Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not negate the credibility of their core testimony when corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is conjointly preferred by eleven appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 29.07.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 54/12 of 1993 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 645 of 1992) convicting them for offence under Section323/341/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one month on each count.

2. The prosecution report in the present case narrates that the accused persons and P.Ws 1 to 5, P.W.8 and P.W.9 are co-villagers. A week before to 17.06.1992, Nityananda Parida (P.W.1) had reported to the police about theft of coconuts by the accused persons. A police constable (Udaya Charan Jena-P.W.10) and a Grama Rakhi (Brundaban Samal-P.W.9) were deputed on 17.06.1992 to direct the accused persons to come to Ghanteswar Police Out Post in connection with the allegation of theft. Being aggrieved by the action taken by P.W.1, the accused persons held a meeting in the Thakurani Mandap of the village and they took a decision to take revenge. Sasadhara Patra (P.W.2) came to the house of P.W.1 and informed the family members about the decision taken in the meeting. P.W.1, out of fear, left his house and hide himself in the house of Kasinath Sahu, his sister's husband (not examined). Sometime thereafter, Jagabandhu Parida (P.W.3-son of P.W.1) met P.W.1 and told him that the accused persons surrounded the house, assaulted parents of P.W.1 and carried Kanchan to the village burrial ground. He further stated that Kuna Das and Laxmidhar Patra had caused death of Kanchan by throttling her and that Bhaskar Patra (P.W.5), and Saraswati Patra (P.W.8) had been assaulted. On receipt of the information from P.W.3, P.W.1 came to village burrial ground, where he found his wife-Kanchan was lying dead. P.W.1 came to Ghanteswar Police Out Post and submitted a written report-Ext-1 before P.W.12, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police attached to Ghanteswar Police Out Post.

3. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to trial after the charges were framed.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited as many as sixteen documents. P.W.1 is the informant, whereas P.W.2 was a witness who informed regarding the motive of the accused persons to commit the offence and regarding the decision taken in the meeting prior to the occurrence. P.W.3, is the son of the informant and an eye-witness to the assault. P.W.4 is the father of P.W.1 (informant), who stated to have received injuries on his person being assaulted by the accused persons. P.W.5 is a co- villager and father of P.W.2. P.W.6 was the doctor of Tihidi P.H.C., who examined the injured persons. P.W.9 was a Gramarakhi, whereas P.W.10 was a constable. P.W.12 was the A.S.I. of Police of Ghanteswar Police Out Post who took preliminary investigation of the case, whereas P.W.11 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Bansada Police Station who took charge of investigation from the A.S.I. and submitted charge sheet after completion of investigation.

5. The learned trial court after analysing the entire evidence on record individually accorded the finding regarding the guilty of the accused persons and passed a very detailed and extensive judgment. Paragraph-14 of the judgment will give a clear idea as to how the learned trial court has individually appreciated the evidence vis-à-vis each accused persons to the following effect:-

“14. The next question comes for consideration whet