JUDGMENT : Rajendra Kumar, J. Present jail appeal has been directed by accused-appellant Jang Bahadur against the judgement and order dated 08.10.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No.420 of 2003 (State Vs. Jang Bahadur) under Section 302, 394 IPC, P.S. Cant, District Gorakhpur whereby Trial Court has convicted accused Jang Bahadur under Section 302/34 and 394/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.30,000/- under Section 302/34 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 394/34 I.P.C. 2. Factual matrix of the case as emerging from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") as well as material placed on record is as follows. 3. PW-1 Harikesh Yadav submitted a written Tehrir Ex.Ka-1 in Police Station Cant, District Gorakhpur on 06.06.2003 stating that he and victim Om Prakash Tiwari were working as a clerk and Koel used to sell snacks in Sharab Bhatti situated in village Daudpur. Accused Jang Bahadur used to visit daily, Bhatti to drink. At about 11:00 PM, in the intervening night of 05/06.06.2003, accused-appellant Jang Bahadur came to Bhatti and asked for vial of liquor borrowed from Om Prakash Tiwari victim who shooed him away, then accused-appellant Jang Bahadur threatened him that this escape would cause him darely and he went. At about 1:30 AM, again accused-appellant along with three companions came to Bhatti, who were identified well by witnesses in the light of Torch, when PW-1, PW-2 Koel and victim were sitting out on the board due to summer. Accused Jang Bahadur with his three companions abused them in filthy language and demanded liquor extending threat to kill. On being refused, they started abusing and beating them due to which they sustained injuries. Accused-appellant Jang Bahadur prompted his other companions saying that victim Om Prakash Tiwari refused to provide liquor, he must be killed. All the three persons caught victim Om Prakash Tiwari and accused-appellant Jang Bahadur started stabbing him with knife due to which victim sustained serious injuries. All accused-appellant threatened that if raised alarm, they would have also face dire consequences. Thereafter, accused and his other companions took money, kept in the bag and vial of liquor kept in shop. Om Prakash Tiwari was taken to hospital with the help of police where he succumbed to injuries. 4. All accused-appellant threatened that if raised alarm, they would have also face dire consequences. Thereafter, accused and his other companions took money, kept in the bag and vial of liquor kept in shop. Om Prakash Tiwari was taken to hospital with the help of police where he succumbed to injuries. 4. On the basis of written Tehrir Ex.Ka-1, PW-5 Constable Rampati Prasad registered a Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka-13 as Case Crime no. 1071 of 2003, under Section 302 and 379/34 I.P.C. against accused-appellant and three other unknown persons. Entry of case was made by PW-6 S.I. Keshari Nandan Sahi in General Diary on the same day in G.D. No. 5, copy whereof is Ex.Ka-14. 5. PW-3 Inspector Bharat Yadav, undertook investigation, held inquest over dead body of Om Prakash Tiwari, sealed dead body and sent for post mortem, prepared inquest report Ex.Ka-2 and other papers relating thereto, recorded statement of Informant, proceeded to spot with PW-1, visited spot, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-8, collected blood stained and simple earth from spot and prepared Fard Ex.Ka-9. 6. PW-4 Dr. R.N. Rai conducted autopsy over dead body of Om Prakash Tiwari son of Chandra Dev, aged about 45 years and prepared post mortem report Ex.Ka-12, expressing his opinion that death of victim would have been occurred due to coma and haemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. Doctor found following ante-mortem injuries on the persons of deceased as under :- (i) Incised wound 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on right side head. Margins clean cut, oblique underlying skull one cut. (ii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x mussel deep, 0.5 cm below the injury no. 1 on right side head. (iii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on right side head 0.5 cm below the injury no. 2. (iv) Abrasion 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm on right side face just below right eye. (v) Incised wound 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm through & through right ear upper part. (vi) Abrasion 6 cm x 0.5 cm on front and upper part chest just below root of neck. (vii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1.0 cm x done deep on lower part of sternum in midline underlying sternum cut vertical direction. Tailing below. (v) Incised wound 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm through & through right ear upper part. (vi) Abrasion 6 cm x 0.5 cm on front and upper part chest just below root of neck. (vii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1.0 cm x done deep on lower part of sternum in midline underlying sternum cut vertical direction. Tailing below. (viii) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep on epigastric region in midline vertical in direction loop of intestine anterior from the wound underlying liver left to be cut (1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm) Abdominal cavity contains about 2 liter clotted blood. Tailing downward. (ix) Incised wound 2.0 cm x 0.25 cm x skin deep on to of right side. 7. PW-7, Dr. S.K. Srivastava, medically examined PW-1, Harikesh Yadav and PW-2 Koel on 06.06.2003 and prepared medico legal report Ex.Ka-15 and 16, expressing his opinion that injuries were caused by blunt object on 05/06.06.2003 at about 1:30 AM. 8. PW-3 Bharat Yadav arrested accused-appellant Jang Bahadur on 07.06.2003 near the gate of railway station, recorded his statement and after completing all formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-11 against accused under Section 302 and 394 I.P.C. 9. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed by competent Magistrate to Sessions Court for trial. 10. 8. PW-3 Bharat Yadav arrested accused-appellant Jang Bahadur on 07.06.2003 near the gate of railway station, recorded his statement and after completing all formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-11 against accused under Section 302 and 394 I.P.C. 9. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed by competent Magistrate to Sessions Court for trial. 10. Trial Court charged accused-appellant Jang Bahadur under Sections 302/34 and 394/34 IPC on 29.01.2004 as under:- vkjksi ^^eSa] fnus'k dqekj flag] vij l= U;k;k/kh'k@QkLV VªSd dksVZ uaŒ 3 xksj[kiqj ,rn~}kjk vki vfHk;qDr tax cgknqj dks fuEu vkjksi ls vkjksfir djrk gaw %& 1- ;g fd fnukad 6-6-03 le; djhc ,d ctdj 30 feuV cgn LFkku nkmniqj 'kjkc HkV~Vh Fkkuk ds.V] tuin xksj[kiqj esa vki vU; yksxksa ds lkFk oknh eqdnek gfjds'k ;kno mQZ iIiw ;kno ds fe= e`rd vkse Ádk'k frokjh dks 'kjkc ihus ds ckor gq;s >xM+s dks ysdj pkdw ls xksndj mldh gR;k dj fn;sA bl Ádkj vkius HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 302@34 ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks esjs ÁlaKku esa gSA 2- ;g fd mijksDr frfFk] le; o LFkku ij vki vU; yksxksa ds lkFk oknh eqdnek ds fe= e`rd vkse Ádk'k frokjh dks migfr dkfjr djds mlds tsc ls iSlk tcjnLrh Nhu fy;s tks /kkjk 394@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks esjs ÁlaKku esa gSA vr,o eSa vkidks funsZf'kr djrk gaw fd mDr vkjksi esa vkidk ijh{k.k bl U;k;kyk; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA** Charge “I, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Addl Sessions Judge/Fasttrack Court No 3, Gorakhpur hereby charge you, accused Jung Bahadur, as under: 1. That on 6.6.03 at around 1.30 o'clock in Daudpur Sharab Bhatti, PS Cant, Distt Gorakhpur you with other persons knifed deceased Om Prakash, friend of case complainant Harkesh Yadav alias Pappu Yadav, to death as a result of clash over the consumption of liquor. Thus, you committed an offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC which is in my cognizance. 2. That on the aforesaid date, time and place you with other persons caused injury to case complainant's friend deceased Om Prakash Tiwari and snatched money from his pocket which is punishable under section 394/34 IPC and is in my cognizance. Hence, it is directed that you shall be tried for the aforesaid charge by this court.” 11. Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. Hence, it is directed that you shall be tried for the aforesaid charge by this court.” 11. Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses out of whom PW-1 Harikesh Yadav and PW-2 Koel are witnesses of fact. PW-3 Inspector Bharat Yadav, PW-4 Dr. R.N. Rai, PW-5 Constable Rampati Prasad, PW-6 Head Constable Keshari nandan Sahi and PW-7 Dr. S.K. Srivastava are formal witnesses. 13. Subsequent to closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining entire evidence and other incriminating circumstances. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant denied prosecution story in toto, story and statement of witnesses are said to be wrong and under the pressure of police. He claimed false implication in the present case and chose not to lead evidence in defence. 14. Trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating entire evidence led by prosecution on record, found accused-appellant guilty and convicted him as stated above. 15. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgement and order of conviction, accused-appellant preferred present appeal through Jail. 16. We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for appellant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A for State-respondent at length and gone through the record carefully. 17. Learned counsel for appellant assailing impugned judgement and order of conviction of accused-appellant, advanced his submissions in following manners :- (i) PW-1 and 2 are the interested witnesses. No independent witness has been produced from the side of prosecution. Statement of PW-1 and 2 inspire no confidence. (ii) There is no motive to accused to commit murder of victim Om Prakash Tiwari. Motive shown by prosecution as per F.I.R. is not sufficient to commit present crime. (iii) Victim was taken to hospital by Police not by witnesses which is not a natural circumstance. (iv) There are many contradictions and variations in the statement of witnesses rendering the case doubtful. He showed some contradiction and variations in the statement of witnesses. (v) Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (vi) Trial Court has not appreciated evidence in right perspective; and without application of mind, it has passed impugned judgement and order of conviction. (vii) Learned Advocate for accused-appellant sought interference of this Court in allowing the appeal. 