Per contra , Mr. Agarwala appearing for the State submitted that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia to contain every fact in details. Names of all the three Appellants are there in the F.I.R. It is in the evidence of the scribe, namely, P.W.3 that he failed to mention on the written complaint that he had read over and explained the content of the written complaint to the de-facto complainant. Although there are minor discrepancies in evidences, such discrepancies do not go to the root of the case to make the whole corpus of evidence contradictory, according to Mr. Agarwala. He admitted that there were latches on the part of the Investigating Officer as he neither seized blood strained earth nor the blood strained apparels of PWs 1 and 5. But, absence of such seizure by itself cannot negate the probative value and reliability of testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.5. Eyewitnesses, namely, PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 stated the incidence vividly without inconsistency. PW 11 Md. Alam was examined after examination of the Investigating Officer. But the Investigating Officer was recalled and once again examined thereafter, to clarify.
