JUDGMENT Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C assails the judgment dated 17.04.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha in Special Case No. 69/98, whereby, appellants- Santosh, Ramesh, Pappu and Gabbar have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and appellant No.1-Ramesh has further been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 07.05.1998 at about 11:00 AM near Ahmadpur Square, present appellants i.e. Ramesh and his sons Santosh and Pappu @ Gajendra and son of landlord Gabbar, assaulted the deceased Laxminaran by means of gupti and katarna. When the family members of the deceased came to rescue the deceased, appellant Ramesh assaulted complainant/Tulsiram with lathi, due to which he sustained injury on his right leg. Afterwards, the present appellants ran away from the spot. Complainant Tulsiram took deceased- Laxminarayan in injured condition to the hospital and on the way, the deceased died. 3. In hospital, at about 11:45 AM, father of the deceased Tulsiram lodged Dehati Nalisi vide Ex.P/1 and on the basis of which, Merg under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and Crime No. 94/98 was also registered under Sections 302, 34 and 323 of IPC. Panchnama of the dead-body was prepared vide Ex.P/11 and dead body was sent for postmortem. 4. Dr. R.C. Sonkar (PW-1) conducted postmortem of the dead- body of the deceased. During postmortem, he found injuries on neck, left parietal region on the head, right side of chest, in between thumb and index finger, knee and fifteen incised wounds on left wrist and hand, a stab wound near lungs, a stab wound on stomach and a stab wound on left shoulder of the deceased vide his report Ex.P/0. As per his opinion, injuries No.1, 4 and 7 were sufficient to cause death. The death was caused within 6-8 hours from the postmortem. The cause of death was shock and syncope leading to cardio respiratory failure as a result of haemorrhage and cutting of blood vessels. Death was homicidal in nature. 5. During investigation, spot map was prepared and from the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized. The death was caused within 6-8 hours from the postmortem. The cause of death was shock and syncope leading to cardio respiratory failure as a result of haemorrhage and cutting of blood vessels. Death was homicidal in nature. 5. During investigation, spot map was prepared and from the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and accused persons were arrested on 08.05.1998. According to the information given by the accused persons, Lathi, katarna and Gupti were seized by the Police Authorities. Thereafter, all the seized articles, plain and blood stained soil and clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/16 and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.P/17. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 6. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined thirteen witnesses and appellants in their defence examined one witness. The trial Court after marshalling the evidence came on record, convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 8. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. No motive is proved. FIR is ante-dated and there is no compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. The name of appellant No.4 Gabbar @ Manohar was also not mentioned in the FIR. 9. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Complainant- Tulsiram (PW-2) has stated that deceased Laxminarayan was his son. Before one year at about 11:00 AM when his son- Laxminarayan was standing outside, appellant No.1-Ramesh carrying lathi, appellant No.2-Santosh Gupti and appellants No. 3 and 4 carrying katarna came there. Appellant No.1-Ramesh assaulted his son with lathi, due to which, he fell down. Afterwards, all the appellants started beating him. Complainant, Prabulal and Bhaiyalal were standing nearby. When complainant intervened in the matter, appellant No.1-Ramesh assaulted him with lathi which hit on his left knee and also twisted his hand. Appellant No.2-Santosh stabbed Gupti in the stomach of the deceased. The deceased received various injuries. Afterwards, all the appellants started beating him. Complainant, Prabulal and Bhaiyalal were standing nearby. When complainant intervened in the matter, appellant No.1-Ramesh assaulted him with lathi which hit on his left knee and also twisted his hand. Appellant No.2-Santosh stabbed Gupti in the stomach of the deceased. The deceased received various injuries. He further stated that he along with other persons took the deceased on a trolley to the hospital and on the way to the hospital, Laxminarayan died. They took the deceased to the hospital where Police Personnel also came there. His son was having previous enmity with