18. He showed some contradiction and variations in the statement of witnesses. (v) Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (vi) Trial Court has not appreciated evidence in right perspective; and without application of mind, it has passed impugned judgement and order of conviction. (vii) Learned Advocate for accused-appellant sought interference of this Court in allowing the appeal. 18. Learned AGA opposed submissions of leaned counsel for appellant and submitted that accused is named in F.I.R.; PW-1 and 2 were present on spot and injured in incident; therefore, there presence on spot cannot be doubted; PW-1 and 2 supported prosecution case; there is no infirmities in their evidence; and prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; and there is sufficient motive to accused to commit murder of Om Prakash Tiwari. Learned AGA sought dismissal of appeal. 19. Although, time, date, place and death of Om Prakash Tiwari, could not be specifically disputed from the side of accused but according to his Advocate he is not responsible for committing crime. Even otherwise, from the evidence of PW-1, 2, 4 and 7 aforesaid facts stand established. 20. Now we may proceed to consider rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and evidence of prosecution as well as some important decisions. 21. PW-1 Harikesh Yadav deposed that on the date of incident, he and victim Om Prakash Tiwari were working as clerk in Sharab Bhatti, Daudpur and Koil PW-2 used to sell snacks on the same Bhatti. Accused Jang Bahadur used to drink liquor at Bhatti, therefore, he was well known to them. At about 11:00 P.M. in the intervening night of 5/6.6.2003, accused Jang Bahadur came to Bhatti and demanded vial of liquor, borrowed from victim whereupon victim shooed him, then accused threatened by saying that this escape would cause him darely. In the same night at about 1:30 AM accused Jang Bahadur along with his three companions again came to Bhatti, who were recognized well in the light of Torch. PW-1, 2 and victim were sitting out, in front of Bhatti, on board, due to summer. Accused started abusing and demanded liquor. On being refused, accused persons started beating them and Jang Bahadur instigated others that victim Om Prakash Tiwari did not give liquor them, he must be killed. When victim Om Prakash Tiwari ran away toward road, accused persons chased and caught him. Accused started abusing and demanded liquor. On being refused, accused persons started beating them and Jang Bahadur instigated others that victim Om Prakash Tiwari did not give liquor them, he must be killed. When victim Om Prakash Tiwari ran away toward road, accused persons chased and caught him. PW-1 and 2 tried to rescue him but accused Jang Bahadur stabbed Om Prakash Tiwari with knife. Victim sustained injuries and fell down. Accused-appellant threatened them that if they make noise, would also have the same consequences. Thereafter, accused persons took Rs. 7000/- or Rs. 8000/- and some vials of liquor, breaking lock of liquor shop (Bhatti). Shortly, thereafter, Police came there and took victim in injured position and got admitted him in District Hospital. Police got medically examined PWs-1 and 2 also. 22. PW-2 Koil deposed that he used to sell snacks (chikna) in liquor shop (Sharab ki Bhatti) of Daudpur. Accused-appellant Jang Bahadur used to drink liquor on the shop daily. Due to summer, he was sitting on the board in front of Bhatti, after selling snacks (chikna). Victim Om Prakash was accounting in the shop. At about 11:00 in the night, Jang Bahadur came there and started demanding liquor from victim whereupon victim shooed him away. While going accused threatened that this escape would cause him darely but they did not take it seriously. At about 1:30 AM, in the same night Jang Bahadur along with three other companions came there and started abusing them, instigated his companions that victim did not offer liquor on demand, he must be killed and started beating to victim. He tried to rescue him, then they began to beat them (injured persons) due to which they received injuries. Victim ran away to road whereupon all the four accused chased him, three accused out of them caught victim and Jang Bahadur started stabbing to victim with knife due to which he fell down on road. Considering him as dead all the four persons came to shop and took entire amount kept in shop and vials of liquor, breaking the lock and ran away towards east. He, PW-2, was also injured in the incident and became afraid due to fear. PW-1 had gone to inform owner of the shop. In the meantime, police came there and took victim Om Prakash Tiwari to Sadar Hospital for treatment. He was also medically examined in hospital. 23. He, PW-2, was also injured in the incident and became afraid due to fear. PW-1 had gone to inform owner of the shop. In the meantime, police came there and took victim Om Prakash Tiwari to Sadar Hospital for treatment. He was also medically examined in hospital. 23. PW-1 and 2 withstood lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be brought on record so as to disbelieve their testimony. Certainly, some minor contradictions and variations would have appeared in their cross-examination but they do not go to the merit of case and on that ground entire prosecution story could not be disbelieved. 24. Evidently, PW-1 and 2 sustained injuries in the incident. PW-1 Harikesh Yadav sustained three injuries caused by hard and blunt object and PW-2 Koil sustained four injuries caused by hard and blunt. All the injuries are simple in nature and fresh. Injury report Ex.Ka-15 and 16 respectively corroborate this fact. This fact also find support from the evidence of Dr. S.K. Srivastave PW-7. 25. It is settled that presence of injured witnesses cannot be easily ignored. Normally an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he was suffered himself and thus, there will no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by this Court to the testimony of injured person. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res-inegra. 26. In Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 where Court held as under :- "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkay vs. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. And Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) "28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. (Emphasis added) 27. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629 , referring the judgement of Krishna vs. State Of Haryana on 12 July, 1994 a similar view has been reiterated by Court, observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing is elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. 28. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing is elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. 28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime. Such witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. 29. Another argument with regard to appreciation of evidence is that material evidence having not been examined and entire prosecution case being based on statement of PW-1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, entire prosecution evidence suffers from patent infirmity in law. 30. We are not impressed with this contention, primerly for the reasons that non-examination of independent witness, in the facts of this case, is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Court can convict an accused on the statement of sole testimony, even if he was a relative of deceased and thus, an interested party. The condition precedent to such an order is that the statement of such witness should satisfy the legal parameter stated by the Court in the catena of judgement. Once those parameters are satisfied and statement of witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by prosecution oral or documentary, then Court would not fall in error of law in relying upon such witness (See Manu Dutt vs. State of U.P. and another, (2012) 4 SCC 79 ). 31. Now we may examine as to place and manner in which incident occurred. It is very important aspect of the matter that F.I.R. itself was lodged by PW-1. Deceased was seriously injured and he was taken to hospital by Police where he succumbed to injuries. He had no occasion to lodge F.I.R. PW-1 was also injured and fully aware of what he was doing. It is very important aspect of the matter that F.I.R. itself was lodged by PW-1. Deceased was seriously injured and he was taken to hospital by Police where he succumbed to injuries. He had no occasion to lodge F.I.R. PW-1 was also injured and fully aware of what he was doing. He had no reason to falsely implicate accused. PW-2 was also injured in the same occurrence. It has specially been stated in the statement of these witnesses that when appellant Jang Bahadur and his three companions came second time to the place where deceased was present, Jang Bahadur instigated that victim refused to provide liquor, he must be killed and Jang Bahadur stabbed him with knife. When he tried to run away, he fell down on the ground near road. The blood stained earth was collected from spot by Investigating Officer. Deceased was taken to hospital for treatment by police itself where he died on 06.06.2003. This incident was witnessed by natural witnesses PW-1 Harikesh Yadav @ Pappu and PW-2 Koil, who intervened and tried to protect victim, but in the process, received number of injuries, as is clear from the medical evidence produced on record. The collection of blood stained earth itself is a relevant piece of evidence and provides the link in commission and place of crime. 32. So far as motive is concerned, it is well settled that where direct evidence is worthy, it can be believed, then motive does not carry much weight. It is also notable that mind set of accused persons differs from each other. Thus merely because there was no strong motive to commit present offence, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. We have no hesitation in rejecting the argument raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 33. In Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 3 SCC 196 , Court has held as under :- "As regards motive, it is well established that if the prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of motive looses practically all relevance. In this case, we find the ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it." 34. In this case, we find the ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it." 34. In so far as discrepancies, variations and contradictions in prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case and accused-appellant are not entitled to get benefit of the same. We are not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for accused-appellant. 35. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 , Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 36. In Sachin Kumar Singhraha v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 473-474 of 2019 decided on 12.3.2019, Supreme Court has observed that Court will have to evaluate evidence before it keeping in mind the rustic nature of depositions of the villagers, who may not depose about exact geographical locations with mathematical precision. Discrepancies of this nature which do not go to the root of the matter do not obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. It need not be stated that it is by now well settled that minor variations should not be taken into consideration while assessing the reliability of witness testimony and the consistency of the prosecution version as a whole. 37. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi), decided on 19.09.2018. 38. When such incident takes place, one cannot expect a scripted version from witnesses to show as to what actually happened and in what manner it had happened. Such minor details normally are neither noticed nor remembered by people since they are in fury of incident and apprehensive of what may happen in future. 38. When such incident takes place, one cannot expect a scripted version from witnesses to show as to what actually happened and in what manner it had happened. Such minor details normally are neither noticed nor remembered by people since they are in fury of incident and apprehensive of what may happen in future. A witness is not expected to recreate a scene as if it was shot after with a scripted version but what material thing has happened that is only noticed or remembered by people and that is stated in evidence. Court has to see whether in broad narration given by witnesses, if there is any material contradiction so as to render evidence so self contradictory as to make it untrustworthy is Minor variation or such omissions which do not otherwise affect trustworthiness of evidence, which is broadly consistent in statement of witnesses, is of no legal consequence and cannot defeat prosecution. 39. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of witness and record a finding, whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle, but can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statement of a witnesses cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statements made by the witnesses earlier. Only such omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. Only such omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., (2009) AIR SC 152; Arumugam v. State, (2009) AIR SC 331; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 ; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 12 JT 287 SC]. 40. Xxx XXX XXX 44. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, statement of PWs. as well documentary evidence produced by prosecution and legal proposition discussed herein before, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that accused-appellant Jang Bahadur committed murder of Om Prakash Tiwari at the time, date and place as stated by prosecution and prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him. Appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 41. So far as question of sentence to accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a matter of discretion to be exercised by Court upon consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in individual cases (see: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ). Considering the facts and circumstances, weapons used in the commission of offence, sentence awarded by Trial Court is almost minimum. We see no reasons to interfere the same. 42. In view of above discussion, this appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Impugned judgement and order dated 08.10.2012, is maintained and confirmed. 43. Lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to District Court and Jail concerned for compliance and apprising the accused-appellant. 44. Before parting, we provide that Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate, who has assisted as Amicus Curiae, appearing for appellant in present Jail Appeal, shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 11,500/- for his valuable assistance. 44. Before parting, we provide that Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate, who has assisted as Amicus Curiae, appearing for appellant in present Jail Appeal, shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 11,500/- for his valuable assistance. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer, posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, without any delay and, in any case, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.