Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1111 (ALL)

Sudama v. State of U. P.

2019-04-29

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, RAJ BEER SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.12.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Farukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1985 (State Vs. Sudama and 3 others) under Section 302 of IPC, P.S. Gursahaiganj, District Farrukhabad, whereby appellants Sudama and Pulander have been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is that 3-4 days prior to the incident, the accused-appellant Pulander had scolded and threatened the deceased Brajmohan over the issue of using his field for toilet purposes. On 13.08.1984 at 08:00 AM, deceased Brajmohan had gone for washing his clothes in front of the house of one Bahadur and while he was washing his clothes, the appellant Sudama having an axe and appellant Pulander having a sickle while co-accused Ramvilas and Suraj armed with clubs came there and stated that the deceased was crossing his limits, attacked the deceased. Sudama had given two blows of axe at the neck and back of the deceased while Pulander attacked him with sickle. The deceased died at the spot. The incident was seen by complainant's brother Kripal Singh, Virendra and Ram Bahadur. 3. On the oral information of the complainant, the case as registered on 13.08.1984 at 09:05 AM under Section 302 of IPC vide FIR Ex. Ka-1 against all the four accused persons. 4. Police reached at the spot and inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-5 Inspector J.P. Mishra vide inquest report Ex. Ka-3. The dead body of the deceased was sealed and was sent for the post-mortem. 5. The post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-4 Dr. O.P. Gangwar vide post-mortem report exhibit Ka-2. As per Autopsy Surgeon, the following anti mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Brajmohan:- (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 4 cm x bone deep left side outer aspect of chest 5 cm lateral to left nipple, margins clear cut, angle sharp. (ii). Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 1.5 cm below lower angle injury No. 1, margins clear cut, angle sharp. (ii). Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 1.5 cm below lower angle injury No. 1, margins clear cut, angle sharp. (iii) Two Incised wound 1.5 cm, apart 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep and 4.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, 9 cm below the injury no. 2, margins clear cut, angle sharp. Injury 1 to 3 on same line. (iv) Two Incised wound 2 cm, apart, back side of middle of left forearm, 2 cm x .2 cm x skin deep and 4.5 cm x .2 cm x skin deep, margins clear cut. There was trailing in lower end of both wounds. (v) Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep below 7th orvical vertebrae crossing middle line of back on the upper part, margins clear cut, angle sharp. (vi) Incised wound 9 cm x 3 cm x bone deep 1.5 cm just below lower border of left scapula crossing of middle line of back. margins clear cut, angle sharp. It was further noted that at places T1, T2, T10 and T11 spinal cord and there was fracture on 7th rib. The cause of death was stated spinal shock and haemorrhage. 6. During course of investigation, PW-5 Inspector J.P. Mishra prepared site plan Ex. Ka-8 and recorded statements of witnesses. One bucket, mug (lota), soap and clothes of the deceased including Tahmad, Angochha, Shirt and Baniyan found at the spot, were seized vide seizure memo Ex. Ka-3 to Ka-7. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet Ex. Ka-11 was filed against all the four accused persons. 7. Learned trial court framed charge under Sections 302 of IPC against the appellants Sudama and Pulander while co-accused Ramvilas and Suraj were charged under Section 302/34 of IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. 9. After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, appellants-accused Sudama and Pulander were convicted under Section 302 of IPC and were sentenced as stated in para 1 of the judgment and order dated 06.12.1986, while co-accused Ramvilas and Suraj were acquitted. 10. However, no evidence was led in defence. 9. After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, appellants-accused Sudama and Pulander were convicted under Section 302 of IPC and were sentenced as stated in para 1 of the judgment and order dated 06.12.1986, while co-accused Ramvilas and Suraj were acquitted. 10. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Sudama and Pulander have preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants raised following points:- (i) that all the alleged eye witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are related to the deceased and they are highly interested witnesses. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after two days of the incident. As per the prosecution version, the incident took place at 08:00 AM at the village but despite that no independent witness has been examined. (ii) that the FIR is ante timed. It was pointed out that in the inquest report Ex. Ka-3, the crime number and section of the offence were inserted later on. In report Ex. Ka-3 there is nothing to show that the required documents were sent to autopsy surgeon and all these facts go to show that the FIR was not in existence at the time of inquest proceedings. (iii) that the spot of the incident is highly doubtful. As per the prosecution version, the deceased had gone at the alleged spot in front of the house of Bahadur for washing clothes on a patiya but no such patiya was shown in the site plan rather the spot was shown in the mid of the way. PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that after washing, the deceased had put shirt and tahmad on the hut but no such washed clothes were found at the spot. In view of all these facts, the version of the defence that the incident took place in the early morning in the darkness, when the deceased was returning after attending the call of nature, and thereafter he was brought at the spot, appears plausible. (iv) that there is contradiction between the oral testimony and the medical evidence. As per the prosecution version, the deceased was attacked by axe and sickle but the margins of the injuries were found not razed. It was accepted by PW-4 Dr. (iv) that there is contradiction between the oral testimony and the medical evidence. As per the prosecution version, the deceased was attacked by axe and sickle but the margins of the injuries were found not razed. It was accepted by PW-4 Dr. O.P. Gangwar in his cross-examination that normally in the injuries caused by axe, the margins of injuries remain razed and that it is more possible that the injuries sustained by deceased might have been caused by gadasa and farsa. (v) that there is no motive on the part of accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased and there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and committed error by convicting the appellants. 13. On the other hand, refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it has been submitted by the learned state counsel that the FIR has been lodged without any undue delay. The alleged incident took place at 08:00 AM and the FIR was lodged at 09:05 AM while the police station is situated at a distance of 9 kilometres from the spot of incident. The crime number and other details of the case have been mentioned in the inquest report and the inquest proceedings were initiated at 10:30 AM. In view of all these facts, it cannot be said that the FIR is ante timed. The conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of the three eye witnesses. No major contraction or inconsistency could be pointed out in their statements. No such reasons have been shown as to why these witnesses would depose falsely against the appellants. As the incident took place at 08:00 AM in the mid of the village thus, the presence of PW1 Mulayam Singh, PW-2 Bahadur and PW-3 Virendra at the spot is quite natural. The testimony of these witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they are related to the deceased. The version of these eye witnesses is consistent with the medical evidence. It was pointed out that the autopsy surgeon has not ruled out the possibility that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not possible by axe and sickle. The testimony of these witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they are related to the deceased. The version of these eye witnesses is consistent with the medical evidence. It was pointed out that the autopsy surgeon has not ruled out the possibility that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not possible by axe and sickle. Further, it is well settled that unless the contradiction or inconsistency between the oral testimony and medical evidence is of such nature that it goes to the root of the matter, the oral testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted. In the present case, the version of the eye witnesses is substantially corroborated by medical evidence. So far as the question of motive is concerned, it was submitted that the case is based on the testimony of the eye witnesses and thus, the question of motive is not of much significance, however, the prosecution has proved that 3-4 days prior to the incident appellant Pulander has threatened to kill the deceased. It was submitted that the conviction of the appellants is based on evidence and there are no substantial reasons to interfere with the same. 14. We have considered rival contentions and perused the record. 15. The scrutiny of evidence shows that the prosecution version is based on the testimony of three eye witnesses. PW-1 Mulayam Singh, who is complainant of the case, has stated that about 3-4 days prior to the incident, the appellant Pulander has objected the deceased from using his field for toilet purposes and an altercation had taken place. Pulander had threatened that he would not leave the deceased alive within next 3-4 days. On the day of incident while his son Brajmohan was washing his clothes in front of the house of Bahadur, all the four accused persons Pulander, Sudama, Ramvilas and Suraj came there. Sudama was having axe, Pulander was having sickle and the remaining two were having clubs and scolding the deceased by calling him by caste, they attacked the deceased. Sudama has given axe blows while Pulander attacked the deceased with sickle. Hearing the noise of the Brajmohan, he as well as Bahadur, Virendra and Kripal reached there and thereafter, accused persons ran away from there. PW-1 Mulayam Singh has proved the FIR as exhibit Ex. Ka-1. 16. Sudama has given axe blows while Pulander attacked the deceased with sickle. Hearing the noise of the Brajmohan, he as well as Bahadur, Virendra and Kripal reached there and thereafter, accused persons ran away from there. PW-1 Mulayam Singh has proved the FIR as exhibit Ex. Ka-1. 16. PW-2 Bahadur has stated that on the day of incident at about 08:00 AM while deceased Brajmohan was washing his clothes at the patiya in front of his house, the deceased Brajmohan and his father Mulayam Singh raised an alarm and PW-2 saw that Sudama was attacking the deceased with axe while Pulander attacked with sickle. Deceased Brajmohan died at the spot. 17. PW-3 Virendra has also made a similar statement like that of PW-1 Mulayam Singh. 18. So far as this contention is concerned that all the alleged eye witnesses are interested witnesses, it is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308 ). It is well settled that a natural witness may not be labelled as interested witness. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim. Generally close relations of the victim are unlikely to falsely implicate anyone. Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless there is motive to give false evidence to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is alleged and proved. A witness is interested only if he derives benefit from the result of the case or as hostility to the accused. Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless there is motive to give false evidence to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is alleged and proved. A witness is interested only if he derives benefit from the result of the case or as hostility to the accused. In case of State of Punjab Vs Hardam Singh, 2005, S.C.C. (Cr.) 834, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ordinarily the mere relations of the deceased would not depose falsely against innocent persons so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished, rather the witness would always try to secure conviction of real culprit. In case of Dilip Singh Vs State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1983, S.C. 364, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the ground that the witnesses being the close relatives and consequently being the partisan witness would not be relied upon has no substance. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harbans Kaur V State of Haryana, 2005, S.C.C. (Crl.) 1213; and State of U.P. vs. Kishan Chandra and others, 2004 (7), S.C.C. 629. The contention about branding the witnesses as interested witness and credibility of close relationship of witnesses has been examined by Hon'ble Apex court in a number of cases. A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an 'interested witness', as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 . The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straight way unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court. Similar view was taken in case of State of Gujrat v. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel, AIR 1983 SC 839 . 19. In the present case, it is correct that PW 1 is father of the deceased Brijmohan while PW-2 Bahadur is uncle of the deceased and PW-3 Virendra is also related to them but as stated earlier, the alleged incident has taken place at 08:00 AM inside the village and thus, the presence of these witnesses at the spot is quite natural. Their names were mentioned in the FIR, which was lodged within a hour of the incident. Further, so far as the PW 2 is concerned, the incident took place just outside his home and he stated that hearing the noise of the deceased, he came out from his home and saw the incident. There are no sustainable reasons to hold him as interested witness. All these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination, but no such important infirmity could be pointed so as doubt their presence at the spot or their credibility. Their version broadly corroborates medical evidence. In view of all these facts the testimony of these witnesses can not be doubted on the ground that they are related to the deceased. So far as delay of two days in recording the statements of the witnesses during investigation is concerned, no such question was asked from the investigating officer as to why he did not record their statements promptly. Once they were shown as witness in the FIR, it was duty of the investigating officer as to record their statements without any delay. In view of above stated legal position and the facts of the case, the testimony of PW-1 Mulayam Singh, PW-2 Bahadur and PW-3 Virendra cannot be doubted on the ground that their statements were recorded after two days of the incident. So far as the argument, that no independent witness has been examined, is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that in a case like this, wherein a daring incident took place in broad day time in the mid of village and the accused persons had killed the deceased by attacking with axe and sickle, it may be difficult for the prosecution to procure an independent witness. The independent witness may not muster the courage to come forward and depose against such accused. Even otherwise, once the presence of eye witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 is established, their testimony can not be doubted on the ground that no independent witness was examined. There is no such law that the testimony of a member of the family of the deceased, which otherwise inspires confidence, has necessarily to be corroborated by some independent witness, before it could be acted upon. It is trite that conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of eye witness, if the same cogent, creditworthy and inspire confidence. 20. It is trite that conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of eye witness, if the same cogent, creditworthy and inspire confidence. 20. It was submitted that the FIR is ante timed and the FIR was not existence at the time of inquest proceedings as there is nothing to show that the FIR and other required documents were sent to the autopsy surgeon. In this regard it may be seen that the alleged incident took place at 08:00 AM and thereafter, the case was registered at 09:05 AM while the distance between the police station and spot is 9 kilometres. The inquest proceedings were started by the Investigating Officer at 10:30 AM and there is nothing to show that the crime number and other particulars of the case were inserted in the inquest report Ex. Ka-3 later on. It is correct that in the inquest report, the list of documents was not mentioned but it was mentioned that all the related documents are being sent along with inquest report. These facts clearly indicate that FIR was lodged without any undue delay and that the FIR cannot be termed as ante timed. 