Order : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1999, Gajadhar Ohdar and Balku Kharia have been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for 4 years under section 27 of the Arms Act. They were convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code also but no separate sentence was passed against them. 2. Balku Kharia has preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 379 of 2001 however during pendency of the criminal appeal he has passed away and, accordingly, vide order dated 18.07.2019 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 379 of 2001 has been dismissed as abated. 3. The informant of this case is a friend of Bannu Kharia, the deceased. On the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded at 8:30 a.m on 25.12.1998, Basia P.S. Case No. 54 of 1998 was registered on 25.12.1998 against Gajadhar Ohdar, Balku Kharia and two unknown under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. During investigation identity of the other two accused persons cannot be established and a charge-sheet was filed against Gajadhar Ohdar and Balku Kharia who have faced the trial on the above charges. 4. During the trial the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses; the informant is P.W.8. 5. The informant is the only eye-witness in this case. His evidence is corroborated by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5. 6. P.W.3 and P.W.4 have turned hostile and P.W.7 and P.W.9 are the formal witnesses. 7. In his fardbeyan the informant has stated that at about 8:30 p.m in the evening of 24.12.1998 he started for home from Basia block. At that time Bannu Kharia was with him on the motorcycle. At about 9:00 p.m when they reached near Chamra Dhora he saw a green colour Maruti van near a nalla. One person was standing near the Maruti van, two others were standing on northern side of the road and one person was sitting inside the van. Sensing danger he wanted to return but Bannu Kharia got down from the motorcycle saying that he would find out who are sitting in the van. At that time he was carrying a torch. The informant was also trying to recognize those persons in the headlight of the motorcycle. Sensing danger he wanted to return but Bannu Kharia got down from the motorcycle saying that he would find out who are sitting in the van. At that time he was carrying a torch. The informant was also trying to recognize those persons in the headlight of the motorcycle. When Bannu Kharia asked them who are they, they said that the van has broken down and it is from Palkot. Thereafter, Bannu Kharia moved towards the other two persons who were standing at the top of the road and flashed torch-light on them. The informant has claimed that he also saw them in the headlight of the motorcycle. They were his co-villagers Gajadhar Ohdar and Balku Kharia. When Bannu Kharia addressed them “oh tohre man heka” a shot was fired. The informant left his motorcycle there and ran away. He has claimed that the accused persons had tried to search him but he had hidden himself behind the bushes and after they left towards Basia he came out and reached his village at about 11:30 p.m in the night. There he informed the villagers and came to the place of occurrence with them. He has found the dead body of Bannu Kharia, there was a fire arm injury on his neck and incised wounds on his body. He has claimed that he had a dispute with Gajadhar Ohdar regarding a contract work. He has further alleged that Balku Kharia had misappropriated the payment for a work done together with Bannu Kharia. 8. In the court, the informant-P.W.8 has reiterated his fardbeyan. He has narrated a similar story about the occurrence which had taken place at about 9:00 p.m in the night of 24.12.1998. He has claimed that he has identified Gajadhar Ohdar and Balku Kharia. They are his co-villagers. Bannu Kharia was flashing torch light and he was turning head light of his motor-cycle upon them and that is how he has recognized the accused persons. He has deposed in the court that he has seen Gajadhar Ohdar firing a shot at Bannu Kharia. 9. Mr. They are his co-villagers. Bannu Kharia was flashing torch light and he was turning head light of his motor-cycle upon them and that is how he has recognized the accused persons. He has deposed in the court that he has seen Gajadhar Ohdar firing a shot at Bannu Kharia. 9. Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the place of occurrence has not been established; the informant who is the only eye-witness in this case has substantially improved his version; the Maruti van, motorcycle, torch and blood-stained soil were not seized and the crime weapons were not recovered and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant. 10. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is centered around evidence of the investigating officer who has been examined as P.W.10. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the informant did not state before him that when he turned he found that Gajadhar Ohdar had fired at Bannu Kharia. The investigating officer has stated that the distance between the field of Ghuma Kharia and Chamra Dhora is about 500 yards and the informant has also admitted that the distance between Chamra Dhora and the field of Ghuma Kharia is about 400 yards. 11. From the evidence of the investigating officer, we find that he has seen blood in the field of Ghuma Kharia and in the nearby fields. He has also found one chapal of the deceased in the field. The informant has stated that after a shot was fired and the accused persons started assaulting Bannu Kharia he fled away and after the accused persons left towards northern side of the village he came to his village. The informant came back at the place of occurrence at about 11:30 p.m along with his co-villagers. He has stated that the accused persons were standing near Chamra Dhora and according to him when the accused persons started assaulting Bannu Kharia he has fled away and therefore he has not seen what has happened thereafter. It may be so that the accused persons left the dead body of Bannu Kharia in the field of Ghuma Kharia. It may be so also because the investigating officer has found blood marks in the nearby fields and one chapal belonging to Bannu Kharia was also found in a field. It may be so that the accused persons left the dead body of Bannu Kharia in the field of Ghuma Kharia. It may be so also because the investigating officer has found blood marks in the nearby fields and one chapal belonging to Bannu Kharia was also found in a field. P.W.1 has stated that at about 11:00 p.m in the night he heard about murder of Bannu Kharia. P.W.1 and P.W.2 both have seen the dead body of Bannu Kharia; they are the inquest witnesses. P.W.5-Sasita Devi who is the wife of Bannu Kharia has deposed about money dispute between her husband and Balku Kharia in relation to a work under government scheme. P.W.8 has also deposed in the