JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. Both the appeals are taken up in this judgment being preferred against a common Judgment dtd. 30.07.1998 in Sessions Case No.22 of 1996 of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 2. The appellant - convict Babu @ Santosh Patra was convicted of offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the same has been challenged in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 1998. Appellant - convict Bijay Patra was convicted of offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The said conviction and sentence have been assailed in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 1998. 3. Adumbrated in brief, the prosecution case runs thus:- On 10.09.1995 at about 7.30 P.M the deceased Debraj and his elder brother Nakula took bath in their village pond Bhagaganda Bandha. While they were returning on village danda, all the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, attacked them being armed with Farsa and Lathi. Accused Santosh and Brajaya dealt Tangia blows to Debraj who fell down and died whereas Pitambar dealt Tangia blows to informant Nakula as a result he sustained injury on his chest. Accused Indra Patra gave Lathi blow aiming to the head of Nakula but while warding off, the blow hit his hand. The wife of Nakula, namely, Kumari and Kesaba Gouda came to the rescue of Nakula. Accused-Panchu dealt Farsa blow to the head of Kumari. Accused Indira dealt blow by means of Tangia to the head of Keshaba. The villagers gathered. Debraj died at the spot. It is stated that parties had inimical relationship for taking the lease of village tank. On that night at about 11.00 P.M., Nakula Gouda lodged written FIR at Aska Police Station resulting registration of Aska P.S. Case No.127 dated 10.09.1995 under section 147/148/323/302/149 IPC against eight accused persons. In course of investigation, the inquest over the dead body was made. Postmortem was conducted by Doctor-P.W.1. One axe (M.O-I), as weapon of offence, was seized. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Eight accused persons faced trial for the offence under sections 147/148/302/323/325/149 IPC. 4. In course of investigation, the inquest over the dead body was made. Postmortem was conducted by Doctor-P.W.1. One axe (M.O-I), as weapon of offence, was seized. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Eight accused persons faced trial for the offence under sections 147/148/302/323/325/149 IPC. 4. The plea of defence was denial based upon the fact as revealed from the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Indra Patra and Bijay Patra that for the earlier animosity relating to lease of village tank, on the relevant point of time, informant Nakula armed with Thenga, deceased Debraj armed with Tangia and witness Kumari armed with thenga, attacked accused Indra Patra. In course of that tussle Debraj sustained injury on the neck by his own Tangia and succumbed to that injuries at the spot. And this case has been falsely foisted. 5. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. P.W.2 is the informant and his FIR is Exhibit-3. His wife is P.W.7. P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 10 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.10 is a witness to the factum of previous lease of village tank. P.W.6 is an independent witness to the seizure of Tangia-M.O.I. P.W.1. is the doctor who conducted Post mortem examination and his report is Exhibit-1. P.W.5 is the Doctor who examined the injured informant and his wife. P.W.12 is another Doctor who examined injured accused Indra Patra. P.W.11 is the constable. While P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer. Sixteen documents, including chemical report, are exhibited on behalf of prosecution. 6. On behalf of defence, to establish the fact that during occurrence there was no electric light, one line man and another villager are examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2. 7. Learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence of Doctor, P.W.1 and his P.M. report has came to the conclusion that the death of deceased Debraj was homicidal in nature. He believed the eye witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9 as reliable and appreciating their evidence, he found that the accused persons had not formed any unlawful assembly and had not acted in prosecution of any common object. He believed the eye witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9 as reliable and appreciating their evidence, he found that the accused persons had not formed any unlawful assembly and had not acted in prosecution of any common object. He also found that the fatal blow which caused the death of Debraj, was given by accused Babu @ Santosh by means of an axe-M.O.I and the other blow given to the waste of deceased by Bijay was intended to cause injury but not sufficient to case murder. He found that the deceased and his brother had taken lease of the village tank known as Dandabandha for the purpose of pisci culture on the premium of Rs.3100/-. Accused Bijay had taken another tank on lease for a premium of Rs.1800/-. Both parties had sustained loss. The villagers reduced the premium amount of deceased Debaraj to Rs.1000/- while the reduction of the premium of accused Bijay was not considered. For that there was an ill-feeling between the parties and the said enmity was the motive behind the murder of the deceased on the fateful date. Learned trial court has also found that in view of discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular evidence with regard to injury on P.W.7 and Nakula Gouda, the offences under section 323/325 were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further it is held that injury on accused Indra has