JUDGMENT : Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. Appellant has preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgment, order of conviction and sentence dated July 29, 2008 and July 30, 2008 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Barasat in Sessions Trial No. 3(2) of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 27(1)2006. By virtues of impugned judgment appellant was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (here in after referred to as IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more with a direction for set off against the sentence of imprisonment under the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on February 13, 2003 at about 3.05 p.m. while P.W.1 along with her deceased husband and her son P.W.2 were doing their job in their snack shop situated in front of Bamangachi Railway Station in between the space of Railway line no.2 and 3 then suddenly this appellant struck the victim with a shackle on his back from his backside. They then caught the appellant and the victim caught hold that shackle as a result he also sustained cut injuries on his fingers but appellant managed to fled away therefrom from their grip. P.W.1 then took the victim to Barasat hospital where the doctor declared him dead. 3. P.W.1 then lodged a complaint addressed to the officer-in-charge GRPS Barasat being scribed by P.W.4. On the basis of said complaint P.W.8 started Bongaon GRPS case No. 6/2003 dated February 13, 2003 under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and took up investigation of the case after the case was endorsed to him. During investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map, examined the available witnesses including the complainant and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seized the weapon and offence as also blood stained earth etc. During investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map, examined the available witnesses including the complainant and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seized the weapon and offence as also blood stained earth etc. and sent the same to the FSL for chemical examination report and collected the FSL report as also report of the UD Case being UD Case No. 51 of 2003 started at the Barasat P.S. and thereafter on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant being No. 17 of 2003 dated September 21, 2003 under Section 302 IPC. 4. Inquest over the dead body of the victim was held on February 14, 2003 at around 11.30 a.m. at Barasat hospital by P.W.9 and thereafter it was sent for post mortem examination and on the same date i.e. February 14, 2003. 5. P.W.7 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the victim and during post mortem examination he found (1) abrasion ½'' x ½'' on right half of forehead placed 2'' above right eyebrow, 1'' right from anterior mid-line. (2) One incised wound 3'' x ½'' x muscle placed slightly obliquely from distal interphalangeal joint of left index finger extending on the left palm. On dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle and vessel and nerve at the corresponding level. (3) One incised penetrating wound 5 ½'' x 1 ¼'' thoracic cavity deep placed obliquely over left side of posterior chest wall 2 ½'' below the hip of left shoulder, 3'' below the spinous process of C7 vertebrate, 48'' above the left heel, ½'' left from posterior mid-line. On dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle, vessel, nerve at the corresponding level to enter the chest cavity in between the left 2nd and left 3rd rib in the way producing a cut fracture on left 3rd rib piercing the intercostal muscle, vessel, nerve, left pleura, upper lobe of left lung, pericardium to finally terminate within the cavity of left atrium of heart making an incised injury 0.5'' x 0.2'' x cavity. Direction of the wound was downwards, forwards and medially. Throacic cavity contained 12 ounce of fluid and clotted blood. All the injuries showed the evidences of vital reactions. Abrasion was red in colour and non-scabbed. Direction of the wound was downwards, forwards and medially. Throacic cavity contained 12 ounce of fluid and clotted blood. All the injuries showed the evidences of vital reactions. Abrasion was red in colour and non-scabbed. Margin of the incised wound and incised penetrating wound were clean cut and red in colour and opined that the cause of the death was due to the above injures which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 6. Charge was framed on February 28, 2007 against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and after the appellant denied his involvement in the crime, trial commenced. 7. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and also produced and proved the written complaint, formal FIR, rough sketch map with index, inquest report, PM report, FSL report, seizure list etc. and thereafter on conclusion of trial and examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned court below passed the impugned judgment. 8. It was submitted by Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned advocate appointed as amicus curiae that the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence are not sustainable due to delay in lodging the FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained, discrepancies and contradictions in between the statement of the witnesses, non-examination of the witnesses to the inquest, inquest report silent with regard to the assailant and failure to prove the motive behind the incident in question. Alternatively it was submitted by Mr. Mainakh Bakshi, learned amicus curiae, that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not proved against the appellant beyond doubt and the provisions of Section 304 part I IPC at best may be attracted. 9. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the state submitted that delay in lodging the FIR have been duly explained and that the omission with regard to the assailant in the inquest was that the witnesses to the inquest were the persons of the hospital area where it was held and were not the witnesses to the occurrence and moreover omission to mention the name of the assailant in the inquest report was not vital. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury there was no material contradictions in between the statement of the witnesses and the evidence of the defacto complainant was fully corroborated by the other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3. According to Mr. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury there was no material contradictions in between the statement of the witnesses and the evidence of the defacto complainant was fully corroborated by the other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury motive becomes immaterial if the incident is proved by the eye witnesses duly corroborated by the medical evidence. According to him case against the appellant was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties. We have also gone through the evidences and materials on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgment. 11. It was evident from the evidence of P.W.7, the autopsy surgeon, as also the PM report (Ext.3) that during post mortem examination over the dead body of the victim on February 14, 2003 he found abrasion ½'' x ½'' on right half of forehead placed 2'' above right eyebrow, 1'' right from anterior mid-line; one incised wound 3'' x ½'' x muscle placed slightly obliquely from distal interphalangeal joint of left index finger extending on the left palm and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle and vessel and nerve at the corresponding level; one incised penetrating wound 5 ½'' x 1 ¼'' thoracic cavity deep placed obliquely over left side of posterior chest wall 2 ½'' below the hip of left shoulder, 3'' below the spinous process of C7 vertebrate, 48'' above the left heel, ½'' left from posterior mid-line and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle, vessel, nerve at the corresponding level to enter the chest cavity in between the left 2nd and left 3rd rib in the way producing a cut fracture on left 3rd rib piercing the intercostal muscle, vessel, nerve, left pleura, upper lobe of left lung, pericardium to finally terminate within the cavity of left atrium of heart making an incised injury 0.5'' x 0.2'' x cavity and the direction of the wound was downwards, forwards and medially. Throacic cavity contained 12 ounce of fluid and clotted blood and all the injuries showed the evidences of vital reactions, abrasion was red in colour and non-scabbed, margin of the incised wound and incised penetrating wound were clean cut and red in colour and opined that the cause of the death was due to the above injures which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. On being shown the weapon of offence namely, the Mat. Ext. 1, the doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the victim may be caused with the said weapon. His evidence remained unshaken. During cross-examination he affirmed the above statement stating that injury during 2 and 3 may be caused with Mat. Ext.1. So from the above it was abundantly clear that death of the victim was due to the effects of the injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 12. Now with regard to the above injuries it was the specific allegation of the prosecution that on February 13, 2003 at about 3.05 p.m. while the victim along with his wife (P.W.1) and son (P.W.2) were preparing snacks in their shop in between the space of railway lines No. 2 and 3 in front of Bamangachi Railway Station towards Bongaon then the appellant suddenly while coming from behind struck the victim on his back by a shackle and managed to flew away therefrom. As a result victim succumbed to his injuries. Defence had however denied the above allegation of the prosecution and taken the plea of innocence and false implication. 13. Learned court below took into consideration the evidences of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3 besides the evidence of the doctor and the IO found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him for the said offence. 14. 13. Learned court below took into consideration the evidences of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3 besides the evidence of the doctor and the IO found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him for the said offence. 14. On perusal of the evidence of eye witnesses together with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) and the PM report (Ext.3) it was evident that death of the victim was due to the incised penetrative wound on the throacic cavity deep placed obliquely over the left side posterior chest wall and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, facia, muscle, vessel, nerve at the corresponding label to enter the chest cavity in between the left 2nd and left 3rd rib in the way producing a cut fracture on left 3rd rib within the cavity of left atrium of heart. The circumstances leading to the death of the victim has been described in the letter of complaint (Ext.1) including the name of the appellant. On perusal of evidence P.W.1, we found that she has corroborated the FIR and vividly narrated the entire incident. She had specifically stated on oath that on the relevant date and time while she was preparing telebhaja and while the victim husband was preparing singara then appellant came from behind and hit the victim on his back with a hansua (Mat. Ext.1). They then caught him and snatched the hansua but the appellant managed to flew away from their grip. She also specifically stated that due to assault her husband sustained bleeding injuries on his back and also cut injuries on his fingers as he tried to snatch the weapon from the hand of the appellant. Thereafter her husband was taken to the hospital but on the way he expired. She then lodged the complaint which was scribed by P.W.4 from her instruction. She identified the hansua and also the appellant during in course of her examination before the court. She was cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing came out contrary to her statements in chief. Her evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination. 