R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 26. 7. 1990 of additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, passed in S. T. No. 113/89, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. for having committed murder of Suresh alias Pappu on 5. 8. 1989 at about 5. 30 p. m. in Jawahar Nagar, Ratlam and sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident deceased Suresh alias Pappu was standing in front of the shop of Gabbu Panwala (betel shop keeper) and was drinking water. The accused came running with stretched knife and abused Suresh addressing him You have become bully, I will see you, who and how saves you and stabbed on the chest and on the left side of the abdominal region. Suresh fell down. There was profuse bleeding. Govind (P. W. 11) was present near the shop of Gabbu Panwala some other persons i. e. , Lal Cycle keeper, Ramprasad and Ahesan were also present nearby the place of incident. Govind (P. W. 11) tried to help Suresh and requested persons to take the injured Suresh to hospital and he himself proceeded to Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and lodged report Ex. P1149. It was taken down by P. W. 15 Rakesh Kumar Nain. He registered the case under Section 307 I. P. C. and directed the injured to be taken to the hospital. He himself reached the hospital. Dr. O. P. Gupta, P. W. 13 examined Suresh and found the following injuries: (1) Incised wound on right side of the chest, cutting the ribs. Size 4 x 2 x deep upto the lungs; (2) Incised penetrating wound on the lower right part of the abdomen on the right iliac fossa 11/2 x i" small intestine were coming out. (3) Incised wound 1 1/2 x 1 up to lung, left side of the chest. Injured was unconscious. He was admitted in the hospital for operation. During operation there were five small and three big cut marks were found on the small intestine. There was cut mark on the mesentery vessal as well. There was profused bleeding. Injuries were fresh. He, thereafter, prepared a report Ex. P/21. Injured Suresh was admitted in the Hospital. Suresh dies in the night. During operation there were five small and three big cut marks were found on the small intestine. There was cut mark on the mesentery vessal as well. There was profused bleeding. Injuries were fresh. He, thereafter, prepared a report Ex. P/21. Injured Suresh was admitted in the Hospital. Suresh dies in the night. The autopsy on the body of Suresh was conducted by Dr. Soyeb Lath, P. W. 8 on 6. 8. 89 at about 10 a. m. He found the three stitched wounds on the places referred above. On dissection plura, 4th and 5th ribs of right side, 1st and 5th ribs of left side and lungs were cut. There were cut marks on both the lungs. On opening the abdomen there were cut marks in the internal muscles and peritoneum. Small intestines were cut at various places and vomentum was also stiched. There were cut marks in the mesentery. The doctor prepared report Ex. P/13 and opined that deceased died of injuries referred above which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature for causing death. ( 3 ) ON the death of Suresh case converted to offence u/s 302 I. P. C. Rajendra Kumar Nain (P. W. 19) inspected the site and prepared spot map Ex. P/2. Controlled and stained earth, iron buckets with blood marks were seized vide Ex. P 13. Accused was apprehended and arrested. A panchnama Ex. P/14 was prepared. Accused was keeping a knife, it had blood marks. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P115. The accused was wearing a pant which was having blood marks at the place where the knife was kept. The same was also seized vide Ex. P/16. The witnesses - Govind, Lalji, Ahesan, Sahjad, Ramprasad, Jaibabu and Gadhe were questioned and thereafter a request for recording their statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was made. The statements were recorded by Smt. Kumud Bala Varna (P. W. 16) J. M. F. C. Ratlam. The clothes of the deceased were also seized during investigation. Articles so seized i. e. , controlled and stained earth and two buckets seized from the spot, shirt, pant and underwear of Suresh, knife seized from accused and shirt and Pant seized from his body were sent for chemical examination. There was blood marks in all the articles excepting controlled earth and one bucket. Articles so seized i. e. , controlled and stained earth and two buckets seized from the spot, shirt, pant and underwear of Suresh, knife seized from accused and shirt and Pant seized from his body were sent for chemical examination. There was blood marks in all the articles excepting controlled earth and one bucket. It appears the clothes of the deceased and the knife were also sent for Forensic Science Laboratory and report was obtained. It confirmed the possibility of cut marks in the shirt having been caused by the knife (seized from the accused) and after investigation challan was filed against the accused which was committed to the Court of Sessions in due course. The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded alibi. Learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as above. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that only one witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The dying declaration made before the P. W. 5 Shankarlal, brother of the deceased has been disbelieved. All other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the conviction cannot be based on the basis of evidence of solitary witness. As against it learned counsel for the State has submitted that the statement of eye-witness stands corroborated from the F. I. R. , Medical Report and seizure of blood stained earth and bucket from the spot and blood stained knife and clothes from the accused. ( 5 ) P. W. 11 Govind has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he was standing near the shop of Gabbu Panwala. Suresh was taking water in front of the shop of Gabbu Panwala. The accused came with stretched knife in menacing way and caused 2-3 stab wounds on the chest and abdomen of Suresh. Suresh, thereafter, fell down. He has with stood the cross-examination. He has further stated that he made a report to the police and the same has been exhibited as Ex. P/19 and has been proved by P. W. 15 Rakesh Kumar Nain, S. H. O. Industrial Area, Ratlam. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has tried to show the descripency on the ground that as per the statement of Govind he managed an Auto Riksha and sent the injured to hospital directly with the help of persons standing nearby. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has tried to show the descripency on the ground that as per the statement of Govind he managed an Auto Riksha and sent the injured to hospital directly with the help of persons standing nearby. As against it S. H. O. has stated that some persons i. e. , P. W. Ramprashad, Gabbu and Rajesh had brought the injured to the Police Station and thereafter he directed them to take the injured to hospital. This is a minor descripency. It does not adversely affect the substratum of the story disclosed by Govind. Govind stands corroborated from the F. I. R. and the Statements of Rakesh Kumar Nain P. W. 15. In such cases the medical officer generally insists for requisition from the police. From the evidence of P. W. 13 Dr. O. P. Gupta it is evident that one constable also accompanied the injured and for that reason also witness cannot be disbelieved merely on this ground. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel, thereafter, tried to assail the evidence of Govind (P. W. 11) on the ground that he was in custody at the time of recording of statements, but the record shows that accused did not appear despite service, of bailable warrant on him. On perusal of the record it appears that there was pressure on the witnesses and that is why all other witnesses including Gabbu Panwala i. e. P. W. 4 Shahjad Mohammed and P. W. I Lalchand have also turned hostile. The seizure of blood stained earth from the spot, buckets from the shop of Lalchand goes to show that the incident has happened at that place and Gabbu Panwala and Lalchand and persons present in the shop must have seen the incident, but they have not tried to help the law and justice and probably tried to avoid so called unpleasant situation. This witness Govind was avoiding appearance in the Court and in such a situation he was taken in custody and brought to the Court. It can not be said that he has been made to give statement under pressure. Govind further stands corroborated not only from the F. I. R. but from the Medical Evidence i. e. , evidence of Dr. 0. P. Gupta, who has examined the injured immediately and Dr. Lath, who has conducted autopsy on the body of Suresh. It can not be said that he has been made to give statement under pressure. Govind further stands corroborated not only from the F. I. R. but from the Medical Evidence i. e. , evidence of Dr. 0. P. Gupta, who has examined the injured immediately and Dr. Lath, who has conducted autopsy on the body of Suresh. This witness further stands corroborated from the seizure of stained earth and iron bucket from the spot. ( 8 ) THE story given by Govind is further corroborated from the seizure of blood stained clothes and knife from the accused. The accused has tried to prove alibi on the basis of statement of D. W. I Ghanshyamsingh who has tried to state that accused was working in his hotel from 8 a. m. to 8 p. m. , but that does not help the accused as the hotel of Ghanshyamsingh is also situated in Ratlam. It was not difficult for the accused to have come to that place. He has rightly been disbelieved. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 Lalchand, P. W. 2 Ahesan, P. W. 4 Shahjad Mohammad, P. W. 7 Ramprasad and P. W. 12 Jai Babu have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Their statements were recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. and the same were confronted. They have resiled from the statements made before the J. M. F. C. Learned counsel of the accused tried to buildup his arguments on the basis of statement of hostile witnesses. In our opinion, witnesses who have given statement before the Magistrate and thereafter resiled from their statement on oath cannot be believed and the defence of alibi of accused cannot be acceptedt on the basis of statement of such witnesses. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 Shankarlal, brother of deceased has tried to state that deceased Suresh regained conscionsuness during his stay in hospital as indoor patient and disclosed injuries having been caused by accused Rajendra alias Raju, but the same has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge on the ground that this does not find place in his statement u/s 161 of Cr. P. C. and this witness stands contradicted to that extent. P. C. and this witness stands contradicted to that extent. We also do not want to place reliance on statement of this witness, but the evidence of P. W. 11 Govind corroborated by F. I. R. , medical evidence, seizure of stained earth and bucket, seizure of blood stained clothes and knife from the accused goes to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and accused alone has caused injuries to deceased Suresh who succumbed to those injuries on the same night. In our opinion, therefore, the accused has rightly been found guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 11 ) THE prosecution witnesses Shahjad Mohammad (P. W. 4), Ahsan Mohammad (PW. 2), Laichand (P. W. 1), Ramprasad (P. W. 7), and Jaibabu (PW. 12) have resiled from their statement given before the J. M. F. C. , Ratlam on 14. 9. 89. They have resiled from the statement given on oath. The learned trial Judge ought to have directed for their prosecution as they have committed surgery. From the discussions above the appeal has no substance. It is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused is hereby maintained. It is, further directed that complaint be made against P. W. 1, Lalchand, P. W. 2 Ahsan Mohammad, P. W. 4 Shahjad Mohammad, P. W. 7 Ramprasad and P. W. 12 Jaibabu for giving false evidence before the Sessions Court or alternatively before JMFC. Appeal dismissed. .