21. The next contention raised was that the spot of the incident is doubtful. It would be pertinent to mention that it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the alleged incident took place at the alleged spot in front of the house of Bahadur, when the deceased has gone there to wash his clothes at the 'patiya'. It is correct that in the site plan no patiya was shown at the spot, where the dead body of the deceased was lying but it is a minor inconsistency and such inconsistency does not affect the credibility of the eye witnesses. Even otherwise there is no such requirement of law that the site plan has to contain each and every minor detail of the spot. So far as this inconsistency is concerned PW-1 has stated that the deceased has put the two washed clothes at the hut, but no washed clothes were found at the spot, it is also a minor inconsistency and does not affect the credibility of the witnesses. So far as this inconsistency is concerned PW-1 has stated that the deceased has put the two washed clothes at the hut, but no washed clothes were found at the spot, it is also a minor inconsistency and does not affect the credibility of the witnesses. One important aspect of the matter is that the sample of blood stained as well as simple soil were also taken from the spot and as per the FSL report, these articles were having spot of human blood. The contention that the deceased sustained injuries in some incident in the wee hours while he has gone to attend the call of nature and thereafter he was brought at the alleged spot, has no basis at all and thus, has to be negatived. 22. Much thrust was given to the argument that there is contradiction between the oral testimony and the medical evidence as the margins of the injuries sustained by the deceased were found not razed while in injuries caused by axe generally the margins remain razed. It is a settled legal proposition that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained may discredit the entire case of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent or probable, the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is given by the doctor. It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant' ". It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant' ". Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:. “Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.” 23. A similar view has been taken in Mani Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289; Khambam Raja Reddy & Anr. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 239 ; and State of U.P. v. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566 . In case of Darbara Singh V State of Punjab AIR 2013 SC 840 , relied by the learned AGA, Hon'ble Apex Court held: ''So far as the question of inconsistency between medical evidence and 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. 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. 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. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Hari, (2009) 13 SCC 542 ; and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 )''. 24. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542 , the Hon'ble Apex Court re-iterated the aforementioned position of law and stated that in any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy. From the above stated authorities, it is clear that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-`-vis medical evidence, but when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. Similar observation was also made in case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh V State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2552 and it was held that the position of law regarding contradiction between medical and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. 25. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. 26. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. 26. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, in the present case it may be seen that as per the prosecution version the accused-appellant Sudama has given two blows of axe at the neck and back of the deceased while Pulander attacked him with sickle. The deceased has sustained six incised wounds including at neck and back and the margins of the injuries were not razed. PW-4 Dr. O.P. Gangwar has stated that these injuries are possible by axe and sickle. Merely because in cross-examination, it was stated by PW-4 Dr. O.P. Gangwar that normally in the injuries caused by axe, the margins of injuries remain razed and that it is more possible that the injuries sustained by deceased might have been caused by gandasa and farsa, it does not mean that the medical evidence is in contradiction oral testimony. As stated earlier PW 4 has stated that these injuries were possible by axe. At any rate it can not be said that the medical evidence goes so far that it rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true. Further once the testimony of eye witnesses is found reliable and the autopsy surgeon stated that these injuries were possible by axe, the oral evidence would have primacy over the medical evidence particularly when the oral evidence is not irreconcilable with the medical evidence. In view of all these facts the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no force. 27. Lastly it was submitted that there was no motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. In this regard it may be mentioned that PW-1 Mulayam Singh has consistently stated that about 3-4 days prior to the incident, the appellant Pulander had objected the deceased from using his field for toilet purposes and on this issue an altercation has taken place. Pulander had threatened that he would not leave the deceased alive within next 3-4 days. When the accused-appellants came at the spot, they had uttered that the deceased was crossing his limits and thereafter attacked the deceased with axe and sickle. Pulander had threatened that he would not leave the deceased alive within next 3-4 days. When the accused-appellants came at the spot, they had uttered that the deceased was crossing his limits and thereafter attacked the deceased with axe and sickle. Further, the prosecution case is based on the eye witness account of three eye witnesses and it is well settled if a case is based on direct evidence, the motive has no much significance. Clear proof of motive lends additional assurance to other evidence but the absence of motive does not lead to contrary conclusion however in that case, other evidence has to be closely scrutinized. If positive evidence is clear and cogent the question of motive is not important. However, this is relevant to lend assurance the other evidence. Motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of a crime. Moreover, failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable evidence available on record unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable evidence available on record unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. Reference may be made to the case law pronounced in case of State of U.P. V Nawab Singh, 2005 SCC (Criminal) 33. In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime. In Shivji Genu Mohite V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eyewitness is rendered untrustworthy. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance as held in Bikau Pandey & Ors. V. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616 ; and Abu Thakir & Ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91 ). 28. In the present case the prosecution has alleged that the deceased has used the field of appellant Pulander for attending the call of nature and it was objected by Pulander and on this issue an altercation took place. The appellant Pulander had threatened the deceased that he would not leave him alive within next 3-4 days. There is consistent evidence of PW 1 in this regard. As per the statement of PW 1, even before the alleged incident, the accused appellants had uttered in this regard. Though as the case is based on the testimony of eye witnesses and thus, it was not necessary to establish motive of the incident but in view of the evidence on record, it can not be said that there was no motive at all. We find no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 29. From the above facts and evidence on record, it is fully established that the victim succumbed to unnatural death due to injuries caused by the appellants. There is no major contradiction or inconsistency in the statements of eye witnesses. The presence of the eye-witness cannot be suspected merely because they are related to the deceased or on account of minor variation or aberration from the prosecution version. The overt acts of the accused-appellants in causing the death of the deceased are established. The occurrence has been fully supported by the testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence which cannot be overclouded by any stretch of imagination or suspicion. There is no undue delay in lodging the first information report. The overt acts of the accused-appellants in causing the death of the deceased are established. The occurrence has been fully supported by the testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence which cannot be overclouded by any stretch of imagination or suspicion. There is no undue delay in lodging the first information report. Considering the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that the testimony of PW 1 Mulayam Singh is cogent and trustworthy and it has been amply corroborated by PW 2 Bahadur and PW 3 Virendra. These witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but nothing adverse could come out. The version of these witnesses is consistent with the FIR and the same is supported by medical evidence. The inconsistencies pointed out by the ld counsel do not go to the root of the matter. It is well settled that 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. 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. 30. Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that in the impugned judgment, the learned Trial after incorporating the facts of the case has devoted just one para (para no. 8) for appraisal of evidence. The case involves testimony of three eye witnesses besides other formal witnesses but the learned Trial court has not discussed the evidence and no contention raised from the side of the accused persons was discussed at all. The learned Trial court though having rightly reached at conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants-accused beyond doubt, there was need for incorporating the appraisal of evidence and appropriate reasoning besides the all relevant factual position in the impugned judgment. It is said that brevity is the virtue of a wise man and is familiarized by those, who have clarity in mind but never the less the judgment particularly that of a session trial case must contain reasons for judgment, incorporating detailed appraisal of evidence, findings of fact and the examination of the contentions raised by the parties. It is said that brevity is the virtue of a wise man and is familiarized by those, who have clarity in mind but never the less the judgment particularly that of a session trial case must contain reasons for judgment, incorporating detailed appraisal of evidence, findings of fact and the examination of the contentions raised by the parties. The provisions of Section 354 Cr.P.C. also mandate that the reasons for the decision have to be assigned. 31. In view of the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the testimony of PW 1 Mulayam Singh, PW 2 Bahadur and PW 3 Virendra inspires confidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court are well substantiated by the evidence available on record. We do not find any tangible reasons to interfere with the final conclusions recorded for the conviction of the accused appellant. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant under Section 302 of IPC is liable to be maintained and affirmed. 32. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial court was justified in convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Appeal has no substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appellants Sudama and Pulander are stated on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. 33. Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned immediately for necessary compliance.