Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the prosecution's case if the evidence is corroborative and credible, and leniency may be granted if the defendant is terminally ill.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 24/11 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months.

2. Heard Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jateswar Naik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3. The prosecution story as per the FIR is that on 12.09.1994 at about 8.30 A.M. at Sahupada of village Bangomunda the present accused appellant assaulted the elder brother and mother of the informant with tabli causing bleeding injuries on their person.

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Bangomuda P.S. Case No.37 dated 12.09.1994 was registered and investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed. Since the accused took a stance of denial, hence he was put to trial after the charges were framed under Section 307 IPC .

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as ten witnesses. Out of which, P.W.1 was the informant, P.Ws.2 and 3 were the injured victim, P.Ws.4 and 5 were the co-villagers and eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 was a witness to the leading to discovery. P.Ws.7 and 8 were the witness to the seizure of blood stained clothes. P.W.9 was the doctor, who examined the injured persons and P.W.10 was the Investigating Officer, who investigated the present case.

6. The learned trial Court analysed the evidence on record in detail and found the sole appellant guilty of offence under section 307 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months.

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has taken me to the evidence of the injured witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3 and juxtaposed with the evidence of the eye witnesses, particularly the informant (P.W.1) and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9), who examined both the injured P.Ws.2 and 3. He has pointed out the inherent contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence. He has also taken me to the impugned judgment, whereby the defence plea raised by the accused through the defence witness has not been appreciated well by the learned trial court.

9. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment, where the trial court has given right attention to defence plea, which is reflecting in paragraphs-11, 12 and 13 of the judgment, which reads thus:-

11) Learned defence counsel opened his armoury releasing the first arrow at the prosecution submitting that the discrepancy in the evidence as to who was assaulted after whom is enough to cloud down the prosecution case. On the assault the evidence of P.Ws..1, 2, 3 and 5 is consistent. Only evidence of P.W.4-in self contradictory on the point when in his further cross-examination after about one year and four months of his previous cross-examination he has breathed that P.W.3 was first assaulted and thereafter P.W.2, May be the time gap has resulted in such self contradictory evidence and for that it is taken not that serious to wash away the entire credibility of P.W.4. The second arrow was on non-cutting of the saree of P.W.3 due to assaul