between the two families. She further stated that she was slept at the time of occurrence but woke up when her husband shouted as “Marigali Marigali” and she immediately chased the appellant, who fled away from the spot. Nothing worth has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 is getting corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 Chaitu Munda who stated that while he was sleeping in his house on a cot in the night of Janmashtami, the appellant forcibly came inside opening the door of the room and dealt successive blows by an axe on the right hand, head, legs and he was shifted to the hospital by his employer. He further stated that he remained in the hospital for seven days. In the cross-examination, he stated that the appellant gave four to five blows to him by means of the weapon of offence. On a scanning of evidence of those two witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.3, I find that they have corroborated each other in all material particulars and the discrepancies, if any, are very minor in nature. It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety.