the appellants and at the time of incident, he was wearing pant and vest. 12. During cross-examination, this witness stated that at the time of incident he used to run trolley. He used to go from his house at 7:00 AM and return at about 7:00 PM. Nobody told him about the incident, but he was at the house. He further stated that in front of his house, some curtains (Tatiya) of 6 ft. height are installed, so that ladies can do their personal work. Between the road and his house, there is a vacant place of 20 feet. In front of his house, there is a shed for waiting of the passengers. He admitted that no one can see into his house from the shed because of curtains. He was sitting at the door and his son was standing on the road. He stated that he informed the police that appellants Gabbar & Pappu were having katerna and they assaulted his son by Katarana, but if the said facts have not been mentioned in his statement (Ex.D/1), he cannot give any reason. He also informed the police that when his son fell down, then all the four accused started beating him, but if the said fact has not been mentioned in his police statement, he cannot give any reason. After hearing hue and cry, he reached the spot and found that his son was lying in sewer. Thereafter, Prabulal and Bhaiyalal came there. As soon as he reached the spot, the appellants chased him with katarna. There was no bus on the spot at the time of incident. There was no hotel on the spot at the time of incident. It was constructed afterwards. Generally, the passengers use to come and go at the bus stop. Thereafter, Prabulal and Bhaiyalal came there. As soon as he reached the spot, the appellants chased him with katarna. There was no bus on the spot at the time of incident. There was no hotel on the spot at the time of incident. It was constructed afterwards. Generally, the passengers use to come and go at the bus stop. He further stated that he cannot say that on hearing which sound appellants ran away from the spot towards S.A.T.I. He is having no enmity with the appellants/accused. 13. During cross-examination, this witnesses further stated that shop of Prabulal is situated nearby the place where dead-body of his son was lying. He does not know as to whether two boys were working in the shop of Prabhulal. There was a boy in the shop of Prabulal. He informed the police that appellant No.1-Ramesh twisted his hand, but if said fact is not mentioned in his police statement, he cannot give any reason. When he reached the hospital by taking his son, the police came there and inquired him about the incident. He denied that appellant- Gabbar was not present on the spot and he falsely implicated him. Near sewer, there is a hand-pump. He cannot say as to whether there are 7-8 shops at Ahmadpur Road towards S.A.T.I. He admitted that near sewer, there are some shops of college and from there his house cannot be seen. He has been residing there for the last 40 years. Appellant No.1-Ramesh was not having katarna. He did not mention that three accused assaulted the deceased with Katarna. Jasoda Bai is wife of the deceased. He denied that on the date of incident she was at her maternal home. He specifically stated that she was at her matrimonial home. He denied that he cannot see 20 steps away properly. He denied that he reached the hospital after two hours of the incident. Whether Gupti was opened or covered, he cannot say. His son was not wearing any shirt. He denied that there was enmity between deceased Laxminarayan and appellant- Santosh. He denied that when deceased Laxminarayan was eloping with a lady, he was beaten by some persons. He admitted that Bhaiyalal had to appear in the Court in connection with some other case, but as the Court was closed, he returned back. He cannot tell the time by looking at the clock. He denied that when deceased Laxminarayan was eloping with a lady, he was beaten by some persons. He admitted that Bhaiyalal had to appear in the Court in connection with some other case, but as the Court was closed, he returned back. He cannot tell the time by looking at the clock. The bus arrives at 11:00 A.M, and stops for two minutes, and therefore, he mentioned the probable time of 11. He further stated that he cannot say as to how police in his statement (Ex.D-1) mentioned the date as 07.05.1998. 14. By supporting the evidence of complainant- Tulsiram (PW- 2), his wife Gulab Bai (PW/4) has stated that deceased -Laxminarayan was her son. She knows the appellants. Incident took place one year ago. On the date of incident, she came back to her house at about 11:00 AM after finishing her work. Her husband was with his son. At that time, she saw that her daughter- in-law was running. On being enquired, she replied that 'Unhe mar rahe hai' (accused are beating her husband). Thereafter, she accompanied her and saw that near the shop of washer-man appellants were assaulting her son and appellant Ramesh inflicted a Lathi blow, due to which, he fell down. Afterwards, appellant- Pappu assaulted the deceased with Katarna which hit on his neck. Appellant- Santosh stabbed with Gupti in the stomach of the deceased. Likewise, appellant No.4 Gabbar assaulted the deceased with knife in the stomach. She requested the appellants to leave her son, but they didn't pay any heed on her request and ran away towards the college. Her neighbour Prabulal, his wife and her daughter-in-law and she herself took deceased Laxminarayan in trolley to the hospital, but on the way, he died. On the information given by her daughter Rani, Bhaiyalal reached the hospital. Police also came in the hospital. 15. In cross examination, this witness stated that she is working with Arora Sahab. She use to go there at about 07:00 AM and come back at about 10:30 AM. Again at 4-5 PM, she goes there. On the date of incident, when she was returning from her job, her daughter-in-law was going somewhere. Police took her statement after death of her son. She use to go there at about 07:00 AM and come back at about 10:30 AM. Again at 4-5 PM, she goes there. On the date of incident, when she was returning from her job, her daughter-in-law was going somewhere. Police took her statement after death of her son. She informed the police that when her daughter-in-law was running, she asked her as to where she is going, then she told that accused are beating her husband and thereafter this witness accompanied her, but if this fact is not mentioned in his police statement (Ex.D/3), she cannot give any reason. She also informed the police that appellants were assaulting her son near washerman's shop, but if this fact is not mentioned in her police statement, she cannot give any reason. When her son was trying to climb upon the boundary of college, appellant- Pappu assaulted him with Katarna. If this fact is not mentioned in her police statement (Ex.D/3), she cannot assign any reason. Everybody reached the spot approximately at the same time. She admitted that one hand of appellant- Ramesh is already cut. She denied that by one hand, the accused cannot inflict Lathi blow on the victim. She further stated that firstly appellant- Pappu assaulted the deceased with katarna and appellant- Ramesh assaulted the deceased with lathi, due to which, the deceased fell down. She denied that on hearing hue and cry, she reached the spot. She reached the spot on the information given by her daughter-in-law. If this fact is not mentioned in her statement (Ex. D/3), she cannot give any reason. It is true that when she and other persons reached the spot, the appellants ran away. She denied that due to enmity, she has taken name of appellant- Ramesh. She also denied that due to some dispute of Bedani her son got injured. Gabbar has assaulted her son with knife in his stomach. If this fact is not mentioned in her police statement, she cannot give any reason. She further stated that 'B' to 'B' part of her police statement that Gabbar has not assaulted with katarna in the head is not correct. She denied that Gabbar has not assaulted her son. 16. Gabbar has assaulted her son with knife in his stomach. If this fact is not mentioned in her police statement, she cannot give any reason. She further stated that 'B' to 'B' part of her police statement that Gabbar has not assaulted with katarna in the head is not correct. She denied that Gabbar has not assaulted her son. 16. On going through the evidence of complainant Tulsiram and Gulab Bai, it is crystal clear that on the date of incident complainant Tulsiram was sitting at the door of his house and his wife Gulab Bai was in the house. They saw the incident in which appellants armed with weapons i.e. lathi, gupti and katarna assaulted their son Laxminarayan. When complainant Tulsiram came to intervene in the matter, appellant -Ramesh assaulted him with lathi. After the incident, complainant Tulsiram took his son in trolley to the hospital, but on the way, Laxminarayan died. On reaching the hospital, complainant lodged the report with the police personnel. It is true that in their examination before the trial Court and FIR lodged with the police and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. there are some discrepancies, contradictions and omissions with regard to the weapons appellants were carrying. However, taking into consideration that incident took place all of a sudden and their son was assaulted by all the appellants, such type of contradictions do not appear unnatural, on the basis of which, whole testimony of these eye-witness Tulsiram & Gulab Bai can be thrown out. It is true that they are father & mother of the deceased, but defence could not prove that due to animosity, they are telling lie. Beside that, their evidence is well supported by prompt FIR and postmortem conducted by the doctor. 