JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been filed preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.05.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.179/11 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine of RS.500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months’ additional imprisonment. 2. According to prosecution story, PW-1 Vidhyabai and her husband deceased Omprakash and accused Vijay @ Pappu were residing together in house No.780, Dwarikarpuri, Indore. On 23.11.2010 when PW-1 Vidhyabai was sitting in the house, the appellant came with iron pestle (Moosli) and asked his father Omprakash “why have you not got my marriage solemnized yet” and thereafter, he assaulted the deceased and killed him. When PW-1 cried then PW-2 Vijay Kumar and PW-3 Tarun came and caught the appellant. PW-1 Vidhyabai lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 Merg intimation Ex.P-18 and police registered F.I.R. on the basis of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-13 under section 302 of IPC against the appellant. 3. During investigation, police prepared spot map Ex.P-2 and seized blooded cotton, plain cotton and blooded bed-sheet from the spot and issued Safina Form Ex.P-4 for preparing dead-body Naksha Panchayatnama and then sent body of the deceased to hospital for postmortem. During investigation, police arrested the appellant and seized blooded Moosli which was used in committing the offence, blooded shit and trouser (Paijaama) of appellant and prepared seizure memo and after this sent it to FSL for examination. Police recorded statements of prosecution witnesses and after receipt of FSL report and completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the magistrate Court. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, trial Court framed charges against the appellant and appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial. 4. In turn, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses and after completion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant took defence that he has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. No witness was examined in defence. Trial Court considered the evidence adduced before him and came to conclusion that appellant is guilty of committing offence as mentioned above. 5. No witness was examined in defence. Trial Court considered the evidence adduced before him and came to conclusion that appellant is guilty of committing offence as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the fact and evidence of the case. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffer from serious infirmity. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that prosecution is unable to adduce any motive of offence committed by the appellant and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story. He further submits that trial Court has committed error in not relying upon the defence of the appellant and prays for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first question arises before this Court, whether the death of deceased Omprakash is homicidal or not? 9. PW-10 P.S. Gore, inspector has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 23.11.2010, he was posted as Sub-inspector at Chandan Nagar Police Station, Indore. On this date, PW-1 Vidhyabai lodged F.I.R. against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. He issued Safina Form notice to the witnesses for preparing dead-body Naksha Panchayatnama of the deceased in presence of witnesses. PW-9 Dr. Bharat Bajpayee conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased Omprakash and noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased. On this date, PW-1 Vidhyabai lodged F.I.R. against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. He issued Safina Form notice to the witnesses for preparing dead-body Naksha Panchayatnama of the deceased in presence of witnesses. PW-9 Dr. Bharat Bajpayee conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased Omprakash and noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased. ^^PkksV Øekad 1 & nkuksa vk¡[ksa pksfVy gksdj dkyh iM+ x;h FkhaA pksV Øekad 2 & ,d QVk gqvk ?kko 4 xq.kk 1 xq.kk vk/kk lsŒehŒ cka;h vk¡[k dh ckgsa ds mij FkkA pksV Øekad 3 & cka;k dku nks frgkbZ QVk gqvk FkkA pksV Øekad 4 & ,d QVk gqvk /kko 5 xq.kk 4 lsŒehŒ efLr"d dh xgjkbZ rd flj ij cka;h vksj Fkk] efLr"d dk fgLlk mDr pksV ls ckgj fudyk gqvk FkkA pksV Øekad 5 & ukd dh gM~fM;k ÝsDpj FkhA pksV Øekda 6 & /kalk gqvk ÝsDpj 5 xq.kk 3 lsŒehŒ vkdkj esa flj ij cka;ah vksj mDr ÝsDpj dh gM~fM;ka] efLr"d esa /kals gq;s Fks] flj ds nka;h o cka;h vksj dh ÝaVy peMh 8 xq.kk 6 lsŒehŒ vkdkj rd pksfVy FkhA nksuksa vksj dh duiVh dh gfM~M;k¡ 8 lsŒehŒ vkdkj rd ÝsDpj FkhA flj ds nksuksa vksj ds ,ŒlhŒ,QŒ] ,eŒlhŒ,QŒ fgLlk ÝsDpj FkkA ,lŒMhŒ,pŒ] ,lŒ,Œ,pŒ] ges jst mifLFkr FkkA** 10. PW-9 Dr. Bharat Bajpayee has stated in his opinion that death of the deceased was due to the injuries caused to the deceased and time of the death of the deceased was 12:00 hours (Ex.P-17). This report was not substantially challenged by the appellant so on perusal of the evidence of PW-10 and deadbody Naksha Panchayatnama as well as postmortem report Ex.P-17 and after taking into consideration the fact that there is no substantial cross-examination by the defence so, it is clearly proved that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. Now, the point of determination is whether the appellant has caused death of the deceased by assaulting him by iron pestle (Moosli). 12. At the outset, statements of PW-1 Vidhyabai, PW-2 Vijay Kumar, PW-3 Tarun Mahadik, PW-4 Anita Patidar, PW-5 Vijay Sharma are required to be examined. PW-1 Vidhyabai, who is mother of the appellant and wife of the deceased has deposed that she new the appellant. 12. At the outset, statements of PW-1 Vidhyabai, PW-2 Vijay Kumar, PW-3 Tarun Mahadik, PW-4 Anita Patidar, PW-5 Vijay Sharma are required to be examined. PW-1 Vidhyabai, who is mother of the appellant and wife of the deceased has deposed that she new the appellant. On dated 23.11.2010 when she came her house with grocery items she saw that appellant was running from the room then after she ran towards her house then she saw that her son Vijay has murdered her husband. When she cried then PW-3 Tarun and PW-2 Vijay Kumar came there. Appellant stated to her husband that “get my marriage be solemnized”. She further stated that appellant stated to all the persons present on spot that he killed his father by iron pestle (Moosli). She lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 and police seized blooded soil, plain soil and blooded bed sheet and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-3. 13. Government counsel declared the witnesses hostile and cross-examined her then she stated that she came from grocery shop and sat in the room then after appellant came from another room with iron pestle (Moosli). She further stated that appellant asked his father “why are you not trying to solemnize my marriage” and then after appellant assaulted the deceased by iron pestle on his head and she cried, Tarun and Vijay Kumar came there. 14. PW-2 Vijay Kumar, who was declared hostile by government counsel, stated that when he was going to temple, he saw crowed in front of deceased house then he stood there. He got information that the deceased Omprakash was murdered by someone. When government counsel after declaring him hostile cross-examined him, he stated that Tarun and Vijay Sharma (PW-5) reached on spot before him. He accepted that Tarun and Vijay Sharma reached on spot after hearing noise of crying of PW-1 Vidhyabai, Tarun and Vijay Sharma stated him that appellant murdered the deceased. PW-3 Tarun stated in examination-in-chief that when he was sitting to take food in his house then he heard the noise of crying of PW-1 then he reached on the spot then he saw that deceased was lying dead and blood was oozing from this head and he called the ambulance. Government counsel also declared him hostile and crossexamined him. He stated in cross-examination that appellant had stated him that he has killed his father. 15. Government counsel also declared him hostile and crossexamined him. He stated in cross-examination that appellant had stated him that he has killed his father. 15. PW-5 Vijay Sharma stated in his examination-in-chief that he heard the noise of crying then he reached the house of the deceased and saw that deceased was lying dead on the cot and blood was oozing from his head. In para 3, after being declared hostile, he stated that appellant killed his father by iron pestle. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are so many contradictions, omissions and embellishment in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that PW-1 in the F.I.R. has stated that when she was sitting in the room, the appellant killed his father and in oath statements she stated that she was coming from grocery shop and other witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 in their evidence also there are so many contradictions and omissions. 17. It is the duty of defence lawyer to prove that these contradictions and omissions can hit the root of the case and if contradictions and omissions are not hitting the root of the case then these contradictions and omissions are not material. On perusal of evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, it is found that they are examined after lapse of near about one year of incident and in their evidence it is found that they have not rebutted substantially in crossexamination. It is true that there are some omissions and contradictions in evidence of PW-1, PW-3 an PW-5. But, in the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of M.P., 1999 (2) JLJ 354 , it has been held that in lengthy crossexamination some omissions and contradictions may be outcome of the evidence. The Apex Court in para 24 of the aforesaid judgment has held as under :-- “24 When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.” In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taqdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat and another, 2012 (1) MPLJ (Cri.)= 2011(10) SCC 158 has held as under :-- “9. We are of the view that all omissions/contradictions pointed out by the appellants’ counsel had been trivial in nature, which do not go to the root of the cause. It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions/ improvements/ embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in natural course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide : Sunil 8 Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 ).” 13. In this regard, the following ratio held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pundappa Yankappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka, 2014 LawSuit (SC) 516, is worth to quote here- “[9] xxx The evidence on record has to be read as a whole and it is not proper to reject one or other evidence on the ground of certain contradictions and omissions which do not go the roots of the case. If the testimony of the eye-witnesses are found trustworthy and remained unchanged, ignorance of such testimony can be held to be perverse.” 18. In view of the aforesaid settled position, testimony of witnesses as well as other witnesses cannot wipe out on the basis of trivial contradictions. If the testimony of the eye-witnesses are found trustworthy and remained unchanged, ignorance of such testimony can be held to be perverse.” 