sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was further deposed that death of the child in the womb of the mother was caused due to the death of the mother. He has further deposed that Injury No.1 was possible by the string (Article-B) seized by Police and the said string was identified by PW2 and PW6. 20. The appellant has drawn the attention of this court to some minor discrepancies in the evidence some of the prosecution witnesses. This Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar v State of Haryana8 has held that undue importance should not be given to minor omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution. 21. This Court in the case of Manoj Suryavanshi v State of Chhattisgarh9 has held there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of different witnesses, when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. It is further observed that corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not 8 9 (2013) 14 SCC 434 (2020) 4 SCC 451 16