Honble PRASAD, J.–This is an appeal of accused appellant Manohar Lal under Section 302, I.P.C. against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara dated 20.10.92 by which he has convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2). Briefly stated on 20.6.91 S.H.O. P.S. Kalinjara recieved an information that Kumari Sushila who had gone to Shiva temple had been injured by Manohar Lal by knife and she was taken to Banswara Hospital by her family members. He reached the Shiva Temple and recorded statement of another girl Kumari Sharda wherein she stated that when she alongwith Sushila, Indira and Saroj had performed the pooja in Shiva Temple and the girls were performing parikrama of Hanuman Temple, accused appellant came on a cycle and caught hold of the hands of Sushila. He wanted her to go alongwith him. Sushila refused. Then accused appellant Manohar Lal took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and stabbed Sushila and ran away. Thereafter Sushila was taken to hospital. Police registered a case under Section 307, I.P.C. Sushila succumbed to her injuries in the hospital within 15 minutes after her admission and then offence was converted to 302, I.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. During investigation Panchnama Ex. P-8 was prepared. The Investigating Officer inspected the site and prepared site plan. He also seized two knives vide Ex.P-4 out of them one was blood stained. He seized some stones from the place of occurrence, which were also stained with blood. Accused appellant was arrested. His open shirt and pant which had blood spots were seized. His cycle was also seized vide Ex.P-5. Post mortem of Sushila was conducted according to which Sushila has as many as twelve wounds and cause of her death was excessive haemorrhage and shock of multiple injuries. After investigation accused appellant was charge sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate Kushalgarh who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. (3). Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused appellant on 25.3.92 which he denied and claimed trial. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused appellant was innocence and denial simplicitor. (3). Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused appellant on 25.3.92 which he denied and claimed trial. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused appellant was innocence and denial simplicitor. After hearing both the parties the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. (4). We have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that PW5 Bhawna and PW 2 Indira have not been named in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1 Sharda. It would mean that they were not the eye-witnesses. He has submitted that Neeta has not been produced by the prosecution and, therefore, by non-producing Neeta and adding Indira and Bhawna prosecution has added something new to its case. He also submitted that the F.I.R. mentions about the two knives and the same were reco- vered from the place of occurrence but they were not deposited in the Malkhana nor produced in the Court. According to him it is a lacuna in the prosecution case which gives benefit to the accused appellant. He also submitted that no motive of the accused appellant has been proved. So appellant deserves acquittal. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. (5). Learned counsel for the accused appellant has not challenged the fact that the death of Kumari Sushila was homicidal. Dr. G.D. Vyas, P.W.9 who performed the autopsy of Kumari Sushila, has proved Ex.P-13 post mortem report which mentions following injuries:- (1) Incised perforating wound 4 cm x 2 cm x lung deep on the 5th intercostal region anteriorly on right side,obliquely placed. (2). Incised wound 13 cm x 4 cm x deep upto the level of superficial fascia cutting extending from the right side of the mastoid region to the middle of the neck in oblique direction. (3) Incised wound 6 cm x 9 cm x 1 cm deep on the right side of shoulder region in transversely direction. (4) Incised wound transversely 5 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm on the right lower jaw. (3) Incised wound 6 cm x 9 cm x 1 cm deep on the right side of shoulder region in transversely direction. (4) Incised wound transversely 5 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm on the right lower jaw. (5) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on right cheek in front of right ear vertically placed. (6) Abrasion 3 cm x 1/2 cm on right ear region between tragus of the right ear and injury No.5. (7) Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left chin in oblique view. (8). Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on left forearm lower 2/3rd transversely on dorsal surface. (9) Incised wound 6 cm x2 cm x 1 cm on left scapular region vertical direction. (10) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm in oblique direction at right scapular region. (11) Sharp perforating injury (wound) 3 cm x 2 cm x deep down to lung at middle of back to the right side near lower angle of scapula (right). (12) Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x upto 1.2 cm deep on right side of infra scapular region. (6). Out of the above injuries, injury No. 6 was an abrasion and rest were caused by sharp edged weapon. This young girl dies within 15 minutes of her admission in the hospital. The learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that had Sushila been first taken to Primary Health Centre, Sujjangarh, she could have been saved but it was not so done by the police and hence it is not a case under Section 302, I.P.C. To us this argument is baseless because even if Sushila whould have been taken to Primary Health Centre she could not have been saved as the injuries were sufficient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature. Look- ing to her serious condition she was directly brought to Banswara Hospital even where she could not be saved. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that if her condition was so serious she could not have stated the name of the accused appellant before Dr. G.D. Vyas P.W.9. Therefore, Dr. G.D. Vyas has mentioned the name of assailant in Ex.P-13 on some body elses suggestion. Dr. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that if her condition was so serious she could not have stated the name of the accused appellant before Dr. G.D. Vyas P.W.9. Therefore, Dr. G.D. Vyas has mentioned the name of assailant in Ex.P-13 on some body elses suggestion. Dr. G.D. Vyas stated that Sushila named the accused appellant as assailant and that he had asked the police constable Ranjeet Singh to get dying declaration recorded by calling a Magistrate but it could not be so done because before any arrangement could be made for recording a dying declaration, Sushila succumbed to her injuries. There appears to be no reasons to disbelieve Dr. G.D. Vyas on this point. Learned Sessions Judge has used this dying declaration as a corroborative peace of evidence. In our view when there appears to be no reasons to disbelieve this part of statement of Dr. G.D. Vyas we concur with the learned Sessions Judge that this peace of evidence could be used as a corroboration to the statements of eye-witnesses. (7). Now we will take up the statements of eye-witnesses. P.W.1 Sharda who is the first informant has stated that on 20.6.81 she alongwith Bhawna, Saroj, Indira and Neeta went to Hanuman Temple and reached there at 8.30 a.m. Accused appellant, who appears to be a modren Romeo came for darshan in Hanuman Temple on his bi- cycle and when these girls were going after performing the Pooja of Peepal tree, accused appellant caught hold of a hand of Sushila and asked her to accompany him but she refused to do so. Then he stabbed Sushila on her stomach. Sushila then raised an alarm and started running. Accused appellant ran after her and fell her down. Then he put his knee on the chest of Sushila and stabbed her time and again. This was also seen by Poorna Shanker Brahamin who was a pujari of the temple. Thereafter the accused appellant leaving two knives ran away. The girls went to the house of Sushila and informed about the incident. It was Sharda who came to her home who gave information to police which was recorded in Ex.P-1. This witness was cross examined at length. She frankly admitted that none of the girls or the deceased had any enmity with accused appellant. We find that she is straight forward and reliable witness. It was Sharda who came to her home who gave information to police which was recorded in Ex.P-1. This witness was cross examined at length. She frankly admitted that none of the girls or the deceased had any enmity with accused appellant. We find that she is straight forward and reliable witness. She had seen the whole incident which she narrated. Saroj P.W.3 was also present there and she has corroborated P.W. 1 Sharda by saying that the accused appellant inflicted blows by knife to Sushila and that the accused was deseparate, he fell down Sushila when she started running by getting her hand relieved from the hand of the accused appellant. She further stated that after felling down Sushila accused appellant assaulted on her neck where she suffered a number of injuries. We find from her statement that she has also seen the occurrence and she is a reliable witness. We find from the statement of P.W.4 Poorna Shanker that he saw the accused appellant inflicting blows by knife on the neck of Kumari Sushila. This witness saw 4 or 5 girls of Sunar community who had come to perform pooja of peepal tree. According to him daughter of Nanu Lal was also one of them. He was present in the temple of Shiva which was about 100 paces away from the place of occurrence. He heard the shrieks of girls and then reached at the place of occurrence where he found the accused appellant inflicting knife blows on the body of Sushila (the daughter of Nanu Lal). He saw the occurrence from about 10 or 15 paces but the accused appellant after seeing him ran away by scalling a wall of Hanuman Temple. Appellant left his cycle at the place of occurrence. The defence of the accused appellant as put to this witness was that somebody else had committed crime and the accused appellant has been falsely implicated. We do not find any reason as to why the witness will rope in the accused appellant. We are satisfied from his statement that he saw the occurrence when accused appellant was inflicting knife blows to Sushila. These three witnesses themselves are sufficient to prove the occurrence and it is corroborated by Dr. G.D. Vyas P.W.9 when he says that Sushila named the accused appellant before him and other doctors appellant which he mentioned in Ex.P-13 (bed ticket). These three witnesses themselves are sufficient to prove the occurrence and it is corroborated by Dr. G.D. Vyas P.W.9 when he says that Sushila named the accused appellant before him and other doctors appellant which he mentioned in Ex.P-13 (bed ticket). So far as Indira and Bhawna are concerned they have also been produced by the prosecution. P.W.1 Sharda ofcourse did not mention the name of Bhawna in the F.I.R. nor in her statement before police but she has given an explanation that she was very much upset therefore she forget to named her. It appears to be a cogent reason. However, when P.W.5 Bhawna came in the witness box she was not cross examined on the point that she was not present at the time of occurrence. From the statements of P.W.5 Bhawna and P.W.2 Indira we find that they had seen the accused appellant assaulting the deceased. Even if they are discarded, though learned Sessions Judge has believed them, there is sufficient evidence against the accused appellant to prove that it was he and he alone who inflicted injuries by knife on the body of Sushila for the reason that Sushila had refused to go with this modern Romeo. (8). So far as non-production of knife is concerned it is not much material in the circumstances of this case because the knife has not been recovered on the instance of accused appellant but was found at the place of occurrence and was stained with blood. So far as motive is concerned, the settled law is that when participation of accused is established, absence of motive pales into insignificance. See State of U.P. vs. Nahar Singh & Ors. (1). (9). In view of above discussion, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed.