JUDGMENT Chitre, J. -- 1. The appellant is taking acception to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the 4th Add\. Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 457/90 wherein the appellant had been convicted for offence punishable under provisions of S. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case in brief can be stated as mentioned hereunder; Appellant Narayan had given Rs. 1800/- as loan to deceased Kailash for his personal need. Narayan was demanding the said money back. Kailash had repaid Rs. 400/-, Narayan had demanded the said amount some days prior to the date of incident i.e. 16.1.90. 3. It is the prosecution case further that Kailash had made a grievance of that to his cousin PW-Vinod and when Vinod told Narayan that the said amount would be repaid by Kailash, Narayan had told him that Kailash would be killed within 15-20 days. So also Ashok Yadav had also advised Narayan about his demanding money from Kailash in improper way by abusing. It is the prosecution case that Narayan had also told PW Ashok Yadav that Kailash would be killed within a fortnight. 4. Accorciiqg to prosecution case on the date of incident when deceased Kailash was standing near School No.7 alongwith PW Ashok Yadav, appellant Narayan came there, slapped deceased Kailash. Thereafter appellant whipped out a dagger and by seeing that all were frightened. Kailash started running towards Neelkamal Talkies. However, he was chased by the appellant When Kailash reached near gate of Neelkamal Talkies appellant Narayan struck blows of dagger on his chest PW Vinod tried to obstruct Narayan who was running away by throwing the bicycle on him, however, Narayan ran away by taking the dagger with him. Police vehicle arrived at the spot, Kailash was taken to M.Y. Hospital but Kailash succumbed to death in the way. The post-mortem examination was done in respect of the dead body of Kailash, after dehati nalish was written. Investigation proceeded. Appellant was tried and thereafter convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. Shri S.K. Vyas appearing for the appellant vehemently argued by submitting that the learned trial Judge committed the error of accepting the prosecution evidence and coming to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the murder of deceased Kailash. He pointed out the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. Appellant was tried and thereafter convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. Shri S.K. Vyas appearing for the appellant vehemently argued by submitting that the learned trial Judge committed the error of accepting the prosecution evidence and coming to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the murder of deceased Kailash. He pointed out the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. Shri G. Desai, G.A. supported the order of conviction and sentence as correct, proper and legal by pointing out the evidence on record more particularly the evidence of Ashok Yadav, Shankar, Vinod, Dr. Vishnar, PSI Ganesh Prasad Shukla. He submitted that evidence of eye witnesses Ashok Yadav, Shankar, Vinod has been corroborated by evidence of Dr. Vishnar. Shri S.K. Vyas, by pointing out the evidence of defence witness submitted that learned Judge. has committed error in not accepting the evidence of defence witness Yogesh. 6. The evidence of eye witness has to be assessed as a whole and the impact created by such evidence has to be seen. If it is passing the test of truth and inspires the confidence in the judicial mind sufficient enough to hold the accused guilty of the crime, there is no error whatsoever in accepting such evidence and recording conviction against accused qua the crime for which he happens to be charged and happens to be tried. In the present case Ashok Yadav, Shankar and Vinod have stated on oath that decease Kailash was assaulted by appellant Narayan when both were near Neelkamal Talkies. Witnesses Ashok Yadav. and Shankar had stated that Vinod had attempted to obstruct appellant Narayan by throwing bicycle on him when he was running away from the spot of incident This is core of evidence and evidence of these three witnesses is consistent with each other. Witness Ashok Yadav and Vinod are deposing that there was bickering between Narayan and Kailash on account of repayment of loan which was taken by Kailash from Narayan. Both Ashok Yadav and Vinod have stated in their evidence that when they had told Narayan that the said amount would be repaied by Kailash, Narayan had told them that Kailash would not survive for more than a fortnight or so. On this point Shankar has not said anything. Therefore, it cannot be said that these three witnesses were giving the evidence in stereo type fashion as if they were got up witnesses. On this point Shankar has not said anything. Therefore, it cannot be said that these three witnesses were giving the evidence in stereo type fashion as if they were got up witnesses. Had that being so, there was no reason for witness Shankar not to speak anything about that previous quarrel. Evidence of Shankar is in respect of incident of assault and the attempts on the part of Vinod to obstruct Narayan who was running away from the said spot. 7. PSI, Ganesh Prasad Shukla has stated that on 16.1.90 when he reached near Neelkamal Talkies, he saw that the crowd was collected and hence he went near the said crowd and saw the injured Kailash who was bleeding. It is his evidence that he picked up Kailash, kept him in his vehicle and took him to the MY Hospital and at that time his cousin Vinod was with Kailash. It is his evidence that Dr. Vishnar declared Kailash dead when Kailash was examined by the doctors in MY, Hospital. PW Ganesh Prasad Shukla wrote dehati nalish, that dehati nalish corroborated the evidence of PSI Ganesh Prasad Shukla which corroborates the evidence of Ashok Yadav, Shankar and Vinod. The evidence of eye witnesses Ashok Yadav Shankar and Vinod has been well corroborated by Dr. Vishnar PW. 6 who had stated that he had seen two incised wounds on the chest of deceased and one incised wound on his right arm. It is the evidence of Dr. Vishnar that injuries which were on the chest of deceased Kailash cut pleura and lungs which resulted in collection of about two litres of blood in the thoracic cavity. Dr. Vishnar had stated in his evidence that those injuries could have been caused by the knife. Those injuries were by themselves disclosing seriousness. Those injuries were sufficient to cause the death of human being in ordinary course of nature. 8. The evidence of witnesses Ashok Yadav, Shankar and Vinod has been corroborated by dehati Nalish, evidence of Ganesh Prasad Shukla and Dr. Vishnar. There may be slightest variation in their evidence, on minor details but such variation on fringes cannot damage the core of their evidence which lends assurance sufficient enough to hold it beyond reasonable doubt that none else but the appellant had caused those injuries to deceased Kailash which resulted in his death. 9. Vishnar. There may be slightest variation in their evidence, on minor details but such variation on fringes cannot damage the core of their evidence which lends assurance sufficient enough to hold it beyond reasonable doubt that none else but the appellant had caused those injuries to deceased Kailash which resulted in his death. 9. The evidence of defence witness does not help the appellant in any way because his evidence is totally ambiguous and not sufficient to indicate innocence of appellant Narayan. 10. Learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the prosecution evidence as well as the evidence led in the defence of the appellant. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court are consistent with the evidence, borne out by the circumstances. 11. We do not find any error in the way in which the learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence and the conclusions recorded by him. Thus, we confirm the verdict of the trial Court convicting the appellant for committing an offence punishable under S. 302 IPC. We also hereby confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life passed against the appellant. Thus, we dismissed the appeal.