JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2010, whereby the appellants herein-original accused Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two years was imposed. The trial Court also directed the accused to pay Rs. 1 Lac towards compensation to the wife of the deceased, viz. Baluben. 2. The complainant is the cousin of the deceased. It is alleged that the accused were having suspicion that the deceased was having illicit relation with the mother of accused No. 1. Therefore, with an intention to kill cousin of the complainant, the accused assaulted him. It is alleged that accused No. 1 was armed with dhariya, while other accused were armed with iron rods. It is also alleged that accused No. 1 attacked the deceased on his head with dhariya and also gave blows with a stone. It is further alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 4 had attacked the deceased with iron rods and caused various injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased succumbed to such injuries. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused persons by the complainant in this regard. 2.1 Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused were arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 During the trial, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:- Sr. No. Name Exh. 1 Himmatbhai Nagjibhai, Complainant. 19 2 Yunusbhai Jamalbhai. 22 3 Laljibhai Jadavbhai. 24 4 Dr. Mukesh kumarsing. 26 5 Jagdishbhai Vitthalbhai. 33 6 Vipul Vinubhai. 35 7 Raghubhai Nathabhai. 37 8 Dhanjibhai Kanabhai 39 9 Manubhai Karmashbhai. 40 10 Jivabhai Alibhai. 42 11 Rafikbhai Majidbhai. 43 12 Imran Umarbhai. 45 13 Rameshbhai Kanjibhai. 46 14 Gordhanbhai Merambhai. 47 15 Somabhai Manubhai Tadvi. 48 16 Dahyabhai Bhikhabhai Dhandhal. 50 17 Jagjivanbhai Gandabhai. 24 4 Dr. Mukesh kumarsing. 26 5 Jagdishbhai Vitthalbhai. 33 6 Vipul Vinubhai. 35 7 Raghubhai Nathabhai. 37 8 Dhanjibhai Kanabhai 39 9 Manubhai Karmashbhai. 40 10 Jivabhai Alibhai. 42 11 Rafikbhai Majidbhai. 43 12 Imran Umarbhai. 45 13 Rameshbhai Kanjibhai. 46 14 Gordhanbhai Merambhai. 47 15 Somabhai Manubhai Tadvi. 48 16 Dahyabhai Bhikhabhai Dhandhal. 50 17 Jagjivanbhai Gandabhai. 51 18 Vallabhbhai Chhaganbhai. 54 19 Chandrikaben Ranchhodbhai. 56 20 Kishorbhai Manjibhai. 57 21 Kishorbhai Fuljibhai Baroliya, IO. 58 2.3 The prosecution has also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Description Exh. 1 Yadi written by medical officer, Babra, to PSI, Babra. 59 2 Complaint of the complaint-Himmatbhai Nagjibhai. 20 3 Panchnama of the place of offence. 23 4 Inquest panchnama of the deceased. 21 5 PM note of the deceased. 28 6 Receipt of dead body of the deceased. 62 7 Postmortem form. 32 8 Map of the place of offence. 49 9 Panchnama of the place of offence by Circle Officer. 53 10 Panchnama of seizure of clothes from the dead body of the deceased. 36 11 Arrest panchnama of Ashok Haka & 1. 41 12 Arrest panchnama od Haka Jeram & 1. 38 13 Discovery Panchnama of weapon at the instance of accused Ashok Haka. 44 14 Discovery panchnama of weapon at the instance of accused Raju Haka. 34 15 Letter sending muddamal to FSL. 60 16 Yadi written by PSI, Babra to Circle Inspector, Babra for preparing map of place of offence. 52 17 Analysis report of FSL. 61 18 Yadi to Medical Officer, Babra, for postmortem of the dead body. 27 19 Yadi by Medical Officer, Babra, regarding blodd samples of the deceased. 29 20 Yadi written by Medical Officer, Babra to PSI, Babra regarding dead body of the deceased. 31 21 Case papers of deceased Gokalbhai Merambhai. 30 22 Serological report. 65 2.4 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeals are preferred by the accused before this Court. 3. Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for accused persons has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeals are preferred by the accused before this Court. 3. Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for accused persons has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. He submitted that many prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submitted that out of the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, two witnesses have deposed that they have not seen the offence. He also submitted that a crucial witness, Mepabhai, who has signed the FIR along with the complainant, is not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. He also submitted that there is no eye witness of the offence and presence of the complainant at the scene of offence is doubtful. He has also taken us through the evidence of the complainant and tried to show that there are improvements, omissions and contradictions in his evidence as compared to other witnesses, who are claiming to be the eye witnesses of the incident. He has also taken us through the complaint, Exh. 20, and submitted that what is stated in the complaint is not proved by PW-14, brother of the deceased and this witness has stated in his cross-examination that he had heard about the illicit relation of the deceased with his sister-in-law, however, he had no personal knowledge about it. He further submitted that similarly one Dahyabhai Dhaadhal, who is also an eye witness, has stated in his cross-examination that the complainant was also present at the time of commission of offence, however, it has come in the evidence of the complainant that he was not present at the scene of offence. He has also taken us through the evidence of Dr. Mukesh Kumarsing, PW-4, Exh. 26 and contended that as per the evidence of this witness, injuries No. 1 to 4 have caused the death of the deceased, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon and this witness has stated that only injury No. 5 could be caused by hard and blunt substance. He submitted that in view of this, it cannot be believed