D.N. Patel, J.

1. The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to this appellant by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2010 whereby, this appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 thereof and punished for life imprisonment for causing murder of Mahesh Kant Jha.

2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against this appellant-accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say at this stage looking to the depositions given by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 there is prima facie case against this appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses. They have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant in causing head injury upon the deceased which is the cause of death as per the medical evidence. Looking to the medical evidence given by P.W.6-Dr. Pradeep Kr. Sinha, injury no.2 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. This injury is prima facie, tallying with the nature of weapon used by this appellant-accused in causing head injury upon the deceased as narrated by P.W.1 and P.W.2.

3. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant about contradictions in depositions of P.W.1 and PW.2 because one is not showing the presence of another. This contention is of no help to this appellant mainly for the reasons that:

(a) discrepancy in evidence is different from contradiction.

(b) it ought to be kept in mind that contradictions cannot be verified vis-a-vis depositions given by the two eye witnesses or two prosecution witnesses.

(c) “contradiction” has its own meaning, as given under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. more particularly explanation thereof.

(d) contradiction has to be seen from the statement given by the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to be read with the deposition given by the very same witness. Contradiction has to be proved by the Investigating Officer.

(e) if the two witnesses are giving different type of depositions, it is not a contradiction at all. It is a discrepancy in the evidence.

(f) the two witnesses are giving two different versions with slight variation that is so because the deposition in the court is given after few months and sometimes after few years. The deposition in the court depends upon:

(i) capacity of observation;

(ii) capacity of memory; and

(iii) capacity of reproduction of what witness has observed and what he has memorized.

(g) if the two witnesses are giving different depositions of any occurrence with slight deviation that reflects the truth and not the falsehood because of their different capacities of observation, memory and reproduction.

(h) slight variation in the deposition of two witnesses is not a contradiction at all and the trustworthiness of these witnesses is to be judged by the cross-examination of these witnesses.

(i) it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and Another reported in (2000)1 SCC 247 especially in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 as under :

“7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution’s case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrotlike statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascert