JUDGMENT : Navin Sinha, J. 1. The Appellant Poonam Singh in the latter Appeal stands convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in the event of failure to pay which he was required to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment while seven other accused including one Anoop Singh S/o Takhat Singh have been acquitted by the same judgment of the Additional Sessions judge No. 1, Jodhpur (Camp Jaisalmer) in Sessions Trial No. 3/1984 by judgment dated 24.8.1984. The acquittal is questioned by the State in the former appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, with the exception of Anoop Singh the six other accused have all expired. The appeal therefore stands abated against them. 2. The prosecution story is that in the intervening night of 29.7.1983/30.7.1983 the deceased - Padam Singh was sleeping in the house of his uncle Peerdan Singh when Poonam Singh, Anoop Singh, Gordhan Singh and Tar Singh are alleged to have entered about 2:00 - 3:00 am and assaulted him fatally causing immediate death. Gordhan Singh and Tar Singh are said to have returned the next morning and taken away the body of the deceased and burnt it, because of which no post-mortem could be held. PW-1 Dungar Singh, a co-villager lodged the F.I.R. Exhibit P 1 on basis of hearsay as the Police Station was 40kms away. Charges were framed against all the eight accused under Sections 120-B, 302/120 B and 201 I.P.C. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for Poonam Singh and Anoop Singh submitted that the occurrence took place at the dead of night in complete darkness. No prosecution witness has stated regarding any source of light. PW-5 Smt. Puri, wife of the deceased is said to have witnessed the occurrence from a distanced of approximately 22 feet. PW-4 Smt. Sita, aunt of the deceased, in cross-examination spoke of a dust storm at night. Visibility obviously would have been impaired because of blowing sand. Identification therefore was not possible with certainty from such distance in the facts. The area where the assault took place was separated by 6 feet wall from where the two witnesses were sleeping, Vision above that height was not possible. No specific statement has been made by the two eye-witnesses which of the accused assaulted on what part of the body of the deceased causing which injury. The area where the assault took place was separated by 6 feet wall from where the two witnesses were sleeping, Vision above that height was not possible. No specific statement has been made by the two eye-witnesses which of the accused assaulted on what part of the body of the deceased causing which injury. The conduct of PW-5, Smt. Puri wife of the deceased in not having rushed to the aid of her husband to prevent assault or protect him is highly unnatural affecting the credibility of her evidence. The natural reaction should have been to rush to the deceased in order to save him and not go back inside the house to wake up and call PW-4, Smt. Sita. Reliance has been placed on JT 2009 (14) SC 156 State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal aril Ors. The witness was not reliable as in her police statement she spoke of the presence of Tar Singh but denied having said so in her Court statement. 4. Poonam Singh and Anoop Singh are alleged to have been possessed of and assaulted the deceased with an axe and lathi respectively. The recovery of the weapons of assault on basis of their alleged confession is irrelevant and inadmissible because the seizure list witnesses have turned hostile denying that recovery was made in their presence. In any event, the FSL report does not Infirm presence of blood on the seized items. 5. Anoop Singh has been acquitted on twin grounds of his name not featuring in the F.I.R. and for the reason that no blood has been found on the lathi recovered from him. If identification was doubtful in the darkness and he is been acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt in absence of corroborative evidence in the facts of the case, on a reasoning which is a probability, this Court ray not interfere in appeal merely because another conclusion of his probable involvement may also be possible. The acquittal therefore does not merit interference and the conviction is not sustainable. 6. Apart from the above, no other grounds have been urged before us to either question the conviction of Poonam Singh or defend the acquittal of Anoop Singh. 7. The acquittal therefore does not merit interference and the conviction is not sustainable. 6. Apart from the above, no other grounds have been urged before us to either question the conviction of Poonam Singh or defend the acquittal of Anoop Singh. 7. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the appeal of the convicted appellant and questioning the acquittal of surviving accused submitted that PW-4 Smt. Sita and PW-5 Smt. Puri have been held to be natural witnesses by the Hal Court. Their presence has not been doubted at all. The credibility and reliability of their evidence has not been doubted by the Trial Court. The seizure witnesses have not denied their signatures on the seizure memo. The absence of blood on the weapons of assault is irrelevant in view of the reliable ocular evidence of two natural eye-witnesses. The F.I.R. has been lodged by PW-1 Dungar Singh, co-villager, based on hearsay after he came to the place of occurrence in the night. PW-4 Smt. Sita has stated that PW-1 Dungar Singh was closely related to Anoop Singh. It is therefore apparent that the informant was lying to protect his own relative and did not deliberately name him. The police statement of both PW-4 Smt. Sita and PW-5 Smt. Puri under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is been recorded with promptness on 2.8.1983. They have both consistently fated the presence of Poonam Singh and Anoop Singh. PW 5 Smt. Puri in her evidence has specifically stated that Poonam Singh assaulted with axe on the head causing three injuries and Anoop Singh with Lathi on the legs and hands of deceased. If the two witnesses were natural eye-witnesses and their version has not been doubted at all, acquittal on basis of lack of corroborative evidence is erroneous. If several persons entered the house at night with weapons, it is evidence of common intention under Section 34 I.P.C. The conviction therefore ills for no interference and the acquittal deserves to be set aside. 8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and also perused the materials on record. Since the same Counsel represents both Poonam Singh and Anoop Singh and primarily common submissions have been made we shall deal with them together except to the extent that it may be necessary to do so separately with regard to Anoop Singh. 9. The deceased was sleeping in the courtyard. Since the same Counsel represents both Poonam Singh and Anoop Singh and primarily common submissions have been made we shall deal with them together except to the extent that it may be necessary to do so separately with regard to Anoop Singh. 9. The deceased was sleeping in the courtyard. The assault is said to have ten place at about 2:00 - 3:00 am. The Police Station was approximately 40kms away. The Trial Judge has aptly held that PW-4 Smt. Sita and PW-5 Smt. Puri are natural witnesses. Their presence or credibility of their eye-witness account has not been doubted by the trial judge. The former is the aunt of the deceased id the latter his wife. There could have been no independent witnesses as the occurrence has taken place in the dead of night inside the house. The motive for the assault is said to be a land dispute. The Trial Judge has not found any contradictions in the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, much less material in nature making them unreliable witnesses, doubting their presence or that they were not speaking truth. PW-5 Smt. Puri is the wife of the deceased. She would be the most interested person for ensuring conviction of the real assailants rather than falsely implicating others letting go the real assailants especially when she had eye-witnessed the occurrence. No sooner that she heard the shout of her husband after assault she came out and saw the assailants woke up PW-4 Smt. Sita, who has deposed having seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence. 10. Criminal jurisprudence attaches great importance to ocular evidence. Merely because the witnesses may be related to the deceased and there may be no independent witness cannot by itself be a ground to view the evidence with suspicion or necessarily look for corroboration. Much will depend upon the fads of each case. In occurrences like the present it is only the inmates of the house who will be the natural witnesses. If the eye-witnesses corroborate each others material particulars and there are no material contradictions or omissions, minor inconsistencies or contradictions, if any, will not affect either the value of tire evidence or credibility of the witnesses. In occurrences like the present it is only the inmates of the house who will be the natural witnesses. If the eye-witnesses corroborate each others material particulars and there are no material contradictions or omissions, minor inconsistencies or contradictions, if any, will not affect either the value of tire evidence or credibility of the witnesses. If the eye-witness account is found to be reliable, the fact that recovery may or may not have taken place or that blood may or may not have been found on the weapons of assault becomes irrelevant The evidence collected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is corroborative in nature only and not substantive to base conviction. If conviction is sustainable on the eye-witness account the Court need not look for corroboration. 11. On the aforesaid principles, we shall now analyse the evidence available on record. 12. PW-4 Smt. Sita, in her evidence, has stated that it was a moonlit night. No doubt in her cross-examination, she mentioned that it was a stormy night. No suggestion was made to her that because of the blowing sand visibility was not possible. In fact there is no evidence of a sand storm at all. Even though it was the monsoon season it was not even a dark cloudy or rainy night. It was informed to us by the learned Counsel for the parties that in the area where the occurrence is said to have taken place, among the community the rooms of the house are separated by mud wall but with no roof. 13. Judicial precedents abound regarding ocular vision capacity of villager and town people The former are said to have a sharper vision even in darkness compared to city dwellers used to incandescent lights. The fact that a co-village as distinct from strangers can well be recognised in the light of the moon stands well established. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that PW-5-Smt. Puri if at all witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 22 feet, identification is not possible, stands best answered by the observations in (1976) 2 SCC 842 (Jit Singh v. State of Punjab) as follows :- "24. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that PW-5-Smt. Puri if at all witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 22 feet, identification is not possible, stands best answered by the observations in (1976) 2 SCC 842 (Jit Singh v. State of Punjab) as follows :- "24. For the above reasons, we hold in agreement with the High Court, that the shortest distances from which Baldev Singh and Nahar Singh saw the occurrence were about 2 karams (10 ft.) 7 karams (35 ft.) respectively, while Mukhtiar was within 25 ft. of the spot when the final blow was given by the assailant. From such short distances the witnesses could unmistakably identify the assailant who was fully known to them and was their co-villager, even in moonlight." 14. The submission that the conduct of PW-5 Smt. Puri was unnatural in not going to the aid of her husband and therefore she was not reliable also does not appeal to us. It must be kept in mind that the assailants were in number and armed. Her approaching the accused at this stage would have been a useless exercise endangering her own security resulting in complete inability to attract attention of other house inmates and seek assistance. We do not find any infirmity in her conduct when hearing the shouts of her husband she came out, witnessed the assault and went back inside the house to call PW-4 Smt. Sita to avail assistance and protection. PW-5 Smt. Puri being alone and a woman, Mohan Lal (supra) is completely distinguishable on its own facts as the conduct of four male witnesses was found unnatural therein and their very presence doubtful. Similarly, the argument that the walls were 6 feet height therefore visibility was not possible also does not appeal to us. It is nobody’s case that the occurrence was witnessed peeping over the wall. 15. PW-5 Smt. Puri in her police statement recorded as early as on 2.8.1983 clearly stated the names of Poonam Singh and Anop Singh. The fact that she may have named - Tara Singh in the police statement, but denied having said so in her Court deposition, is hardly relevant so long as she has been consistent about the aforesaid two persons, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 Smt. Sita. The fact that she may have named - Tara Singh in the police statement, but denied having said so in her Court deposition, is hardly relevant so long as she has been consistent about the aforesaid two persons, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 Smt. Sita. It is not the case of the defence that the two eye-witnesses were not present in the house or that the two persons had never entered the house to assault. 16. The motive for the assault existed. No reason has been cited by the defence why the wife of the deceased would be stating falsehood to implicate falsely saving the real assailants. If the two eye-witnesses are credible and reliable, the fact that no recovery had been made from them or that the seizure list witnesses went hostile or that the FSL report did not confirm the presence of blood on the axe or lathi becomes irrelevant because they were only corroborative evidence, which would have been necessary if the presence of the wo assailants was doubtful and required corroboration. 17. The absence of the name of Anoop Singh in the F.I.R. stands explained because he was a close relative of PW-1, Dungar Singh. The accused has been named by both the eye-witnesses. Considering the absence of name of an accused in the F.I.R. but named by other witnesses during investigation it was observed in (2012) 6 SCC 204 (Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana) as follows :- "17. The Court shall also examine the role that has been attributed to an accused by the prosecution. The informant might not have named a particular accused in the F.I.R., but such name might have been revealed at the earliest opportunity by some other witnesses and if the role of such an accused is established, then the balance may not tilt in favour of the accused owing to such omission in the F.I.R. 18. The Court has also to consider the fact that the main purpose of the F.I.R. is to satisfy the police officer as to the commission of a cognisable offence for him to conduct further investigation in accordance with law. The Court has also to consider the fact that the main purpose of the F.I.R. is to satisfy the police officer as to the commission of a cognisable offence for him to conduct further investigation in accordance with law. The primary object is to set the criminal law into motion and it may not be possible to give every minute detail with unmistakable precision in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. itself is not the proof of a case, but is a piece of evidence which could be used for corroborating the case of the prosecution. The F.I.R. need not be an encyclopaedia of all the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution relies. It only has to state the basic case. The attending circumstances of each case would further have considerable bearing on application of such principles to a given situation." 18. It is considered necessary to deal separately at this stage with acquitted accused Anoop Singh The acquittal is on benefit of doubt. An order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with in appeal unless it results in grave miscarriage of justice, the findings are palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous and demonstratively unsustainable as held in 2010(1) SCC 529 (State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan). In appropriate cases, the Appellate Court can also re-appreciate the evidence. In the present case there has been manifest erroneous mis-appreciation of evidence resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. The erroneous acquittal of a guilty is as serious a matter as conviction of an innocent. The Trial Judge even while holding the two eye-witnesses to be natural without disbelieving or doubting their version has granted acquittal on completely irrelevant grounds. There is no distinction in the materials against Poonam Singh and Anoop Singh except the absence of the name of the latter in the F.I.R. 19. Even if no charge was framed under Section 34 I.P.C., in the nature of the allegations, evidence lead and cross-examination done, no prejudice shall be caused if the conviction of Poonam Singh is upheld and acquittal of Anoop Singh set aside altering the conviction to one under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced alike Poonam Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Acquitted accused Anop Singh is directed to surrender and or be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment alike Poonam Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Acquitted accused Anop Singh is directed to surrender and or be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment alike Poonam Singh. Resultantly D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 295/1984 of Poonam Singh is dismissed with modification of conviction and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 22/1985 by the State of Rajasthan is allowed. Appeal No. 295/1984 dismissed.