Judgment: The appellant is A-1 before the trial Court. He along with another (A-2) was tried for the offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted A-2 and convicted A-1 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is as follows: The deceased Sri G.Ch.Venkataramaiah, was the Divisional Engineer, South-Central Railway and was known for his honesty and integrity. A-1 is a Mazdoor man in Vijayawada Thermal Power Station sidings at Kondapalli and at the relevant time the deceased was his Divisional Engineer. A-2 is a fruit hawker and a close friend of A-1. The office of the decrased was situated in the second floor of the Divisional Office. A-1 was seeking a transfer to Vijayawada but the deceased did not accept his request. On 7th September, 1982 at about 6.30 p.m. the deceased, P.W.1 the Head-clerk in the office of the deceased, P.W.2 a watchman in the office of the deceased and P.W.3 the electric crane operator in the Loco-shed, came to the stair case leading to the first floor after closing the collapsible gate in the second floor of the building. When they came near the staircase, they found A-1 standing on the second step of the staircase while A-2 was standing or the third step. A-1 requested the deceased to transfer him to Vijayawada and pretended to catch the legs of the deceased. The deceased asked him to come in the next day. A-1 who was in a druken state pushed back the deceased upto the office of the Assistant Engineer in the Second Floor and fell on him and stabbed him indiscriminately, with a, Barise like knifs. The knife got stuck into the left hand of the deceased. At that time A-2 was standing by the side of A-1. The accused No. 1 having inflicted the injuries ran away. P.W. 1 who witnessed the occurrence, came out and found P.W. 4 the Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, near his office which is opposite or the office of the deceased. P.W. 4 having heard the cries by then, has come out of the office. P.W. 1 went and informed P.W. 4 that the deceased was stabbed by the assailant. Immediately he rushed to the office of the deceased and found the deceased lying in pool of blood. P.W. 4 having heard the cries by then, has come out of the office. P.W. 1 went and informed P.W. 4 that the deceased was stabbed by the assailant. Immediately he rushed to the office of the deceased and found the deceased lying in pool of blood. P.W. 4 came down and went in a jeep to the Railway Hospital and brought P.W. 9 the Assistant Medical Officer P.W. 9 examined the deceased and pronounces him to be dead. P.W. 4 thereafter asked P.W. 1 about the incident and on the basis of the information given by P.W. 1 he went to the V Town Police Station and drafted the report Exhibit P-4 and handed over the same to P.W. 18 the Deputy Sub-Inspector at about 7-30 p.m. P.W. 18 registered a crime and issued the F.I.Rs. He informed the Circle Inspector P.W. 20. P.W. 20 reached V Town Police Station and received the F.I.R. Exhibit P-39, and went to the scene of occurrence, held the inquest in the presence of P.W. 13 and others. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 during the inquest. He sent the dead body for post-mortem. P.W. 14 the civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted the postmortem on 8th August, 1982. He found as many as 18 incised wounds all-over the body. On internal examination he found injuries to the underlying structures and fracturing the 5th and 6th ribs injuring the pleura, right lung, left lung and the sternum Most of the vital organs were also cut. He opined that theinjuries could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon and the deceased would have died of shock and harmorrhage as a result of injuries to the vital organs like lung, the liver and other vital organs. P.W. 20 continued the investigation and examined P.Ws.5, 6, 9, 10 and others on 9th August, 1982. He went to the office where the accused was working and seized Exhibit P.8 the Musterroll and also examined P.W. 8 Gang Mazdoor Maistry. On 12tb August, 1982, he arrested A-1 the appellant, took him to. V Town Police Station and he took his footprints on Exhibits P-26 to P-31. A-1 was produced before the Magistrate. On 14th September, 1982 on the requisition given by P.W. 2. On 12tb August, 1982, he arrested A-1 the appellant, took him to. V Town Police Station and he took his footprints on Exhibits P-26 to P-31. A-1 was produced before the Magistrate. On 14th September, 1982 on the requisition given by P.W. 2. P.W. 17 the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada held on identification parade on 20th September, 1982 and P. Ws.1 to 3 participated and P.Ws.1 and 2 identified A-1. Meanwhile A-2 was arrested and on 1st October, 1982 an identification parade was held for A-2 and all the P.Ws.1 to 3 identified A-2. 3. P.Ws. 11 the Scientific Assistant of the Mobile Forensic Science Laboratory at Vijayawada inspected the scene of occurrence along with P.W. 12 a photographer, on the day of occurrence, viz., 7th September, 1972, and got one photograph of a left foot print found in the blood at the scene of occurrence. The Photograph of the crime foot-print Exhibit P-18 along with its negative and the specimen foot prints of A-1 Exhibits P-26 to P-31 were lent to P.W. 16 the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. He compared both of them and gave his opinion Exhibit P-33 stating that the test foot-prints tally with the crime foot-print. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid on 16th November, 1982. 4. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Out of them P.Ws. 1 to 3 figure as eye-witnesses. They were however treated hostile. P.W. 5 was examined to show that he saw A-1 running away. But he was also treated hostile. The other are all official witnesses. 5. When examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant filed his written statement and some newspaper cuttings and he is innocement and that he was arrested on 9th September, 1982 itself and was kept in police custody and he was also shown to the witnesses. He also pleaded that he was known to P.W. 1 previously. 6. The learned trial Judge held that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses and that for some reasons best known to them they are trying to accommodate the accused and yet their evidence can be relied upon; and accordingly convicted the appellant. So far as A-2 is concerned, he gave him the benefit of doubt. 7. 6. The learned trial Judge held that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses and that for some reasons best known to them they are trying to accommodate the accused and yet their evidence can be relied upon; and accordingly convicted the appellant. So far as A-2 is concerned, he gave him the benefit of doubt. 7. Sri T.Bali Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the evidence of the P.W.3 is of no use to the prosecution and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who, to some extent, have supported the prosecution also cannot be acted upon, inasmuch as they were treated hostile and also since it does not receive any corroboration from any other reliable evidence. It is also submitted that the identification by P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the parade cannot be given any weight as there are many irregularities in conducting the identification parade. It is further submitted that the descriptive particulars of the assailant given by the witnesses in the earlier stage are different and that they have given varying versions at a later stage and therefore it is highly unsafe to give any weight to the evidence of these witnesses. It is also submitted that the prosecution version that the accused was arrested on 12th September, 1982 is falsa and that in fact he was arrested on 9th September, 1982 and was in the police custody and must have been shown to the witnesses before the identification parade was held. 8. This is a case where a very senior and responsible officer has been unfortunately done to death. It is established that he was stabbed indiscriminately with a sharpedged weapon in the premises of his office on the day of occurrence at about 6-30 p.m. and the same is not in dispute. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 as eye-witnesses. But all of them are treated hostile, P.W. 1 in his chief examination deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 6-30 p.m. he was in the company of the deceased along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and all of them were coming out of the chamber of the deceased and they crossed the collapsible gate and went to the stair-case in order to get down from the secondfloor. When the deceased just entered the stair-case and was stepping the first step, he found two persons standing. When the deceased just entered the stair-case and was stepping the first step, he found two persons standing. One of them was making representations to the deceased regarding his transfer and the deceased told him that the office hours are over and asked him to come the next day. P.W. 1 also asked the stranger to come the next day But that man stretched his hand at the deceased obstructing him fro a stepping down and asked him to see that the transfer be done on that day itself. P.W.1 also found that man rushing upwards. The witness further deposed that he can identify the stranger who obstructed the deceased and accordingly identified A-1 as the person. Having so deposed to that extent, P.W. 1 prevaricated from his previous version and stated that he felt that the situation was unusual and therefore he got down the staircase and on getting down he heard a noise from the top of the second floor and having come down the office building he went to the Security Officer by name Baig and told him and he rang up to the police. The witness proceeded to state that in the identification parade he identified A-1 as the person who made the representation to the deceased on the day of occurrence at the stair-case. At that stage the Public Prosecutor sought permission and treated the witness hostile, and he was cross-examined with reference to his earlier statement before the police. In the earlier statement he had also stated that he witnessed A-1 stabbing the deceased. But in his present deposition though he was gives tut all the details, viz., that A-1 made a representation and also obstructed the deceased, the witness for some reason or other refrained from saying that he also witnessed the occurrence and on the other hand deposed that when A-1 was going aggressively towards the deceased, he went down the stair-case and that he also heard the cries. One other aspect on which he prevaricated is, in his present deposition in chief examination he stated that he went and informed Mr. Basig, whereas in his previous statement he stated that he went and informed P.W. 4 the Security Officer. These are the two aspect on which he prevaricated and the witness was treated hostile. One other aspect on which he prevaricated is, in his present deposition in chief examination he stated that he went and informed Mr. Basig, whereas in his previous statement he stated that he went and informed P.W. 4 the Security Officer. These are the two aspect on which he prevaricated and the witness was treated hostile. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor P.W. 1 denied having stated before the police that he witnessed the assailant falling on the deceased and stabbing him. He also denied having stated before the Police that he gave all the details of the occurrence to P.W. 4. He admitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 were in his company. He has been cross-examined by the accused at length and he gave same accommodating answers stating that A-1 was arrested on 9th September, 1982,itself and that his son also is working in the office where A-1 was working. He however denied the suggestion that be was threatened by the Police to figure as eye-witness. As already noted P.W. 1 is no other that the head-clerk in the office of the deceased. 9. P.W. 2 is a watchman in the office of the deceased. He also deposed that on the day occurrence at about 6-30 p.m. the deceased, himself, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 were coming down from the office and approached the collapsible gate and they were near the stair-case A-1 came opposite to the deceased and asked him to transfer him from Rayanapadu to Vijayawada. P.W. 2 also deposed that he found A-1 in a fully intoxicated state and that the deceased asked him to come on the next day, but A-1 did not hear and insisted for positive reply from the deceased. He also saw A-2 standing on the steps. One other important aspect spoken to by P.W. 2 is that hesaw the deceased retreating. While so A-1 took out a Barise like knife from his waist and demanded the deceased to give a positive reply. At that time being afraid and with a view to appraise others P.W. 2 wentto the ground-floor and P.W. 1 also came down. P.W. 2 admitted that they heard the cries and again they went upand found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. P.W. 2 further deposed that in the identification parade he identified A-1 as the culprit. At that time being afraid and with a view to appraise others P.W. 2 wentto the ground-floor and P.W. 1 also came down. P.W. 2 admitted that they heard the cries and again they went upand found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. P.W. 2 further deposed that in the identification parade he identified A-1 as the culprit. This witness, in our view, was unnecessarily treated hostile, just because in his earlier statement he has also added that he witnessed the actual assault of this witness which we extracted itself is enough to slow that A-1 was the assailant. However, permission was granted and P.W. 2 also was treated hostile. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor P.W. 2 denied having statedbefore the Police that he actually witnessed the occurrence. The witness however identified M.O.1 as the knife which was in the hands of A-1 at the time he was demanding a positive reply from the deceased. In the cross-examination P.W. 2 however asserted that he witnessed P.W. 1 telling about the incident to P.W. 4. P.W. 2 also denied the suggestion that A-1 was shown to him by the police on 9th September, 1982. It can be seen that P.W. 2 has supported the prosecution almost on every aspect. However, he was treated hostile only on the ground that in the earlier statement he also added that he witnessed A-1 stabbing the deceased. The evidence of this witness which is extracted above, if believed, goes to show that it was only A-1 that must have stabbed the deceased. P.W. 3 also deposed that the deceased P.Ws. 1 and 2, and himself were coming down the stair-case when that person caught hold of the foot of the deceased seeking a transfer and that person also was in an intoxicated state. P.W. 3 also stated that all of them asked him to come the next day. Just at the time he went down. He did not however identify A-1, but limply added that the assailant looked like A-1. Though P.W. 3 has not identified A-1 as the assailant in the Court, yet regarding other particulars, viz., that the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 and himself were coming down and that on the stair-case the deceased was accosted by the assailant, his evidence is in conformity with the evidence of P.W. No. 1 and 2. Though P.W. 3 has not identified A-1 as the assailant in the Court, yet regarding other particulars, viz., that the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 and himself were coming down and that on the stair-case the deceased was accosted by the assailant, his evidence is in conformity with the evidence of P.W. No. 1 and 2. The witness was treated hostile. 10. It is vehemently contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were treated hostile cannot be relied upon. According to She learned Counsel the prosecution does not want to place any reliance of their present depositions on the ground that they gave a different version thereby implying that that version alone is acceptable. Regarding the evidenciary value of the witnesses who were treated hostile, it is well-settled that the more fact that a witness is dealt with under section 154, of the Evidence Act and was cross-examined, does not necessarily warrant that such an evidence is wholly unreliable. Section 154, Evidence Act lays down that the Court may, in its discretion permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put incross-examination by the adverse party. Nowhere in the Evidence Act the word “hostile witness” has occurred. The terms “hostile witness”, “advorse witness”, etc., are all terms of English Law In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) 2 S.C.R. 11 : 1976 Crl.L.J. 295: (1976) 1 S.C.C. 727 : (1976) S.C.C. (Crl.) 160: A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 294 it is observed that “a hostile witness can be discarded as one who is not desirious of telling the truth at the instance of the party calling him”. It is also further observed that the granting of permission to cross-examine an unfavourable witness by the party who called him, is within the discreation of the Court. Their Lordships after having referred to the several authorities, observed thus: “From the above conspects, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. Their Lordships after having referred to the several authorities, observed thus: “From the above conspects, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider, in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after regarding and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness i.e., is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.” In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) Crl.L.J. 203: (1976) S.C.C. (Crl.) 7: (1976) 1 S.C.C. 389 : (1976) 2 S.C.R. 921 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 202 it is held: “But the fact that the Court gave permission to the Prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness, thus characterising him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” 11. The learded Counsel however relies on another judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Thever v. State of Tamil Nadu 1957 S.C.J. 527: 1957 S.C.R. 981: (1957) 2 An. W.R. (S.C.) 69: (1957) 2 MLJ. (S.C.) 69: 1957 MLJ. (Crl.) 775: A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 64 wherein it is observed that the Court should be slow to act on the testimony of a hostile witness and normally it should look for corroboration. W.R. (S.C.) 69: (1957) 2 MLJ. (S.C.) 69: 1957 MLJ. (Crl.) 775: A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 64 wherein it is observed that the Court should be slow to act on the testimony of a hostile witness and normally it should look for corroboration. As observed in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration 1976 Crl.L.J. 295: A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 294 the Court has to consider the facts in each case and see whether as a result of the witness being treated hostile, he stands thoroughly discredited or can still to believed in regard to a part of his testimony and if the Court is satisfied that the credit of the witness has not been complete by shaken it can with due care and caution accept that part of the testimony of the witness which is found to be creditworthy and the Court can act upon the same. Applying the above principles we shall now consider whether the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 to the extent they have supported the prosecution case, is creditworthy and whether the same can be acted upon. 12. P.W. 1 was working as a Head-clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer, Doubling, South Central Railway at Vijayawada, (office of the deceased) He has no axe to grind against the accused. As already mentioned he admitted in his deposition that he was in the company of the deceased when A-1 confronted him on the stair-case while they were leaving that office. He admitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 were in their company. He however, stated that he did not witness the actual stabbing, but he came down as he felt the situation was unusual. Immediately he heard the cries. The witness no doubt was treated as hostile as he did not admit in his present deposition that he also witnessed the stabbing and also on the other ground viz., that in his present deposition he did not state that he went and informed P.W. 4 Obviously P.W. 1 has suppressed these facts. However we see no grounds to reject the other part of his evidence which is highly incriminative. It may be mentioned that P.W. 1 also identified A-1 as the person who confronted the deceased. However we see no grounds to reject the other part of his evidence which is highly incriminative. It may be mentioned that P.W. 1 also identified A-1 as the person who confronted the deceased. Except the mere fact that he did not refer to the above fact, the witness in other respects supported the prosecution case and to that extent his evidence is credible and wesee absolutely no grounds to reject the same. P.W. 2 on the other hand also stated that A-1 after confronting the deceased, took out a knife M.O.1 from his waist and demanded the deceased to give a positive reply about his transfer. The witness however stated that just at that time being afraid he went down the stair-case and immediately he heard the cries. He also raised an alaram and went to the office again and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. This evidence by itself is fully complete and fully incriminates A-1. The witness also identified A-1 as the culprit. As already mentioned the prosecution treated him as hostile as in his earlier statement he stated that he actually witnessed the stabbing. P.W. 2 for some reason or other failed to mention the same in his deposition. But that does not in anyway render his evidence incomplete or irrelevant. This witness is also an independent witness and has no axe to grind against the accused. The evidence of these two witnesses to the extent supporting the prosecution case goes to show that on the day of occurrence at about 6-30 p.m. when the. deceased and themselves (P.Ws.1 and 2) along with P.W. 2 while coming down from the office of the deceased, A-1 confronted the deceased on the steps of the stair-case and demand a positive reply regarding his transfer and when the deceased asked him to come on the next day he also whipped out a knife, identified as M.O.1, from his waist and demanded a positive reply then and there. Seeing this P.Ws.1 and 2 went down, but immediately on hearing the alaming cries they came back and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. M.O.1 was found embedded in the hand of the deceased. P.W. 2 also categorically stated that A-1 whipped out M.O.1 from his waist and later he also found the same weapon embedded in the hand of the deceased. M.O.1 was found embedded in the hand of the deceased. P.W. 2 also categorically stated that A-1 whipped out M.O.1 from his waist and later he also found the same weapon embedded in the hand of the deceased. P.W. 1 deposed that when he and others went back to the place of occurrence after hearing the cries he found the deceased in a. pool of blood and M.O.1 being embedded in the hand of the deceased. Therefore this evidence, if accepted, is sufficient to conclude that A-1, who confronted the deceased regarding his transfer, whipped out M.O.1 and stabbed the deceased and the same weapon was also found embedded in the hand of the deceased who was found lying in a pool of blood in which case the conviction of the appellant has to be upheld. However by way of caution, if any corroboration is necessary, the same can be found in the evidence of P.W. 4 and the Expert's evidence regarding the foot-prints also can be taken as an additional circumstance which lends assurance. 13. P.W. 4 who was working as S.I.R.P.F., S.C. Railway from 7th August, 1981, deposed that the office of the deceased was in the premises of his office and his office is situate opposite to the office of the deceased. On 7th September, 1982 at about 6.30 p.m. he heard some cries from the office of the deceased. Immediately he came out of his office and when he was in the front side of his office, P.W. 1 came and told him that the deceased was stabbed. Immediately he rushed to the office of the deceased and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He came down and brought the doctor P.W. 9, who after examining the deceased, found dead. P.W. 4 thereafter went to the V. Town Police Station and drafted the report Exhibit P-4 on the basis of the information given by P.W. 1 and presented the same to the D.S.I. P.W. 4 further affirmed the contents of Exhibit P-4 and stated that Exhibit P-4 contains what all P.W. 1 told him. P.W. 4 thereafter went to the V. Town Police Station and drafted the report Exhibit P-4 on the basis of the information given by P.W. 1 and presented the same to the D.S.I. P.W. 4 further affirmed the contents of Exhibit P-4 and stated that Exhibit P-4 contains what all P.W. 1 told him. In Exhibit P-4 it is mentioned that P.W. 4 heard the cries and came in front of his office, that P.W. 1 the Head-clerk came and informed him that the deceased was stabbed with a knife and P.W. 4 immediately went there and found the deceased lying dead and he went and brought P.W. 9 the doctor who after examination found the deceased dead. It is further mentioned that P.W. 4 asked P.W. 1 what has happened and P.W. 1 told him that himself, the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3 were getting down the stair-case and at that juncture a person aged 25 years, black in complexion, caught hold of the legs of the deceased and the said person was in a drunked state and that the deceased asked him to come on the next day, but the stranger went on requesting him. P.Ws.1 and 2 also told that man to come on the next day but the stranger fell on the deceased and stabbed him. It can therefore be seen even in Exhibit P-4, which is the earliest report and the authencity and the correctness of which cannot be doubted at all, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is mentioned and the particulars of the assailant are found. Therefore we have no doubt whatsoever to hold that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were present in the company of the deceased when he stabbed. Therefore the evidence of P.W. 4 to the extent amply corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since P.W. 1 is not admitting that he informed P.W. 4, Exhibit P-4 becomes inadmissible and that the evidence of P.W. 4 when he deposes that P.W. 1 came and informed his becomes hearsay evidence. Assuming for argument sake that it becomes hearsay evidence, yet the same is reliable in view of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act I of 1872. Assuming for argument sake that it becomes hearsay evidence, yet the same is reliable in view of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act I of 1872. It is further the evidence of P.W. 4 that he heard the cries of the deceased at about 6-30 p.m. and immediately P.W. 1 came and told him and he and P.W. 1 and others went back to the office of the deceased and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that these facts and not so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of transaction as envisaged in section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act I of 1872. We see no force in this submission. In B.Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh B.Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1984) MLJ. (Crl.) 159: (1984) 1 An.W.R. 290: 1984 Crl.L.J. 674 a Division Bench of this Court held that a declaration made subsequent to the occurrence is admissible provided it can be validly assumed that the exciting influence continued and that there is do scope for fabrication. In the instant case P.W. 4 immediately after hearing the cries and after being informed by P.W. 1 went to the place of the occurrence and again immediately went back and brought the doctor and after finding the deceased dead, he enquired P.W. 1 further details and rushed to the Police Station and gave the report. Exhibit P-4 incorporating what all P.W. 1 said to him. It cannot be said that there is lapse of time and that ‘the steps taken by P.W. 4 are so unconnected with the fact in issue to form part of the transaction. Therefore the evidence of P.W. 4 regarding the declaration made by P.W. 1 immediately after the time of occurrence is admissible and that coupled with P.W. 4's evidence render sufficient corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 15. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the identification of Exhibit A-1 by these two witnesses cannot be relied upon. Firstly the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence regarding the identification parade does not inspire much confidence and that there is sufficient material to show that the accused were shown to the witnesses before they were paraded for identification. Firstly the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence regarding the identification parade does not inspire much confidence and that there is sufficient material to show that the accused were shown to the witnesses before they were paraded for identification. P.W. 17, the IV Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Vijayawada, during 3rd May, 1982 to 30th April, 1983, conducted the identification parade regarding A-1 on 20th September, 1982. He deposed that five non-suspects, who were of equal age, similar in physique to that of the suspect, were collected and than P.W. 1 was called. P.W. 1 identified A-1 correctly as the culprit. P.W. 17 however, stated that P.W. 1 did not give any identification particulars. But that by itself is not a ground to doubt the identification. Exhibit P-36 are the identification proceedings. A perusal of the same shows that the learned Magistrate has taken all precautionary measures. It is mentioned in Exhibit P-30 that P.W. 17 took all the precautionary measures to see that no Police officials were present and the identification parade was conducted and that the witnesses had no opportunity to contract with each other before the identification is concluded. We see no infirmity in the identification proceedings conducted by P.W. 17. In this regard it is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the identification particulars given by P.W. 1 as mentioned in Exhibit P-4 do not talley with the features of A-1. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant in Exhibit P-4 it is mentioned that a person aged 25 years, black in complexion, tall in height confronted with the deceased whereas P.W. 4 in his cross-examination admitted that A-1 is of medium complexion. It must be remembered that it was about 6-30 p.m. when the occurrence took place and that too inside the building and P.W. 1 would have naturally noted him to be dark in complexion. That by itself does not make any difference. It is also submitted that the appellant is only is only 5’4“ height therefore it cannot be said to be a tall person as described in Exhibit P-4 Regarding the height it depends how one estimates. These are, in our view, minor insignificant facts having regard to the facts that P.Ws. That by itself does not make any difference. It is also submitted that the appellant is only is only 5’4“ height therefore it cannot be said to be a tall person as described in Exhibit P-4 Regarding the height it depends how one estimates. These are, in our view, minor insignificant facts having regard to the facts that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were in the company of the deceased and A-1 sufficiently for a long time and there would not be any difficulty for them to identify A-1. It is cot a case of hit and run away. Further as already mentioned. P.Ws.1 and 2 had no grouse against the appellant and they would be the last persons to implicate his falsely. 16. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that there is no material to show that the accused were arrested on 9th September, 1982, and not on 12th September, 1982 as claimed by the Police Officials. P.W. 8 was working as a gang mazdoor and he deposed that they take attendance every day and that the appellant attended for work on 7th September, 1982, and 8th September, 1982 and that he did not attend on 9th September, 1982. He filed Exhibit P-8 the muster roll for the period 10th August, 1982 to 9th September, 1982, period. In that there is an endorsement that the appellant was taken away by the Police on 9th September, 1982. Relying upon this endorsement, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in the Police Custody since 9th September, 1982, and he must have been shown to the witnesses. We have perused Exhibit P-8. The endorsement is in a different ink and it is not of the same handwriting who made the other entries. The lower Court has rightly held that no reliance can be placed on such endorsement. We therefore see no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the accused was shown to the witnesses before identification parade was held. 17. Now coming to the evidence of Footprint expert P.W. 16, the criticism is that the evidence is of weak-type and that at any rate there are no similarities between the crime foot-prints of the suspected person and the specimen foot-prints. 17. Now coming to the evidence of Footprint expert P.W. 16, the criticism is that the evidence is of weak-type and that at any rate there are no similarities between the crime foot-prints of the suspected person and the specimen foot-prints. P.W. 16 deposed that he throughly examined and compared both and that he is of the opinion that the test foot-prints tally with the crime foot print and the details are noted in Exhibit P-32 and Exhibit P-33 is his opinion. In the cross-examination he admitted that the second toe in Exhibit P-18 is in the shape of a tender mango and in the specimen prints there are no such foot-prints. But he explained it by saying that Exhibits P-18 is the blood-print and therefore the print of the toes appear to be elongated. This appears to be correct inasmuch the specimen foot-prints are taken only on a paper with aid of ink. We have perused Exhibit P-32 and the size, alignment of the toes, interspace between the toes, shape of the toes, fine of the toes. top line of the pad, pad, cuter edge and inner edge, instep and heel in the crime print talley with those in the test print. It is also noted in Exhibit P-32 that the elongations in the toes and heal portion in the crime point are due to the fact that the crime print is a caused due to blood. No doubt as pointed out by the Courts this is a weak-type of evidence and we are also not wholly relying on the same. The evidence of P.W. 4 sufficiently Corroborates the evidence P.Ws.1 and 2, and in our view the evidence of the Expert lends further assurance. As already held the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to the extent of supporting prosecution case by itself is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. Their evidence is supported by the evidence of P.W. 4 and the contents of Exhibit P-4 and the Expert's evidence lend additional assurance. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.