17. As per wife of the deceased Jasodabai (PW-7), before 14 months at 11 am her husband deceased Laxminarayan went to fetch water from hand-pump which was installed near her house. She knows the appellants/accused. The appellant -Pappu assaulted her husband by means of Pharsa on his neck, due to which he tried to run away towards college. Meanwhile, near the shops appellant Santosh, Pappu, Gabbar and Ramesh surrounded him. Ramesh was armed with Danda, Pappu with Pharsa, Gabbar with knife and Santosh was armed with Gutti. Everybody assaulted her husband due to which, he received multiple injuries. Meanwhile, near the shops appellant Santosh, Pappu, Gabbar and Ramesh surrounded him. Ramesh was armed with Danda, Pappu with Pharsa, Gabbar with knife and Santosh was armed with Gutti. Everybody assaulted her husband due to which, he received multiple injuries. At that time, she was standing near the hand-pump to take water for washing clothes. Looking to the incident, she was running to save her husband and also called her mother-in-law. Firstly her father-in- law reached the spot. Thereafter they reached. Appellant Ramesh assaulted his father-in-law due to which he fell down. After assaulting her husband, appellants/accused persons ran away towards college. Due to the incident, Laxminarayan received injures on his neck, chest and hands. Thereafter, Laxminarayan was taken to the hospital in a trolley. 18. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that her house is situated at Ahemadpur crossing. She cannot say that bus comes in the village at 11:30 am, some times it comes late. On the date of incident, her husband by taking a bucket went to fetch water and at that time, she was washing clothes. Bus never stops in front of her house. She denied that on the date of incident, she was inside the house. She further denied that she did not see the appellants assaulting her husband. Appellants surrounded her husband before the boundary of college. She denied that several criminal cases of robbery and dacoity against her husband were pending before the Court. Roopsingh, Sanjay, Umesh and Raju are friends of her husband. She cannot say that which accused at which part of the body of the deceased had assaulted. Police took her statement. 19. On going through the evidence of this witness, it is emerged that on the date of incident she was near the hand-pump and washing clothes. On hearing hue and cry, she went near the place of incident. She saw that appellants carrying Danda, Pharsa, Guptti and knife surrounded her husband and assaulted with aforesaid weapons. Of-course there are some contradictions and omissions in her deposition, but they are not very significant, on the basis of which her whole testimony can be disbelieved. 20. Prabhulal (PW-3) deposed that he knew deceased- Laxminarayan. On the date of incident at about 11:00-11:30 A.M, he came to his house for taking lunch. His house is situated in front of the house of the deceased. 20. Prabhulal (PW-3) deposed that he knew deceased- Laxminarayan. On the date of incident at about 11:00-11:30 A.M, he came to his house for taking lunch. His house is situated in front of the house of the deceased. When he was taking lunch, he heard some hue and cry, and therefore, he came out from his house and saw that appellant- Ramesh along with other three persons were assaulting deceased- Laxminarayan with Lathi, Gupti and Katarna, as a result of which, deceased sustained injuries on his head, neck and chest. Later on, he deposed that when he came out from his house, he saw the appellants running away from the spot. He did not see the appellants assaulting the deceased. Afterwards, wife and mother of the deceased and wife of this witness came on the spot. They took the deceased in a trolley to the hospital, but on the way, Laxminarayan died. In this incident, father of deceased- Tulsiram also received injury in his leg as appellant- Ramesh assaulted him with Lathi. The appellants present before the Court are the same persons whom he saw running away on the date of incident. Police prepared spot map as Ex.P/2 which bears his signatures. Police also seized plain and blood stained soil from the spot vide Ex.P/3. Weapons were recovered from inside the college and seized in front of them vide Ex.P/4 to P/7. 