JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Mahesh Kant Jha. In Sessions Case No.01 of 2010, he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The informant of this case is son of the deceased who in his fard-beyan which was recorded on 07.07.2009 has stated that at about 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon the accused persons, namely, Narayan Das, Shankar Das, Bhankar Das, Subha Devi and the wife of Makar Das were quarreling with his father in the field (Bari). At that time the accused, namely, Narayan Das, Shankar Das, Bhankar Das, Subha Devi and the wife of Makar Das were carrying tangi, garansa, lathi etc. and they started assaulting his father. The accused-Narayan Das has assaulted his father with tangi on his head, forehead and parietal region and other accused persons assaulted him over his right hand, chest, face and nose. On his raising hullah several persons arrived there and have seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He has been examined in the court as P.W 2. His sister-in-law, namely, Sanju Devi who has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness was examined as P.W 1. Both P.W 1 and P.W 2 have claimed that they have seen the appellant assaulting Mahesh Kant Jha with tangi on his head and around his occipital and parietal region. P.W 3 who has put his signature on the fard-beyan which was recorded on 07.07.2009 has turned hostile and P.W 4 is a co-villager who has seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The investigating officer who has been examined as P.W 5 has stated that he has recorded restatement of the informant on the same day. He has prepared the inquest-report at 17:00 hrs. on 07.07.2009 and sent the dead body of Mahesh Kant Jha for post-mortem examination through a requisition. 3. The prosecution has sought to corroborate the ocular evidence with the medical evidence. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha, who has been examined as P.W 6, has conducted the post-mortem examination on 08.07.2009. He has prepared the inquest-report at 17:00 hrs. on 07.07.2009 and sent the dead body of Mahesh Kant Jha for post-mortem examination through a requisition. 3. The prosecution has sought to corroborate the ocular evidence with the medical evidence. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha, who has been examined as P.W 6, has conducted the post-mortem examination on 08.07.2009. He has found the following injuries on Mahesh Kant Jha: (i) sharp cut 1” x ½” x ½” over frontal scalp with fracture of frontal bone. On opening the wound there was a large collection of blood in the frontal part of brain matter. (ii) one sharp cut over occipital scalp 1” x ½” x ¼” (iii) one sharp cut 1” x ½” x ¼”, ½” behind left ear. (iv) sharp cut ½” x ¼” x 1/9” over lower border of left ear. 4. According to the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp-cutting heavy weapon such as axe, tangi, garansa and lathi. 5. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that; (i) statement of P.W 1 in paragraph no.4 of her cross-examination whereunder she has stated that her younger brother-in-law, namely, Pankaj Kumar Jha has arrived after about ½ to ¾ hours would establish that the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence, (ii) the evidence of the investigating officer during his cross-examination whereunder he has admitted that large part of their statement as spoken by P.W 1, P.W 2 and P.W 4 were not stated by them before him would render their testimony unreliable, and (iii) none of the villagers except P.W 3 who has turned hostile has come-forward to support the prosecution's case. 6. The testimony of P.W 1 and P.W 2 is reliable and quite convincing. They have seen the appellant assaulting Mahesh Kant Jha with a tangi. P.W 2 has stated that the distance between the house of the informant and the place of occurrence is about 40 to 50 yards. P.W 1 has stated that she heard hullah outside her house and when her son informed her she came out and saw the accused persons quarreling with her father-in-law. In her cross-examination she has also stated that the place of occurrence is at about 10 to 20 steps away from her house. P.W 1 has stated that she heard hullah outside her house and when her son informed her she came out and saw the accused persons quarreling with her father-in-law. In her cross-examination she has also stated that the place of occurrence is at about 10 to 20 steps away from her house. On such evidence, presence of P.W 1 at the place of occurrence and her claim that she has seen the appellant assaulting Mahesh Kant Jha cannot be challenged. P.W 2 has also given cogent reasons for his presence at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence. He has stated that he was carrying some work at about 1200 to 1500 feet far away from the place of occurrence. Both these witnesses have stated that the occurrence has lasted for about 10 minutes. During cross-examination of P.W 2, the defence has not elicited such facts which would create a doubt on her testimony and a stray statement in the cross-examination of P.W 1 to the effect that Pankaj arrived at the place of occurrence in ½ to ¾ hours ( esjk nsoj iadt vk/ks ikSus ÄaVs esa vk;k FkkA ) is not sufficient to discard otherwise cogent and consistent evidence of P.W 1 and P.W 2 on complicity of the appellant in the crime. A witness during his examination in the court is not expected to state everything that has happened on the fateful day with mathematical provision and by now it is well-settled that in every case there may be minor inconsistency or embellishment or exaggeration in testimony of the prosecution witness [refer, “State of U.P Vs. Naresh” reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 ]. P.W 3 has turned hostile but then nothing much turns on it. Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact. Indeed it is not the number of witnesses rather the quality of evidence which matters the most in a criminal trial. P.W 4 is the person who was working near the place of occurrence and on hearing hullah he has seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. In “R. Shaji v. State of Kerala” reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: “39. P.W 4 is the person who was working near the place of occurrence and on hearing hullah he has seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. In “R. Shaji v. State of Kerala” reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: “39. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in the law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that evidence must 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 the value provided by each witness, as opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is thus the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence, as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Where the law requires the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that the number of witnesses produced over and above this does not carry any weight.” 7. We find that the prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence. 8. The appellant has assaulted Mahesh Kant Jha with a tangi stands proved from the evidence of P.W 1 and P.W 2 which is corroborated in large parts by the evidence of P.W 4. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found grievous injuries on Mahesh Kant Jha. At least two out of four sharp-cutting injuries were inflicted on the occipital region and the extent of injuries and the force with which those injuries have been caused are reflected in fracture of frontal bone of his head. The doctor has opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. 9. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code provides that culpable homicide is murder, if the act of an accused which has caused death falls under any one of the four clauses under section 300. The injuries caused to Mahesh Kant Jha would reflect that the appellant has caused such injuries with the intention of causing death. 10. 9. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code provides that culpable homicide is murder, if the act of an accused which has caused death falls under any one of the four clauses under section 300. The injuries caused to Mahesh Kant Jha would reflect that the appellant has caused such injuries with the intention of causing death. 10. In the above state of affairs, we find that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, accordingly, finding no merit in this criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.766 of 2012 is dismissed. 11. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'. 12. Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.