JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order of conviction u/s 304-1, Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment. Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 23-11-1988 the accused and several other persons were indulged in gambling. Deceased Raju came there in an intoxicated condition and asked for a sum of Rs. 5/- from one Dharmendra. On that Dharmendra gave only Rs. 2/-. When Raju wanted to play, accused resisted him. Deceased Raju hurled abuses to the accused. On that accused took-out the knife from his pocket and inflicted one blow with it on the abdomen of the deceased. Post-mortem report Ex.P-8 shows that there was one incised wound 3/4" just below the sternum and lower rib at the junction of abdomen. Clotted blood was also present. Wound was communicating with the internal cavity. No other external injury was present on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhage due to the stab wound. The FIR was lodged promptly by the brother of the deceased on 23-11-1988 itself. Name of the accused was mentioned on the basis of the information received by complainant Gangaram. Deceased died before he could be medically attended. The appellant was charged for an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused was arrested and from his possession knife was recovered. Pursuant to the information memo Ex.P-3 seizure of the knife was made vide seizure memo Ex.P-4. Clothes of the accused were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-5. Blood-stained earth and controlled earth was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-6. Spot map Ex.P-13 was also prepared. Knife, clothes of the deceased, clothes of the accused, blood stained and plain soil were sent for the chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Accused abjured the guilt and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that Raju himself was carrying knife and there was scuffle between them, and due to that scuffle the knife injury was suffered by deceased Raju. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions and most of the witnesses had not support the prosecution case. He has particularly relied upon the observations of the trial Court made in para 18 of the judgment and submitted that the accused ought to have been acquitted. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions and most of the witnesses had not support the prosecution case. He has particularly relied upon the observations of the trial Court made in para 18 of the judgment and submitted that the accused ought to have been acquitted. Beyond periphery of doubt, prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt. His alternative submission is that it is a case where the appellant can at the most be convicted u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence may be suitably reduced to the period which has already passed after the incident. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that it is a case where the accused and deceased were gambling along with other persons. Altercation took place all of a sudden. There is evidence of Suresh Kumar (P.W. 8) who is an independent witness. He has deposed that there was exchange of abusive words between the accused and the deceased and subsequently accused took-out the knife and inflicted injury in the abdominal region of the deceased due to which Raju fell down and then all the persons ran away from the spot. Other witnesses being the brothers of the accused and close associates who themselves were involved in gambling, have obviously tried to suppress the truth. Though they have been declared hostile yet have corroborated the case of the prosecution. Learned government advocate has further submitted that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant does not call for any interference in the appeal. Evidence on record is not much. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Suresh PW-8 has clearly stated that there were abuses between the accused and the deceased and on that accused took-out the knife and inflicted injury to the deceased. Due to the injury Raju fell down and then all the persons present on the spot ran away. He has then narrated the incident to Gajanand. He has further stated that at the relevant time the deceased was in an intoxicated condition and there were several cases against him. He has stated that no scuffle took place between the accused and the deceased. Accused himself in the statement recorded u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has deposed that altercation took-place with the deceased. He has further stated that at the relevant time the deceased was in an intoxicated condition and there were several cases against him. He has stated that no scuffle took place between the accused and the deceased. Accused himself in the statement recorded u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has deposed that altercation took-place with the deceased. Other witnesses namely Gangaram (PW-1) brother of the deceased had lodged the report on the basis of the information given by Gajanand that Raju has suffered injuries in the abdomen. Suresh Kumar (PW-3), the real brother of the accused has deposed that deceased was also involved in the gambling and thereafter he fell down and then all the persons present there, ran away. This witness has been declared hostile. However, he has stated in the examination in chief that accused and the deceased were playing cards on the spot. He also saw the deceased falling down and then he ran away. He has thus tried to suppress the truth. He has not deposed anything that what was the cause of falling down of Raju and he has not substantiated the statement of the accused that it was Raju who was carrying knife. Santosh (PW-4) was also declared hostile. He has deposed that he had disclosed to the Police that the accused had taken out the knife from his pocket and inflicted injury to the deceased, under pressure. Whatever that may be, this witness has impeached the credibility of the evidence cannot be relied upon. Sunil (PW 5) has deposed that deceased Raju and other persons were playing cards. There was a dispute between Raju and the present accused. Thereafter, he himself has stated that accused inflicted knife injury to the deceased. This witness has substantially corroborated the prosecution case that there was altercation between the accused and the deceased and then Raju fell-down and was having bleeding also. He has stated to the Police that accused Bajrang had inflicted knife injury to Raju but denied that part of the statement. Thus it is clear that he has suppressed the truth from the Court and has thus contradicted himself. Gopi Prasad (PW 6) has also made more or less the similar statement as that of Sunil. He has admitted that he informed the police that injury was inflicted by the accused to deceased Raju but he has changed the version in the Court. Gopi Prasad (PW 6) has also made more or less the similar statement as that of Sunil. He has admitted that he informed the police that injury was inflicted by the accused to deceased Raju but he has changed the version in the Court. Thus he has contradicted himself and there is nothing to disbelieve the version of Suresh (PW-8) who is an independent witness. Sumer (PW-7) lends support to the deposition of Suresh PW-8. In paragraph 2 of the deposition he has stated that Bajrang had inflicted injury by knife to deceased Raju due to which he fell down. However, subsequently he has tried to change his version in the cross examination that he had not seen that assault. On re-examination, he admitted that he had seen the accused taking-out knife but not the actual assault. Thus from his deposition it can be gathered safely that it was the accused Bajrang who was carrying knife and inflicted knife injury to the deceased. All the witnesses are unanimous on one point that there was altercation between the deceased and the accused. It is really unfortunate that remaining persons who were present on the spot, they have been examined in the case but still only one witness Suresh (PW-8) has corroborated the case of the prosecution. Though other witnesses have admitted the altercation between the accused and the deceased but have tried to suppress the truth. This is the travesty of the modern civilisation that either the people do not come forward to depose before the Court and if at all they come forward, they show the total apathy towards the commission of crime. In the instant case it is well established that the appellant has inflicted injury on the vital part of the deceased. Thus the conviction which has been recorded by the trial Court u/s 304-1, Indian Penal Code is clearly made-out. It cannot be said to be a case falling u/s 326, Indian Penal Code and the sentence already imposed appears to be proper and calls for no interference in the appeal. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Accused be taken into custody forthwith since the bail was cancelled by this Court way back in January 1993, to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed