WAMAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                      [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1072


A                       WAMAN & ORS.
                                v.
                  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
               (Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2009)
                         JUNE 29, 2011
B
           [P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860:

c      ss. 3021149, 4471149, 147 and 148 - Conviction under
  - Long standing land and water dispute between parties -
  Comment passed by A 1 on two victims resulting in quarrel
  between the parties - A2 to A 13 armed with weapons rushed
  to the place of incident and assaulted the victims - Victims
  later succumbed to their injuries - Incident witnessed by PW
0
   1 to 4 (family members of victims) - Accused arrested and
  weapons recovered at their instance - Conviction of A 1 to A6
  and A 16 ulss. 3021149, 4471149, 147 and 148 by courts below
  - Acquittal of the remaining accused - On appeal, held:
E Prosecution has established long standing land and water
  dispute among the deceased and the accused - Evidence
  of eye-witnesses PWs. 1-4 (family members of victims) are
  acceptable - Contradictions are trivial in nature and not
  related to the major overt act attributed to each accused -
   Medical evidence corroborate the assertion of prosecution
F witnesses- Though no weapon was recovered from A-12, the
   evidence of PWs. 1-4, weapons seized from various accused, ·
  incised wounds on different body parts coupled with medical
   evidence clearly implicate A-12 also in the commission of
  murder- It is not the case of solitary blow but number of blows
G by various accused thus, the intention and knowledge to
   cause death has been amply demonstrated and proved -
   Thus, there is no error or infirmity or valid legal ground for
  interference in the order passed by the courts below -
   Evidence - Witnesses.
H                              1072
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      1073


     s. 149 - Nature of - When attracted - Held: In order to          A
attract s. 149 it must be shown that the incriminating act was
done to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly
- It must be within the knowledge of the other members as
one likely to be committed in 'prosecution of common object
- If members of the assembly knew or were aware of the                B
likelihood of a particular offence being committed in
prosecution of a common object, they would be liable for the
same u/s. 149 - Criminal law - Common object.

      Witnesses - Related witnesses - Credibility of - Held:
Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness   C
- If the evidence of a witness is found to be consistent and
true, the fact of he being a relative cannot discredit his
evidence - Courts have to scrutinize the evidence of a related
witness meticulously and carefully.
                                                                      D
     Criminal trial - Non-explanation of injuries sustained by
deceased or injury on accused - Effect of, on prosecution
case - Held: Ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to
explain each minor injury on an accused even though caused
in the course of occurrence, however, if the prosecution fails        E
to explain a grievous injury on one of the accused persons,
established to have been caused in the course of the same
occurrence then the prosecution case is looked at with a little
suspicion - If the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy
then non-explanation of certain injuries sustained by the             F
deceased or injury on the accused ipso facto cannot be the
basis to discard the entire prosecution case.

     According to the prosecution, there was a long
standing land and water dispute between the parties. On
the fateful day, 'AB', 'SB' and their family members (PW1,            G
PW2 and PW3) were working in the fields and A1 was
also present nearby. A1 passed a comment on 'SB' and
'AB' which resulted in a quarrel between them.
Thereafter, A2 to A13 armed with weapons rushed to the
                                                                      H
    1074    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 6 S.C.R.
                                                            .
A place of incident and assaulted 'SB and 'AB', and as a
  result 'SB' and 'AB' succumbed to their injuries. The
  accused persons were arrested and various weapons
  were recovered at their instance. The trial court acquitted
  A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-11 of the various offences punishable
B under the Penal Code. A-1 to A-6 and A-12 were convicted
  for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 447/
  149, 147 and 148 IPC and sentenced accordingly.
  However, A1 to AG and A12 were acquitted of the offences
  punishable under Section 323/149 IPC. The trial of A-13,
c juvenile offender was forwarded to the juvenile court. A-
  8 died after framing of charge and trial against her got
  abated. A~grieved, A-1 to A-6 and A-12 filed an appeal.
  The High Court dismissed the same. Therefore, the
  appellants filed the instant appeal.
D       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1. The prosecution has established long
  standing land and water dispute among the deceased
  and the accused, the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs.1-
E 4 are acceptable, contradictions are trivial in nature and
  medical evidence corroborate the assertion of
  prosecution witnesses. All those materials were correctly
  analysed and accepted by the trial court and upheld by
  the High Court. On perusal of all the said materials, the
F conclusion are accepted. In those circumstances,
  interference by this Court under Article 136 is not
  warranted. There is no error or infirmity or valid legal
  ground for interference in the order passed by the courts
  below. (Para 30) (1095-D-F]
G      2.1 Merely because the witnesses are related to the
  complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be
  thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and
  true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit
  their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a
H factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                1075

have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little   A
care. [Para 12) [1085-C-D]

     2.2 PW-1, wife of 'AB' and mother of 'SB'; PW-2, wife
of 'SB' and daughter-in-law of PW-1; PW-3, daughter-in-
law of 'AB' and PW-1; and PW-4, sister-in-law of PW-3
narrated how the incident took place. There is some            8
variance in the testimony while describing particular
weapon held by the persons and injuries on the body of
the deceased. The testimony of these witnesses is
convincing and trustworthy about the incident and there
is no reason to disbelieve their statements. [Paras 13, 14,    C
15, 16 and 17) [1085-E; 1086-C, G; 1087-B-E-F]

    Sarwan Singh and Ors. VS. State of Punjab (1976) 4 sec
369; Balraje alias Trimbak vs. State of Maharashtra (2010)
6 SCC 673: 2010 (6) SCR 764; Prahalad Patel vs. State of       D
Madhya Pradesh (2011) 4 SCC 262; lsrar vs. State of U.P.
(2005) 9 SCC 616: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 695; S. Sudershan
Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 163; State of UP. vs.
Naresh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324 - referred to.

     3. The evidence of all the witnesses-PWs-1 to 4 is        E
corroborated by medical evidence. On the analysis of the
statements of PWs 1 to 4 and the assertion of PW-7,
doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of
deceased 'AB' and 'SB' as well as his explanation as to
the nature of injuries with reference to the weapons used      F
by the accused, it is held that the prosecution has
established its charge that both the deceased died due
to the injuries sustained in the incident. [Paras 18 and 21)
[1087-G; 1090-D-E]
                                                               G
     4.1 The statements of the prosecution witnesses are
verified and considered with reference to the objection
raised as regards the contradictions in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses. The contradictions are minor
in nature and not related to the major overt act attributed    H
    1076   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A to each accused. These persons made statements to the
  police immediately after the occurrence, and their
  evidence was recorded before the court nearly after 1
  year. Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses all are
  hailing from agricultural family and are villagers. The
8 minute details as stated in their earlier statements cannot
  be expected before the court. [Para 22) [1090-F-H; 1091-,
  A-E]

       4.2 It is clear that not all contradictions have to be
  thrown out from consideration but only those which go
C to the root of the matter are to be avoided or ignored. In
  the instant case, merely on the basis of minor
  contradictions about the use and nature of weapons,
  injuries, their statements cannot be ignored in toto. On
  the other hand, the conclusion of the trial court as upheld
D by the High Court about the acceptability of those
  witnesses, is concurred with. [Para 25) [1092-E-F]

      Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpa/ Singh and Ors. (1990) 1
  SCC 445: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR .292; Sohrab s/o Beli
E Nayata and Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 3
   SCC 751: 1973 (1) SCR 472 - referred to.

        5.1 Ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to
  explain each injury on an accused even though the
  injuries might have been caused in the course of
F occurrence, if the injuries are minor in nature, however,
  if the prosecution fails to explain a grievous injury on one
  of the accused persons which is established to have
  been caused in the course of the same occurrence then
  certainly the court looks at the prosecution case with a
G little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has
  suppressed the true version of the incident. However, if
  the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy then non-
  explanation of certain injuries sustained by the deceased
  or injury on the accused ipso facto cannot be the basis
H to discard the entire prosecution case. The statements
  WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA               1077


relating to evidence pertaining to injuries caused by the    A
accused persons cannot be accepted. [Para 26] [1092-G-
H; 1093-A-E]

    5.2 The disclosure of the weapons by the accused
persons were not duly proved as panchas turned hostile.      B
The trial court and the High Court rightly discussed that
the accused persons are cultivators and generally they
carry with them axes, farshas, sticks, spears etc. In such
circumstances, the entire evidence is to be considered
together. [Para 27] [1093-E-F]
                                                             c
      6.1 It is true that no weapon was recovered from A-
12 but prosecution witnesses implicated him for causing
fatal injuries along with the other accused persons. The
prosecution witnesses have asserted that A-12 gave blow
of iron pipe on 'AB'. The said iron pipe was recovered D
from the house of 'M' which also proved that A-12 had
participated in the offence with such weapon and
therefore, he was rightly punished along with other
accused Nos. 1-6 under Section 148 for committing
offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons. E
Furthermore, considering the evidence of PWs. 1-4,
weapons seized from various accused, incised wounds
on different body parts coupled with medical evidence
clearly implicate A-12 also in the commission of murder.
It is not the case of solitary blow but number of blows by F
various accused thus, the intention and knowledge to
cause death has been amply demonstrated and proved.
A12 was also charged under Section 149 as a member
of unlawful assembly with the requisite common object
and knowledge. Inasmuch as the prosecution evidence G
insofar as women accused are not cogent, their acquittal
cannot be applied to A12 who was in the company of A-
1 to A-6. Apart from conviction under Section 302, A12
was convicted under Section 149. [Paras 28 and 29)
[1094-A-E]
                                                             H
    1078   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A      6.2 Section 149 creates a specific offence and deals
  with punishment of the offence. Only thing whenever the
  court convicts any person or persons of any offence with
  the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the
  common object of the assembly must be given and the
B evidence disclosed must show not only the nature of the
  common object but also that the object was unlawful. In
  order to attract Section 149 it must be shown that the
  incriminating act was done to accomplish the common
  object of unlawful assembly. It must be within the
c knowledge of the other members as one likely to be
  committed in prosecution of common object. If members
  of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of
  a particular offence being committed in prosecution of a
  common object, they would be liable for the same under
  Section 149. [Para 29] [1094-D-H]
0
                      Case Law Reference:
        (1976) 4 sec 369        Referred to.         Para 8
        2010 (6 ) SCR 764       Referred to.         Para 9
E
        (2011) 4 sec 262        Referred to.         Para 10
        2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 695 Referred to.         Para 10
        (2006) 1o sec 163       Referred to.         Para 10
F       (2011) 4 sec 324        Referred to.         Para 11
        1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 292 Referred to.         Para 23
       1973 (1) SCR 472         Referred to.         Para 24
G       CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 364 of 2009.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 15.3.2007 of the High
  Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal
H Appeal No. 521 of 2002.
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                     1079


     J.P. Dhanda, Amrendra Kumar Singh for the Appellants.           A

     Dushyant Parashar, Asha G. Nair for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final     B
judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2002 whereby
the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein
and confirmed the order dated 22.08.2002 passed by the               c
Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya convicting the accused
persons under various Sections of Indian Penal Code
 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

     2. Brief facts:
                                                                     D
       (a) On 29.10.2000 at about 12:30 p.m., Kamalabai
  Atmaram Bohare (PW-1), Kusmanbai Suresh Bohare (PW-2)
  and Pushpabai Ramesh Bohare (PW-3) were working in their
  fields situated at village Shivantola. At that time, Atmaram
  Bohare and Suresh Bohare (deceased persons) were also              E
  present there. Gowardhan (A-1) was also standing on the road
  side. Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare after putting paddy
  at the threshing machine were coming back to their home.
  When they reached near the D.P. of electricity situated in the
  land of Kamalabai, Gowardhan (A-1) passed a comment on             F
  them and a quarrel between the parties took place. Immediately
. after starting of quarrel, A-2 to A-13 rushed there with weapons
  and started assaulting Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare.

     (b) Gowardhan (A-1) was having Farsha and he gave a
 blow of it on the leg of Suresh Bohare. Mahadeo( A-2) who           G
 possessed sword gave a blow of it on the leg of Suresh
 Bohare. Abhiman (A-3), who was having an axe in his hand
 gave a blow on the back of Suresh Bohare. Kalpanabai (A-11 ),
 gave a blow of spade on the head of Suresh Bohare.
 Pramilabai (A-10) who was having stick also beat Suresh with        H
    1080    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A it. At the same time, Manoj (A-5) and Waman (A-4) who were
  having axe in their hands, gave blows on the head of Atmaram.
  During this, Jaipal (A-6) and Kantabai (A-8) gave an axe blow
  and stick blow respectively to Atmaram. Shantabai (A-7) and
  Parvatabai (A-9) gave scissors blow on the mouth of Atmaram.
8 Due to this sudden attack by the accused persons, Suresh
  Bohare and Atmaram Bohare sustained serious injuries and
  they fell down on the ground. On hearing the commotion, PWs
  1-3 and one Sakhubai Rakhade (PW-4) rushed towards the
  place of incident. The accused persons fled away. Suresh and
c Atmaram were brought to home and were taken to Amagaon
  Hospital from where they were immediately shifted to KTS
  Hospital at Gondiya. The doctor on duty declared Suresh
  brought dead and after sometime Atmaram also died in the
  hospital. On the oral complaint of Kamlabai (PW-1), a case with
D FIR No. 183/2000 was registered on 29.10.2000 against 13
  accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 323
  r/w 149 and 447 r/w 149 of IPC.

       (c) During the course of investigation, the accused persons
  were arrested and various weapons were recovered at their
E instance. After completion of investigation, they were charge
  sheeted.
       (d) After examining the witnesses, the Additional Sessions
  Judge, Gondiya vide his order dated 22.08.2002, acquitted A-
F 7, A-9, A-10 and A-11 of the offences punishable under
  Sections 302, 447 and 323 r/w 149 of the IPC and Sections
   147 and 148 of IPC and convicted A-1 to A-6 and A-12 for the
  offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC and ·
  awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default
G to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Each of them
  were also convicted for the offences punishable under Section
  447 r/w 149 of IPC and ware directed to suffer rigorous
  imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each
  in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. A-1 to A-
  6 and A-12 were also convicted under Sections 147 and 148
H
    WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                     1081
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  of IPC but acquitted of the offences punishable under Section       A
· 323r/w149 of IPC. A-13 being a juvenile offender, her trial was
  forwarded.to the juvenile court. A-8 died after framing of charge
  and trial against her got abated.

      (e) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2002 of the trial        B
 Court, A-1 to A-6 and A-12 preferred an appeal before the
 Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The
 Division Bench, by impugned judgment and order dated
 15.03.2007, dismissed the appeal of the appellants aod
 affirmed the order dated 22.08.2002 passed the Additional            C
 Sessions Judge, Gondiya.

      (f) Aggrieved by the said decision, A-4 to A-6 and A-12
 only filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before
 this Court.
                                                                      D
      3. Heard Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel for the
 appellants and Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned counsel for the
 State.

      4. Submissions by the counsel:
                                                                      E
      (a) After taking us through the entire prosecution case,
 defence of the accused and the materials placed, learned
 counsel for the appellants submitted that inasmuch as all the
 prosecution witnesses, particularly, eye-witnesses PWs. 1-4,
 who are female members of the family of the complainant and          F
 close relatives, the evidence of these related witnesses cannot
 be relied upon. He also submitted that the courts below
 committed an error in convicting the appellants mainly on the
 ground that the weapons of offence were recovered on their
 disclosure statements. He further pointed out that with the same     G
 allegations and similar circumstances, the women accused
 persons were acquitted by the trial Court and it is not justified
 in convicting the male accused based on the very same
 evidence. He also pointed out that in view of contradictions
 among the eye-witnesses, namely, PWs. 1-4, conviction based          H
     1082    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A on their evidence cannot be sustained. Finally he submitted that
  insofar as Dilip (A-12) is concerned, in the absence of recovery
  of any weapon from him which is also the finding of the trial
  Court convicting him for the offence under Section 302 along
  with other accused cannot be sustained.
B
         (b) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
   submitted that there is no bar in accepting the evidence of
   related witnesses. He pointed out that because of their
   relationship, courts have analysed their evidence carefully and
C meticulously and ultimately accepted their version. According
   to him, there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs. 1-4,
   as alleged even otherwise, minor contradictions in their
   statement would not affect the ultimate conviction arrived at by
  the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. He further pointed
  out that recovery of weapons and the medical evidence show
D that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
  doubt. Lastly, he submitted that inasmuch as two persons were
  murdered in the incident and after analyzing the entire materials
  the trial Court ultimately convicted the accused persons which
  was affirmed by the High Court, interference by this Court
E exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted and
  it is not a fit case to interfere by this Court.

        5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
    perused all the relevant materials.

F Discussion:

       6. The incident took place on 29.10.2000. The complainant
  and others were working in the field. At that time, Atmaram
  Bohare and Suresh Bohare (the deceased persons) were also
G in the field at the place of incident. At about 12:30 p.m.,
  Govardhan (A-1) was standing on the road side and the
  deceased persons were going home. They had a long standing
  land and water dispute. On hearing something from A-1 all the
  other accused rushed there and started abusing and beating
H the two victims. According to the prosecution, all the accused
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                       1083
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

persons were armed with various weapons and they gave blows            A
on the victims. Due to this incident, both Atmaram Bohare and
Suresh Bohare sustained serious injuries and they fell down on
the ground. According to the prosecution, the incident was
witnessed by Kamlabai Bohare PW-1, Kusmanbai Bohare PW-
2, Pushpabai Bohare PW-3 and Sakhubai Rakhade PW-4.                    B
PW-1 is wife of Atmaram Bohare (since deceased), PW-2 is
wife of Suresh Bohare (since deceased), PW-3 is daughter-
in-law of Atmaram Bohare, PW-4 though claimed as an
independent witness, is sister-in-law of Pushpabai Bohare
(PW-3). It is the case of the prosecution that all the above           c
mentioned 4 persons (PWs 1-4) witnessed the occurrence of
the incident. It is true that all 4 are related to the family of the
deceased. Now, let us consider their evidence and acceptability
which was relied on by the trial Court and affirmed by. the High
Court.
                                                                       D
Evidence of relatives· of complainanUdeceased:

     7. In view of the stand of the counsel for the appellants that
since PWs 1-4, eye-witnesses are closely related to the
deceased and complainant, conviction can not be based on               E
such evidence, let us state the law on the admissibility/
acceptability or otherwise of their evidence as considered by
this Court.

      8. In Sarwan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1976)
4 SCC 369, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while                    F
considering the evidence of interested witness held that it is
not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should
be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver
so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The
evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any             G
infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence,
not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should
be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made
and the court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested
witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon         H
    1084     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A even without corroboration. The fact of being a relative cannot
  by itself discredit the evidence. In the said case, the witness
  relied on by the prosecution was the brother of the wife of the
  deceased and was living with the deceased for quite a few
  years. This Court held that "but that by itself is not a ground to
B discredit the testimony of this witness, if it is otherwise found
  to be consistent and true".

        9. In Balraje alias Trimbak vs. State of Maharashtra,
  (2010) 6 SCC 673, this Court held that the mere fact that the
  witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground
C to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eye-
  witnesses .are stated to be interested and inimically disposed
  towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be
  proper to c~nclude that they would shield the real culprit and
  rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence
D has to be weighed pragmatically and the court would be
  required to analyze the evidence cA related witnesses and those
  witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused.
  After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and
  scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses
E appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason
  to discard the same.

       10. The same principles have been reiterated in Prahalad
  Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 262. In para
F 15, this Court held that "though PWs 2 and 7 are brothers of
  the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of
  a witness. In a series of decisions this Court has accepted the
  above principle (vide lsrar VS. State of UP., (2005) 9 sec 616
  and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC
G 163)
        11. The above principles have been once again reiterated
  in in State of U.P. vs. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324. Here
  again, this Court has emphasized that relationship cannot be
  a factor to affect the credibility of an witness. The following
H statement of law on this point is relevant:
    WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                       1085
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     "29 ..... The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded            A
     solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of
     the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence
     remains without any substance in case the evidence has
     credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the
     defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication         B
     is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of
     related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent
     and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab
     (2009) 9 SCC 719, Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,
     (2009) 10 SCC 477; and Ba/raje @ Trimbak (supra))"                 c
      12. It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related
 to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be
 thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true,
 the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their
 evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect   D
 the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinize their
 evidence meticulously with a little care.

 Evidence of PWs 1-4:
                                                                E
        13. Kamalabai (PW-1 ), wife of Atmaram and mother of
  Suresh has narrated how the incident took place one year back
  after Diwali. According to her, at about 9.00 a.m., she along
  with Kusumanbai, PW-2 and Pushpabai, PW-3 had gone to her
  field. At about 12.00 noon Atmaram and Suresh kept the 'Ohan' F
  on threshing machine and they were coming back to their
  house for meal. At that time, Goverdhan A 1 was standing on
  the road side and he told 'Dhavare' 'Aalera'. Goverdhan was
  holding Farsha and he gave its blow on the leg of Suresh.
  Mahadeo was holding sword, he gave its blow on the leg of G
  Suresh. Abhiman gave an axe blow on the back of Suresh.
  Kalpana gave stick blow on the back of Suresh. Manoj gave
  axe blow on the head of Atmaram. Waman also gave axe blow
. on the head o·f Atmaram. Dilip gave blow of iron pipe to
  Atmaram. Jaipal gave axe blow to Atmaram. Kantabai beat
  Atmaram by stick. Shantabai and Parvatabai gave blow of H
    1086     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A scissors on the mouth of Atmaram. She deposed that this
  incident took place in her field near D.P. of M.S.E.B. The place
  of occurrence was shown by her to the police. Even in the cross-
  examination, she reiterated the same. Though certain
  discrepancies were pointed out in her statement under Section
B 161 Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the Court, on going
  through the same, we are satisfied that she witnessed the
  occurrence and telling the truth.

         14. Kusmanbai (PW-2), wife of Suresh Bohare and
C   daughter-in-law of PW-1 reiterated what PW-1 deposed before
    the Court. She stated in her deposition that she noticed that
    Goverdhan beat Suresh with Farsha. Mahadeo gave a blow of
    sword to Suresh. Abhiman gave a blow of axe on the leg of
    Suresh. Kalpana gave a blow of the spade on the back of
    Suresh. Pramila and Mangala gave stick blows to Suresh.
D   Waman also gave a blow of axe to Atmaram. Manoj gave an
    axe blow on the head of Atmarc.m. Dilip also gave a blow of
    pipe on the head of Atmaram. Jaipal gave an axe blow on the
    leg of Atmaram. Parvatabai gave a blow of scissors on the
    mouth of Atmaram. She asserted that she saw this incident from
E   30-40 feet and at that time she was cutting the crop in the field
    in which her house was situated. She also stated that Atmaram
    and Suresh were conscious till they were brought to their house.
    Here again, certain omissions in the statement recorded under
    Section 161 Cr.P.C. were pointed out. As stated to the
F   evidence of PW-1, there is no material difference in the
    evidence of PW-2 merely because there is some omission in
    the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her evidence
    before the Court, there is no need to reject her testimony as
    claimed by the appellants.
G
      15. Pushpa Bohare (PW-3), daughter-in-law of Atmaram
  and PW-1 also deposed in the same line as that of PWs 1 and
  2. She also implicated the appellants and the role played by
  them as explained by PWs 1 and 2. She also specified various
H weapons used in the commission of offence and implicated all
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                    1087
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

the appellants including A 12 who used iron pipe (Art.47). She     A
asserted that she did inform the police that Dilip (A-12) gave
a blow of iron pipe to Atmaram.

     16. Sakhubai (PW-4), is sister-in-law of Pushpabai (PW-
3). She also narrated that the incident had occurred around 12
                                                                   B
noon. At that time, she was going towards her field. She heard
a shout from the side of Goverment well as 'Dhawa Dhawa'.
She noticed that fighting was going on in the field of Atmaram.
She saw accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 12 were beating Suresh.
Farsha and axes were used for the attack. Manoj (A-5) gave         C
an axe blow to Atmaram. She also reiterated that all these
persons beat Atmaram. She also affirmed that PW-1, wife of
Atmaram and PWs 2 & 3, daughters-in-law of PW-1 were also
present at the scene of occurrence. She asserted that she did
inform the police that Manoj(A-5) beat Atmaram by axe. She
also informed the police that Pramilabai was possessing spade      D
and Manoj was possessing sword. Merely because these
statements were not noted by the police, her deposition can
not be rejected.

     17. It is true that there is some variance in the testimony   E~
while describing particular weapon held by the persons and
injuries on the body of the deceased. However, as rightly
analyzed by the trial Court and accepted by the High Court, the
testimony of these witnesses is convincing and trustworthy
about the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve their      F
statements as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants.

     18. Medical Evidence

     It is important to note that the evidence of all these
witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 4 is corroborated by medical evidence.     G
We have already noted that in the said incident, both Atmaram
Bohare and Suresh Bohare died. Dr. Satish Humane, PW-7,
Medical Officer, KTS Hospital, Gondiya conducted autopsy on
the body of Suresh Bohare. He noted the following injuries on
the body of Suresh Bohare in Ext.67                                H
    1088          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A          "(i)     Deep incised wound - U/3rd (L) lateral side
                    of thigh 4 W' X 1" X MS. Deep (1/2")

           (ii)     Deep incised wound M/3rd (L) Leg.
                    4" X 1" X MS. Deep (1/2")
B          (iii)    Deep incised wound L/3rd (L)
                    Lateral side of leg. 5" X 1 W' X MS
                    Bone vs. deep i.e. Abs. with fracture
                    BB L/3rd (L) Leg.

c          (iv)     lnprint contusion (R) scapular region 3" X1".

           (v)      lnprint contusion (R) intra scapular region 2" X 1"

           (vi)     Abro-contusion (R) memory region Yz" X Yz"

D          (vii) Abro contusion U/3rd (L) F.A. 1" X Yz"

           (viii) Abrasion - (L) Elbow Jt. 1" X Yz"

        19. Dr. Satish Humane noted the following injuries on the
    body of Atmaram Bohare in Ext. 68
E
           "(i)     Incised wound - (R)
                    Frontal region of Head 2 Yz" X %" X bone deep.

           (ii)     Incised wound - (1)
                    Frontal region of Head
F                   2" X %" X bone deep.

           (iii)    Incised wound (L) parietal
                    region of Head 2" X %" X scalp deep.

G          (iv)     Incised wound 1/3rd (R)
                    thigh 4" X Yz" X MS Deep

           (v)      Incised wound U3rd (L) thigh
                    4 Yz" X Yz" X MS Deep

H
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                       1089
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      (vi)    Incised wound M/3 (R)                                     A
              Leg 2" X W' X MS Deep

      (vii)   Incised wound - upper
              lip 2" X %" X MS Deep

      (viii) Incised wound - (L)                                        B
             Eyebrow 1 %" X %" X MS Deep

      (ix)    Contusion - (R) Parotid
              region 2 %" X 2".

      (x)     Abrasions (8) Elbow Jt.
                                                                        c
              1 %" X 1" each.

      (xi)    Fracture ® frontal & (L)
              frontal region of Head."
                                                                        D
     20. About the nature of injuries sustained by Suresh
Bohare, Dr. Satish Humane (PW-7) has opined that he died
due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries.
His Post Mortem report is marked as Ext.67. Insofar as injuries
of Atmaram, PW-7 has deposed that there was fracture of right           E
frontal and left frontal region of the head. There were blood clots
under right and left frontal region and left parietal region of head.
There was a fracture of right and left frontal region and left
pareito temporal reg.ion of skull, intra cranial haemorrhage
present in brain, heart was empty, both lungs and other organs          F
were intact and pale. There was no food material in the
stomach. Injury Nos. 1 to 8 may be caused by hard and sharp
object and 9 & 10 may be caused by hard and blunt object. In
his opinion, the said injuries were caused within 18-30 hours
before Post Mortem examination and according to him,                    G
Atmaram Bohare died due to haemorrhage and shock as a
result of head injury. His Post Mortem report has been marked
as Ext. 68. He also explained to the Court that injury on the
head of Atmaram Bohare was fatal and sufficient to cause
instantaneous death. He further explained that injury Nos. 1, 2
                                                                        H
    1090    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A and 3 coupled with fracture on leg on the person of Suresh
  Bohare were sufficient to cause instantaneous death. Though
  an argument was advanced from the side of the appellants that
  the deceased Suresh Bohare had sustained injuries only on
  thighs and legs which are not fatal parts of the body, Dr. Satish
B Humane (PW-7) has explained before the Court during his
  cross-examination that there was cutting of major vessels and
  those injuries were life fatalling. He further deposed that after
  cutting of major blood vessels, the person may die within 15 to
  30 minutes. He also reiterated and asserted that injury Nos. 1,
c 2 and 3 on person of Suresh Bohare are collectively sufficient
  to cause death.

       21. The analysis of the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and the
  assertion of Dr. Satish Humane, PW-7 who conducted the
  autopsy on the body of deceased Atmaram Bohare and Suresh
D Bohare as well as his explanation as to the nature of injuries
  with reference to the weapons used by the accused, we hold
  that the prosecution has established its charge that both the
  deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the incident. We
  accept the prosecution case and agree with the conclusion
E arrived at by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.

   Contradictions in the evidence of PWs

       22. Let us consider the argument of the appellants as to
F contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
  According to the counsel for the appellants, the prosecution
  witnesses were not consistent with the statements as to the
  weapons used by the accused persons. He also pointed out
  that after the statements were recorded under Section 161
  Cr.P.C. before the police, they improved their version before
G the court. On these grounds, the counsel for the appellants
  submitted that no reliance need be giv~n to those witnesses
  and courts below have committed an error in considering this
  aspect. We have already adverted to the statements of PWs.,
  particularly, eye-witnesses PWs. 1-4 as to the narration of the
H
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                    1091
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

incident, overt act of each of the accused persons, weapons         A
handled, injuries sustained by both the deceased Suresh
Bohare and Atmaram Bohare as well as medical evidence by
Dr. Satish Humane (PW-7) and post-mortem reports marked
as Exs. 67 and 68. In fact, the very same objection was raised
before the trial Court and the High Court and while considering     s
the said objection both the courts analysed their evidence in
detail. We also verified and considered their statements with
reference to the objection raised by the counsel for the
appellants. First of all, the contradictions are minor in nature
and not related to the major overt act attributed to each           c
accused. It is relevant to point out that these persons made
statements to the police immediately after the occurrence, i.e.,
on 29.10.2000 and their evidence was recorded before the
court in the month of December 2001 nearly after 1 year. Even
otherwise, the prosecution witnesses all are hailing from           D
agricultural family and are villagers, we cannot expect minute
details as stated in their earlier statements and before the
court. In this regard, it is useful to refer various decisions
rendered by this Court as to the minor contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of        E
the same.

    23. In Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpa/ Singh & Ors. (1990)
1 SCC 445, this Court has held that despite minor
contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the
prosecution case therein has not shaken and ultimately              F
accepting their statement set aside the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court and restored the sentence imposed
upon them by the trial Court.

       24. In Sohrab s/o Befi Nayata and Anr. vs. The State of G
  Madhya Pradesh (1972) 3 SCC 751 about minor
  contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, Their
. Lordships have held in paragraph 8 as under:

     " ..... It appears to us that merely because there have been
     discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some       H
    1092     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A        or all of the witnesses does not mean that the entire
         evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is only
         after exercising caution and care and sifting the evidence
         to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration,
         embellishments and improvement, the Court comes to the
B        conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the
         appellants it will convict them. This Court has held that
         falseus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the
         reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose
         evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate
c        exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most
         cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to
         give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear
         that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the
         main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to
         say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case
D
         after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered though where
         the substratum of the prosecution case or material part of
         the evidence is disbelievable it will not be permissible for
         the Court to reconstruct a story of .!s own out of the rest. ... ."

E      25. It is clear that not all contradictions have to be thrown
  out from consideration but only those which go to the route of
  the matter are to be avoided or ignored. In the case on hand,
  as observed earlier, merely on the basis of minor contradictions
  about the use and nature of weapons, injuries, their statements
F cannot be ignored in toto. On the other hand, we agree with
  the conclusion of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court
  about the acceptability of those witnesses, accordingly, we
  reject the claim of the appellants as to the same.

