JUDGMENT : Kailash Prasad Deo, J. All the three Criminal Appeals, arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, are being heard altogether and disposed of, by this common judgment. 2. Heard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, assisted by Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.209 of 1996(R) (appellant-Sanjay Thakur), Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.18 of 1997(R) (appellant-Mukesh Sharma) and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.28 of 1997(R) (appellant-Shankar Saw) and Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in all the three aforesaid Criminal Appeals. 3. All these appeals are arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 07.12.1996, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 1994, whereby all these three appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1), recorded by Sub-Inspector of police, I.D. Pathak at Gandhi Chowk on 06.04.1994 at 20.55 hours. The informant has alleged that today (06.04.1994) at 20-40 hours the informant alongwith Ramu (Hare Ram Rai) as pillion rider left their house on a scooter going towards old Ranchi for seeing their house and as soon as they reached Gandhi Chowk near Raj Medicine, Mukesh Sharma [appellant in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1997(R)] called the informant by his name. It is stated by the informant that as soon as he stopped his scooter, Shankar Sao [appellant in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 1997(R)] and Sanjay Thakur, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.209 of 1996(R)], who were standing with Mukesh Sharma on the road came and started assaulting Ramu by means of chhura (sharp-cut weapon). It is further stated by the informant that Ramu got down from the scooter and started fleeing away towards Gandhi Chowk and on protest made by informant all three accused persons have asked him to keep himself away, otherwise they will also kill him. It is further stated by the informant that Ramu got down from the scooter and started fleeing away towards Gandhi Chowk and on protest made by informant all three accused persons have asked him to keep himself away, otherwise they will also kill him. The informant has further stated that all three accused persons chased Ramu towards Gandhi Chowk and near betel shop Shankar assaulted Ramu on his neck by means of chhura due to which he fell down. Thereafter Sanjay Thakur and Mukesh Sharma also assaulted Ramu on his abdomen by means of chhura and thereafter all three accused persons fled away towards East direction. It is further stated that while the accused persons were assaulting the victim, Ramu the owner of Anup hotel has made request to leave him but they did not concede on the request. At that time several shops were open and they have seen the occurrence, who will disclose about the occurrence on being asked. Informant has stated that Hare Ram Rai @ Ramu was brought to Sewa Sadan Hospital but in the way he succumbed to the injuries. All three accused persons who have killed Ramu are resident of co-mohalla of the informant. The informant has claimed that Mukesh Sharma, Shankar Sao and Sanjay Thakur have killed Ramu by causing injury with intention to kill, as a result-Ramu died on the way to hospital. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, FIR has been instituted bearing Kotwali P.S. case no. 155 of 1994 dated 06.04.1994 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons namely, Mukesh Sharma, Shankar Sao and Sanjay Thakur. 6. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.40 of 1994 dated 29.05.1994 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons. The cognizance of offence has been taken on 06.06.1994 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 07.07.1994. 7. The charge has been framed against all three accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 10.02.1995. The charge has been read over and explained to the accused persons to which they have denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses and eight prosecution exhibits apart from some photographs, which have been marked as Exhibit-A series. The charge has been read over and explained to the accused persons to which they have denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses and eight prosecution exhibits apart from some photographs, which have been marked as Exhibit-A series. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons have been examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.1996, where they have claimed that they are innocent and they have not killed Ramu by means of chhura. They have claimed to adduce evidence and in support thereof defence also examined six defence witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents up to exhibit-I series. 9. Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, informant of the case has been examined as P.W.1. He is eye-witness to the occurrence and has stated that he left his house on scooter for old Ranchi and Hare Ram Rai @ Ramu was pillion rider on his scooter. As soon as they reached near Raj Medicine at 08:45 P.M. on 06.04.1994, Mukesh Sharma asked him to stop. As soon as the informant stopped his scooter, Shankar Sao came there followed by Sanjay, who has assaulted Ramu by means of chhura. He has stated that Ramu, left the scooter and fled away towards Gandhi Chowk. The informant also left the scooter and fled away but informant was behind Shankar Sao, Mukesh Sharma and Sanjay Thakur, who were chasing Ramu with having chhura in their hands. Ramu entered into the hotel of Anup Ram at Gandhi Chowk and made request to Anup Ram to save his life. Three accused persons have also went there and they have asked Anup Ram to leave, otherwise he will also be killed. Anup Ram left and thereafter the accused persons assaulted Ramu by means of chhura. The first assault was made by Mukesh Sharma. When Ramu tried to flee away, at that time Shankar Sao at Gandhi Chowk assaulted Ramu by means of chhura on the left neck region. Ramu fell down because of injury and thereafter Sanjay Thakur assaulted Ramu by means of Chhura on his abdomen. In the meantime, commotion developed and people started fleeing away and accused persons also fled away. At that time it was dark. Informant has stated that he came to his house and raised brawl and with other family members he went to Gandhi Chowk. In the meantime, commotion developed and people started fleeing away and accused persons also fled away. At that time it was dark. Informant has stated that he came to his house and raised brawl and with other family members he went to Gandhi Chowk. The informant has disclosed the occurrence, to the family members. The informant has further stated that at that time Vijay Oraon has lifted Ramu on a rickshaw and thereafter they went to Sewa Sadan Hospital where Ramu was declared dead by the doctor and thereafter informant came to Gandhi Chowk. The