21. During cross-examination, this witness stated that on the date of incident at about 07:00 AM he along with another labourer Nannu went to Durga Nagar to repair jet pump in Sojna wale Palel's house. He admitted that generally lunch break takes place at about 12:00 noon, but he stated that on the date of incident he stopped his work at about 11:30 AM. He stated that he cannot say as to whether the place where he was working is about 2 K.M. away from his house. He denied that he came for lunch on foot. Police took his statement on the next day. He informed the police that after hearing hue and cry when he came out from his house, he saw the appellants running away from the spot. If this fact is not mentioned in his police statement, he cannot say anything. He admitted that he did not see any appellants assaulting the deceased and injured Tulsiram. He informed the police that after hearing hue and cry when he came out from his house, he saw the appellants running away from the spot. If this fact is not mentioned in his police statement, he cannot say anything. He admitted that he did not see any appellants assaulting the deceased and injured Tulsiram. He denied that he did not see appellants running away from the spot. 22. On going through the cross-examination and examinationin-chief of this witness (PW-3), it is emerged that on hearing hue and cry he came out from his house and saw the appellants running away towards S.A.T.I. and deceased Laxminarayan lying down at the place of incident in injured condition and Tulsiram also sustained injury on his leg. 23. Kamla Bai (PW-5) neighbour of the deceased, Roop Singh Kirar (PW-6) residing in the same vicinity, Raju (PW-8), Sanjay (PW-9), Shyam (PW-10) and Umesh Kumar Rai (PW-11) also stated that they were present on the spot at the time of incident and on hearing hue and cry they reached the spot and saw that appellants Ramesh, Santosh, Pappu and Gabbar carrying Lathi, Gupti and Katarna assaulted deceased- Laxminarayan. Family members of the deceased came to save deceased- Laxminarayan and deceased also tried to save himself, but he fell down in Khanti. Afterwards, appellants/accused persons assaulted him with Lathi, Gupti and Katarna etc. Kamla Bai (PW-5) also identified the appellants/accused present before the trial Court as the persons who assaulted deceased Laxminarayan. After the incident, they ran away. Thereafter, deceased- Laxminarayan was taken to hospital, but on the way, he died. Police took their statements. 24. During cross-examination, Kamla Bai (PW-5) has narrated that her husband- Prabulal is doing work of plumbing. On hearing noise, she and her husband reached the spot and saw that deceased Laxminarayan was lying down near boundary. She stated that she informed the police that near hand pump appellant Pappu assaulted the deceased with Farsa as a result of which he fell down in Khanti. But if this fact is not mentioned in her police statement, she cannot give any reason. She denied that complainant took her to a lawyer. She also denied that her husband had borrowed some money from accused Ramesh, that's why she is giving false evidence. Tingi is her son against whom several cases are pending and he is behind the bar. She denied that complainant took her to a lawyer. She also denied that her husband had borrowed some money from accused Ramesh, that's why she is giving false evidence. Tingi is her son against whom several cases are pending and he is behind the bar. She denied that appellant- Ramesh gave statement against Tingi, and therefore, she and her family are annoyed with him. 25. During cross-examination Roop Singh (PW-6) stated that when the deceased was taking water from hand-pump, appellant Pappu assaulted the deceased with Pharsa. If this fact is not stated in his statement (Ex.D/5) he cannot say anything. He has a tea stall in the village and on the date of incident 10-12 customers were sitting in his shop. He does not know any difference between Katarna and Pharsa. Due to the incident, he could not supply tea to his customers. Appellant Gabbar was having knife. He denied that he reached the spot after the incident when blood was oozing out from the body of Laxminarayan. Lal Chand is son of his elder grandfather. He has no knowledge of the quarrel which took place between Pappu and Lalchand before two days of the incident. He admitted that a case is pending against him on the allegation of demanding ransom from Suresh Jain regarding his son. He denied that he did not see the incident. 26. During cross-examination Raju (PW-8) has stated that appellant Santosh and other accused came together on the spot. Deceased- Laxminarayan could not reach near boundary and fell down much before it. He saw from his shop appellant Pappu assaulting the deceased with Pharsa. He admitted that one bus goes from Ahmedpura crossing at 11:30 AM and on the date of incident there was no bus standing near hand-pump. He denied that on the date of incident, two buses were standing. He saw deceased- Laxminarayan taking water from the hand-pump before the incident. Deceased was sitting in his shop. Afterwards, his wife called him to take bath and then he went to hand-pump to fill water in his bucket. He denied that this witness, Umesh, Sanjay, Roop Singh and deceased Laxminaraya were close friends. Father of the deceased was repairing trolley nearby, therefore, he reached the spot before his wife, mother and others. He cannot differentiate between Pharsa and Katarna. Appellants Gabbar and Santosh assaulted the deceased with knife. He denied that this witness, Umesh, Sanjay, Roop Singh and deceased Laxminaraya were close friends. Father of the deceased was repairing trolley nearby, therefore, he reached the spot before his wife, mother and others. He cannot differentiate between Pharsa and Katarna. Appellants Gabbar and Santosh assaulted the deceased with knife. He denied that he did not see the incident. 27. During cross-examination Shyam (PW-10) stated that one bus which runs at 11:30 AM had already gone before the incident. His house is situated adjacent to the deceased's house. Incident took place behind wooden shops. On the place of incident, 20 to 25 persons assembled. Appellant- Pappu assaulted the deceased with Pharsa. He admitted that deceased was his close friend. He denied that because of friendship with the deceased, he is giving false evidence against the appellants. 28. During cross-examination Umesh Kumar Rai (PW-11) stated that he did not inform the police about the injuries sustained by the deceased because the police personnel did not ask from him. Tulsiram reached the spot before him. Appellants were running behind the deceased carrying weapons. 29. During the cross-examination Sanjay (PW-9) stated that he is not having close friendship with the appellants, but he knows them. He cannot say that during the incident appellants were carrying weapons or not. He was taking tobacco from Raju's shop at the time of incident. At about 11:15 AM a quarrel started between the deceased and appellants-accused. Afterwards, mother and father of the deceased took the deceased in a trolley and later on, he died. He could not see as to which accused assaulted at which part of his body. He did not give any statement to the police vide Ex. P/8. 30. By supporting the evidence of prosecution, the then SHO of Police Station, Dehat, N.S. Rathore (PW-12) deposed that on 07.05.1998 at 11 am on the information of Tulsiram, father of the deceased, Merg No.16/98 was recorded on the basis of Merg No.0/98 recorded at District Hospital, Vidisha, vide Ex, P-1. On the basis of Merg, case was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34, 323 of IPC bearing Crime No.94/98 vide Ex.P-9. During Merg enquiry, he gave notice to the witnesses vide Ex.P- 10 and prepared dead-body Panchayatnama vide Ex.P/11. After preparing spot map (Ex.P-2), he seized plain and blood stained soil vide Ex.P-3. On the basis of Merg, case was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34, 323 of IPC bearing Crime No.94/98 vide Ex.P-9. During Merg enquiry, he gave notice to the witnesses vide Ex.P- 10 and prepared dead-body Panchayatnama vide Ex.P/11. After preparing spot map (Ex.P-2), he seized plain and blood stained soil vide Ex.P-3. On 08.05.1998 he took statement of appellant Ramesh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P-12 who gave information regarding Danda. On production of Danda, he seized the same vide Ex.P-7. At the behest of appellant Sanotsh, vide ExP-6 he seized Gutti. Memorandum of appellant Santosh in this regard is Ex.P-13. At the behest of appellant- Pappu @ Gajendra, he seized Katarna vide Ex.P-5. At the behest of appellant Gabbar, he seized Katarna vide Ex.P-4. Memorandum of appellant Gabbar in this regard is Ex.P-15. Later on, seized weapons were sent for chemical analysis to FSL Sagar. The report received from FSL Sagar is Ex.P-16. 31. During cross-examination, this witness (PW-12) denied that under influence of the complainant he has fabricated the case against appellants. Inquest notice was given to those persons who were having information of the crime. In the spot map, he did not mark the distance from one place to another on the basis of scale. In the spot map, he has not mentioned about the hand pump. Near Eucalyptus tree there is sloping ground. He has no knowledge about the width of the sloping ground. Seizure memo Ex.P-5 was written by Head Constable under his direction. Katarna was seized from the bushes. Tulsiram in his police statement did not mention that appellants Gabbar and Pappu were having Katarna. He also did not mention in his police statement that when his son fell down, all the appellants started beating him. In the report, name of Gabbar is not mentioned, but when we see FIR lodged by the complainant and recorded by N.S. Rathore, it is clear that in column No.7 of FIR at serial No.4, it