JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original accused under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case no. 50 of 2013, wherein, the appellant came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’, for short) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (‘G.P. Act’, in short). At the end of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act and was sentenced as under: Sections Punishment Fine In default Section 302 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.25,000/- RI for six months Section 135 of G.P. Act RI for one month - - 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file this appeal are as under: According to the case of the prosecution, on 10.05.2012, deceased Rajkumar Paswan was killed by the present appellant accused Jitendra Paswan by stabbing him multiple times with the arm knife. The motive behind the murder was that before two days of the incident i.e. 08.05.2012, the accused appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the deceased viz. Kushum Paswan PW:12 Exh.43. The appellant was called by the deceased as well as father of the victim Kushum. At that time, the appellant accused threatened the deceased. In order to take revenge the earlier incident, the appellant accused and deceased Rajkumar, who are residing in the same area at Surat, met in the open ground near the grocery shop viz. Gunja Provision Stores. Again, on the issue of harassment of the deceased, this scuffle took place between them and the complainant Ramsabad PW:8, intervened to defuse the dispute, as a result, the appellant left the place. After some time, at about 10:30 p.m., the appellant accused came at the scene of offence. He inflicted multiple stabbed wound at the stomach of the deceased by using kitchen knife and thereafter, he ran away. The deceased was in a critical condition and taken to Smear Hospital at Surat where he succumbed to injuries. The father in law of the deceased PW:8 lodged an FIR inter alia alleging the act of murder against the appellant accused. The deceased was in a critical condition and taken to Smear Hospital at Surat where he succumbed to injuries. The father in law of the deceased PW:8 lodged an FIR inter alia alleging the act of murder against the appellant accused. Police Inspector, Udna Police Station, Surat PW:16, proceeded to investigate the case. He arrested the accused. In the presence of panchas, at the behest of the appellant accused, knife was discovered and recovered. He recorded the statement of eyewitnesses. He collected the medical papers and after receiving the report of the FSL, I.O. had filed the chargesheet against the appellant accused. 3. On the basis of material on record, the charge was framed against the appellant at Exh. 5, to which he pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the trial Court, accordingly. 4. In order to prove the case against the appellant, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents to prove its case as per the following table: Oral evidence PW 1 – Exh. 12 Sanjaysing Jaynarayansingh, panch witness PW 2 – Exh. 14 Rajendra Babusing Hirasing, panch witness PW 3 – Exh. 16 Suresh Bhaidas Patil, panch witness PW 4 – Exh. 18 Harish Narayan Thakre, panch witness PW 5 – Exh. 25 Dharmesh Yuvrajbhai Patil, panch witness PW 6 – Exh. 26 Suresh Amratbhai Sendane, panch witness PW 7 – Exh. 29 Dr. Vijaykumar Kaushik, medical officer PW 8 – Exh. 35 Ramsamad Buddhu Pasvan, Complainant PW 9 – Exh. 38 Ghanshyam Ram Pasvan PW 10 – Exh. 40 Premilaben Harishchandra Gautam PW 11 – Exh. 42 Pushpaben Jagdishbhai Goud PW 12 – Exh. 43 Kusumdevi Rajkumar Murali Pasvan PW 13 – Exh. 45 Deepak Ramshabar Pasvan PW 14 – Exh. 46 Mukesh Shankarbhai Gamit PW 15 – Exh. 47 Nankabhai Jaglubhai Gamit PW 16 – Exh. 49 Hingoldan Sursangbhai Ratnu, investigating officer Documentary evidence Exh. 36 Complaint Exh. 13 Inquest Panchanama Exh. 15 Panchanama of crime scene Exh. 17 Panchanama of recovery of clothes from dead body Exh. 19 Arrest Panchanama Exh. 20 Panchanama under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act Exh. 7 Mark 7/1 to 7/15 Exh. 21 Panch slip of muddammal article no. 5 Exh. 22 Panch slip of muddammal article no. 10 Exh. 30 Copy of memo to conduct postmortem Exh. 31 Post-Mortem note Exh. 32 Memo for post-mortem Exh. 48 Mark 48/1to 48/2 Exh. 19 Arrest Panchanama Exh. 20 Panchanama under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act Exh. 7 Mark 7/1 to 7/15 Exh. 21 Panch slip of muddammal article no. 5 Exh. 22 Panch slip of muddammal article no. 10 Exh. 30 Copy of memo to conduct postmortem Exh. 31 Post-Mortem note Exh. 32 Memo for post-mortem Exh. 48 Mark 48/1to 48/2 Exh. 50 Index Exh. 51 Copy of memo written to FSL Exh. 52 Report by FSL on visit Exh. 53 Copy of forwarding note of muddammal Exh. 54 FSL receipt Exh. 55 Notification Exh. 56 FSL report along with forwarding letter and biological report Exh. 57 Serological report 5. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating circumstances made against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied it and not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, came to a conclusion that the appellant accused was author of the crime and the evidence of the witnesses on the complicity of the accused are reliable and trustworthy and accordingly, the appellant accused came to be convicted and sentenced as recorded above. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel Mr.Bhusan Oza and learned APP Mr.L.B. Dabhi for the respective parties. Submissions of the parties: 9. Mr.Oza, assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, has submitted that the judgment is erroneous, and being rendered in violation of the principle of appreciation of evidence and without considering the material contradiction and discrepancies found in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, straight-away with predetermined mind, the Trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence which is not sustainable in eye of law. In these background facts, Mr.Oza, would urge that after the incident, the Udna Police came to the spot and on registration of the FIR, the I.O. PW:16 recorded his statements of neighbouring eyewitnesses and their first version in the FIR as well as police statement was to the effect that the deceased was killed by broken glass bottle and the same facts were being admitted by the witnesses as well as Investigating Agency. That after the arrest of the accused, version of the witnesses had been changed to the effect that the deceased was stabbed by the appellant accused with kitchen knife. In this regard, Mr.Oza further urge that the third theory surface from the police investigation that, the deceased had tried to inflict injuries to the appellant accused with broken glass bottle and in defence, the appellant accused caused injuries with knife. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that the prosecution has not come to the Court with true story and the evidence of the witnesses, on the theory of caused injuries with knife become suspicious and on that count, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The second contention raised is that if the case of the prosecution is disclosed during the investigation believed as it is then the act of the appellant accused killing the deceased is not murdered as the accused in good-faith of his right of private defence, caused the injuries without any intention to kill the deceased and therefore, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception – 2, to Section 300 of IPC. 10. Mr.Oza, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant accused, has submitted that the learned Trial Court did not have dealt with the major contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses as pointed out in Para-9 of this judgment and failed to assign cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has committed a murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC. 11. In the circumstances, learned counsel Mr.Oza prays that the impugned judgment and sentence is not sustainable in law and the same may be set aside. 12. On the other hand, Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent – State, opposing the contentions, as raised hereinabove, has submitted that the incident took place in the night and within day or one the eyewitnesses clarified in their police statements that the deceased was killed with the kitchen knife by the appellant accused. In the circumstances, the evidence of eyewitnesses, corroborated by the medial evidence and the knife which was used discovered and recovered at the instance of the accused, there is no circumstances exists which creates suspicious on the reliability and admissibility of evidence of eyewitnesses. In the circumstances, the evidence of eyewitnesses, corroborated by the medial evidence and the knife which was used discovered and recovered at the instance of the accused, there is no circumstances exists which creates suspicious on the reliability and admissibility of evidence of eyewitnesses. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused by adducing cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and the learned Trial Court has properly considered and appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and some does not warrant interference with the conviction of the appellant accused. On the alternate plea raised by the appellant accused that his case would fall under exception to Section 300, has no any merits as, as per the medical evidence, multiple stabbed wound found by the doctor and as per his opinion, the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and thus, therefore, when the appellant accused exceeded his rights, the plea of self defence cannot be accepted. 13. We have heard at length learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the case records and proceedings. Oral as well as documentary evidence: 15. So far as medical evidence is concerned, PW:7 Dr.Vijay Kaushik, who had conducted post-mortem found following external as well as internal injuries from the body of the deceased which he had noted in the P.M. Exh.31, which reads as under: “17. External Injuries:…. (1) Stab wound present over mid line of abdomen, 3 cm below xiphisternum size 4x1.0x cavity, 7 cm above to umbilicus, oblique, lower angle comparatively acute & upper angle comparatively acute margin clean-cut & well separated & enter into abdominal cavity & stained with blood. (2) Incised wound present over Lt. Side of abdomen size 1.5x0.5xmuscle deep, oblique, 16 cm below to Lt. nipple, 9 cm from mid line, margin clean cut & separated & stained with blood. (3) Stab wound present over left side of chest size- 3.5x1xcavity deep, oblique and at anterior axillary line, & 6th outer costal space lower end acute and upper angle comparatively blunt, margin clean cut, well separated and enter into chest cavity and stained with blood. ….. III. Internal Examination ….. (20) Thorax:- a) Walll, ribs, cartilages:- Corresponding to external injury no.3 cut the 6th inter costal space muscle & enter into chest cavity on Lt. side in anterior axillary line & cut to the Lt. lower lobe size-3.5x0.5x1 cm on anterior aspect. ….. III. Internal Examination ….. (20) Thorax:- a) Walll, ribs, cartilages:- Corresponding to external injury no.3 cut the 6th inter costal space muscle & enter into chest cavity on Lt. side in anterior axillary line & cut to the Lt. lower lobe size-3.5x0.5x1 cm on anterior aspect. Left chest cavity contain 1.0 liter of blood. … 21) Abdomen:- a) Wall:- Corresponding to external injury no. 1. cut the abdominal (ill) & cut or stab to lower border of right lobe of liver. b) Peritoneum:- – c) Cavity:- (contain 1.8 liter of blood) size 3.5x0.5x fraught & through then cut the mesentry. d) Oesophagus:- Size 3x0.5x through & through & terminate up to para vertibrel tissue. … h) Liver: wt. 1310 Gms.:- Pale, stab wound as mentioned above.” 16. On the issue of cause of death, PW:7 Dr.Vijaykumar Kaushik has opined that deceased died due to haemorrhage in the liver and lungs. The doctor PW:7 has further opined that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death. 17. PW:8 complainant happened to be a father in law of the deceased, has stated in his deposition that on 10.05.2012 at about 10:30, keeping grudge of the earlier incident, arose on 08.05.2012, accused Jitendra came at the place of the incident with kitchen knife and inflicted three stab wounds to the deceased, as a result, he died after some time on the spot. The witness has admitted that in his FIR Exh.36, he did not disclose the facts that the accused killed the deceased by using kitchen knife. He also admits that in his further statement, he had disclosed that the deceased was about to cause injuries to the accused by broken glass bottle, however, before the injuries could inflict, the accused stabbed the deceased with knife. 18. PW:9 Ghanshyam Paswan Exh.38 came later on at the place of the incident and on his arrival at the place, he came to know that the accused inflicted knife blow on the deceased. 19. PW:10 Ramila Gautam claimed to be the eyewitness and according to her testimony, the accused appellant caused injuries to the deceased by broken glass bottle. 20. PW:11 Pushpaben Gaud tried to project herself as eyewitness, but as such, she did not see the incident. 21. 19. PW:10 Ramila Gautam claimed to be the eyewitness and according to her testimony, the accused appellant caused injuries to the deceased by broken glass bottle. 20. PW:11 Pushpaben Gaud tried to project herself as eyewitness, but as such, she did not see the incident. 21. PW:12 wife of the deceased Kushumben Paswan Exh.43 claimed to be eyewitness but she reached at the place after the incident and she came to know about the incident from PW:10 Ramilaben and the facts of incident, as narrated by her in her deposition, had not been disclosed in the police statement. 22. PW:13 Deepak Paswan stated in his deposition that the accused had caused injuries to the deceased with knife. However, he admits that in his police statement, such facts as narrated has not been disclosed by him. 23. PWs:14 and 15 Mukesh Gamit and Nanka Gamit, though examined, have no personal knowledge about the incident. 24. PW:16, H.S.Ratnu, Investigating Officer has stated on oath that on 11.05.2012, when he was on duty as P.I., Udhna Police Station, Surat, the vardhy was given by the PSO and immediately, he rushed to the place of the incident. He further stated that the complainant PW:8 disclosed the FIR of the incident before him and the same has been produced at Exh.36. PW:16 I.O. in his deposition admitted that on 11.05.2012, the complainant in his complaint disclosed that the accused came at the place and took out the knife and inflicted three blows on the stomach of the deceased. PW:1 I.O. in his chief examination, admitted the facts that witnesses as referred above, have also stated in their police statements dated 11.05.2012 that the appellant accused killed the deceased by using knife. The I.O. PW:16 has further stated that after the arrest of the accused, he had recorded the further statement of the witnesses, wherein they have disclosed that the deceased was about to cause injuries by broken glass bottle to the appellant accused and before he could cause injuries, the appellant accused took out his knife and caused stabbed wound to the deceased. PW:16 has further stated that at the incident of the accused, the knife which he had kept at the place mentioned in the panchnama, was discovered and recovered and the same was sent for its examination in FSL. PW:16 has further stated that at the incident of the accused, the knife which he had kept at the place mentioned in the panchnama, was discovered and recovered and the same was sent for its examination in FSL. In the cross examination, PW:16 has admitted that the complainant as well as witnesses at the first instance, did not disclose that deceased was stabbed by the appellant accused with the weapon knife and on the contrary, the complainant and witnesses have disclosed that the appellant accused killed him by using broken glass bottle. Analysis and conclusion: 25. We have examined the evidence in details and after reanalysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it emerges that on 08.05.2012, dispute arose between appellant accused and deceased as it is alleged that he was harassing the wife of the deceased PW:12 and due to intervention of the family members, the settlement came to be arrived at between the parties. On 10.05.2012, at about 09:00 p.m., again, scuffle took place between the deceased and the appellant accused and again, the neighbouring persons tried to intervene, as a result, the accused appellant left the place. According to the case of the prosecution, he again came at 10:30 p.m. where the deceased and others were seated at the open place nearby the grocery shop and at that time, he took out his knife and stabbed the deceased for three times. However, upon perusal of the FIR Exh.36, the complainant PW:8 happened to be father of the deceased, did not disclose the facts that the deceased stabbed by the knife but it was disclosed that the accused appellant took empty glass bottle from the handcart standing nearby the place and after broking it down, he caused injuries to the deceased with broken glass bottle on his stomach. The witnesses as referred above at the first instance i.e. on 11.05.2022, the same version which was disclosed in the FIR, have been stated by them in their police statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It needs to be noted that after recording the FIR as well as statements of witnesses, the accused appellant was arrested. After his arrest, the complainant as well as witnesses have changed their version about the incident. After his arrest, the complainant as well as witnesses have changed their version about the incident. They stated in their further statements recorded by the police that, the deceased took the empty glass bottle from the handcart standing nearby and after broken it down, he was about the cause the injuries to the appellant accused and before it could execute, the appellant stabbed him with the knife. 26. On perusal of the entire case records, more particularly the oral testimonies of the witnesses, we are of the considered opinion that the eyewitnesses changed the story what they had originally stated to the police during the investigation. The contradiction and an improvement, with respect to use of weapon, would change the entire story of prosecution. Even otherwise, after the arrest of the accused, the eyewitnesses changed their version stating that the deceased had tried to cause injuries to the appellant accused with broken glass bottle and in that process, he was killed by the appellant accused. The complainant PW:8 and witnesses could have disclosed the said facts at the first instance i.e. before the arrest of the accused, but without any satisfactory explanation, they changed their version which creates a suspicious on the truthfulness and reliability of the eyewitnesses and casts doubt on their evidence. The learned Trial Court, despite of submission about the major contradiction, as discussed above, did not deal with the same which shows that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. 27. We are conscious about the settled legal position of law that every small discrepancy or minor contradiction which may erupt in the statement of the witnesses because of lapse of time, keeping in view the educational and other background of witnesses cannot be treated as a fatal to the case of prosecution and while dealing with the discrepancy and contradiction, found in the evidence of the witnesses, the Court must appreciate the statements of the witnesses in its entirety and correct prospective and in light of the attendant circumstances record the findings either guilt or acquittal of the accused. We may profitable refer to the case of Omprakash Vs. We may profitable refer to the case of Omprakash Vs. State of Haryana ( AIR 2011 SC 2682 ), wherein it was observed that the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful when the version given by the witnesses in the Court is different from that in the statement made before the police. Thus, sum and substance is that minor discrepancy cannot be termed as contradiction unless it affects the creditability of the evidence tendered by the witnesses and the major contradiction amounts to serious infirmities and is very important, suspicious circumstance which negative truth of the prosecution. We may also refer the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State of NCT (Delhi) (2003 (11) SCC 367), wherein the Supreme Court on the issue of contradiction and exaggeration, held and observed that “what is to be seen next is whether the version presented in the Court was substantially similar to what was said during investigation and therefore, it is only when exaggeration fundamentally changes the nature of the case, the Court has to consider whether the witnesses stating truth or not.” 28. In light of the settled position of law, and applying to the same to the facts of present case, the witnesses as referred above have changed their version different from that in the statement made before the police for twice and the same cannot be termed as minor discrepancies and the discrepancies as discussed are serious infirmities which creates a doubt on the credibility and truthfulness of the evidence of eyewitnesses. The witnesses have tried to improve their version so as to see that the accused by any means be punished by the Court and in that process, they hide the true story of the incident and therefore, after close scrutiny and reanalysis of the evidence of eyewitnesses, we are of the considered opinion that the conduct of the witnesses creates doubts as to what really happened and in absence of cogent and reliable evidence, the appellant accused is entitled to benefit of doubt with respect to manner of incident, as discussed above. 29. In view of the reasons and discussions hereinabove, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 10.05.2012 at about 10:30, the appellant accused has killed the deceased. 30. In the result, present conviction appeal is allowed. 29. In view of the reasons and discussions hereinabove, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 10.05.2012 at about 10:30, the appellant accused has killed the deceased. 30. In the result, present conviction appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case no. 50 of 2013 is hereby set aside. The accused appellant stands acquitted of the offences as recorded above. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Fine amount if any deposited be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith