Short Note : The facts leading to this appeal, as per prosecution case, are that appellant Jamsingh and deceased Bhangda were residents of village Badada. On 1-6-74, the appellant and the deceased went to the house of Premsingh P.W.10 wherefrom the appellant took deceased Bhangda to Anjad on a representation that he had to find out the whereabouts of his wife. Accordingly, both of them went to a 'Dharamshala' in Anjad where they met Kanibai P.W.11. On enquiry about a liquor shop, Kanibai accompanied by the appellant and the deceased along with her son Rupsingh went to a liquor shop where liquor was consumed. Thereafter, the appellant and the deceased sat on a pulia near Aniruddha Talkies. According to the prosecution, at that place, the appellant, who was carrying a Faliya with him, assaulted Bhangda with it thereby causing an incised wound on the neck and another incised wound on the shoulder due to which he fell down in the ‘Pulia’. In the meanwhile, the appellant ran away from that place. However, on a hue and cry being raised, P.W.14 Rambahadur Mishra, left by a motor car, caught the appellant on the road between Anjad and Borlai village and handed him over to P.W.18 Asharam, Head Constable. A telephonic message about the incident was sent to the police and, subsequently, a formal report was also lodged. The deceased was shifted to the hospital for medical assistance where he was declared dead. Held : ... .... ....Another eye-witness is Laxminarayan P.W.4, who has also corroborated the statement of P.W.5 to some extent. This witness has not specifically tried to state that he saw the appellant actually assaulting the deceased; he has stated that he saw both, the appellant and the deceased together, and deceased Bhangda falling down after having received injuries and, thereafter, the appellant running away from that place. He also tried to chase the appellant but was unsuccessful. Though this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, still there appears no reason to discard his testimony outright as he has substantially corroborated Badrilal P.W. 5. 2. The evidence of these eye-witnesses appears to be reliable. They knew the appellant and it was not difficult for them, therefore, to distinctly identify him as the assailant as, according to the prosecution and their evidence also, the incident had taken place in the evening at about 5-30 p.m. 3. 2. The evidence of these eye-witnesses appears to be reliable. They knew the appellant and it was not difficult for them, therefore, to distinctly identify him as the assailant as, according to the prosecution and their evidence also, the incident had taken place in the evening at about 5-30 p.m. 3. Another strong piece of evidence against the appellant in the recovery of Faliya which was used in the commission of the offence, on the same day at his instance. The Faliya has been found to be stained with human blood, as per the report of the chemical examiner and of the serologist, and for which no satisfactory explanation was offered by the appellant. Thus all the evidence led by the prosecution including the conduct of the appellant clearly establishes that the appellant intentionally killed Bhangda and ran away. We therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court regarding the guilt of the appellant, which is based on proper consideration and appreciation of the evidence on record, and which has also been considered by us. In our opinion, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.