informant has further stated that he was informed by Vikram at Sewa Sadan Hospital that police is in search of him. Then the informant came to Gandhi Chowk and gave his fardbeyan to the police, which was written by the police and read over to him, upon which he has put his signature, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. The informant has stated that Ramu (deceased) had made protest against the act of the accused persons while collecting the contributions during Ramnavami festival, as such all the accused persons have killed Ramu by assaulting by means of knife. During cross-examination, this witness has supported his fardbeyan and has stated that his fardbeyan has been recorded at the police station in presence of his farther and thereafter he alongwith police personal went in search of the accused persons. This witness has deposed in the Court, that in his fardbeyan he has stated that in front of Raj Medicine three accused persons have assaulted by means of chhura (sharp-cut weapon) but that did not hit the victim. This witness has further deposed in the Court, that in the fardbeyan he has stated that accused persons have also threatened him but he did not flee away from that place nor he has sustained any injury by means of chhura. The scooter was standing in front of Raj Medicine bearing registration No.BMH 4409, which was shown to the police. The dead body of Ramu was lying on the South in the way to Marwari School at Gandhi Chowk, which is apparent from the photograph, which has been marked as Exhibit-A. The house of Brajesh Tiwari is not on this road. The scooter was standing in front of Raj Medicine bearing registration No.BMH 4409, which was shown to the police. The dead body of Ramu was lying on the South in the way to Marwari School at Gandhi Chowk, which is apparent from the photograph, which has been marked as Exhibit-A. The house of Brajesh Tiwari is not on this road. The photograph of Kunjlal street from Gandhi Chowk to Subhash Chowk, has been proved and marked as exhibit-A/A. The house of Brajesh Tiwari is not situated on this road. The photograph of Gandhi Chowk has been proved and marked as exhibit-A/B. In this photograph the dead body of Ramu is lying. This witness has categorically stated that nobody could see the dead body lying at the Gandhi Chowk from Raj Medicine. The first assault was made upon the deceased at Gandhi Chowk, second was near the tea stall of Mahavir and third, when he fell down and thereafter several assault was made but all have not hit the victim. This witness has categorically stated that Awadh Bihari Tiwari (informant's father), who is member of the Triangular Hawan Kund and Ramu was his servant, who was residing with the informant for last six years, as domestic help not as a Boss. This witness has been given suggestion during cross-examination on behalf of Sanjay Thakur that they have killed Ramu and falsely implicated the accused persons. This witness was subsequently cross-examined on behalf of accused-Mukesh. This witness has stated that Mukesh has assaulted Ramu by means of knife on his neck, which hit on the left shoulder and after assaulting, all the three accused persons fled away. This witness has categorically stated that apart from fardbeyan his statement has been recorded by the police, where this witness has disclosed that near the betel shop at Gandhi Chowk, Shankar Sao has assaulted Ramu by means of chhura on his head. This witness has stated that when Mukesh Sharma asked him to stop the vehicle, he was not knowing the intention of Mukesh and when he went to police station to give his fardbeyan, time was 10:30-10:45 P.M. Prior to that his fardbeyan was recorded by the police at Gandhi Chowk, where he has disclosed about the occurrence. This witness has stated that when Mukesh Sharma asked him to stop the vehicle, he was not knowing the intention of Mukesh and when he went to police station to give his fardbeyan, time was 10:30-10:45 P.M. Prior to that his fardbeyan was recorded by the police at Gandhi Chowk, where he has disclosed about the occurrence. This witness has stated that he has disclosed in his fardbeyan that while the accused persons were chasing Ramu he also followed them and he was behind 15-20 yards. This witness has stated that he has disclosed to the police in his fardbeyan that Ramu has entered into the hotel of Anup Ram to save his life but all three accused persons also went there and they asked Anup Ram to keep himself away. At that time, other customers were also there. In reply to the court question, this witness has stated that there was commotion in the hotel, as the people have assembled to see that what has happened? This witness has been given suggestion that they have falsely implicated the accused persons as nobody has seen, who has assaulted Ramu and one-two days earlier there was some quarrel between Mukesh and Ramu, as such after murder of Ramu the accused persons have been falsely implicated. On behalf of cross-examination by Shankar Sao, this witness has stated that he saw the dead body of Ramu and he could not say whether any injury was there on the head of Ramu or not. This witness has stated that Shankar Sao was having chhura in his hand and he has chased Ramu. The length of the dagger was 10”. The first assault was made by Mukesh as per his vision and at that time it was night but there was light on the road. Ramu has raised brawl to protect his life but he could not do anything Shankar has assaulted Ramu on his neck by dagger. He could not say about the length and breath of the injury. Informant has stated that he has tried to save the life of Ramu in hotel by asking the assailant to leave him, informant has not sustained any injury in taking attempt to rescue the Ramu nor the accused persons have made attack over him. The co-accused Shankar is resident of same mohalla of the informant and he is member of the puja committee. The co-accused Shankar is resident of same mohalla of the informant and he is member of the puja committee. This witness has stated that before he could return to his house, accused persons have fled away. Suggestion has been given to this witness Shankar and Ramu had some altercation on the date of occurrence, but no report was instituted and he has falsely implicated the accused Shankar because of personal enmity. Brajesh Tiwari has been examined as P.W.2. This witness has stated that Ramu Rai was working in his house and he was taking tea on 06.04.1994 at Subhash Chowk at a tea stall around 09:00 P.M. This witness has seen three persons fleeing away namely, Sanjay Thakur, Shankar Sao and Mukesh Sharma, who were known to him and they have entered into the gate of university. This witness has stated that his cousin Jay Shankar came running there and followed him towards his house. At the house Chandra Shekhar has disclosed that Ramu has been killed at Gandhi Chowk and thereafter this witness went to Gandhi Chowk where he was disclosed