P.W.4, however, states that after she intervened and received the injury, hearing her hullah, P.W.1 and his wife came when accused persons fled away and the criticism comes that as the prosecution has not proved that P.W.4 had sustained any injury, the evidence of P.W.4 as to her presence in seeing the incident is doubtful. Interestingly, although this witness (P.W.4) says to have received one blow on her left leg, the defence has not elicited anything to show that there was any visible injury on account of that. It is also the evidence of the wife of the deceased (P.W.2) that when she was sleeping in her house, P.W.1 came and informed that this accused with two others had assaulted her husband (Kartika) and he being directed, had gone to call her and her children. All have unequivocally stated to have seen this accused and two others running away from the spot holding lethal weapons and that has not been shaken in any manner nor any such material has surfaced to doubt the same. The evidence of P.W.4 standing corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on all material aspects of the case and the discrepancies as pointed out, in our view, are too minor to push their evidence into thick cloud of doubt. Furthermore, the P.W.4 has specifically stated that then this accused was holding taniga; accused Gaya, one bhujali whereas accused Daya one Katari. Evidence of P.W.4 also find full corroboration from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.6), who had conducted post mortem examination over the