court about his dispute with Gajadhar Ohdar and a dispute between Balku Kharia and Bannu Kharia. It may not be a clinching evidence but still of some significance that wife of the deceased has stated in the court that father of Gajadhar Ohdar has approached him for a compromise and he had told her that her husband has been killed by mistake. It is also a fact that the informant has stated in his fardbeyan that the accused persons were intending to kill him. We further find that the eye-witness account of the occurrence as described by the informant is sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. M.K. Singh, who has conducted the postmortem examination on 25.12.1998 has found the following injuries on Bannu Kharia: (1) gun shot wound rt. side of neck below the mandible with tattoing of skin around the wound of entry. (2) Multiple exit wounds present on antecolateral aspect of neck on left side with flesh protruding out of the wound. Another wound of exit seen on the anterior chest wall below lateral thyroid of left clavicle. (3) Another wound of exit with flesh protruding out and part of the lung in the med axillary line of the left side. (4) One sharp cut wound on chin on the rt. side 2”x ½” bone deep including lower lip & upperline. (5) Another sharp cut wound on chin just medial to the injury no. (4) 2 ½” x ½” x bone deep including lip (lower+ upper) (6) Rt. inandible fractured. (7) 1st molar and canine teeth of rt. side and of the upper jaw broken. side 2”x ½” bone deep including lower lip & upperline. (5) Another sharp cut wound on chin just medial to the injury no. (4) 2 ½” x ½” x bone deep including lip (lower+ upper) (6) Rt. inandible fractured. (7) 1st molar and canine teeth of rt. side and of the upper jaw broken. (8) Multiple sharp cut injuries below the base of skull behind left pinna measuring 2” to 1 ½” in length x ½” x muscle deep. (9) One sharp cut injury on the posterolateral part of upper third of left forearm 1”x ½” x muscle deep. (10) One sharp cut injury on the 1st metacarpophalangeal 1” x ¼” x ¼” on the left hand. (11) One sharp cut injury on the 2nd metacarpophalangeal joint of rt. hand ½” x ¼” x ¼” of size. (12) Multiple (6 in no.) sharp cut injuries on posteralateral part of left thigh measuring 2 ½” x ½” x ½”. (13) Thoracic cavity contained blood and fluid. (14) Stomach empty (15) Bladder contained 25 cc of residual urine. 12. There was one fire arm injury and 12 incised injuries which were caused by sharp-cutting weapon and the doctor has admitted in his cross-examination that the sharp cutting injury nos. 3 to 12 are possible from two different weapons. The time elapsed since death from the postmortem examination was about 24 hours. 13. A First Information Report has been lodged within 12 hours of the incident. According to the informant the incident has happened at about 9:00 p.m on 24.12.1998 and his fardbeyan was recorded at 8:30 a.m the next day. The inquest report has been prepared at 9:30 a.m and the postmortem examination has been conducted at 3:00 p.m on 25.12.1998. These documents which have been prepared contemporaneously about the events which have taken place in quick succession rule out false implication of the appellant in the crime. The minor inconsistency in testimony of the informant would not create a doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime. The incident has happened in December, 1998 and P.W.8 was examined in March, 2001. When a witness is examined in the court after a long lapse of time he is not expected to remember what has happened in the fateful evening with all minutest details. There is bound to be some variation, inconsistency etc. The incident has happened in December, 1998 and P.W.8 was examined in March, 2001. When a witness is examined in the court after a long lapse of time he is not expected to remember what has happened in the fateful evening with all minutest details. There is bound to be some variation, inconsistency etc. in his testimony on account of lapse of time, forgetfulness, stress of cross-examination and may be for other reasons but on minor inconsistency in testimony of a prosecution witness his evidence cannot be rejected altogether. The fact that the informant who has not claimed in his fardbeyan that he has seen Gajadhar Ohdar firing at Bannu Kharia and the investigating officer has admitted in his cross-examination that Keshav Chandra Ohdar has not stated before him that he has seen Gajadhar Ohdar firing at Bannu Kharia but in the court he has deposed that he has seen Gajadhar Ohdar firing at Bannu Kharia would not amount to contradiction and this is not such an inconsistency in his testimony which would make him an unreliable and untrustworthy witness. In fact, during his cross-examination he has asserted that he has seen Gajadhar Ohdar firing a shot and Balku Kharia assaulting Bannu Kharia. 14. We further find that there is no inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. May be the investigating officer has committed mistakes during the investigation in as much as he has not seized the blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence, chapal of the deceased which he has seen in the nearby field and the motorcycle, torch etc. but these lapses on the part of the investigating officer cannot form the basis for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, particularly, in the face of consistent and cogent evidence of the informant which is sufficiently corroborated by other independent evidences. 15. In the context of involvement of the appellant in the crime, this also has to be kept in mind that he has been convicted with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a well-settled proposition of law that even if the exact role played by the accused has not been established, he can be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC. In “Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. Vs. It is a well-settled proposition of law that even if the exact role played by the accused has not been established, he can be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC. In “Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. Vs. The State of Bombay” reported in AIR 1960 SC 289 , it has been observed that the principle which section 34 of the Indian Penal Code embodies is participation in some action with the common intention of committing a crime and once such participation is established, section 34 is at once attracted. 16. In the final analysis, we find that complicity of the appellant in the crime has been proved by the prosecution and there is no ground to interfere in this matter. 17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 430 of 2001 is dismissed. 18. The appellant, namely, Gajadhar Ohdar is on bail and, therefore, bail-bonds furnished by him is cancelled. 19. He shall surrender before the court below to serve the remaining sentence. 20. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.