been explained as he fell down while running away from the place of occurrence as stated by P.W.4 and issuance of medical certificate on 13.9.1995 was doubtful and defence could not take advantage of non-explanation of injury on the accused. Analyzing the evidence of P.W.3 and I.O. it was found that the spot was in front the house of P.W.3 and was at a distance of 50 feet from the house of accused Bijay and in absence of electric light, the spot was visible by the electric bulb burning in the Karana Sahi. Basing upon his appreciation and analysis, learned trial court acquitted six accused persons except Babu @ Santosh Patra and accused Bijay Patra and both of them were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae Miss. Basing upon his appreciation and analysis, learned trial court acquitted six accused persons except Babu @ Santosh Patra and accused Bijay Patra and both of them were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae Miss. Deepali Mohapatra, for appellant-Santosh Patra submits that there is no evidence that accused-Santosh Patra gave the fatal blow to the deceased and if the evidence of P.W.2-informant and FIR Exhibit-3 are to be read, it can be said that the prosecution has not unfolded the true story as to how deceased sustained injury on his person. The prosecution has examined only interested and inimical witnesses withholding other witnesses in the charge-sheet. When there was no light and it was cloudy night, the witnesses cannot be believed to have seen the actual incident as to who acted in which manner during tussle and for that accused should be given benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for appellant-Bijay Patra submits that the punishment inflicted is so excessive that it should be reduced to the period undergone. 9. Learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the conviction and sentence by submitting that even though State has not preferred appeal against the acquittal of six accused persons, the evidence on record unerringly proves the guilt of the appellants and the learned lower court has rightly convicted for the offence found against them and no interference is called for. He further submits that the manner in which the overt act was committed and the location of the spot indicate that accused had motive to commit murder and the ignorable deficiency and irregularity in the investigation cannot wash off the otherwise proved guilty. It is further submitted that when the evidence is plenty, the examination of all the charge-sheeted witnesses is not necessary. 10. We carefully perused the evidence on record keeping in view the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for appellant Bijaya Patra and learned Addl. Government Advocate. 10.1 As per prosecution case, deceased-Debaraj died at the spot on 10.09.1995 at about 7.30 P.M.. Doctor-P.W.1 has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on police requisition on 11.9.1995. We carefully perused the evidence on record keeping in view the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for appellant Bijaya Patra and learned Addl. Government Advocate. 10.1 As per prosecution case, deceased-Debaraj died at the spot on 10.09.1995 at about 7.30 P.M.. Doctor-P.W.1 has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on police requisition on 11.9.1995. He has stated that deceased was found to have sustained two injuries, that is :- (i) One incised wound 12 c.m. X 6 c.m. X communicating to the deeper structure of the neck present at the right side of the neck in oblique manner above the right clavicle. The sterna end of the clavicle had been out the size 1 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. The right side jugular vein, carotid, artery and the nerve had been cut with beveled margins directed about downwards; and (ii) Obliquely placed incised wound size 3 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. present obliquely left side of the posterior auxiliary 21 c.m. above the middle part of iliac crest. 10.2 He has given opinion that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of external injury no.1 and corresponding internal injury and death was homicidal in nature. He has also examined the axe M.O.I to give opinion vide Exhibit.2 to the effect that injury no.1 could be possible by the said weapon of offence Axe. 10.3 Fact remains proved being not controverted that injury no.1, which was on the right side neck of the deceased, was caused by M.O.I - axe and the said injury was the cause of death which was homicidal in nature. The prosecution has proved this ingredient of murder beyond reasonable doubt. 10.4 The spot is the frontage of house of P.W.3. From reading the evidence of eye witness P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9, it is clear that the spot was the Danda and the house of eye witnesses and accused persons were situated not more than at a distance of 100 feet. The accused and his brother were coming from the tank after taking bath. The presence of eye witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9 is not doubtful. When an incident is erupted, it is natural that nearby denizens are to come out to know the same. The accused persons and the deceased and their family members are not strangers to the witnesses. The presence of eye witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9 is not doubtful. When an incident is erupted, it is natural that nearby denizens are to come out to know the same. The accused persons and the deceased and their family members are not strangers to the witnesses. Their residences are so close to the spot that the presence of the wife of informant is not doubtful. As we are concerned about the conviction and sentence in respect of two accused persons who are appellants here, the evidence of witnesses which are already separated resulting acquittal of six accused persons, will not be realigned by us. But the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. The separation of grain from the chaffs to find out the nuggets of truth is to be adopted to appreciate the evidence of eye witnesses. Corroboration is not a requirement of law but is a rule of prudence. 10.5 The informant-P.W.2 is found to be consistent and he was only contradicted to the extent through Investigating Officer-P.W.13 that after receiving one stroke the deceased fell down and he tried to escape. After culling out the above part as contradiction from the evidence of P.W.2 informant, we do not find any inherent infirmity in his evidence to discredit him. He is the person who was accompanying the deceased while returning after taking bath and saw the entire incident. To be specific, he has stated that all accused persons surrounded them, accused-Bijay and accused Babu @ Santosh were holding one axe each. In course of conversation accused-Babu dealt the axe blow to the right side neck of the deceased and accused Bijay dealt axe blow to the left side waist of the deceased and his brother died falling on the ground. This part of his statement gets due corroboration from other witnesses, P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9. More than ten persons suddenly gathered at village Danda. The incident was not a fall of meteorite to miss the blinking eye. Evidence shows that deceased and accused Babu had exchange of words. The sequence of events does not improbalise the presence of witnesses. The location of the spot does not deny the probability of viewing by the witnesses. 10.6 P.W.10 has proved the Tank auction document, Exhibit-9 and has stated that the Committee Members of the villagers have taken decision. Evidence shows that deceased and accused Babu had exchange of words. The sequence of events does not improbalise the presence of witnesses. The location of the spot does not deny the probability of viewing by the witnesses. 10.6 P.W.10 has proved the Tank auction document, Exhibit-9 and has stated that the Committee Members of the villagers have taken decision. In cross-examination nothing has been brought out to show that any of the villagers or Committee Members were the supporter of either of the parties. It is difficult to attribute partisanship or interestedness to the eye witnesses. 10.7 On anatomical survey of the evidence of eye witnesses, we find that P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 are reliable and trustworthy. They corroborate to each other on the material facts. Minor discrepancies are expected to occur when they depose in the court after two years. 11. Once the evidence of witnesses as to who dealt which blow is accepted, the evidence of Doctor-P.W.1 regarding the cause of death as stated above assumes prominence. The same is determinative of culpability qua offence. 11.1 So the attribution of criminality for the commission of offence is to be drawn from the proven fact that accused-Santosh gave the fatal blow and caused the culpable homicide amounting to murder of deceased Debraj. The injury inflicted by accused Bijay to the waist by axe being not fatal is punishable for voluntarily causing hust by deadly weapon under section 324 IPC. 12. The contentions of the learned defense counsel do not hold much water because accused-Indra is already acquitted and his injury is found explained by the prosecution. The FIR was promptly lodged. The absence of spot map is not prejudicial because occurrence took place on village Danda surrounded by the houses of both parties as well as the witnesses. The evidence is to be appreciated keeping the location of the spot at village and the living style of the villagers. Neither time is their essence of life nor are they free from natural bond and curiosity. The defect in the investigation is not grave enough to corrode the substratum of prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the decision Rotash Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64 that the defective investigation would not lead to total rejection of the prosecution case. 13. The defect in the investigation is not grave enough to corrode the substratum of prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the decision Rotash Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64 that the defective investigation would not lead to total rejection of the prosecution case. 13. The absence of electric street light at spot as stated by D.W.1 and D.W.2 does not falsify the prosecution evidence with regards to identity of accused persons by the informant brother of the deceased who had seen both the appellants giving axe blow after conversation. The defence plea does not appear probable. 14. On our independent analysis of the evidence on record, the situational facts resulting the murder of deceased Debaraj on 10.09.1995 at 7.30 P.M on village Danda of Katipadi by the axe blow of accused-Babu @ Santoh Patra is found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proven facts being clear the benefit of doubt cannot be extended on conjecture and surmise. 14.1 The conviction of accused-Babu @ Santosh Patra under section 302 IPC and accused Bijay under section 324 IPC are sustainable. The sentence awarded for offence of murder under Section 302 IPC is the minimum prescribed under law. The injury caused by accused-Bijay by axe to the posterior auxiliary of deceased above the middle part of iliac crest though not fatal was intentional. The punishment awarded by the Trial Court is just and proportionate. No interference is called for. 15. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed. 16. The L.C.Rs be returned to the lower court accordingly. S.K. Mishra, J. : I agree.