that accused Nos. He submitted that in view of this, it cannot be believed that accused Nos. 2 to 4 have committed the offence in question as it is alleged that they were holding iron pipes, while injuries in question are caused with sharp cutting weapon. In view of these, he submitted that at least accused Nos. 2 to 4 are required to be granted benefit of doubt. In view of these, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the conviction of the accused persons. In the alternative, he also submitted that the incident in question has happened in the heat of the moment and there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the offence. He submitted that since the deceased was having an illicit relation with the mother of accused No. 1, they might have got angry upon seeing him and incident might have taken place, however, there was no intention to kill him. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and at the most it would fall under Section 304, Part-I of IPC. He submitted that considering all these circumstances, offence alleged against the accused may be converted to Section 304, Part-I from that of Section 302 of IPC. 4. On the other hand, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 is just and proper and she has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. Learned APP has contended that taking into consideration the medical evidence, evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. She further submitted that this is a case in which all the accused have conspired to commit murder of the deceased and with a pre-planning, accused Nos. 1 to 4 attacked the deceased with deadly weapons. She further submitted that even the muddamal weapon was recovered at the instance of the accused and it contained blood of the deceased. She submitted that only because some of the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. She also submitted that some omissions or contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses is not a ground to discard their evidence. She submitted that only because some of the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. She also submitted that some omissions or contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses is not a ground to discard their evidence. She has further submitted that the Court has to determine after examining the entire factual scenario whether a person has participated in the crime or has falsely been implicated in the offence. In this regard, she has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh, reported in 2011 Cri. Law Journal 2162, wherein it is observed as under:- "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 2010 SC 3699 ) (supra), Vishnu and 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 and Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152 ; Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331 ; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 : (2009 AIR SCW 2849); and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287] : (2011 Cri LJ 705 (SC)). 26. The High Court has also fallen into error in giving significance to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of the morning incident all the accused had not been named in the complaint/NCR. It is settled legal proposition that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It may not and need not contain all the details. Naming of the accused therein may be important but not naming of the accused in FIR may not be a ground to doubt the contents thereof in case the statement of the witness is found to be trustworthy. The court has to determine after examining the entire factual scenario whether a person has participated in the crime or has falsely been implicated. The court has to determine after examining the entire factual scenario whether a person has participated in the crime or has falsely been implicated. The informant fully acquainted with the facts may lack necessary skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire incident without anything missing from this. Some people may miss even the most important details in narration. Therefore, in case the informant fails to name a particular accused in the FIR, this ground alone cannot tilt the balance of the case in favour of the accused. [Vide: Rohtash v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64 : (2007 AIR SCW 44); and Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 2010 (12) SC 167] : ( AIR 2011 SC 255 )." 4.1 She also submitted that considering the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused are rightly convicted by the trial Court. She submitted that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error while imposing the sentence on the accused and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants-accused and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the judgments relied on by the learned APP. Before proceeding further, it will not be out of place to mention here that from the medical evidence, postmortem report of the deceased and column No. 17 thereof, it is clear that this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. As per the medical evidence, there were as many as four fatal injuries caused to the deceased on vital parts of his body. It is also clear that the injuries which are shown are possible only with deadly weapons, therefore, this case will not fall under any of the exceptions of Section300 and it can be said that the offence in question is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 6. So far as role of the accused persons is concerned, we have scrutinized the evidence on record. Himmatbhai Nagjibhai, PW-1, Exh. 19, is the complainant. He has stated in his deposition that when he reached the place of offence, the accused were quarreling with the deceased and they were armed with weapons. 6. So far as role of the accused persons is concerned, we have scrutinized the evidence on record. Himmatbhai Nagjibhai, PW-1, Exh. 19, is the complainant. He has stated in his deposition that when he reached the place of offence, the accused were quarreling with the deceased and they were armed with weapons. He deposed that accused No. 1 was holding dhariya while other accused were armed with iron pipes and they were beating the deceased. He further deposed that accused No. 1 had also hit the deceased with a stone. Thereafter, the accused ran away and Gokalbhai was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead. This witness has also stated that, before few days, the deceased told him that accused No. 1 has a suspicion that he is having illicit relation with his mother. This witness has also identified the accused persons before the Court. Two of the witnesses, who are stated to be eye-witnesses, have admitted that they were not present at the scene of offence and they reached the scene of offence subsequently and they have not witnessed the offence. We have also gone through the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Mukesh Kumarsing, Exh. 26, who has carried out postmortem of the deceased. This witness has stated that injuries No. 1 to 4 mentioned in column No. 17 were caused by sharp cutting weapon, while injury No. 5 was caused by a hard and blunt substance. Gordhanbhai Merambhai Zapadiya, PW-14, Exh. 47, who is the brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that when he reached the place of offence, at that time the offence was already committed and his brother was lying on the ground. However, this witness has stated about the reason for the incident. Dahyabhai Bhikhabhai Dhadhal, PW-16, Exh. 50 is an eye witness to the incident. He has stated in his deposition that when he was waiting for a rickshaw on the road of Kariyana Village, a quarrel had taken place near the shop of Rameshbhai. He deposed that deceased Gokalbhai Merambhai was beaten by the accused. He also deposed that the accused were holding weapons like dhariya and iron pipes. He also deposed that accused No. 1, who was holding dhariya, had also given a blow with the stone on the face of the deceased. He deposed that deceased Gokalbhai Merambhai was beaten by the accused. He also deposed that the accused were holding weapons like dhariya and iron pipes. He also deposed that accused No. 1, who was holding dhariya, had also given a blow with the stone on the face of the deceased. He further deposed that the motive for the offence was illicit relation of the deceased with the mother of accused No. 1. As per Exh. 58, muddamal weapon Dhariya was seized from accused No. 1 and as per the FSL report, this dhariya was containing human blood of "O" group and the blood of the deceased was also of "O" group. Sand collected from the place of offence as well as pant and shirt of the deceased were also having blood stains of blood group "O". From the medical evidence, it is clear that the injuries which are fatal were caused by the sharp cutting weapon. Sum total of all these goes to prove that accused No. 1 has committed the offence and the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused No. 1. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused No. 1 and it cannot give rise to any other conclusion except that the accused No. 1 is guilty of the offence. Therefore, in our view, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused No. 1 and the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. So far as role of accused Nos. 2 to 4 is concerned, it has come in the evidence of the doctor that the reason of death of the deceased were injuries No. 1 to 4 and these injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, in our view, it cannot be said that these injuries were caused by accused Nos. 2 to 4 as they were allegedly holding iron pipes at the time of offence. So far as injury No. 5 is concerned, as per the opinion of the doctor, such injury is possible even when someone falls down during fight. Therefore, even if presence of accused Nos. 2 to 4 as they were allegedly holding iron pipes at the time of offence. So far as injury No. 5 is concerned, as per the opinion of the doctor, such injury is possible even when someone falls down during fight. Therefore, even if presence of accused Nos. 2 to 4 at the scene of offence can be said to have been proved, it cannot be said that the injuries caused by them were the reason for death of the deceased. Hence, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Nos. 2 to 4 and they are required to be granted benefit of doubt. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2010 is modified and accused Nos. 2 to 4 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by granting them benefit of doubt. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 9. So far as amount of fine imposed by the trial Court is concerned, the same is ordered to be paid to the widow of the deceased and it is not required to be refunded to the accused. 10. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2010 convicting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed. At this stage, learned advocates for the appellant-accused No. 1 requested that the accused may be given benefit of remission after completion of requisite period. Therefore, it is observed that upon completion of 14 years' imprisonment, the State Government may consider the case of accused No. 1 for remission. The period of sentence already undergone by accused No. 1 be given set off to him. Remaining part of the impugned judgment shall remain unaltered. 11. Bail bonds, if any, of the accused stand cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent to the Court below forthwith.