ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Dashu Kharia and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of dead body of Dashu Kharia. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2008, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses; the informant, namely, Dashmi Kumari, who is sister of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.3. 4. The prosecution has projected P.W.3 and P.W.10 as the eye-witnesses. 5. The informant has stated in her fardbeyan, which was recorded on 22.09.2007, that last morning she had gone to Burha Ban Deo Bandh with her brother and sister-in-law for picking up grass from the paddy field. In the afternoon, at about 4 p.m, when they were returning home she found her cousin Birsa Kharia sitting near culvert of Pahartoli. He was carrying tangi in his hand. When they reached near culvert, Birsa Kharia suddenly started assaulting her brother. The informant has stated that Birsa Kharia has given two tangi blows on the head of her brother whereupon he fell on the ground and became unconscious. On her raising alarm, Birsa Kharia fled away. Her brother had died on the spot. The informant, who has been examined in the court as P.W.3, has narrated a similar story about the incident. She has reiterated that the appellant assaulted her brother with tangi on his head and her brother died on the spot. Her sister-in-law, namely, Sanjho Khariain-P.W.10, who is wife of the deceased, has deposed in the court that the appellant has killed her husband. During cross-examination of P.W.3 and P.W.10, the defence has elicited facts, such as; P.W.3 has stated about assault on occipital region and P.W.10 has fled away and when she came back she has found Dashu Kharia dead. 6. On such evidence, Mrs. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both P.W.3 and P.W.10 are not eye-witnesses and due to previous enmity the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. 7. The informant is firm in her stand. She has named P.W.10 as the person who has accompanied her alongwith her brother. 6. On such evidence, Mrs. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both P.W.3 and P.W.10 are not eye-witnesses and due to previous enmity the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. 7. The informant is firm in her stand. She has named P.W.10 as the person who has accompanied her alongwith her brother. The incident has happened in the afternoon of 21.09.2007 and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded in the early hours next day, that is, at about 6.05 a.m on 22.09.2007. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 1½ kms. but for this reason it cannot be inferred that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. By now, it is largely accepted that in every case there may be some inconsistency, exaggeration, embellishment etc. in testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but then, on minor inconsistency or exaggeration or embellishment testimony of an eye-witness cannot be rejected altogether. In “A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in (2011) 6 SCC 279 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 22. “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.” 8. Presence of P.W.3 and P.W.10 at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence has been established by the prosecution. Through them, the prosecution has proved assault on Dashu Kharia by the appellant. 9. Now, the question is whether conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is proper? 10. Dr. Rajesh Kumar-P.W.7, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 22.09.2007 at about 13.00 hrs., has found the following injuries on Dashu Kharia: (i) Incised wound 3”X2½”X scalp deep with fracture of central part of forehead obliquely. 9. Now, the question is whether conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is proper? 10. Dr. Rajesh Kumar-P.W.7, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 22.09.2007 at about 13.00 hrs., has found the following injuries on Dashu Kharia: (i) Incised wound 3”X2½”X scalp deep with fracture of central part of forehead obliquely. (ii) Lacerated wound 1”X ½”X skin deep over left side of mandible. 11. According to the doctor, injuries on Dashu Kharia were ante-mortem in nature. The injury no.1 was caused by a sharp-cutting weapon and the injury no.2 was caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor has opined that the injury no.2 can be caused from blunt portion of a sharp-edged weapon, such as, axe. During his cross-examination, the doctor has stated that the injury no.2 can be caused due to fall on a hard object. The injury no.2 is a lacerated wound of the size 1”X ½”, skin deep, over left side of mandible. 12. In view of the evidence of P.W.7, who has stated that the injury no.2 is possible due to a fall on hard object, it has to be seen whether the injury no.1 which was an incised wound of the size 3”X 2½”, scalp deep, with fracture of central part of forehead can be considered to have been caused with intention to cause death. From a single blow on a vital part of the body intention to cause death can be inferred, but then, the doctor has opined that the cause of death was syncope and coma due to head injuries. Though the prosecution witnesses have stated that Dashu Kharia died on the spot, but then, it is also a fact that he was taken to the hospital not immediately but the next day. It has also come in the prosecution's evidence that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased in respect of partition of land. P.W.4 is a hearsay witness and P.W.5 and P.W.6, who are co-villagers, have been declared hostile. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are seizure-memo witnesses, however, the crime weapon which was seized by the investigating officer was not sent for serological report. 13. P.W.4 is a hearsay witness and P.W.5 and P.W.6, who are co-villagers, have been declared hostile. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are seizure-memo witnesses, however, the crime weapon which was seized by the investigating officer was not sent for serological report. 13. In the above state of evidence, we are inclined to hold that the appellant intended to cause grievous injury to Dashu Kharia which was likely to cause death and, accordingly, conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to R.I for Ten years under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Mr. G.S. Prasad, the learned Spl. PP, states that the appellant has undergone more than Twelve years of imprisonment. 15. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Birsa Kharia shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 618 of 2011 is partly allowed. 17. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'FAX'. 18. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.