18. In view of the aforesaid settled position, testimony of witnesses as well as other witnesses cannot wipe out on the basis of trivial contradictions. Virtually, in the testimony of PW-1 Vidhyabai, it is found that she is mother of the appellant and wife of the deceased Omprakash and on bare perusal of the evidence as a whole it is found that it is not proper to reject one or other evidence on the ground of certain contradiction and omission which did not go to the root of the case. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-1 stated one thing at one stage and another thing at another stage. In F.I.R. she has stated that she was present in the house but in oath evidence she has stated that she was coming from grocery shop after purchasing grocery items. In this regard, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is also well settled principle that the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaktilal Afdul Gaffar Khan v. Basant Raghunath Gogle reported in (2005) 7 SCC 749 has held as under :-- “.....it is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence”. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 are declared hostile by the prosecution. In 2024 Livelaw SC 358 the apex Court has held that conviction cannot be set aside merely because prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 are declared hostile by the prosecution. In 2024 Livelaw SC 358 the apex Court has held that conviction cannot be set aside merely because prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. The apex Court has held that when the evidence of prosecution witnesses are tested with F.I.R. and evidence of medical expert be found that there is a sufficient corroboration of the version given in prosecution witnesses. In present case, PW-1 is mother of appellant and wife of the deceased who clearly supported the prosecution version and the examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is as follows: ^^ÁØŒ 3 & mDr lk{kh fo|kckbZ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd fnukad 23-11-2010 dks lqcg yxHkx 10&30 cts og fdjkus dh nqdku ij lkeku ysus ds fy, xbZ FkhA mÙkj & lgh gSA Á-ØŒ 4 mDr lk{kh dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd tc ?kj ls og lkeku ysus xbZ] ml le; mlds ifr vkseÁdk'k o rqe vkjksih fot; FksA mÙkj & lgh gSA** The appellant has admitted that at the time of the incident, he was present on the spot along with deceased so contradiction pointed out by the appellant’s counsel in evidence of PW-1 does not hit the root of the case. 21. In the present case, PW-10 investigating officer prepared seizure memo of blooded shirt, trouser (Paijaama) and iron pestle, which were seized from possession of the appellant. The seizure memos are Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-7. PW-3 and PW-5 are the witnesses of Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9. PW-3 and PW-5 supported the evidence of PW-10 and stated in evidence that PW-10 seized iron pestle, blooded shirt and trouser (Paijaama) from the possession of the appellant. PW-10 after seizing theses article sent them to FSL for scientific examination. In which, it was found that human blood was available on the shirt, trouser (paijaama) and iron pestle. FSL report is Ex.C-1. PW-10 after seizing theses article sent them to FSL for scientific examination. In which, it was found that human blood was available on the shirt, trouser (paijaama) and iron pestle. FSL report is Ex.C-1. So it is the duty of the appellant to disclose the fact as per the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act as to how and why the human blood was found on shirt, Paijaama and iron pestle recovered from him but, appellant was unable to rebut his fact in defence and he has not stated single word about it in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., therefore, even if blood group is not mentioned in FSL report Ex.C-1, same will not given any help to the appellant. So FSL report is also against the appellant. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no motive was established by prosecution against the appellant to commit this offence but when there is an eye witness to prove the offence, prosecution is not bound to prove the motive of offence. 23. After taking into consideration all the grounds mentioned above and looking to the facts that prosecution witnesses Nos.1, 3 and 5 have completely supported the prosecution evidence and their evidence are supported with the medical evidence and FSL report and according to examination of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. in question Nos.3 and 4 in which appellant accepted that he was present on the spot at the time of the accident so appellant is unable to rebut the evidence made against him, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that appellant is guilty of the offence. 24. So in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that trial Court has properly assessed the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under the aforesaid sections of IPC and trial Court has not committed any error by convicting the appellant in the aforesaid offence. Hence, the conviction and sentence deserve to be maintained. The present appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by trial Court is hereby upheld. 25. Copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action. Hence, the conviction and sentence deserve to be maintained. The present appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by trial Court is hereby upheld. 25. Copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action. The appellant is serving jail sentence, he be intimated about the outcome of this appeal through Superintendent of Jail and a copy of the judgment be also supplied to him through Superintendent of Jail.