G        26. Ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to explain
    each injury on an accused even though the injuries might have
    been caused in the course of occurrence, if the injuries are
    minor in nature, however·; if the prosecution fails to explain a
    grievous injury on one of the accused persons which is
    established to have been caused in the course of the same
H
       WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                          1093
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    occurrence then certainly the court looks at the prosecution case         A
    with a little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has
    suppressed the true version of the incident. However, if the
    evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy then non-explanation
1
    of certain injuries sustained by the deceased or injury on the
    accused ipso facto cannot be the basis to discard the entire              B
    prosecution case. In the earlier part of our order, we have
    adverted to the statement of Dr. Satish Humane who was
    examined as PW-7. He highlighted ante-mortem injuries
    suffered by Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare. From his
    evidence, it is clear that there was fracture of right and left frontal   c
    region of the head of Atmaram Bohare. There were blood clots
    under right and left frontal region and left parietal region of the
    head. There was a fracture of right anct left frontal region and
    left temporal region of skull. In the case of Suresh though it was
    argued that inasmuch as he sustained injuries on thighs and
                                                                              0
    legs which are not vital parts of the body, the post-mortem
    doctor (PW-7) has explained before the court that there was
    cutting of the major vessels and expressed that those injuries
    were fatal to life. He further explained that after cutting of the
    major blood vessels a person may die within 15 to 30 minutes.             E
    In view of the same, we are unable to accept the statements
    relating to evidence pertaining to injuries caused by the accused
    persons.

         27. It is true that the disclosure of the weapons by the
    accused persons were not duly proved as panchas turned                    F
    hostile. As rightly discussed by the trial Court and the High
    Court that the accused persons are cultivators and generally
    they carry with them axes, farshas, sticks, spears etc. In such
    circumstances if we consider the entire evidence together, the
    defence plea is liable to be rejected.                                    F
    Special reference to Dilip, A-12

         28. Learned counsel for the appellants finally submitted that
    in the absence of recovery of any weapon from Dilip A-12 and
                                                                              H
    1094     SUPREME COURT R!=PORTS                [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A evidence relating to him is similar to female accused who were
  all acquitted, in fairness the courts could have acquitted A-12
  also. On going through the materials placed, we are unable to
  accept the said contention. It is true that no weapon was
  recovered from A-12 but prosecution witnesses implicated him
B for causing fatal injuries along with the other accused persons.
  Considering the evidence of PWs. 1-4, weapons seized from
  various accused, incised wounds on different body parts
  coupled with medical evidence clearly implicate A-12 also in
  the commission of murder. It is not the case of solitary blow but
c number of blows by various accused hence the intention and
  knowledge to cause death has been amply demonstrated and
  proved.

         29. Even otherwise, A-12 was also charged under Section
    149 IPC as a member of unlawful assembly with the requisite
D   common object and knowledge. Inasmuch as the prosecution
    evidence insofar as women accused are not cogent, their
    acquittal cannot be applied to A-12 who was in the company
    of A-1 to A-6. As mentioned above, •1 part from conviction under
    Section 302 Dilip A-12 was convicted under Section 149.
E   Section 149 creates a specific offence and deals with
    punishment of the offence. Only thing whenever the court
    convicts any person or persons of any offence with the aid of
    Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of
    the assembly must be given and the evidence disclosed must
F   show not only the nature of the common object but also that the
    object was unlawful. In order to attract Section 149 it must be
    shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the
    common object of unlawful assembly. It must be within the
    knowledge of the other members as one likely to be committed
G   in prosecution of common object. If members of the assembly
    knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence
    being committed in prosecution of a common object, they would
    be liable for the same under Section 149. The trial Judge on
    thorough analysis held that the prosecution has made out a
H   case against the accused-appellants not only under Section
   WAMAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      1095
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

302 read with Section 149, the prosecution has very well              A
established offences punishable under Section 147, 148 and
the accused A-1 to A-6 including A-12 used force and violence
being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common
object of causing death of Suresh Bohare and Atmaram
Bohare. The deadly weapons in their hands were axes, farshas,         B
sticks, iron pipe etc. Though there is no recovery of weapon
from Dilip A-12 but weapons have been recovered from other
accused and prosecution witnesses have asserted that Dilip
A-12 gave blow of iron pipe on Atmaram. The said iron pipe
was recovered from the house of Mahadeo which also proved             c
that A-12 had participated in the offence with such weapon ahd
therefore he was rightly punished along with other accused Nos.
1-6 under Section 148 for committing offence of rioting armed
with deadly weapons.

        30. We are satisfied that the prosecution has established     D
  long standing land and water dispute among the deceased and
 the accused, the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs.1-4 are
  acceptable, contradictions are trivial in nature and medical
· evidence corroborate the assertion of prosecution witnesses.
  All those materials were correctly analysed and accepted by         E
  the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. On perusal of all
  the above said materials, we agree with the said conclusion.
  In those circumstances, interference by this Court under Article
  136 is not warranted. We do not find any error or infirmity or
  valid legal ground for interference in the order passed by the      F
  courts below, consequently, t~e appeal fails and the same is
  dismissed.

N.J.                                          Appeal dismissed.