84 “24….Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.” In Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat 68, it was ruled that “The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded”. In a similar vein, it was observed, in Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana69 that “Only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that it would be justified in jettisoning his evidence.” 159. The omission of some of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses, therefore, does not ipso facto favour an accused. What is important, however, is whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous. In the present case, the omission to depose about certain facts, by PW-4, or PW-19, or any other witness cannot inure to the accused’s benefit. Each of the facts they omitted, was supported by one or more witnesses. Likewise, the failure to examine certain persons, like Anil Soni, Prakash Ichke, Abhay Tiwari, or Nandakumar, cannot inure to the accused’s benefit. Anil Soni was present during the TIP of seized articles, when other similar articles brought by him, for comparison and identification by PW-1. The latter witness was able to identify the articles which had been seized from the accused; this was deposed to by PW-12, whose testimony cannot be doubted. The failure to examine Anil Soni therefore, was a lapse, but not a fatal one, as far as the TIP itself went. Likewise, the failure to examine Prakash Ichke is of no consequence, because the recoveries made on 68 1988 Supp (1) SCC 241 69 (2015) 3 SCC 138