by Chandra Shekhar that Sanjay Thakur, Shankar Sao and Mukesh Sharma have killed Ramu. At that time, Ramu was unconscious but he was brought on rickshaw to Sewa Sadan Hospital and on the way he died. During cross-examination by Sanjay and Shankar, this witness has stated that he saw Ramu in injured condition at Gandhi Chowk. While he was taking tea at Subhash Chowk, he saw Jay Shankar came running at Shubhash Chowk and went to house were Chandrashekhar was present but he did not disclose about the name of the assailants of Ramu rather from the house he also went alongwith Chandrashekhar to Gandhi Chowk. At that time the shopkeepers have started fleeing away after closing the shop. He has also seen the accused persons fleeing away. This witness has stated that his statement was recorded by the police in the morning. He has seen the accused, Sanjay flee away at around 08:55 P.M. but he has not seen the time rather he has assessed the time. His house is situated at Shyam Narayan lane and from his house Shubhash Chowk and Gandhi Chowk are not visible. This witness has stated that Ramu Rai used to work in his house as well as house of his maternal uncle, funeral of Ramu Rai was performed by his father. His house is situated at Shyam Narayan lane and from his house Shubhash Chowk and Gandhi Chowk are not visible. This witness has stated that Ramu Rai used to work in his house as well as house of his maternal uncle, funeral of Ramu Rai was performed by his father. While cross-examining on behalf of Mukesh Sharma, this witness has stated that Chandra Shekhar Tiwari is his cousin and Kishore Pandey is his distant relative. This witness has further stated that he has not seen any other accused persons except the three, who were fleeing away and Jay Shankar came running to him and thereafter he also went to the place of occurrence. Awadh Bihari Tiwari, father of the informant, has been examined as P.W.3. This witness has stated that at 08:45 in the night on 06.04.1994 he was in his house when his son Chendrashekhar came running there and disclosed that Hare Ram has been assaulted by means of knife by Shankar Sao, Mukesh Sharma and Sanjay Thakur at Gandhi Chowk. Hare Ram was his servant. This witness has stated that after hearing all these he went running towards Gandhi Chowk and saw Hare Ram lying in injured condition. When he tried to lift the victim at that time, police came and the victim was brought on rickshaw to Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan Hospital. Hare Ram died in the way and thereafter police has seized the leather shoe of right leg of Hare Ram from Gandhi Chowk in his presence. The seizure list was prepared under carbon process, upon on which he has put his signature, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, but he has no knowledge about the reason for the occurrence. This witness has stated during cross-examination on behalf of Shankar and Sanjay that he has disclosed the name of father of Sanjay and Shankar to the police. When he was taking the injured on rickshaw, at that time police came. This witness during cross-examination on behalf of accused, Mukesh Sharma has submitted that he reached the place of occurrence at 05:45. It took 10 minutes in going to the hospital where he stands for ten minutes and thereafter Hare Ram was declared dead. This witness has stated that he was accompanied by police while he was bringing Hare Ram to the hospital and thereafter police returned. It took 10 minutes in going to the hospital where he stands for ten minutes and thereafter Hare Ram was declared dead. This witness has stated that he was accompanied by police while he was bringing Hare Ram to the hospital and thereafter police returned. This witness has stated, that when he went to the place of occurrence, police personnel were also present there. While examining by the prosecution, this witness has stated that inquest report was prepared by the police in his presence upon which he has put his signature and the same has been proved and marked as exhibit-2/1 with objection. This witness has denied that inquest report was prepared at Gandhi Chowk after the dead-body was brought by the police from Modi Sewa Sadan. Dr. Niranjan Minz, the medical officer, has been examined as P.W.4, who has conducted the postmortem examination on dead body of Hare Ram Rai @ Ramu on identification made by Hawaldar, Ram Sawaroop Singh and found the following injuries on the dead body:- Stab wound: (i) 2 x 1 c.m. X 2 1/2 c.m. on the right lateral chest in the postetior axilary line. The weapon is confined to the chest wall only. (ii) 3 x 1 1/2 c.m. X 3 1/2 c.m. On the right lateral neck lower part. The track of the wound was confined to muscle only. Lacerated wound : (i) 5 x 2 c.m. X bone deep on left cheek lower part with fracture of the underlying mandible bone with infiltration blood and blood clots in and around the side of the injury. Internal : (i) There was defuse contusion of the right tempero perital scalp and right temporalis muscle. There was contusion of the left hemisphere of the brain with presence of sub-dural blood and blood clots over both sides of the brain. Opinion : (i) All the injuries were ante-mortem. (ii) The stab wound were caused by sharp-cutting cum pointed weapon. Stab wound may be caused by dagger and the rest by hard and blunt substance. There is little possibility of falling after the dagger injury. (iii) Death was due to head injury and time since death 6 to 24 hours from the time of post mortem examination. This postmortem examination report is in my pen and signature. It is marked Ext.-3. There is little possibility of falling after the dagger injury. (iii) Death was due to head injury and time since death 6 to 24 hours from the time of post mortem examination. This postmortem examination report is in my pen and signature. It is marked Ext.-3. This witness has stated that he has not prepared the postmortem report on the basis of inquest report in reply to the question put to him during cross-examination on behalf of Mukesh Sharma. Devnarayan Hansda has been examined as P.W.5. He is assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and has proved the hand writing and signature of Sub-Inspector, Indra Deo Pathak, who has recorded the fardbeyan, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. He has proved the seizure list written and signed by Indra Deo Pathak, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-5 with objection. He has also proved the inquest report prepared under carbon process by Indra Deo Pathak in his handwriting and signature which has been marked as Exhibit-6. He has proved the formal FIR with handwriting and signature of the Officer-In-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Brij Bihari Ram, which has been marked as Exhibit-7. He has also proved summon in handwriting and signature of Hawaldar, Rajendra Sharma, which has been marked as exhibit-8. This witness has stated during cross-examination that in December, 1994, he came to Ranchi. He has not worked with Indra Deo Pathak nor with Brij Bihari Ram. Anup Ram, hotel owner has been examined as P.W.6. This witness has stated occurrence is of 2 to 3 years old and he is not remembering the date and month of the occurrence but at around 09:30 in the night while he was closing the shop, he saw 4 to 5 boys came running from Subhash Chowk and were going to Sahid Chowk. But he could not identify any of them and on second day he could knew that one person has died. This witness has stated that from his shop situated at Kunj Lal street nobody can see that what has happened at Sahid Chowk. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.1996 and thereafter the appellants have also adduced six defence witnesses. This witness has stated that from his shop situated at Kunj Lal street nobody can see that what has happened at Sahid Chowk. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.1996 and thereafter the appellants have also adduced six defence witnesses. Deonandan Sharma, photographer of Deepak Studio, has proved three photographs, which have been marked as exhibits-A, A/1 and A/B and its negative as material exhibit-I, I/1 and I/2, has been examined as D.W.-1. This witness has stated that photographs and negative, have been brought on record does not contain any signature nor the same mentioned the name of photographer. Dashrath Singh has been examined as D.W.2. This witness has stated that on 06.04.1994 at around 08:30 to 09:00 P.M. in the night at Gandhi Chowk he saw a boy running and in between Gandhi Chowk and Bihar Bhandar the boy fell down and thereafter he learnt that some body has killed him thereafter all the shops started closing. This witness has stated that he does not know who has killed and who has been killed, as after the occurrence shop started closing. Ramdeo Thakur has been examined as D.W.3. This witness has stated that he is working as barber at Adhunik Hair cutting saloon situated at Upper Bazar at Gandhi Chowk. This witness has stated that on 06.04.1994 at around 08:30 to 09:00 P.M. his saloon was open and he was working and from where tea stall of Anup Ram is visible but he has not heard any brawl of assault near Anup Ram's tea stall. Rather this witness has stated that he saw a boy running in front of Ranchi Bhandar and at that time, shop started closing. He went away but he has not seen any accused persons fleeing away with dagger. This witness has stated that earlier he has received a summon and he came to the court but even after meeting to Government Advocate, nothing was done and subsequently he went to his house. Suresh Ram Verma has been examined as D.W.4. This witness has stated that on 06.04.1994 at around 08 to 09 P.M. he was standing at betel shop of his brother-in-law situated at Gandhi Chowk, which is visible from tea stall of Anup Ram. Suresh Ram Verma has been examined as D.W.4. This witness has stated that on 06.04.1994 at around 08 to 09 P.M. he was standing at betel shop of his brother-in-law situated at Gandhi Chowk, which is visible from tea stall of Anup Ram. Till he remained at the betel shop, he has not heard any brawl at the tea stall of Anup Ram nor has seen any occurrence of assault nor has seen any person assaulting by means of chhura nor any persons, fleeing away with chhura and his statement has not been recorded by the police. Rajkumar Sahu has been examined as D.W.5. This witness has stated that he is owner of the Raj Medicine situated at Diwan Kunj Lal, Kanhaiya Lal street and has not seen any occurrence near his shop towards Sahid Chowk. Near his shop three doctors used to sit till 08:00 P.M. in the night. On 06.04.1994 in the evening he has not seen any person assaulting by means of knife. Vinay Kumar Jain has been examined as D.W.6. This witness has stated that he is owner of the flour mill, situated on the road between Gandhi Chowk to Sahid Chowk. On 06.04.1994, he has not seen Sanjay Thakur and others assaulting any body by means of chhura. 11. After closure of the evidence the learned trial court on the basis of the materials brought on record has held all these three appellants guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, all the three appellants have preferred three separate Criminal Appeals, arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are being heard altogether and disposed of by this common judgment. 12. Heard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, assisted by Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.209 of 1996(R) (appellant-Sanjay Thakur), Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.18 of 1997(R) (appellant-Mukesh Sharma) and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.28 of 1997(R) (appellant-Shankar Sao) and Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in all the three aforesaid Criminal Appeals. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.18 of 1997(R) (appellant-Mukesh Sharma) and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.28 of 1997(R) (appellant-Shankar Sao) and Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in all the three aforesaid Criminal Appeals. Learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellants have submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based upon evidence of solitary eyewitness, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1), whose testimony is not worth to be relied upon to pass the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that uncorroborated testimony of unreliable sole eye-witness, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1) is unsafe to hold conviction of three appellants who have been convicted by the learned trial court under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that the medical evidence also does not corroborate ocular testimony of Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1). Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that inconsistent evidence coupled with the embellishment and improvement in testimony of informant, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1) makes him untrustworthy and this Court may not rely upon the same and as such, the appellants may be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants has further submitted that no other prosecution witnesses, such as, Brajesh Tiwari (P.W.2), Awadh Bihari Tiwari (P.W.3) and Anup Ram (P.W.6) have supported the prosecution case, as made out by the informant in his fardbeyan and there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that none of the shop owners such as, Raj Medicines of Gandhi Chowk or any of the shop-keepers of the Gandhi Chowk have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, as such, prosecution has not proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that none of the shop owners such as, Raj Medicines of Gandhi Chowk or any of the shop-keepers of the Gandhi Chowk have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, as such, prosecution has not proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses, who have categorically stated that they have not seen any of the accused persons on the alleged date and time of occurrence at Gandhi Chowk to prove the case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that the medical evidence is not corroborative with ocular evidence, as such, the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have further submitted that the serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants because of the non-examination of the Investigating officer as well as Sub Inspector of Police, Indradeo Pathak who has recorded fardbeyan of the informant. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have buttressed his arguments on the basis of the judgment reported in 2017 (13) SCC 98 , in the case of Krishnjegowda and Others versus State of Karnataka and analogous matters, Paras 26 to 33 and Paras 40 to 42 and also in the case of Baliraj Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh, as reported in 2017 (14) SCC 291 , in paras 12 and 13. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have thus, submitted that medical evidence is not corroborating the ocular evidence and as such, the appellants deserve to be acquitted, as the injury caused by hard and blunt substance has not been explained by the prosecution and the internal injury which is injury No.(iv) i.e. defuse contusion of the right tempero parietal scalp and right temporalis muscle and contusion on the left hemisphere of the brain with presence of sub-dural blood and blood clots over both sides of the brain, have not been explained by the prosecution though the Doctor has categorically stated that death was due to head injury and time since death is 6 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination which was held on 07.04.1994 at 11.30 hours. Learned Senior counsels appearing for the appellants have thus, submitted that the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 13. Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in all the aforesaid three Criminal Appeals, has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned State counsel has submitted that it is a heinous crime which has been committed in the early evening in the Ranchi city and the accused persons namely, Mukesh Sharma [in Crl. Appeal (DB) 18 of 1997(R)], has asked the informant to stop his scooter. When the informant stopped his scooter, appellant/accused, Shankar Sao came and tried to assault Ramu, who was pillion rider on the scooter. Seeing all this, the pillion rider, Ramu started fleeing away and was chased by all the three appellants/accused, Sanjay Thakur, Mukesh Sharma and Shankar Sao having knife in their hands. The informant, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1) also followed them and in the way the victim, Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai entered into the shop of Anup Ram. The informant (Chandra Shekhar Tiwari-P.W.1) and Anup Ram (P.W.6) have tried to save the life of the victim by asking the accused not to assault, but they gave threatening to the informant (Chandra Shekhar Tiwari-P.W.1) and Anup Ram (P.W.6) to keep themselves aloof, otherwise they will also be killed. The informant (Chandra Shekhar Tiwari-P.W.1) and Anup Ram (P.W.6) have tried to save the life of the victim by asking the accused not to assault, but they gave threatening to the informant (Chandra Shekhar Tiwari-P.W.1) and Anup Ram (P.W.6) to keep themselves aloof, otherwise they will also be killed. It is further submitted by learned counsel that accused, Mukesh Sharma assaulted the victim-Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai by means of knife on his neck, causing bleeding injury. Appellant/accused, Shankar Sao has assaulted victim-Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai by means of knife on the left side of neck and thereafter accused, Sanjay Thakur assaulted by means of knife on the abdomen. The Doctor has found the injuries which are as follows:-Two stab injuries, (i) 2 x 1 c.m. X 2 1/2 c.m. on the right lateral chest in the posterior auxiliary line. The weapon is confined to the chest wall only. (ii) 3 x 1 1/2 c.m. X 3 1/2 c.m. On the right lateral neck lower part. The track of the wound was confined to muscle only. (iii) lacerated wound, 5 x 2 c.m. X bone deep on left cheek lower part with fracture of the underlying mandible bone with infiltration blood and blood clots in and around the side of the injury and (iv) injury (Internal), there was defuse contusion of the right tempero perital scalp and right temporalis muscle. There was contusion of the left hemisphere of the brain with presence of sub-dural blood and blood clots over both sides of the brain. Doctor has opined that (i) all the injuries were ante-mortem. (ii) The stab wound were caused by sharp-cutting cum pointed weapon. Stab wound may be caused by dagger and the rest by hard and blunt substance. There is little possibility of falling after the dagger injury. (iii) Death was due to head injury and time since death 6 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. The Post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. Learned State counsel has further submitted that Brajesh Tiwari (P.W.2) has also seen all the three accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence and have entered into the University gate. The Post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. Learned State counsel has further submitted that Brajesh Tiwari (P.W.2) has also seen all the three accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence and have entered into the University gate. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Awadh Bihari Tiwari (P.W.3), who is father of the informant, has categorically stated that after getting information, he came to the place of occurrence and saw the victim Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai lying in an injured condition. This witness has proved the signature on the seizure list of leather shoe of the victim which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. This witness has stated that he has put his signature on the inquest report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/1 with objection. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that prosecution witness, P.W.4 (Dr. Niranjan Minz), the Medical Officer, has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. P.W.5 (Deo Narayan Hansda) is a Police Officer, has proved formal document, such as, fardbeyan, seizure list, inquest report, formal F.I.R. and the summon which are proved by competent Police officer in absence of inscriber of document and the same have been proved without objection from the defence except the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-5. Learned State counsel has further submitted that Anup Ram has been examined as P.W.6 and has supported the occurrence and seen four-five persons running from Subhash Chowk to Saheed Chowk, but has not claimed to identify any of them. The defence witnesses have also been examined, but their evidence is not so to discard the prosecution case. Their evidence is not acceptable to the Court, as they have tried to prove that the photographs which have been proved and marked as Exhibit-A Series with their negatives as I Series are not of the same date so as to discard the prosecution case with regard to the death/murder of Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai, at the place of occurrence. D.W.2 (Dasrath Singh) has admitted that on the date of occurrence he has seen some student running away. D.W.3 (Ram Deo Thakur) has also stated that at that time some commotion developed and because of that shops started closing. D.W.2 (Dasrath Singh) has admitted that on the date of occurrence he has seen some student running away. D.W.3 (Ram Deo Thakur) has also stated that at that time some commotion developed and because of that shops started closing. Suresh Ram Verma has been examined as D.W.4 and he has not stated anything so as to disbelieve the prosecution case with regard to complicity of the accused persons. Raj Kumar Saboo, the shop owner of Raj Medicine has been examined as D.W.5. He has also not stated anything to disbelieve that any occurrence has not taken place at the place of occurrence. Binay Kumar Jain has been examined as D.W.6, but he has also not stated anything so as to say that occurrence had not taken place, rather being a defence witness he has not seen, Sanjay Thakur and others assaulting any person by means of knife. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of consistent evidence of informant (P.W.1-Chandra Shekhar Tiwari), supported by P.W.2 (Brajesh Tiwari) and death of Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai, as proved by Exhibit-3, Post-mortem report which has been proved by the Medical Officer (P.W.4-Dr. Niranjan Minj), the prosecution has been able to prove the commission of the offence caused murder of Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Dev Narayan Hansda (P.W.5), Sub Inspector of Police has proved the official documents and Anup Ram (P.W.6) has also proved the occurrence committed in the night around 09:00 P.M., when shops started closing as he saw four-five persons running from Subhash Chowk to Saheed Chowk. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that this Court may rely upon the solitary eye-witness who is wholly trustworthy and uphold the conviction passed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that even though there is contradiction in oral testimony of the solitary eye-witness from the medical evidence, but the medical evidence is supporting the fardbeyan of the informant and the corresponding injuries are sufficient to establish that this occurrence has been committed by the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that even though there is contradiction in oral testimony of the solitary eye-witness from the medical evidence, but the medical evidence is supporting the fardbeyan of the informant and the corresponding injuries are sufficient to establish that this occurrence has been committed by the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that minor contradictions are not fatal since it does not go to the root of the prosecution case, and as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants which does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-6, completely explains the prosecution case. The occurrence has been committed in the night of 06.04.1994 at around 08.40 P.M. i.e. 20.40 hours for which a fardbeyan was recorded at 20.55 hours on 06.04.1994 on the basis of which, the Police has instituted Kotwali P.S. Case No.155 of 1994 dated 06.04.1994. Subsequently the inquest report shows that same was prepared at Nagarmal Sewa Sadan Hospital at the verandah on 07.04.1994 at 7.45 A.M., in presence of the witnesses, namely, Awadh Bihari Tiwari (P.W.3) and Arun Kumar Pandey, who has not been examined in this case. The injury shows bleeding injury on the left side. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that three injuries were found on the victim i.e. on the left side of the cheek below the ear having bleeding injury, second injury on the chest caused by sharp-cut weapon like knife and 3rd is bleeding injury on the right side of the shoulder caused by sharp-cut weapon. These injuries are sufficient to corroborate the prosecution case and learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of material brought on record. Minor discrepancy caused due to lapse of time, and minor contradictions will not go to the root of the case and as such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on the basis of the findings recorded by learned trial court. As such, learned counsel for the State has prayed that all the three criminal appeals preferred by the appellants may be dismissed, as the same are devoid of any merit. 14. Heard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, assisted by Mr. As such, learned counsel for the State has prayed that all the three criminal appeals preferred by the appellants may be dismissed, as the same are devoid of any merit. 14. Heard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, assisted by Mr. Abhilash Kumar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.209 of 1996 (appellant-Sanjay Thakur), Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.18 of 1997 (appellant-Mukesh Sharma) and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.28 of 1997 (appellant-Shankar Sao) and Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in all the three aforesaid Criminal Appeals and perused the materials brought on record including the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, eight prosecution exhibits, statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., six defence witnesses and their defence exhibits as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. On careful scrutiny of the materials brought on record, it appears that the informant (P.W.1-Chandra Shekhar Tiwari) is the eye-witness to the occurrence. He has seen the occurrence, as he was driving the scooter, on which the deceased-Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai was sitting as a pillion rider. On being asked by the appellant/accused, Mukesh Sharma, he has stopped the vehicle and thereafter accused, Shankar Sao came and subsequently followed by accused, Sanjay Thakur. The accused persons started assaulting the victim by means of ‘chhura’. The victim-Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai under the fear started fleeing away towards Gandhi Chowk and he was chased by all the three accused persons, who were followed by the informant. Thereafter accused, Shankar Sao assaulted victim-Ramu @ Hare Ram Rai on the left side of the neck. The corresponding injuries have been found by