( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the accused who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional sessions Judge, Parur in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1987 and the said conviction has been upheld by the High Court of Kerala in Crl. A. No. 216 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 11-9-1985 at 6. 45 p. m. near Chithri Junction at Kottuvally village, the accused-appellant stabbed the deceased by means of a knife causing as many as 12 injuries on his person on account of which he ultimately succumbed to those injuries. PW 1 is the brother of the deceased, who was informed by one K. Sebastian and he then came to the spot, took his brother to the hospital and thereafter lodged the information which was treated as an FIR on the basis of which the police started investigation and ultimately submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. Though a number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution, but the prosecution case hinges upon the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3. PW 2 also did not support the prosecution case in full as a result of which the public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him, but, all the same pw2 categorically averred that it is the accused-appellant who, on the relevant date of occurrence in the evening, assaulted the deceased by means of a knife near Chithra Junction. PW 3 has given a vivid account of the entire incident and the said evidence of PW 3 has been thoroughly scrutinised by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court in appeal and the said witness has been held to be a wholly reliable witness. On the basis of the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses, the courts below have come to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant in this Court, contended that no reliance could have been placed on the evidence of PW 3 as, according to pw 1, it is he who gave the information on the basis of which PW 1 gave the report at the policestation, whereas, according to PW 3, he never went and informed PW 1. ( 4 ) ON examining the evidence of PW 1 as well as the evidence of PW 3, we do not find any support for this contention as neither PW 1 has stated that pw 3 told him about the occurrence on the basis of which he went and lodged the FIR nor PW 3 has stated that he went and informed PW 1 about the incident. PW 3 cannot be discredited for the statements made in the FIR as an FIR can be utilised only for the purposes of corroborating or contradicting the maker thereof. PW 1 admittedly was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of anything contained in the cross-examination of PW 3 to impeach his testimony, we see no infirmity with the approach of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the high Court in relying upon the evidence of PW 3 which also gets corroboration from PW 2 to come to a conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt so far as the appellant is concerned. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment of the High Court to be interfered with. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. He must surrender to serve the balance of the sentence.