed an error in acquitting the respondent-accused No. 1. The respondent-accused No. 1 is required to be held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code and therefore we are inclined to allow this appeal filed by the State in part. 20. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 05.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1995 is quashed and set aside qua respondent No. 1 -original accused No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is convicted of the offence charged against him under Section 302 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 1 is sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the father and brother of the accused No. 1 are given benefit of doubt and the order of acquittal qua them is not disturbed. The respondent No. 1 - accused No. 1 shall surrender to custody within a period of 12 weeks. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.