the Doctor in the postmortem report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. Accused, Mukesh Sharma has assaulted by means of knife and such injuries have been found on the chest of the deceased and accused, Sanjay Thakur has also assaulted by means of knife. The Doctor (P.W.4) has found two sharp-cutting injuries to the deceased caused by knife. The 3rd injury on the left cheek lower part with fracture of the underlying mandible bone with infiltration blood and blood clots in and around the side of the injury has also been found. The Doctor (P.W.4) has found two sharp-cutting injuries to the deceased caused by knife. The 3rd injury on the left cheek lower part with fracture of the underlying mandible bone with infiltration blood and blood clots in and around the side of the injury has also been found. The impact of this injury caused internal injury which has been mentioned by the Medical Officer as internal injury No.1, which is a defuse contusion of the right tempero periteal scalp and right temporalis muscle. There was contusion of the left hemisphere of the brain with presence of subdural blood and blood clots over both sides of the brain. The Doctor has found this injury as fatal to life. The contusion is basically another word for a bruise bleeding in the brain due to localized trauma. From the evidence brought on record, we are satisfied that as per the defence injury which they claimed to have remained unexplained is explained by the prosecution i.e. of lacerated wound caused on the left cheek lower part with fracture of the underlying mandible bone, the same has been rightly taken note of by the learned trial court, from the evidence brought on record. It appears that after sustaining injury, the victim has fallen down on the earth and because of injury no.(iii) lacerated wound, 5 x 2 c.m. X bone deep on left cheek lower part with fracture of the underlying mandible bone with infiltration blood and blood clots in and around the side of the injury, internal injury i.e. defuse contusion of the right tempero perital scalp and right temporalis muscle, was caused which is fatal for the victim. From perusal of the evidence, we have found some minor contradictions which have cropped up in the evidence of the informant (P.W.1-Chandra Shekhar Tiwari), but such minor contradictions may have cropped up because of lapse of time. Those are not fatal for the prosecution case. In support of the proposition, we are relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others as reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 at paragraph-30, which reads as hereunder:- “30. Those are not fatal for the prosecution case. In support of the proposition, we are relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others as reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 at paragraph-30, which reads as hereunder:- “30. 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. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the 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. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The 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 v. Saravanan, Arumugam v. State, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. And Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra.]" The same view has been reiterated in the case of Jeewan and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 13 SCC 598, para-18, 23, 25 (68), 26, 27, 32 and 33 thereof, are quoted hereunder: “18. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the statement of these witnesses had been recorded more than two years subsequent to the date of occurrence. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the statement of these witnesses had been recorded more than two years subsequent to the date of occurrence. To expect the witnesses to depose with arithmetical exactitude would not be proper application of rule of evidence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. Now, let us examine the law in relation to discrepancies. Discrepancy has to be material and seriously affecting the case of the prosecution. Every minor and immaterial discrepancy would not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. The court has to keep in mind that evidence is recorded after years together and to expect the witnesses to give a minute to minute account of the occurrence with perfection and exactitude would not be a just and fair rule of evidence. The law in this regard is well settled. Even an omission or discrepancy in the inquest report may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The court would have to examine the entire case and discuss the prosecution evidence in its entirety to examine the real impact of a material contradiction upon the case of the prosecution. Trustworthy evidence cannot be rejected on fanciful ground or treated to be in the nature of conjectures. 25... . . . . 68. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the discrepancies or the omissions have to be material ones and then alone, they may amount to contradiction of some serious consequence. Every omission cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be the foundation for doubting the case of the prosecution. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvements or contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in clear contradistinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. Serious contradictions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in clear contradistinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 26. This Court has also expressed the view that it is a fair and settled position of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions or discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be discarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the Court can come to the conclusion as to whether the residual evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. 27. Still, in some cases, the Court took the view that unless the finding recorded by the High Court is so outweighed or such finding so outrageously defies logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, this Court would not interfere with the judgment. A mere discrepancy simpliciter does not affect the case of the prosecution materially or make it improbable and the Court will not be inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the High Courts. (Ref. State of U.P. v. Naresh, SCC p.335, para 34 and Bhola v. State of H.P.) 32. In Nagesh v. State of Karnataka the Court discussed various judgments of this Court and while noticing the principle that “letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law” held as under: (SCC pp. 485-86, paras 26-27) 26. The Court has to examine the evidence in its entirety, particularly, in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court cannot just take one aspect of the entire evidence led in the case like delay in lodging the FIR in isolation of the other evidence placed on record and give undue advantage to the theory of benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. 27. This Court in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab has stated: (SCC pp. 653-54, para 20) ‘20. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. 653-54, para 20) ‘20. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh). The prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. (See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava.) A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some inevitable flaws because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.).] Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. '17. … a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. ... Both are public duties....”[Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (SCC p. 692, para 17).] Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.’” 33. In other cases, the Court has taken the view that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases, but in given circumstances of a case, delay in lodging the FIR can be one of the factors which corrode the credibility of the prosecution version. Delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be a ground for throwing the entire prosecution case. In cases, where there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. (Ref. Delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be a ground for throwing the entire prosecution case. In cases, where there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. (Ref. Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana, SCC p. 219, para 43.)” 15. So far the evidence of solitary eye-witness is concerned, the proposition has also been well settled by the Apex Court that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. In the case of Prithipal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another as reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10 , Para-49, it has been held as under:- “49. This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal.” 16. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal.” 16. On the basis of the discussion made herein-above, we are of the view that the evidence of the solitary eye-witness (P.W.1-Chandra Shekhar Tiwari) is reliable as his evidence is consistent to the medical evidence and the minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 does not go to the core of the prosecution case to disbelieve the prosecution case in totality. The death of the person has been proved which appear from the evidence brought on record. The evidence of the solitary eye-witness is reliable and sufficient to prove that it has been committed by these three appellants. So far as the argument about the discrepancy in the medical evidence vis-a-vis. ocular evidence is concerned, the principle of law that unless the medical evidence is such that it completely overrule the ocular evidence, ocular evidence can't be discarded is well settled. In the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar as reported in 2013 (4) SCC 360 . At para 22 of the report it was held as under:- "22. Insofar as the medical evidence of the Doctor-PW8 read with the post mortem report upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that death must have taken place prior to 30 to 36 hours as opined by the doctor that means it relates back to the early hours of 16.07.1996 but not at 3.30 p.m. as mentioned in the FIR. Once the time of death is drastically different from the one claimed by the prosecution its case is vitiated in law. In support of the above-said contention strong reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court on aforesaid cases are all misplaced as the same are contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “33. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath it was held as follows: (SCC p. 101, para 15) “15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “33. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath it was held as follows: (SCC p. 101, para 15) “15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall 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 opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a 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 with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.” 34. Drawing on Bhagirath case, this Court has held that where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, “it has to be noted that 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’ ”. 35. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. “21. … The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the ‘credit’ of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation, etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 36. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat this Court observed: (SCC p. 180, para 13) “13. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 36. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat this Court observed: (SCC p. 180, para 13) “13. 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 eyewitnesses. 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.” 39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized 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.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless 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 eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. 17. Considering the same, we are of the view that the evidence of the sole eye-witness (P.W.1), medical evidence (exhibit-3) and inquest report (exhibit-5) are consistent and the court below has rightly relied upon the same while holding the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 IPC. 18. From the discussion as made above, we are of the view that the injuries have been explained by the prosecution. Nothing remains unexplained which goes to the root of the prosecution case. 18. From the discussion as made above, we are of the view that the injuries have been explained by the prosecution. Nothing remains unexplained which goes to the root of the prosecution case. Nothing has been found during our analysis of the prosecution evidence to suggest that evidence of eye-witness, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1) is not worth reliable to uphold the conviction as recorded by the learned trial court. As such we are of the view that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court does not require any interference by the court. 19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 07.12.1996, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 1994 is hereby upheld and affirmed. All these three criminal appeals are dismissed, as the same are devoid of any merit. 20. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out rest of the sentence. 21. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned.