JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–State under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 12.07.2001 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 92/2001, whereby the accused–respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 31.10.1999, complainant Narendra Kumar Vaid (PW-10) submitted a Verbal report at Police Station Bhinder, stating that his brother, Vishnu Kumar, had gone on a bicycle to wash his hands and mouth, and when he did not return, the complainant proceeded towards Mina Darwaja to search for him. From there, along with Prakash (PW-05), when he reached at Aam Road, Ber Talai Wali Magari, ahead of Bikhaliyon Ka Khera, he saw his brother Vishnu coming towards the field of Narendra Vaid. The accused–respondent, Narendra Vaid, was following him with a knife in his hand and inflicted two knife blows on the backside of Vishnu, causing him to fall down. When Vishnu attempted to get up and run, the accused again inflicted a knife blow on his abdomen, resulting in profuse bleeding. Upon hearing their cries and seeing them approach, the accused–respondent fled from the place of occurrence. Vishnu succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It was further stated that the wife of the accused, Smt. Pyari Bai (PW-06), was present in a nearby field, and the motive behind the murder was suspicion regarding an illicit relationship between the deceased and Smt. Pyari Bai. 3. On the basis of the above verbal report, a formal FIR No. 140/1999 (Exhibit P.16) was registered at Police Station Bhinder, Udaipur against the accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned ACJM, Kanod, District Udaipur, from where the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Udaipur, and, thereafter, transferred to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court’). 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302 and 341 IPC to the accused-respondent, who denied the same and claimed trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302 and 341 IPC to the accused-respondent, who denied the same and claimed trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-18. 7. The statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely, that the evidence was fabricated, and that he was innocent. The accused-respondent lead two defence witnesses, namely DW-1 Moti Lal and DW-2 Sarif Mohammad. 8. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, acquitted the accused-respondent as aforesaid vide judgment dated 12.07.2001. 9. Being aggrieved against the order of Acquittal dated 12.07.2001, the state – Appellant prefers appeal. 10. Hence the present appeal. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant–State submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality and perversity in acquitting the accused–respondent of the charges levelled against him. It was contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, unsupported by the evidence available on record, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court erred both on facts and in law in disbelieving the consistent and trustworthy prosecution case without properly appreciating the material brought on record. The impugned judgment suffers from lack of cogent reasoning and reflects non- application of judicial mind, rendering the acquittal wholly unsustainable. 12. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-10 Narendra Kumar in its correct perspective. PW-10 categorically deposed that his brother, Vishnu, was running with a bicycle in his hands and that he, along with Prakash, went in search of him. He stated that the accused– respondent, Narendra, was chasing Vishnu with a knife and inflicted two blows on his back, due to which he fell down. When Vishnu attempted to get up and run, the accused-respondent turned and inflicted another knife blow on his abdomen. PW-10 further stated that Smt. Pyari Bai, wife of the accused, was present at the spot during the incident. 13. When Vishnu attempted to get up and run, the accused-respondent turned and inflicted another knife blow on his abdomen. PW-10 further stated that Smt. Pyari Bai, wife of the accused, was present at the spot during the incident. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimony of PW-10 stood fully corroborated by the statement of PW-6 Smt. Pyari Bai, who, though the wife of the accused-respondent is an eyewitness to the incident, but PW-6 specifically stated that her husband inflicted two knife blows on the back of Vishnu Kumar and, thereafter, inflicted a knife blow on his abdomen. She further deposed that after the complainant Narendra and Prakash reached at the place of occurrence, the accused-respondent fled from the scene. These testimonies of PW-10 and PW-6, being consistent, natural, and trustworthy, were sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the accused–respondent, but the learned Trial Court discarded their evidence without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reason. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW-4 Bharat Kumar supported and corroborated the recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused–respondent Narendra. The recovery memo (Exhibit P-10) was prepared at the place of recovery and stood duly proved through the Investigating Officer, Gowardhan Singh. Thus, there was no justification for the learned Trial Court to disbelieve the prosecution story, particularly when the weapon of offence was recovered from the possession and at the instance of the accused–respondent. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased, as reflected in the injury report and the post-mortem report, fully corroborated the ocular testimony of PW-6 Smt. Pyari Bai. In the medical evidence, it is clearly recorded that two stab wounds were found on the back and one stab wound was found on the abdomen of the deceased, which precisely matched the sequence of assault narrated by PW-6. This complete chain of medical evidence and the testimony of eye-witnesses strengthened the credibility of the prosecution version and left no room for doubt regarding the manner in which the incident occurred. Ignoring such direct corroboration between medical and ocular evidence amounts to serious misappreciation of evidence, thereby vitiating the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 16. This complete chain of medical evidence and the testimony of eye-witnesses strengthened the credibility of the prosecution version and left no room for doubt regarding the manner in which the incident occurred. Ignoring such direct corroboration between medical and ocular evidence amounts to serious misappreciation of evidence, thereby vitiating the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 16. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the acquittal of the accused–respondent be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offences proved against him. 17. Learned counsel for the accused–respondent has opposed the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and has supported the judgment passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur. She submitted that there is no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the judgment dated 12.07.2001 whereby the learned Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused–respondent of the offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC. 18. Learned counsel for the accused–respondent submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any clear or credible motive behind the alleged commission of offence. Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of PW-6 Smt. Pyari Bai, the wife of the accused, is unreliable as she allegedly shares strained relations with the accused–respondent, and her deposition is the result of personal animosity rather than truth. She submitted that the only independent witness, Prakash, who is neither related to the complainant nor the accused-respondent, has not supported the prosecution version and has declared hostile. The remaining witnesses, according to the defense, are either related or interested witnesses, whose testimonies cannot be relied upon without strong and independent corroboration. 19. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions regarding the actual scene of occurrence as well as the recovery of the alleged weapon. She contended that the recovery of the knife is doubtful, improperly proved, and does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the medical evidence does not conclusively corroborate the cause and manner of death and the prosecution version. The findings of post-mortem report, according to her, do not support the ocular version in material particulars. 20. She further submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not strengthen the prosecution case. The bloodstains found on the clothes allegedly recovered from the accused- respondent could not be connected to him, as the blood group detected therein does not match or link to the accused– respondent. 20. She further submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not strengthen the prosecution case. The bloodstains found on the clothes allegedly recovered from the accused- respondent could not be connected to him, as the blood group detected therein does not match or link to the accused– respondent. Neither the prosecution has conduct any blood-group test of the accused-respondent nor was any fingerprint examination carried out on the alleged weapon of offence, which further weakens the prosecution story. 21. Learned counsel for the accused–respondent submitted that in view of such inconsistencies, contradictions, and lack of scientific corroboration, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused–respondent, and the judgment acquitting the accused-respondent warrants no interference. 22. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of judgments has repeatedly held that (i) the appellate court may not interfere with an order of acquittal in such circumstances except in exceptional cases, and (ii) if the learned trial court has taken a reasonable and plausible view, the appellate court may not substitute the opinion, when there are two reasonable views possible and the appellate court must adopt the view favorable to the accused. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450 , 2. Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC415, 3. Sanjay Thakran Vs. State of Goa (2007) 3 SCC 755 , 4. State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 , 5. Sambasivan Vs. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412 , 6. Tota Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529 , 7. Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450 , 8. M.G. Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 . 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and have carefully examined the record of the learned trial court. 24. As per Police Report (Ex. Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450 , 8. M.G. Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 . 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and have carefully examined the record of the learned trial court. 24. As per Police Report (Ex. P-15), the incident took place on 31.10.1999 at about 7:45 a.m. complainant Narendra Kumar (PW- 10), who is brother of the deceased, lodged the report on the same day at 10:15 a.m. immediately after the occurrence, wherein he specifically stated that besies himself, Prakash and Pyari Bai were also present at the time of the incident. He further deposed that on the fateful day, when the deceased did not return after leaving the house at about 6:00 a.m., he went in search of him along with Prakash. At about 7:30–7:45 a.m., upon reaching the main road near Boratlai Magri, he saw that the deceased (Vishnu), my brother, running with his bicycle towards the field of Narendra son of Rakhi Lal. Behind him, Narendra’s wife Pyari Bai was standing. He stated that the accused Narendra came from behind him and stabbed the deceased twice in the back, as a result of which he fell down. When deceased (Vishnu) attempted to get up and run, the accused again turned and inflicted a knife blow on his abdomen. He further stated that on raising an alarm, accused Narendra fled with the knife. When he and Prakash reached the place of occurrence, Pyaari bai also left the scene. He further deposed that he witnessed the incident from a distance of only about of 50 steps. 25. PW-6, Smt. Pyari, deposed that her in-laws’ house is at Bhindar and her husband’s agricultural field is situated at Virma ke Kheda. On the day of the incident, she left home at about 6:00 a.m. to collect dung at Magri, which is about an hour’s walk from her residence, and continued collecting dung there until about 7:30 a.m. She stated that while she was filling a basket with dung, her brother-in-law, Vishnu Kumar, passed on a bicycle and she called him to help her to lift the basket. At that moment, her husband Narendra arrived and began quarrelling with Vishnu Kumar. According to her, Vishnu Kumar had informed Narendra that he had requested to lift the basket, upon which Narendra became aggressive. At that moment, her husband Narendra arrived and began quarrelling with Vishnu Kumar. According to her, Vishnu Kumar had informed Narendra that he had requested to lift the basket, upon which Narendra became aggressive. During the altercation, Vishnu Kumar left the spot on his bicycle. Thereafter, Narendra followed him towards the village and stabbed him twice. She further stated that her husband used to suspect her of having illicit relations with Vishnu Kumar. 26. PW-11, Dr. Shokat Ali Bohra, Medical Officer, Bhinder Health Centre, in his statement stated that he has conducted the post- mortem of deceased Vishnu Kumar on 31.10.1999 and has found following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) Below the right collarbone (1.5 × 1.5 × 2.5 cm), (2) Beneath the right scapula deep up to the liver (4 × 2 cm), (3) On the back right side (3 × 2 × 2.5 cm), and (4) Below the left scapula (2.5 × 1.5 × 2 cm). 27. In his statement, he further stated that additional abrasions and peeling of skin on the left hand, elbow, and right knee were present. 4 × 2 cm internal incised cavity was found in the abdomen, with a corresponding cut on the right lobe of the liver. He opined that all injuries were caused by a sharp weapon, and Injury No. 2, which lacerated the liver, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death was excessive hemorrhage from the liver injury. He stated that incised cavities are caused only by sharp weapons; if a weapon has both sharp and blunt edges, one margin of the wound would be slanted and the other lacerated. He clarified that the sizes of the wounds were consistent with knives of widths 1.5 cm, 4 cm, 1.5 cm, and 2.5 cm respectively. 28. On a comprehensive evaluation of the ocular, medical, and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW-10 Narendra Kumar son of Uday Lal – the complainant and a natural eyewitness, has given a clear, consistent, and cogent version of the incident, stating that he saw the accused Narendra son of Rakhi Lal armed with a knife, chasing and stabbing the deceased Vishnu Kumar twice on the back and thereafter, inflicted a stab wound on the abdomen. PW-10 Narendra Kumar son of Uday Lal – the complainant and a natural eyewitness, has given a clear, consistent, and cogent version of the incident, stating that he saw the accused Narendra son of Rakhi Lal armed with a knife, chasing and stabbing the deceased Vishnu Kumar twice on the back and thereafter, inflicted a stab wound on the abdomen. His presence at the spot is natural as he was searching for his missing brother. His testimony withstands cross-examination, and the minor omissions in his FIR — such as “the precise route taken or the earlier visit to the pond” are trivial in nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. His version finds independent and substantial corroboration from the statement of PW-6 Pyari Bai, wife of the accused-respondent who, despite her strained marital relationship, has deposed with remarkable clarity and restraint that she saw the accused-respondent assaulting the deceased with a knife in the course of a quarrel. The learned Trial Court discarded her testimony on the ground of strained relations, but such finding of the learned trial court is contrary to settled law that enmity or discord is not a ground for outright rejection; rather, her candid admission of past cruelty enhances her credibility, and she materially corroborates statement of PW-10 on the essential aspects of the assault. Apart from that, in defence, respondent – Narendra Vaid had produced two witnesses. DW-01 Motilal, though not an eyewitness to the occurrence, claimed that the victim was stabbed by some other person. DW-02, Sharif Mohammed, also acknowledged that the incident took place on 31.10.1999; however, he asserted that Pyari Bai had given a false statement. With regard to the version put forth by these defence witnesses, the accused himself offered no explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer, PW-09 Govardhan Singh, during his cross-examination, categorically stated that Pyari Bai had informed him that she had witnessed the incident from her field. 29. Further, corroboration emerges from the statements of witness PW-07 Daulat Singh, who witnessed the preparation of the site panchnama and noted injuries consistent with stabbing. The medical evidence of PW-11 Dr. 29. Further, corroboration emerges from the statements of witness PW-07 Daulat Singh, who witnessed the preparation of the site panchnama and noted injuries consistent with stabbing. The medical evidence of PW-11 Dr. Shokat Ali Bohra conclusively establishes three stab wounds — two on the back and one on the abdomen — with Injury No. 2 penetrating the liver and being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature, position, and dimensions of the wounds correspond exactly with the statements of the eyewitnesses. No material contradictions have been elicited in cross-examination to discredit the statements of the eyewitnesses; the suggestions of prior enmity or alleged false implication remain unsubstantiated. The recovery of blood-stained soil, bicycle, slippers, and the conduct of the accused-respondent fleeing the scene of occurrence further fortify the prosecution version. The minor inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused–respondent pertain merely to peripheral details and do not go to the root of the matter. When the trustworthy ocular testimony is fully supported by unimpeachable medical evidence, the Court must accept such evidence as reliable. Thus, the cumulative effect of the evidence leads to only one conclusion that the accused-respondent inflicted the fatal injuries upon the body of the deceased and is guilty of committing the offence. 30. It is well-established that in cases resting on direct and reliable eyewitness testimony, proof of motive is not a sine-qua- non for securing conviction. Nevertheless, even on the aspect of motive, the prosecution has placed sufficient material on record. The evidence shows that the accused-respondent suspecting the deceased Vishnu of having illicit relations with his sister-in-law (PW-06). PW-10 has clearly stated in his later statement that such suspicion existed, and PW-06 herself admitted that there had been prior discord within the family on this account. These facts adequately demonstrate that the accused-respondent nurtured suspicion and resentment towards the deceased. Thus, the motive stood sufficiently established, and the learned Trial Court erred in adopting an unduly rigid and hyper-technical view of this aspect, which is inconsistent with the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. 31. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused- respondent stands duly proved through the testimonies of PW-4 Bharat Kumar and the Investigating Officer PW-1 Gowardhan Singh. The memorandum and recovery panchnama (Ex. P-10) have been properly established on record. 31. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused- respondent stands duly proved through the testimonies of PW-4 Bharat Kumar and the Investigating Officer PW-1 Gowardhan Singh. The memorandum and recovery panchnama (Ex. P-10) have been properly established on record. Minor discrepancies regarding the measurement or description of the knife are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. What is material is that a weapon bearing human blood stains was recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent. The skepticism expressed by the learned Trial Court in this regard is, therefore, wholly unwarranted and contrary to the plain evidence on record. 32. The learned Trial Court committed an error in holding that the absence of blood group comparison nullifies the recovery. Scientific reports are corroborative in nature and not conclusive by themselves. However, the FSL reports show that the blood group of the deceased was ‘B’ and the same was found on the clothe of accused-respondent. The presence of the same blood group on the clothe of accused-respondent completes the chain of circumstances corroborating the statement of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court has misdirected itself in treating an insignificant technical deficiency as a ground to discard the entire prosecution case. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshji Amarsingh Thokar Vs. State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Appeal No.1183/2016 held that minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot negate the prosecution story. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.8 held as under:- “There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence....” 34. Scientific reports are corroborative in nature and not conclusive by themselves. The presence of human blood on the recovered weapon and the clothes constitutes a relevant fact under the Evidence Act. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence....” 34. Scientific reports are corroborative in nature and not conclusive by themselves. The presence of human blood on the recovered weapon and the clothes constitutes a relevant fact under the Evidence Act. The failure to match the blood group or to collect the accused’s blood sample does not weaken the otherwise strong chain of circumstances, particularly when the act of killing stands proved through credible eyewitness testimony. The learned Trial Court thus misdirected itself in treating an insignificant technical deficiency as a ground to discard the entire prosecution case. 35. Upon comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-10 are wholly credible and trustworthy, and stand duly corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the recoveries effected during investigation. The alleged contradictions highlighted by the learned Trial Court are minor, natural, and inconsequential, and do not in any manner affect the core of the prosecution case. 36. It is further evident that the learned Trial Court has misread material evidence, overlooked significant facts, and adopted a conjectural and erroneous approach in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has successfully proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was the perpetrator who inflicted the fatal injuries upon the deceased. 37. In light of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court acquitting the accused-respondent from the charges levelled against him are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and wholly unsustainable. 38. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 39. Consequently, the present appeal preferred by the appellant - State is allowed and the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur, is hereby quashed and set aside. 40. Accordingly, the accused–respondent Narendra Vaid is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 41. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have heard learned counsel for accused-respondent Narendra Vaid and have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the entire material available on record. 40. Accordingly, the accused–respondent Narendra Vaid is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 41. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have heard learned counsel for accused-respondent Narendra Vaid and have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the entire material available on record. 42. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the accused– respondent – Narendra Vaid is sentenced to imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine; he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, the accused– respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. Both sentences shall run concurrently. 43. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial court be remitted forthwith. 44. . The accused-respondent is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled/forfeited. The trial court is directed to issue a warrant of arrest against the accused-respondent to secure his custody for undergoing the sentence awarded above and to proceed further in accordance with law.