is written that 'Makan malik ka ladka jo basod hai Manohar urf Gabbar'. Looking to the FIR, statement of this witness does not appear to be true. He also stated that Prabulal did not mention in his police statement that on hearing hue and cry, he came out and saw appellants/accused running away and he also did not mention that Pappu was having Pharsa. Looking to the FIR, statement of this witness does not appear to be true. He also stated that Prabulal did not mention in his police statement that on hearing hue and cry, he came out and saw appellants/accused running away and he also did not mention that Pappu was having Pharsa. Gulab Bai in her police statement (Ex.D-3) did not mention that her daughter-in-law was running and when she asked what happened, then she replied that 'unhe maar rahe hai'. Kamlabai also did not mention in her police statement that when appellant Ramesh assaulted the deceased by means of Danda, he fell down. Roop Singh did not state in his police statement that when deceased Laxminarayan was taking water from the hand pump, appellant Pappu assaulted him with Pharsa. He also did not state that Gabbar assaulted with knife at chest and Santosh assaulted with Guptti at the stomach of deceased Laxminarayan. Statement of Jasodabai, wife of the deceased, was taken later on because at that time she was not in a position to give statement. It is true that appellant Ramesh's left hand is missing. Receipt of sending First Information Report to the concerned Magistrate is not on record. Tulsiram gave Merg intimation at the hospital. He cannot say that at what time he reached the spot. He seized two Katarnas. When he reached at the hospital, the deceased had died. He denied that FIR is ante-dated. He performed his duty without any interest. After evidence against appellant Gabbar came, he was arrested. 32. It is true that there are some contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses recorded by this witness N.S. Rathore (PW-12), but witnesses in the present case are illiterate villagers and incident occurred all of a sudden and in such situation, it cannot be expected from these witnesses to state each and every details minutely before the Court. 33. Doctor- R.C.Sonkar (PW-1), conducted postmortem of deceased- Laxminarayan and found following injuries on the dead body : (1) incised wound over left lateral submandibular region placed obliquely size 10x2x4 cm muscular and vascular cut. (2) incised wound over left front parital mid-line placed obliquely three in number. (a) placed obliquely towards left lateral 5x1x1 cm. (b) towards right medial mid-line 5x1x1 cm. (c) towards injury number 2-b direction 5x1x1 cm. A,B,C joint each other. (3) incised wound over manubrium sterni left ant. (2) incised wound over left front parital mid-line placed obliquely three in number. (a) placed obliquely towards left lateral 5x1x1 cm. (b) towards right medial mid-line 5x1x1 cm. (c) towards injury number 2-b direction 5x1x1 cm. A,B,C joint each other. (3) incised wound over manubrium sterni left ant. shoulder to right ant. axilla in one strake horizontally 38x1x1 cm. maximum depth and width over manubrium sterni spindle shaped caused by hard, sharp and blunt weapon. (4) stab injuries over sternum 4 cm left medial level of left nipple of chest spindle shaped 2x1 cm depth up to vital organ of lungs leading to massive bleeding in thoracic cavity. Injuries caused to sufficient cause of death leading to shock syncope caused by long pointed blade. (5) Another I.W. below no. 4 size 3x1x0.5 cm (6) Another IW right chest size 2.5x1x0.5 cm. (7) Stab injury over left lateral hypo chondrium spindle shaped over abdomen 4x2 cm deep upto upper pole of left kidney. (8) S.I. over left antero lateral shoulder size 3x4x2 cm. (9) IW left posterior lateral elbow joint size 10x3 upto muscle cut (10) IW below No.9 4x2x2 cm. (11) Incised wound over left inter digital space of thumb and index finger muscle and 1st metacarpal cut 11x5 cm (12) I.W. left knee Jt. ant. placed obliquely size 3x2x1 cm (13) 18 cm below no.12 I.W. size 7x2 cm placed obliquely (14) I.W. Rt. Ant. medial wrist Jt. 5X1 cm (15) I.W. Rt medial thumb 2x1x1 cm (16) I.W. Rt. ventral ring finger middle phalanx 2x1x1 cm (17) I.W. Rt. lateral base of thumb 3x1x1 cm (18) I.W. Rt. Palm placed obliquely 10x2x1 cm. All injuries are antemortem in nature caused by hard and sharp long blade weapon. The cause of death was shock and syncope leading to cardio respiratory failure as a result of haemorrhage and cutting of blood vessels. Death was homicidal in nature. According to the doctor, injuries number 1,4 and 7 are sufficient to cause death. During cross-examination, this witness admitted that left hand of appellant- Ramesh is already cut near the shoulder. He also admitted that police did not send any weapon before him for examination. 