JUDGMENT 1. 1. The accused appellant was convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide its judgment dated 27.5.1996 in Sessions Case No. 41/94 arising out of F.I.R. No. 13/94 of the Police Station, Amba Mata. Learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that the accused and the deceased were the Security Guards in the Factory'. The first informant Sunil Kumar reported that on 10.1.1994 at about 11.15 A.M. While he, Supervisor Ravindrajeet Singh and Guard Jai Narain Singh were sitting in the Room of Supervisor at that time accused Security Guard Manoj Kumar Shukla came in the room and he said to Jai Narain Singh that as to why he is not returning his money and after saying so the accused Manoj Kumar Shukla brought out a knife from his pent pocket and hit the deceased twice on the back. Thereafter, the accused ran away with his knife. The witness shouted for help on which Gaya Singh and Ram Chandra came there and tried to attend the deceased but due to profound bleeding from injuries in the back, he died then and there. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. RW. 2 Sunil Kumar was the eye-witness of the occurrence. Learned trial court found that the testimony of RW. 2 Sunil Kumar eye-witnesses is trust worthy. Learned trial court further held that on the face of the evidence as produced in this case the corroboration is not necessary for proving the testimony of eye-witness but on the record circumstantial evidence is available and the circumstantial evidence corroborates the eye-witness. The knife recovered at the instance of the accused and the clothes of the accused have been found to be stained with blood of, Group B. Blood, of Group B was also found on the clothes of the deceased and, therefore, there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the eye- witness RW. 2 Sunil Kumar and, thus, the learned trial court found the case proved against the accused appellant. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court was not present. The Court examined the case with the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The testimony of RW. 2 Sunil Kumar and, thus, the learned trial court found the case proved against the accused appellant. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court was not present. The Court examined the case with the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The testimony of RW. 2 Sunil Kumar eye-witness was to the effect that the accused and the deceased were working as Security Guards at Ketki Polytex Factory. On 10.1.1994 at about 10.15 A.M. while he was sitting in the Cabin of the Factory Supervisor along with Sardar Ravindrajeet Singh and Jai Narain Singh at that time the accused Manoj Kumar, Security Guard came. He brought out a knife from his pent's pocket and hit twice on the back of Jai Narain Singh. When the blows were hit Jai Narain Singh shouted. The accused ran away with the knife. This witness also shouted on which Gaya Singh and Ramchandra came there. Jai Narain Singh fell down and he succumbed to the injuries then and there. This witness is also Motbir of the recovery of knife. In his cross-examination, he has struck to his version given in the F.I.R. Ex.P. 1. No defence story was put and the testimony of this witness has not been shaken in the cross-examination. 6. PW. 3 Chandra Prakash is the Director of Ketki Polytex Private Ltd. He corroborates, RW. 2 Sunil Kumar that immediately after the occurrence he has narrated the incident to him and has told that the accused had caused the injuires to the deceased Jainarain Singh and thus furnishes sufficient corroboration that immediately after the occurrence witness RW. 2 Sunil Kumar has disclosed the entire occurrence to this witness. Nothing has been suggested to this witness in his cross-examination. 7. In the face of these witnesses when we took at the circumstantial evidence, we find that the knife recovered at the instance of the accused had been found to be stained with human blood of Group B and the clothes of the accused have also been found to be stained with human blood of Group B, which was the blood available on the clothes of the deceased. Therefore, we find that there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the eye- witness. Therefore, we find that there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the eye- witness. A reading of the testimony of the witnesses show that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on the material on record and there is no infirmity in them. We are not persuaded that any infirmity has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the accused appellant and in this back-ground we are constrained to affirm the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. We find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are, therefore, affirmed.In the result, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******