Bharat Bhushan, J. 1. Appellant Rajesh Kumar has preferred appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.4.1999 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 318 of 1996 (State versus Mahesh Chandra Dixit and another), arising out of Case crime No. 238 of 1995, Police Station (in short, P.S.) Chibramau, District Farrukhabad, whereby late Mahesh Chandra Dixit and his son Rajesh Kumar were convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 506 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Mahesh Chandra Dixit has died, therefore, his Criminal Appeal No. 3930 of 2013 stood abated vide order dated 05.10.2015. This Court is now concerned only with appeal of surviving appellant Rajesh Kumar, who is said to be in jail. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Ramakanti, sister of the deceased Subhash Chandra started living with her bother after death of her husband. At the time of incident, she was living at Randhirpur, her parental home. Deceased Subhash Chandra, appellant Mahesh Chandra Dixit and one Rakesh Chandra Dixit were her brothers. Complainant Ramakanti was living with her deceased brother Subhash Chandra, who did not have any child of her own. 4. It appears that two bighas agricultural land each was given to Ramakanti by her brothers Subhash Chandra and Rakesh Chandra for her maintenance. Her three brothers also acquired land owned by her childless Tau Ramdhin. Apparently Ramdhin, uncle of complainant and deceased owned 12 Bighas of land which was divided amongst her three brothers, namely, deceased Subhash, Rakesh and appellant Mahesh Chandra Dixit. However, allegation is that Mahesh Chandra Dixit fabricated will of entire twelve Bighas of agricultural land of Ramadhin in his favour which resulted into dispute and litigation amongst his brothers. 5. On 16.05.1995 at about 5:00pm, complainant Ramakanti (PW-1) his brother deceased Subhash Chandra and one Pravesh Kumar (PW-4) were walking on foot. Deceased Subhash was carrying a bicycle by his hand. As soon as, they reached place near tube-well of late Mahesh Chandra, he along with his son Rajesh Kumar came out and challenged them. Appellant Rajesh Kumar opened fire at deceased Subhash Chandra who fell down on the ground. Thereafter appellant Mahesh Chandra Dixit (now dead) stabbed him with a knife, resulting in his instantaneous death. As soon as, they reached place near tube-well of late Mahesh Chandra, he along with his son Rajesh Kumar came out and challenged them. Appellant Rajesh Kumar opened fire at deceased Subhash Chandra who fell down on the ground. Thereafter appellant Mahesh Chandra Dixit (now dead) stabbed him with a knife, resulting in his instantaneous death. Both complainant Ramakanti (PW-1) and Pravesh Kumar (PW-4) raised alarm, whereupon both appellants threatened them and thereafter fled from the spot. 6. PW-1 Ramakanti (complainant) got the report (Ex. Ka1) of this incident scribed by PW-4 Pravesh Kumar and lodged it at police station Chibramau which was 5 kms away from the place of occurrence, as per chick report (Ex.Ka-3). Inspector Ramjeet Prasad Arya (PW-5) went to the place of occurrence at about 9:00pm but could not conduct inquest proceedings on account of darkness. Next morning i.e. 17.05.1995, inquest proceedings (Ex.Ka-7) were conducted and corpse of deceased was sent for postmortem. Site-plan (Ex.Ka-11) was prepared. Autopsy (Ex.Ka-2) was conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After finding sufficient evidence against the appellants, a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-13) under Sections 302, 506 IPC was submitted against the appellants. 7. It is pertinent to point out that prior to submission of charge-sheet, several attempts were made by the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) to apprehend the accused persons but they escaped and could not be apprehended. Charge-sheet, in fact, was submitted in their absence. Prior to submission of the charge-sheet, attachment proceedings were drawn and conducted under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. as stated by PW-5 Ramjeet Prasad Arya in his testimony. 8. The then Session Judge Farrukhabad Sri S.K. Gupta framed charges against the late Mahesh Chandra Dixit and appellant Rajesh Kumar under Sections 302, read witdh Section 34 IPC and 506 IPC. Both of them denied the charge and desired to be tried. 9. Prosecution adduced testimony of PW-1 Ramakanti (complainant-eyewitness), PW-2 Dr. R Singh (conducted autopsy), PW-3 constable Ramashankar Mishra, (recorded the FIR) and made entry in the General Diary (in short, G.D.), PW-4 Pravesh Kumar (eye-witness) and PW-5 Ramjeet Prasad Arya, I.O. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations and claimed false implication. However, accused did not produce any evidence in defence despite opportunity. However, accused did not produce any evidence in defence despite opportunity. On conclusion of trial, the then Session Judge, Farrukhabad convicted late Mahesh Chandra (abated) and surviving appellant Rajesh Kumar under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 506 IPC. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation. Further, both the appellants were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC vide judgment and order dated 02.04.1999. This judgment is under challenge before this court in this appeal. 10. As stated earlier, the appeal of Mahesh Chandra Dixit stands abated on account of his death vide order dated 05.10.2015. This Court is now concerned with Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Rajesh Kumar v. State) only. 11. Heard Sri Sukhveer Singh, learned Counsel for surviving appellant Rajesh Kumar and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned Additional Government Advocate (in short, AGA). 12. Before embarking to analyze the evidence of prosecution in detail, it would be appropriate to have a brief glance over prosecution evidence. Prosecution produced two witnesses of fact. Both are said to be eye witnesses. PW-1 Ramakanti is a very significant witness, who had lodged FIR against her own real brother for murder of her another brother. She has testified that she married one Santosh Kumar Dubey of Atirajpur, who died after two years of marriage, leaving her with no child. After death of her husband, she came to her parental home at village Randhirpur and started living with her brothers Subhash, Rajesh and mother. Her third brother, namely, accused Mahesh was living separately. 13. She has stated that there was dispute amongst brothers and sister regarding ownership of agricultural land. She claimed that her deceased brother Subhash and another brother Rakesh gave her 2 Bighas each of agricultural land for her maintenance. Her elder uncle late Ramadhin, a childless person, also divided his 12 Bighas of agricultural land to her three brothers. But late appellant Mahesh, one of these brothers, fabricated will of this entire land in his own favour after death of Ramadhin resulting in litigation and bad blood amongst brothers. 14. On 16.5.1995, she was accompanying her deceased brother Subhash and nephew Pravesh (PW-4). As soon as they reached near tube-well of accused Mahesh, they were accosted by late Mahesh and his son appellant Rajesh. 14. On 16.5.1995, she was accompanying her deceased brother Subhash and nephew Pravesh (PW-4). As soon as they reached near tube-well of accused Mahesh, they were accosted by late Mahesh and his son appellant Rajesh. Deceased Subhash was carrying a bicycle by his hand. Late Mahesh challenged Subhash while appellant Rajesh caught his bicycle and fired two gunshots, which hit deceased Subhash. Thereafter, late Mahesh stabbed deceased Subhash several times resulting in his instantaneous death. Complainant Ramakanti (PW.1) and her nephew Pravesh Kumar (PW-4) made commotion whereupon both accused threatened him and thereafter, ran towards village Kunwarpur Banwari. PW-1 Ramakanti dictated the FIR (Ex-Ka-1) to PW4 Pravesh Kumar. She took this report to P.S. Chibramau at 8:05pm and lodged it. 15. Similar story has been given by PW.4 Pravesh Kumar though there are some minor discrepancies but in essence, he has also stated that there was some dispute in the family regarding agricultural property and that deceased Subhash was done to death by late Mahesh Chandra and surviving appellant Rajesh Kumar on 16.5.1995 at about 5:00pm in his presence and also in the presence of PW-1 Ramakanti. He has also confirmed that FIR was scribed by him at the dictation of PW-1 Ramakanti who went to lodge the FIR at Police Station Chibramau. Both witnesses have conceded that Pravesh Kumar did not go to lodge FIR. However Ramakanti was accompanied by some other boys namely, Harikishan and Brajesh Tiwari etc. She took about an hour to reach police station which was located at the distance of five km. from the place of occurrence. Complainant walked on foot to Police Station and she came back to the place of occurrence in similar manner after lodging the FIR. Police personnel also came to spot within 10-15 minutes after her arrival from the Police Station. PW-2 Dr. R. Singh conducted autopsy upon corpse and found following injuries on the person of deceased : 1. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm bone deep rt. side of brain just above outer angle of …. (P.T.) eyebrow. 2. I.W. 3 x 5 x bone deep on rt. Cheek below 3 cm. lower eye. 3. I.W 2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep on right temporal region 4 cm in front of right ear. 4. I.W. 1.5. x 0.2. cm x muscle deep …(P.T.) side of face 3 cm below and backof inj. no. (3). 5. 2. I.W. 3 x 5 x bone deep on rt. Cheek below 3 cm. lower eye. 3. I.W 2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep on right temporal region 4 cm in front of right ear. 4. I.W. 1.5. x 0.2. cm x muscle deep …(P.T.) side of face 3 cm below and backof inj. no. (3). 5. I.W. 11 x 3.5 cm x bone deep on left side of mandibular region underneath mandible fractured and broken and loose teeth. 6. I.W. 5 x 1 cm x muscle and bone deep aspect of left side of neck upper part, obli....(P.T.) placed..... (P.T.) 7. Abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm towards lateral side of neck on left side. 8. I.W. 5.5. x 1.5 cm x muscle deep front of neck upper part 6 cm below chin. 9. Abrasion 7 x 0.2 cm on front of chest upper part. 10. I.W. 8 x 1 cm x bone deep mid scapular region left side. 11. Abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm dorsum side of (P.T.) from fore arm. 12. I.W. 2 x 0.2 cm x muscle deep back of left fore arm 4 cm below elbow. 13. Abrasion 8 x 4 cm towards innter spect of left side of knee. 14. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm on front of right Knee. 15. Fire arm gutter shaped wound 3.5 x 1 muscle deep on medial side of left hand palmar aspect 3 cm below wrist margins inverted, lacerated ecchymosed anteriority, everted (sic).. 16. Fire arm wound of entry 1.5 x 1 cm x through and through on front of right upper arm middle part, margins inverted …. (P.T.) ated & ecchymosed ...(P.T.) with communicating wound ….(P.T.) exit 3 cm X 2 cm. (P.T.) exit 2 cm above rt. elbow. 17. I.W. 4.5 x 1 cm x bone deep lower part of rt. Knee. 16. PW-2 Dr. R, Singh has testified that deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries caused by fire arm and sharp edged weapons. He has also stated death of deceased occurred on 16.5.1995 at about 5:00pm. He has confirmed that injuries were caused both by firearm weapons and sharp edged weapon probably by knife. 17. PW-3 Constable Ramashankar Misra recorded the FIR on the dictation of Ramakanti and made relevant entries in the G.D. at Police Station, extract of which is available on record as Ex-Ka-4. He has confirmed that injuries were caused both by firearm weapons and sharp edged weapon probably by knife. 17. PW-3 Constable Ramashankar Misra recorded the FIR on the dictation of Ramakanti and made relevant entries in the G.D. at Police Station, extract of which is available on record as Ex-Ka-4. He has denied the allegation of ante timing of FIR. 18. PW-5 Ramjeet Prasad Arya I.O. has testified that he initiated investigation on the same night. However, he could not prepare inquest report in the night on account of darkness and paucity of sufficient light, therefore, he conducted formal inquest proceeding early in the morning on 17.5.1995 in presence of several witnesses. 19. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that prosecution witnesses are not credible; that there are discrepancies in the statement of eye-witnesses namely, PW-1 Ramakanti and PW-4 Pravesh Kumar. He has drawn the attention of this court towards the fact that complainant, Ramakanti did not have cordial relationship with appellants and his late father. He has argued that victim claims to be illiterate yet FIR was written in the very precise and knowledgeable manner; that inquest proceedings were conducted with considerable delay; and that there is inconsistency between oral evidence and medical report. He has also claimed that there was no motive as far as murder of Subhash is concerned. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is significant difference between evidence of two eyewitnesses. PW-1 Ramakanti has stated that she was coming from Chibramau to village after meeting doctor while PW4 Pravesh Kumar said that they were going to Chibramau at the time of incident. Counsel for the appellant has claimed that this significant discrepancy robbed the prosecution evidence of any credibility. 20. On the other hand, learned AGA Sri Syed Ali Murtuza has argued that minor discrepancies would not render the prosecution case unbelievable. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case completely. Core of prosecution evidence is intact despite intense cross-examination. Sri Syed Ali Murtuza has submitted that minor discrepancies indicated by defence merely demonstrates that witnesses have not been tutored. He has pointed out that investigation commenced quickly, therefore, there was no occasion or opportunity for complainant to manufacture evidence. Sri Murtuza has submitted that incident did not occur in crowed place. Sri Syed Ali Murtuza has submitted that minor discrepancies indicated by defence merely demonstrates that witnesses have not been tutored. He has pointed out that investigation commenced quickly, therefore, there was no occasion or opportunity for complainant to manufacture evidence. Sri Murtuza has submitted that incident did not occur in crowed place. He has argued that deceased, witnesses and appellant belong to same clan and therefore, there is no reason for the complainant Ramakanti to spare real culprit and falsely implicate his own real brother and nephew in the murder of his another brother. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that FIR indicates that eye witness along with deceased were going to Chibramau at the time of incident while PW.1 Ramakanti has said that they were coming back from Chibramau when this incident occurred. We are afraid, this so called discrepancy would not demolish the credibility of prosecution witnesses. PW-1 Ramakanti Devi immediately corrected herself during cross-examination and stated that they were in fact going to Chibramua on the date of occurrence. She acknowledged her mistake during same testimony. FIR (Ex.Ka-1) specifically stated that complainant, her deceased brother and Pravesh Kumar were coming to Chibramau. PW-4 Pravesh Kumar has also testified that they were going to Chibramau. 22. Learned counsel has also submitted that PW-1 Ramakanti Devi went to Police Station to lodge the FIR after getting it scribed by PW-4 Pravesh Kumar. When she came back after lodging the FIR at 8:05pm, Police arrived thereafter, while PW-4 Pravesh Kumar says that Police arrived on the spot prior to 7:00pm. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that two conclusions emerge from said testimony of PW-4 Pravesh Kumar; first that FIR was not in existence at the time of arrival of the Police; second, credibility of PW-4 Pravesh Kumar is suspect. We are afraid, conclusions drawn by counsel for the appellant are not in consonance with the normal human conduct. The minor discrepancies and contradictions are not sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy evidence. Law on this point is well settled. So long core of prosecution evidence is intact, minor discrepancies and contradictions would not adversely affect the prosecution evidence or efficacy of testimony of witnesses. It is the duty of court to separate grain from the chaff. Every inconsistency or discrepancy would not automatically render the prosecution evidence unreliable. Law on this point is well settled. So long core of prosecution evidence is intact, minor discrepancies and contradictions would not adversely affect the prosecution evidence or efficacy of testimony of witnesses. It is the duty of court to separate grain from the chaff. Every inconsistency or discrepancy would not automatically render the prosecution evidence unreliable. We can not expect witnesses to give every minute detail of incident with precision. Power of observation and thereafter its discription in the court of law differs from person to person. Witnessing the incident of murder is not everyday affair for common citizen. We can not expect ordinary witness to have photo-graphic memory. Some times witnesses are overtaken by events. The gravity and seriousness of the incident can also affect the manner of its description by common citizen. The Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai versus State of Gujarat (1983) (Cri) 728, has held thus:- “We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.” 24. It is, therefore, evident that ordinary witnesses are not expected to testify without any minor discrepancies. A reasonable description of incident is expected from them. Prosecution is liable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond any shadow of doubt. 25. Coming back to the facts of the present case it is evident that witnesses were actually walking on foot. They have narrated the place of occurrence reasonably well. Site Plan (Ex.Ka-11) demonstrates the place of occurrence with reasonable certainty. The incident occurred near the tube-well of late Mahesh Chandra. The fact that FIR was lodged within few hours of the incident obviate any possibility of falsification. The extract of G.D. (Ex. Ka-4) indicates that report was lodged at 8:05pm in the same night. PW-1 Ramakanti has explained that she took one hour to reach the Police Station because she was walking on foot. She lodged FIR at about 8:05pm and came back to the place of occurrence after traveling another one hour on foot. The extract of G.D. (Ex. Ka-4) indicates that report was lodged at 8:05pm in the same night. PW-1 Ramakanti has explained that she took one hour to reach the Police Station because she was walking on foot. She lodged FIR at about 8:05pm and came back to the place of occurrence after traveling another one hour on foot. Most of the documentation was done in the same night. Inquest proceeding was initiated in the night, though could not be completed because of darkness. 26. The inquest report (Ex. Ka-7) indicates that it was not prepared in night due to darkness and paucity of sufficient light. The prosecution has fairly conceded that inquest was completed on the next date i.e. 17.5.1995 in the early morning and thereafter, corpse of deceased was sent for autopsy. The place of occurrence and time of lodging of report are also reasonably certain. The documentation was done properly and investigation commenced promptly. 27. The claim, that FIR was not in existence at the time of arrival of Police is not sustainable for several reasons. First of all, FIR was lodged immediately at the Police Station and then Police came at the place of occurrence promptly. The statement of PW-4 Pravesh Kumar in this regard can not be taken too seriously because he himself has conceded that he went to his residence in aftermath of incident and that he again came back to place of occurrence little late. He has stated that he reached the place of occurrence at 7:00pm and by that time Police personnel had arrived at the spot. This has made possible for defence counsel to raise the plea that FIR was not in existence at that time as was shown to be lodged at 8:05pm. We are afraid statement of PW-4 Pravesh Kumar in this regard is not sufficient for conclusion that FIR was ante-timed. The record reveals that incident occurred somewhere at 5:00pm in the evening and thereafter, complainant Ramakanti went to Police Station and lodged the FIR at 8:05pm and came back from the Police Station at 9:00pm. During this entire duration, PW-4 Pravesh Kumar was at home. In any case, normally ordinary witnesses describe the time of various events on the basis of guess work. We can not expect witnesses, especially belonging to hinterland to give precise time of each stage of event. During this entire duration, PW-4 Pravesh Kumar was at home. In any case, normally ordinary witnesses describe the time of various events on the basis of guess work. We can not expect witnesses, especially belonging to hinterland to give precise time of each stage of event. Assassination of close relative or friend itself can create fear and shock. In such a situation minor variation in estimate of time can occur. Such variations are not necessarily evidence of lie. 28. PW-3 Constable Ramashanker Misra has testified that he recorded the FIR at 8:05pm. PW-5 Ramjeet Prasad Arya stated that FIR was lodged at 8:05pm. He has further testified that he reached the place of occurrence at 9:00pm. He has also stated that PW-4 Pravesh Kumar was not available at that point of time. PW-4 Pravesh Kumar has himself conceded that second time he reached the place of occurrence after arrival of Police. A heinous crime was committed. A brother murdered his own brother in front of his family members. The entire incident was shocking and in such a scenario the claim of PW-4 Pravesh Kumar that he reached the place of occurrence second time at about 7:00pm is apparently based on mere guess work and not the actual estimate of time. We believe that this part of statement of PW-4 Pravesh Kumar only indicates that second time, he reached the place of occurrence after arrival of Police and nothing more should be read into it. It is pertinent to remember that memorandum of recovery and custody of bicycle was prepared on 16.5.1995 itself (Ex.Ka-5) which also support the contention of prosecution. 29. Learned counsel for appellant has also argued that medical evidence is inconsistent with oral testimony and with the contents of the FIR. He has submitted that FIR indicates that appellant-accused Rajesh Kumar opened fire at the face of deceased. The deceased fell down, thereafter co-accused late Mahesh Chandra stabbed the deceased several times. This fact has been reiterated by P.W.1 Ramakanti as well as by PW-4 Pravesh Kumar. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that medical evidence does not indicate any fire arm injury on the face of deceased. Fire arm injuries were caused on the head of deceased. Therefore, learned counsel submitted, absence of any fire arm injury on the face of deceased indicates that eye witnesses were economical with truth. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that medical evidence does not indicate any fire arm injury on the face of deceased. Fire arm injuries were caused on the head of deceased. Therefore, learned counsel submitted, absence of any fire arm injury on the face of deceased indicates that eye witnesses were economical with truth. We are afraid, this by itself is not sufficient to conclude that witnesses have not testified in truthful manner. We believe that comparison of medical evidence with ocular testimony should not be done in mechanical manner. In any case, if there are some variation between medical evidence and ocular testimony, priority should given to ocular evidence, if otherwise, found reliable. The Apex court in Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. and others. ( AIR 2016 S.C. 1160 ) has held thus: “(iii) We are of the view that the High Court, for acquitting the respondents, had mainly relied upon the medical evidence in a very inappropriate manner. When the doctor (PW 7) in his examination-in-chief had categorically stated that the incident could have occurred at 8.00 am which corroborated the case of the informant, there was no reason to disbelieve this fact to hold that the incident occurred between 2.00 to 4.00 a.m. merely basing on a vague statement made by the Doctor in the cross-examination. Also we believe that merely for the reason that no blunt injuries were present on the deceased, the whole evidence of PW 1 cannot be discarded as primacy has to be given to the ocular evidence particularly in the case of minor discrepancies. This Court in Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476 , wherein this Court has held : “…. So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.” 30. The evidence discloses that appellant Rajesh Kumar opened fire around the face of deceased. However evidence does not specifically says that shot hit deceased Subhash on his face. PW-1 Ramakanti has also testified in similar manner. She has said that appellant Rajesh caught bicycle of deceased and opened fire around his face. Thereafter deceased was stabbed by co-accused late Mahesh. PW-1 Ramakanti has not said that gunshots caused injuries at the face of deceased Subhash. During cross-examination, PW-1 Ramakanti did say that appellant Rajesh opened fire at the face of deceased Subhash but she never stated that these fire arm shots actually hit at his face. On the contrary, PW.-4 Pravesh Kumar has specifically testified that Rajesh opened fire upon deceased on his face, but deceased covered his face with his hands, and gunshots hit deceased on his head. He has reiterated that deceased had covered his face with his both hands. This also indicates that deceased was not static. In fact, he was trying to save himself. The postmortem report shows that deceased sustained fire arm shots on various parts of his hands. Evidently explanation by PW-4 Pravesh Kumar is in consonance with not only with the autopsy report (Ex-Ka-2) but is also consistent with normal human conduct. It is quite natural for any person under attack to react in the manner as described by PW-4 Pravesh Kumar. The testimony rendered by PW-2 Dr. R. Singh is explanatory. He has given opinion that other injuries could have been caused by knife and it was also possible that deceased died on 16.5.1995 at about 5:00pm. 31. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that only two eye-witnesses have been produced in this case and both of them conceded that they were on antagonistic terms with appellant. Argument is that absence of independent witness should be fatal to the prosecution case. 31. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that only two eye-witnesses have been produced in this case and both of them conceded that they were on antagonistic terms with appellant. Argument is that absence of independent witness should be fatal to the prosecution case. We are afraid, we do not subscribe to this argument. Ordinarily all witness are considered to be trustworthy unless proved contrary. Absence of independent witness by itself is not sufficient to discard testimony of family members merely because of relationship. Evidence is tested at the yardstick of credibility. Relationship of witnesses with either party per se is not sufficient to discard this testimonies, if otherwise found reliable. 32. The incident occurred within the family. When deceased reached at the place of occurrence, he was accosted by late Mahesh and surviving appellant Rajesh. They too were related to deceased and eye witnesses. Both witnesses of fact have also given reason for antagonistic relationship. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., late appellant Mahesh Chandra conceded existence of bad blood between accused persons and deceased. The statement of appellant Rajesh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also concedes the existence of inimical relationship between appellant and witnesses. Subhash was indeed assassinated on 16.5.1995. Now question arises why have members of same clan implicated appellant and spared the real culprit ? We believe that property disputes impelled the appellant to attack the deceased. Prior litigation furnishes the immediate motive for this attack. Fact of the matter is that motive is one of the perception. In the opinion of witnesses deceased was done to death on account of property litigation. There is nothing on record to show that this perception of eyewitnesses is incorrect. In any case, eye-witness account of family member of appellant establishes and demonstrates his culpability. 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is according dismissed. The judgment and order dated 2.4.1999 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 318 of 1996 (State versus Mahesh Chandra Dixit and others), arising out of Case crime No. 238 of 1995 under sections 302, read with section 34 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Chibramau, District Farrukhabad, is affirmed. 34. Let this judgment be certified to the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad within two weeks for compliance. Concerned court shall report compliance within 30 days thereafter.