JUDGMENT : Hirdesh, J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by appellant- Jagannath challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-12-2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.152 of 2013 by which, appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo Six Months' additional Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. As per the case of prosecution, on the date of incident i.e. 24-01-2013 around 11:00 am, Sarjan Singh (PW4), brother of Chander Singh (since deceased) submitted a report with Police Chowki Ukawad, PS Jamner to the effect that around 09:00 am in the morning, he received information on his mobile No.9827753304 from mobile No.8103456390 of Hakim Singh that Chander Singh has been murdered in Kola Ki Bedri and at the time of commission of murder of Chander Singh, his wife Daryav Bai has seen the incident. Accused Mangilal held down Chander Singh. Accused Samandar, Jagannath (present appellant) and Munshi alias Vikram assaulted Chander Singh by means of axe. Total five assailants including one unknown assailant were involved in commission of crime. Ratna Gurjar has also seen the incident. On hearing screams of Ratna Gurjar and DaryavBai (wife of deceased Chander Singh), the villagers came. Accused fled away from spot. On the basis of such information, a Crime No.06 of 2013 vide Ex.P1 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC at Police Outpost Ukawad by ASI Uttam Singh (PW-9). Merg No.01 of 2013 under Section 174 of CrPC regarding death of Chander Singh was recorded vide Ex.P14. Investigation was started. 3. ASI Uttam Singh (PW-9) reached the place of incident. On the basis of Safina form (Ex.P2) of the witnesses, Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P3. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P4. Bloodstained and plain soil in two plastic boxes were collected from the spot. A mobile was seized near the dead body of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P6. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent to Primary Health Centre Madhusudangarh for postmortem, where Dr .Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) conducted postmortem vide postmortem report Ex.P10. On the basis of Ex.P1, actual Crime No.21 of 2013 was registered at PS Jamner vide FIR Ex.P12. 4. A mobile was seized near the dead body of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P6. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent to Primary Health Centre Madhusudangarh for postmortem, where Dr .Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) conducted postmortem vide postmortem report Ex.P10. On the basis of Ex.P1, actual Crime No.21 of 2013 was registered at PS Jamner vide FIR Ex.P12. 4. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC in which, the witnesses stated that murder of deceased Chander Singh was committed only by accused- Jagannath (present appellant) by assaulting him with axe. The then Investigating Officer- Basant Naik (PW-10) arrested the appellant-accused vide arrest memo Ex.P7. In the presence of witnesses, on the basis of memorandum of appellant, axe hidden inside the house near Ghatti and a mobile phone were seized from the possession of appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P9. Thereafter, the seized axe was sent to Dr.Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) and sought a query as to whether injuries on the body of deceased were caused to said axe. According to query report Ex.P11 of Dr. Mukesh Sharma (PW7), axe could have caused injuries found on the body of deceased. Seized axe and blood-stained & plain soil as well as shirt of the deceased were sent to FSL, Gwalior for chemical examination from where the FSL report was received vide Ex.P16. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed by police before the Court of JMFC, Raghogarh from where case was committed to the Sessions Court, Guna. 5. Charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed. At the trial, appellant- accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. No witness was examined on his behalf in order to lead defence evidence. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined wife of deceased Daryav Bai as PW-1, mother of deceased Kailash Bai as PW-2, Ratan Singh Gurjar as PW-3, Sarjan Singh as PW-4, Chandan Singh as PW-5, Mehtab Singh as PW-6, Dr. Mukesh Sharma as PW-7, Ajit Kumar as PW-8, Uttam Singh as PW-9 and Basant Naik as PW-10. 7. The trial Court rejected the plea of false implication and on evaluation of prosecution evidence as well as exhibited documents, recorded the finding that appellant was the assailant, who had committed murder of the deceased and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. 8. 7. The trial Court rejected the plea of false implication and on evaluation of prosecution evidence as well as exhibited documents, recorded the finding that appellant was the assailant, who had committed murder of the deceased and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law as well as contrary to oral and documentary evidence available on record. Since the FIR was lodged by Sarjan Singh (PW-4) against four named assailants including the present appellant and one unknown assailant, but the police filed charge-sheet only against present appellant for commission of murder of deceased Chander Singh because of the fact that he is belonging to Scheduled Caste community i.e. ''Chamar Caste'' and excluded three other named assailants, who are belonging to Gurjar community in his Village. Gurjar community of his village want to usurp his land, therefore, he has been falsely implicated because of the fact that he has a longstanding rivalry with assailant Mangilal, therefore, it cannot be believed that out of five assailants, which person had committed murder of the deceased. 9. It is further contended on behalf of appellant that Daryav Bai (PW-1), Kailash Bai (PW-2) and Ratan Singh Gurjar (PW-3) have been examined by prosecution as eye-witnesses. Since their statements were recorded on the next day of the incident, therefore, only on the basis of evidence of these interested witnesses, the conviction of appellant cannot be recorded. There are discrepancies and contradictions in the Court statements of prosecution witnesses and police statements. Medical evidence is not corroborated the prosecution version. 10. It is also contended on behalf of appellant that the evidence of Sarjan Singh (PW-4) cannot be reliable and trustworthy because of the fact that he is not an eye-witness of the incident and is a hearsay witness. Although he had lodged FIR on the basis of information received from Hakim Singh but Hakim Singh who informed the incident on his mobile to the author of FIR- Sarjan Singh (PW-4) has not been examined by prosecution, therefore, there was a defective investigation by Investigating Officer. 11. Although he had lodged FIR on the basis of information received from Hakim Singh but Hakim Singh who informed the incident on his mobile to the author of FIR- Sarjan Singh (PW-4) has not been examined by prosecution, therefore, there was a defective investigation by Investigating Officer. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contends that when there are infirmities and lacunae in prosecution case, testimony of witnesses are not cogent and trustworthy, there are much inconsistency and discrepancies with regard to actual role attributed to the present appellant, non-examination of credible witness is fatal to the prosecution case, then the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused. To buttress her contention, she has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil and Others vs. State of UP 1995 Supp (1) SCC 363, Shingara Singh vs. State of Haryana & Another AIR 2004 SC 124 and Kanakarajan alias Kanakan vs. State of Kerala (2017) 13 SCC 597 . 12. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has rightly established the appellant guilty of aforesaid offence after evaluating oral and documentary evidence as well as medical evidence available on record. There being no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 13. Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 14. The pivotal question for consideration of instant appeal is whether murder of deceased Chander Singh was committed by appellant Jagannath or not ? 15. Daryav Bai (PW-1), wife of deceased Chander Singh, in Para-1 of her examination-in-chief deposed that on the date of incident, around 08:00-09:00 in the morning, she was in her agricultural field and her husband was monitoring the grazing of buffaloes near the field. When buffaloes came towards wheat crops, she went to chase the buffaloes away. She heard shout of her husband and saw that accused Jagannath was assaulting his husband Chander Singh by means of axe. She saw one injury on the back side of neck and another injury on the front side of neck of her husband. When she shouted loudly, Ratan Singh and her mother-in-law Kailash Bai came to the spot. On seeing them, accused fled away from spot. She saw one injury on the back side of neck and another injury on the front side of neck of her husband. When she shouted loudly, Ratan Singh and her mother-in-law Kailash Bai came to the spot. On seeing them, accused fled away from spot. Her husband Chander Singh died on the spot itself. In Para 4 of her cross-examination, this witness deposed that at the time of incident, Ratan Singh was also cutting branches of tree near her field. In Para 5 of her cross- examination, this witness deposed that Sarjan Singh is her brother-in-law (jeth) and on the date of incident, had gone to Raghogarh in the morning. Hakim Singh is her uncle-in-law and was at home on the date of incident. In Para 6 of her cross-examination, this witness deposed that her mother-in-law and Ratan Singh had seen the accused running away from scene of occurrence, accused assaulted her husband with an axe on the back of neck and another on the front of neck and her husband was grazing buffaloes in the fallow field at the time of incident. If these facts are not mentioned in her police diary statement Ex.D1, she cannot give reason for it. 16. Daryav Bai (PW-1) in Para 11 of her cross-examination denied that deceased wants to usurp the land of accused- appellant and for this reason, accused has been falsely implicated in this case. This witness in Para 10 of her cross-examination although admitted that Mangilal and Samander belong to Gurjar community in her Village while Munshi alias Vikram is brother of appellant accused, but in Para 12 of her cross-examination denied that due to compromise with Mangilal and Samander Singh, with intention of usurping the land of appellant- accused, a false case has been filed against him. 17. Corroborating the Court statement of Daryav Bai, the mother of deceased- Kailash Bai (PW-2) in her statement deposed that around 08:00-09:00 in the morning when she was sowing the coriander seeds in the field, her son deceased was grazing buffaloes and her daughter-in-law Daryav Bai was installing pipes for irrigation in the field. Her daughter went to chase away the buffaloes. When her daughter-in-law screamed, she went towards her and saw that accused Jagannath was running away with an axe in his hand. Her daughter went to chase away the buffaloes. When her daughter-in-law screamed, she went towards her and saw that accused Jagannath was running away with an axe in his hand. When she went to her son, she saw that her son was lying dead ad she found axe blows on the back side of neck and on the front side of neck near the ear. After sometime, on hearing screams, many people of village came to the spot. This witness also deposed that his son deceased used to talk to the daughter of the accused Jagannath and due to this, the accused has committed murder of his son. 18. Ratan Singh Gurjar (PW-3) in Para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that on the date of incident, around 08:00-09:00 in the morning, he had gone to cut branches of tree near the field of Daryav Bai. He went to the place where Daryav Bai was screaming and saw that the deceased was found cut and was lying on the field. Injuries on the front side of neck and on the back of his neck near the right ear were found. He saw accused Jagannath running away from there with an axe in his hand. Thereafter, many people came to the spot. 19. Sarjan Singh (PW-4) in his examination- in- chief Para-1 deposed that deceased is his brother. On the date of incident, he was coming to Raghogarh from his home in the morning due to a meeting in Raghogarh. On the way, he received a call from his uncle Hakim Singh that somebody has cut his brother Chander Singh in Kola Ki Bedri. He think that Jagannath, Mangilal, Samander Singh and Vikram Singh have cut his brother. Then, he went to Police Chowki Ukawad, PS Jamner and lodged report against five persons vide Ex.P1. Then, he along with police came to the village and saw that people of village were present at the scene of incident. In Para 2, this witness deposed that on being asked, Daryav Bai, wife of the deceased told him that she was laying pipes in the wheat field and at the same time, her buffaloes had entered the wheat field, so she went to chase the buffaloes away, but on hearing shout of the deceased, she reached and saw that accused- Jagannath was cutting deceased Chander Singh with axe. Police recorded his statement and he narrated the entire incident. Sarjan Singh further in his statement deposed that deceased Chander Singh used to talk to the daughter of accused- appellant Jagannath on phone and face to face on which, accused had told him that his brother deceased talks to his daughter and that is why, he will kill his brother-deceased one day. Due to this enmity, accused- appellant killed his brother-deceased. This fact has been got corroborated by mother of deceased Kailash Bai (PW-2) in Para-2 of her examination-in-chief and also came to the light in the statements taken by prosecution witnesses during investigation that the deceased used to talk to the daughter of accused- appellant due to which, accused was angry and he committed murder of the deceased on 24-01-2013 by assaulting him with an axe and the motive of accused-appellant to kill the deceased was found well-proved by prosecution. 20. Uttam Singh (PW-9) who was posted as ASI on 24-01-2013 at Police Outpost Ukawad, PS Jamner, in his evidence, deposed that complainant- Sarjan Singh had lodged FIR Ex.P1 that his brother- deceased Chander Singh was murdered with axe by accused Jagannath, Mangilal, Samandar Singh, Munshilal at Kola Ki Bedri Village Haripura on the basis of which, Crime No.06 of 2013 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered at Police Outpost Ukawad. This witness further deposed that on the basis of information given by Sarjan Singh, he recorded merg No.01 of 2013 regarding death of deceased Chander Singh. He had gone to the scene of occurrence and prepared spot map vide Ex.P4 and thereafter, he had prepared safina form of the witnesses vide Ex.P2 for preparing inquest report of deceased and sent the dead body of deceased to Madhusudangarh Hospital for postmortem. 21. Dr.Mukesh Sharma (PW7) who was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre Madhusudangarh, District Guna on 24-01-2013 conducted postmortem of the deceased and found the following external injuries on the person of deceased:- (1) A cut mark on the neck was present in the shape of a convex lens measuring 4x3x6 cm. (2) A wound was present on the right occipital region of head whose size was 6x 3x4 cm. At the same place, the bone of head was cut and turned inside and the brain of the deceased was visible due to the said injury. (2) A wound was present on the right occipital region of head whose size was 6x 3x4 cm. At the same place, the bone of head was cut and turned inside and the brain of the deceased was visible due to the said injury. (3) A cut wound was present near the left ear whose size was 4.5x 2x3 cm. 22. Dr. Sharma also found the following internal injuries on the person of deceased:- (1) Both Right and left occiptal bones of head of deceased were broken and were sunken inside. There was epidural bleeding. (2) Both chambers of heart of deceased were empty. Throat and windpipe were cut. All other organs of deceased were normal. 23. As per the opinion of doctor, the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and respiratory failure due to excessive bleeding. The deceased died due to injuries found on his body. Deceased died within 12 hours of postmortem examination. Report is Ex.P10. Dr. Sharma, further in Para 4 deposed that the injuries found on the body of the deceased, could have been caused by axe. Query report is Ex.P11. 24. So far as the contention of appellant that there are contradictions and omissions in prosecution witnesses is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahaveer Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195 has held as under:- ''29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 ; Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525 ; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 186 ; Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 ; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 ; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796 ). 25. So far as the contention of appellant that relatives of deceased, namely, wife of deceased Daryav Bai (PW1) & mother of deceased - Kailash Bai (PW-2) are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be believed is concerned, it is well-settled principle of law that a witness, who is a relative of deceased or victim or a crime cannot be characterized as ''interested witness''. Close relationship of witness or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Shamim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 10 SCC 509 has held as under:- ''9. In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of the wife, husband, son or daughter or the deceased, is given great weight- age on the principle that there is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real culprit.'' 27. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rizan vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661 has held as under:- '' 6. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.'' 7. In Dalip Singh and Ors. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.'' 7. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364 it has been laid down as under:- "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culorit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only mads to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts. 8. The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974] 3 SCC 698 in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614 was also relied upon. 9. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case supra in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose. J. it was observed: "25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. Speaking through Vivian Bose. J. it was observed: "25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of even men hangs on their testimony, we know of such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1957) SC 54 at p.59). We find, however, that the unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel." 10. Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P..AIR (1965) SC 202 this Court observed; 202-210 para 14; "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses.......The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautions in dealing with such evidence: put the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 11. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lebna v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 76. 28. In the present case, Daryav Bai (PW-1), Kailash Bai (PW-2) and Ratan Singh Gurjar (PW-3) substantially unrebutted in their cross-examination, so their evidence could not be discarded merely because they are relative witnesses. 29. So far as contention of appellant that Hakim Singh, who informed the incident to Sarjan Singh (PW-4) has not been examined by prosecution and there was a defective investigation by Investigating Officer is concerned, it is settled principle of law that mere lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused. If that is the basis, then every criminal case will depend upon the will and design of Investigating Officer. If that is the basis, then every criminal case will depend upon the will and design of Investigating Officer. Courts have to independently deal with the case and should arrive at a just conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, basing on evidence on record. 30. Regarding faulty/defective investigation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 , has explained the law as under:- “There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well-settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.” (Emphasis underlined) 31. Regarding faulty investigation in murder case, the Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and Others vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920 has held that Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. However, accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation. To do so would tantamount to playing into hands of Investigating Officer if investigation is designedly defective. 32. It is well-settled principle of law that it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point, it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence. To do so would tantamount to playing into hands of Investigating Officer if investigation is designedly defective. 32. It is well-settled principle of law that it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point, it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence. (See Sawan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 369 and Yanob sheikh vs. State of WB (2013) 6 SCC 428 ] and Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 13 SCC 271 ) and Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 ) 33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of HP vs. Gian Chand, AIR 2001 SC 2075 has held that it is the duty of the Court to first assess the trustworthiness of the evidence available on record and if the Court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied on and deserves acceptance, then non- examination of any other witnesses available who could also have been examined but were not examined, does not affect the case of prosecution. 34. Similarly, in the case of Dahari Vs. State of UP, AIR 2013 SC 308 while discussing non-examination of the material witness, the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed the view that when he was not the only competent witness who would have been fully capable of explaining the factual- situation correctly and the prosecution case stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the testimony of other reliable witnesses, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution. 35. In the present case at hand, on perusal of record, it appears that the wife of deceased Daryav Bai (PW-1) at the time of incident was present in the wheat field where the deceased was grazing buffaloes, mother of deceased Kailash Bai (PW- 2) was sowing coriander in the field near the place of incident and witness Ratan Singh Gurjar (PW-3) was also cutting branches of tree near the incident. All these witnesses have been examined by prosecution as eye-witnesses and although their statements were recorded on the next date of incident, but in their Court statements they deposed in the same line that appellant was running from scene of occurrence with axe. Therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded merely for non-examination of independent witness Hakim Singh by prosecution, who is also not eye-witness. 36. Therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded merely for non-examination of independent witness Hakim Singh by prosecution, who is also not eye-witness. 36. It is true that Sarjan Singh (PW-4) had lodged FIR against four named persons and one unknown person regarding murder of deceased Chander Singh, but Sarjan Singh was not an eyewitness of incident, he had lodged FIR after getting information on his mobile from Hakim Singh. (37) The FIR (Ex.P1) lodged by complainant- Sarjan Singh (PW-4) is as under:- ^^Qfj ltZu flag us gejkg gkfde flag xqtZj vkSj gjKku flag fu0 eSuk iqjk ,oa lwjt flag xqtZj] iIih xqtZj fu0 mdkon ds mifLFkr pkSdh vkdj ekSf[kd fjiksVZ dh fd vkt djhc lkMs ukS cts lqcg dh ckr gS esjs eksckbZy ua0 9827753304 ij gkfde flag eks0ua0 8103456390 ls crk;k fd rsjs HkkbZ pUnj flag dk dksyk dh fcnjh esa ekj Mkyk gS pUnj dks ekjrs gq, nj;ko ckbZ us ns[kk fd ekaxh yky us nok j[kk Fkk leUnj flag o txUukFk gfjtu ,oa eqU'kh mQZ fodze rhuksa dqYgkMh ls ekj jgs Fks ,d O;fDr dh igpku ughaA ekjus okys ikap O;fDr FksA jru xqtZj us ?kVuk ns[kh gSA tc jru ,oa nj;ko ckbZ fpYyk, rc xkao ds yksx vk, rks vkjksih ogka ls Hkkx x,A fQj ge pkSdh ij fjiksVZ djus vk,A** (38) The eye-witnesses of the incident are deceased's wife Daryav Bai, mother Kailash Bai and other witness Ratan Singh, who in their Court statements, have specifically deposed that only appellant- accused Jagannath had killed deceased by assaulting him with axe and have not said anything about any other accused mentioned in FIR. Even though Sarajn Singh has lodged FIR against four named persons and one unknown person, but evidence of aforesaid three witnesses have completely proved the fact that appellant-accused Jagannath is the only person, who killed deceased Chander Singh by assaulting him with an axe. (39) So far as the argument of appellant that evidence of aforesaid witnesses cannot be believable on the ground that their statements were recorded on the second day of the incident is concerned, Daryav Bai (PW-1) wife of deceased is the star witness, who in her Court statement, has specifically deposed that she saw only the appellant accused Jagannath cutting her husband with axe due to which, her husband suffered injuries on back and front of neck and died and her evidence remains intact in her cross-examination. Supporting the evidence of Daryan Bai, mother of deceased Kailash Bai (PW-2) and Ratan Singh (PW-3), who in their Court statements, have specifically deposed that appellant-accused Jagannath was running from spot with an axe. 40. So far as contention of appellant that there is a contradiction between medical and ocular evidence of the witnesses and clear lapses in investigation by which, the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 476, has observed as under:- ''10. So far as the question of inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved. (See State of U.P. v. Hari, (2009) 13 SCC 542 ; and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 ]. (41) Dr. Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) has proved from postmortem report Ex.P10 that deceased Chander Singh died due to serious injuries caused by a sharp weapon on his neck, head and near the left ear. Since, there was no such challenge by the defence in cross-examination of Dr. Mukesh Sharma (PW7) therefore, the evidence of Dr. Sharma could not contradict the evidence of eye- witnesses. In the considered opinion of this Court, the medical evidence is also supported the evidence of eye-witnesses. (42) Therefore, the prosecution has rightly established the appellant guilty of alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt that he is the only accused, who knowingly as well as intentionally had killed deceased Chander Singh on the alleged date of incident by assaulting him with axe. (43) In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court did not err in convicting and sentencing the present appellant. (43) In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court did not err in convicting and sentencing the present appellant. Hence, the appeal filed by appellant is devoid of any merits. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant Jagannath is hereby dismissed . The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-12-2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.152 of 2013 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is hereby affirmed . Appellant is reported to be in jail. He be intimated with result of this appeal through the concerned Jail Superintendent. (44) A copy of this judgment along with record of trial Court be sent back immediately.