34. S.S. Sisodiya (PW-13) has stated that on 06.06.1998 he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police AJAK. During investigation, he took the statements of Gulab Bai, Kamla Bai and Jasoda Bai. He also admitted that police did not send any weapon before him for examination. 34. S.S. Sisodiya (PW-13) has stated that on 06.06.1998 he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police AJAK. During investigation, he took the statements of Gulab Bai, Kamla Bai and Jasoda Bai. He could not state as to when statements of witnesses were recorded. He admitted that Gulab Bai in his statement Ex.D- 3 did not state that when her daughter-in-law was running, she asked that what happened, then she replied that 'Unhe Maar Rahe Hai'. He further admitted that Kamla Bai in his police statement did not mention that she was cooking food and on hearing hue and cry, she went out from the house. He denied that statement of Jasoda Bai was taken after 3-4 days of the incident. He also denied that Jasoda Bai did not give any statement. He denied that witnesses were not present on the spot, and therefore, earlier Investigating Officer did not take their statements. 35. On going through the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, specially father of the deceased complainant Tulsiram (PW-2) who himself sustained injury in his leg during the incident, which is supported by the evidence of Gulab Bai (PW-4), Jasodabai (PW-7) as well as evidence of independent witnesses Prabhulal (PW-3), Kamlabai (PW-5), Roop Singh Kirar (PW-6), Raju (PW-8) and medical evidence of Dr. R.C.Sonkar (PW-1), this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellants in furtherance of their common intention have committed murder of deceased Laxminarayan. The defence tried to establish that some unknown persons have killed the deceased, but defence witness No.1 Kailash Rathore has admitted in his cross-examination that before his reaching to the spot, the assailants had run away. Suggestions given by the defence to the prosecution witnesses that on account of enmity they are giving false evidence against the appellants have been specifically denied by the prosecution witnesses. Only minor discrepancies are there in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the weapons appellants were carrying at the time of incident. The Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359 has held as under :- '14. Only minor discrepancies are there in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the weapons appellants were carrying at the time of incident. The Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359 has held as under :- '14. Observing that minor discrepancies and inconsistent version do not necessarily demolish the prosecution case if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy, in Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 12 SCC 187 , it was held as under:- 32. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudaya Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 671, para 30) '30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 .)' 33. ....... this Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 has observed as under: (SCC p. 740, para43) '43. ... It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief.' 36. It is well-established principle of law that where the case is based on direct evidence and the evidence led by prosecution is worth-reliance, then the same cannot be discarded merely on the ground of absence of any motive of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 , has held as under:- ''46 It is a settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, motive loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.'' 37. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellants that name of appellant No.4- Gabbar @ Manohar was not mentioned in the FIR is concerned, on perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/9) lodged by the complainant, it is clear that in column No.7 of the FIR at serial No.4 name of appellant No.4 has been written as 'Makan malik ka ladka jo basod hai Manohar urf Gabbar'. As regards the contention that the FIR is ante-dated, N.S.Rathore (PW-12), SHO of police Station, Dehat, has deposed that FIR was recorded after Merg enquiry and denied the suggestion that to implicate more accused in the commission of offence he did not lodge the FIR at the first instance. 38. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC as well as conviction & sentence of appellant No.1-Ramesh under Section 323 of IPC is affirmed. The appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 8.2.2022, failing which the trial Court shall be at liberty to issue arrest warrant against them.