15. The evidence of P.W.1, the defacto complainant also found corroboration from other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3. She identified the hansua and also the appellant during in course of her examination before the court. She was cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing came out contrary to her statements in chief. Her evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination. 15. The evidence of P.W.1, the defacto complainant also found corroboration from other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3. They too were cross-examined by the defence at length but the appellant/accused person failed to discredit their oral testimony with regard to the basic feature towards his involvement in the commission of the offence. The manner of assault narrated by eye witnesses in causing the injuries on persons of the victim also found corroboration from medical evidence. Ext.7, the FSL report, also confirmed the presence of blood on the seized sickle and the wearing apparel of the deceased but as the blood was disintegrated in respect of scrapings from sickle blade and the handle it's origin or blood group could not be determined. The evidence of eye witnesses on oath appeared to be convincing trustworthy and believable and no significant contradiction or infirmity has been brought to our notice. Also there appears to be no reason why the eye witnesses will falsely implicated the appellant, and there in fact, nothing on record to suggest that the witnesses had any reason to falsely implicated him. 16. With regard to the discrepancies, it is the settled proposition that the discrepancies found in the evidences of eyewitnesses cannot affect their credibility unless such discrepancies are so vital. Reference may be made to the decision of Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525 . It is also well settled that there bound to be some discrepancies between the depositions of different witnesses when they speak in details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Reliance is placed on the decision of State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 247 . Reliance is placed on the decision of State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 247 . In the matter of Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 646 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that court should examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statements along with the statements of other witnesses in order to arrive at a rational conclusion instead of reading statement of a witness in part or in isolation. In the matter of State of U.P. vs. M. K. Anthony, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 505 it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in examining the truthfulness of the evidence, the Appellate Court will have to attach due weightage to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. Unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper for the Appellate Court to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. 17. In the case in hand, the discrepancy as pointed by the learned amicus curiae was minor in nature. Moreover P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, the eye witnesses have vividly narrated the incident leading to the death of the victim and categorically disclosed the name of the appellant as assailant. They were cross-examined by the defence at length but their evidence remained unshaken. 18. Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above ground. 19. Regarding the question of delay in lodging the FIR, it is the settled proposition of law that it is not always a circumstance on the basis of which the prosecution case may be set to be fabricated but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case where the circumstance of delay may lead to serious consequences. In the instant case we find from the evidence of the P.W.s on record that the incident in question took place on February 13, 2003 at 3.05 p.m. and on the same date written complaint (Ext.1) addressed to the OC GRPS Barasat was lodged by P.W.1. In the instant case we find from the evidence of the P.W.s on record that the incident in question took place on February 13, 2003 at 3.05 p.m. and on the same date written complaint (Ext.1) addressed to the OC GRPS Barasat was lodged by P.W.1. P.W.6, sub-inspector of police of Barasat GRPS has specifically stated that on that date he had received an information about the murder of the victim near Bamangachi Railway Station. He then informed the same to OC GRPS Bongaon since, the Bamangachi GRPS does not fall within the jurisdiction of Barasat GRPS and after keeping contract with the Bongaon GRPS he proceeded to the place of occurrence and deputed a guard at the place of occurrence and went to the house of the deceased where he received the written complaint from P.W.1 and after receiving the same he returned to the place of occurrence and after reaching there he found Bongaon GRPS OC. He then handed over the complaint to OC Bongaon GRPS. It was evident from Ext. 1/3 that OC Bongaon GRPS after receipt of the complaint on February 13, 2003 at 10.05 hours from OC Barasat GRPS forwarded the same to the P.S. for starting a case and accordingly after receipt of the same P.W.8 started Bongaon GRPS case No. 6/2003 dated February 13, 2003 under Section 302 IPC as evident from Ext. 1/2. So from the above it was evident that FIR was lodged on the same night. So the plea of delay as submitted by learned amicus curiae did not appear to be correct. 20. With regard to the omission of the name of the assailant in the inquest report and non-examination of the witnesses to the inquest, we find from the record that PW.9, an ASI of police of Barasat P.S. made inquest over the dead body of the victim at Barasat Hospital in connection with one U/D case no. 51 dated February 13, 2003 and prepared the inquest report (Ext.10) while the case relates to Bongaon G.R.P.S. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. The section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. The section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. Moreover, inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence and contents thereof can not be treated as evidence. In view of the above, omission to mention the incident or the name of the assailant was not fatal for the prosecution case thereby making the prosecution's case doubtful. 21. Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above ground. 22. With regard to non-examination of the witnesses to the inquest, we find that the witnesses to the inquest were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence nor the persons of the locality where the incident took place but were the local people of the Barasat Hospital area. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that their non-examination will not cause any serious prejudice to the appellant as it is for the prosecution to decide whom to examine and how many witnesses they consider it proper to examine to prove their case against the accused person. However, it is the duty of the court to see whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to warrant conviction of the appellant. In the instant case, we find that prosecution case was fully established by the direct testimony of the eyewitness, which was corroborated by the medical evidence. 23. Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above grounds. 24. With regard to the absence of motive, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned amicus curiae in view of the ocular evidence. It is well settled that when ocular testimony is available to prove the murder charge against the accused person the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Moreover, absence of motive does not disprove a murder charge. Furthermore, in the matter of Subedar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1989 SC 733 it had been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of the assassin is very often than not within the reach of others. The motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime. The motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to the evil thought in the mind of the assassin. A crime can take place even without premeditation or pre-planning in the context of a particular situation, on the spur of the moment. 25. Therefore, our interference with the impugned judgment is not required on the above ground. 26. The next issue which needs our consideration is whether the case falls under the provisions of Section 302, IPC or under Section 304, Part I or Part II, IPC, as raised by the learned amicus curiae. Once the elements mentioned in Exceptions to Section 300, IPC are not established, the offence is murder. The provisions of Section 300, IPC are set below:- “300. Murder. – Except in the case hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – Secondly. – If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – Thirdly. – If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – Fourthly. – If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” 27. In the case in our hand we find that the appellant suddenly while coming from behind struck the victim on his back by a sharp cutting weapon namely sickle as a result victim sustained bleeding injuries and the appellant in spite of being caught by the victim and his wife managed to release himself from their grip and flee away therefrom. Victim was immediately taken to the Barasat hospital but on the way he expired on the same night. Victim was immediately taken to the Barasat hospital but on the way he expired on the same night. During postmortem examination doctor found one incised penetrating wound 5 ½'' x 1 ¼'' thoracic cavity deep placed obliquely over left side of posterior chest wall, 2 ½'' below the hip of left shoulder, 3'' below the spinous process of vertebrate, 48'' above the left heel, ½'' left from posterior midline besides other injuries and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, facia, muscle and vessel and nerve at the corresponding level and he opined that death was due to the above injures which was ante mortem in nature. So, from the above it was apparent that appellant suddenly attacked the victim on the vital part from his behind and fled away. So, the intention was clear to cause death. Therefore, there was no impropriety on the part of the learned Court below to pass the order of conviction and sentence under section 302 IPC against the appellant. 28. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the impugned judgment is passed, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment need not require our interference on the above grounds in view of the settled proposition of law as discussed herein above. 29. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 30. Copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court expeditiously. 31. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. Debasish Kar Gupta, J. : I agree.