JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J. The appellant has been convicted u/s 304, Part II of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 17-7-1988 at about 8.30 p.m. deceased Bharat Kumar was taking two passengers in his cycle-rikshaw from Bajariya to bus stand. When he reached in front, of the shop of Mathura Sahu at Tamaryayee accused Gajju Patwa of Shobhanagar, who earlier used to sell Kulfi, was sitting on bench along with two other boys. Bharat Kumar asked to remove the bench so that his rikshaw may pass which was not acceded to by the accused and the accused hurled abuses. Bharat Kumar asked not to abuse. On that the accused took out a knife and inserted it above the abdominal area towards the left side of rib of Bharat Kumar which was cut and started bleeding. The accused wanted to inflict another injury. His hand was caught hence he could not inflict second injury on Bharat Kumar. On raising hue and cry by deceased Bharat Kumar Kallu (PW 4) and Raju (PW 8) intervened. The incident was witnessed by other persons also. Owing to the knife blow Bharat Kumar fell down. He was taken to the police station in another cycle rikshaw where Bharat Kumar himself lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. P/15). For eight days Bharat Kumar was treated in the hospital and discharged on 25-7-1988. He was re-admitted in the hospital on August 2nd, 1988 owing to loss of blood and pain. He ultimately died on 5-8-1988 at 11.30 a.m. in the hospital. The accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was falsely implicated in the matter. He submitted that he was not at all involved in the alleged incident. The learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal has submitted that the appellant has been roped in the case. The actual assailant was not known. The name of the accused has been falsely written subsequently. His submission is that in the requisition Ex. P/1(a) it was mentioned that the assailant was not known. He further submitted that in Ex. P/20 which is a letter written by the Station House Officer, Kotwali on 30-7-1988 it was initially mentioned that unknown person had inflicted knife injury on July 17, 1988. Thereafter, the words 'unknown person' were scored off from the letter Ex. P/1(a) it was mentioned that the assailant was not known. He further submitted that in Ex. P/20 which is a letter written by the Station House Officer, Kotwali on 30-7-1988 it was initially mentioned that unknown person had inflicted knife injury on July 17, 1988. Thereafter, the words 'unknown person' were scored off from the letter Ex. P/20 which is still visible. In such circumstances, it is submitted that conviction cannot be upheld. Reliance is placed on Kalu Singh Chander Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and two decisions of the Supreme Court in Rehmat Vs. State of Haryana, and Devinder Vs. State of Haryana, . Further submission of the learned counsel is that compliance of section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure has not been proved by the prosecution which casts a serious dent on the prosecution case and shakes the entire edifice of the prosecution case. His further submission is that eye witness Lakhanlal Soni (PW 1) is not a reliable witness. He had not disclosed the incident for about three to four days to anybody. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda, , Peddireddy Subbareddi and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, ; and Alil Mollah and Another Vs. State of West Bengal, to contend that such a witness is not a reliable witness. Other eye witness Kallu alias Bharose (PW 4) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The learned counsel has further submitted that the dying declaration was recorded after 17 days of the incident. There was enough time to improve upon and that is not a reliable piece of evidence. Another submission of the learned counsel is that conviction could not be recorded u/s 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. It was simple injury caused by knife blow punishable within the purview of section 325, Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the conviction recorded u/s 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code calls for no interference. Delay in recording the statement of Lakhanlal (PW 1) has been satisfactorily explained. F.I.R. was lodged promptly by the deceased himself. In the F.I.R. name of the accused was mentioned by the deceased. The incident took place at 21.00 hrs and the report was lodged 30 minutes thereafter. Delay in recording the statement of Lakhanlal (PW 1) has been satisfactorily explained. F.I.R. was lodged promptly by the deceased himself. In the F.I.R. name of the accused was mentioned by the deceased. The incident took place at 21.00 hrs and the report was lodged 30 minutes thereafter. Dying declaration has been proved by S.K. Tawar (PW 7) Executive Magistrate. In order to examine the first submission of the learned counsel that the name of the accused was subsequently inserted, corresponding documents on record require close scrutiny, in order to find out the truth. Ex. P/1 is a medical requisition issued to the doctor on 17th July while sending the injured for investigation. In that it is apparent that initially it was mentioned that unknown person had inflicted knife injury, but the words (unknown person) had been scored off and 'Gajju Patwa' has been inserted. Ex. P/20 is requisition dated 30th July 1988 as after the discharge the deceased was to be re-admitted again for treatment. In the third line of Ex. P/20 after the words 'July 17, 1988' it was mentioned initially that unknown persons had inflicted the knife injury. These words have been scored off on Ex. P/20, which is a carbon copy of the letter, by using ink pen and name of accused Gajju Patwa has been inserted after deleting the words. In view of these documents, it becomes necessary to examine other contemporary documents in order to find out whether the name of the accused was not known to the police upto 30th July 1988. The documents prior to 30th July 1988 may be scrutinised first. On 18th July 1988 at 12.05 hrs. police had prepared seizure memo of plain soil and blood stained soil. In this document Ex. P/8 name of the accused does not find place. Spot map Ex. P/9 is said to be drawn 18th July, 1988 in which name of the accused Gajju Patwa has been no doubt mentioned at point No. 5 as the person who had inflicted the injury on the deceased with knife. It is also apparent from spot map that the incident took place in a thick locality on the main road known as 'Ghanta Ghar Road'. It is also apparent from spot map that the incident took place in a thick locality on the main road known as 'Ghanta Ghar Road'. The spot map was prepared at the instance of Raju and Ramsingh Thakur one of the witness was Mattu who had refused to sign the spot map as mentioned in the witness column on the back of Ex. P/9. It bears the signature of witness Mohammad Ismail Khan. Raju Thakur (PW 8) has denied that he has witnessed the incident. He denied his police statement, seizure of soil vide Ex. P/8 and also stated that spot map (Ex. P/9) was not prepared in his presence. He has admitted his signature in the portion 'A' to 'A' on the spot map (Ex. P/9). Ismail Khan has not been examined by the prosecution. F.I.R. (Ex. P/15) which was recorded immediately after the incident records the name of Gajju Patwa as the assailant. The report was lodged after 30 minutes of the incident on 17-7-1988 by the victim Bharat Kumar himself. In the F.I.R. prima-facie there is no interpolation. Clothes of the deceased were seized by the police on July 28, 1988 vide Ex. P/17. In the seizure memo obviously name of the accused has not been mentioned as there is no column which requires mentioning of the name of the accused or details of the offence. In the instant case, the incident had taken place in a busy locality where large number of shops are situated on both sides of the road. F.I.R. was promptly lodged. In the F.I.R. which was lodged within 30 minutes of the incident, name of accused Gajju finds place. The F.I.R. has not shown to be ante-timed in any manner. The accused was not stranger to the locality. Prosecution has examined Lakhanlal Soni (PW 1) as eye witness. He was going along with one Raju. He was selling betel on a 'Thiliya'. On the way Rajju stopped him. In die meantime a Rikshaw came from behind. The rikshaw-puller asked him to remove his "Paan Thiliya" (mobile shop). Gajju got annoyed and abused the deceased. He took out a knife and inflicted injury on left side of the chest of the deceased. The evidence of this witness has been assailed mainly on the ground that his police statement was recorded belatedly. The rikshaw-puller asked him to remove his "Paan Thiliya" (mobile shop). Gajju got annoyed and abused the deceased. He took out a knife and inflicted injury on left side of the chest of the deceased. The evidence of this witness has been assailed mainly on the ground that his police statement was recorded belatedly. The witness has given reason that Gajju had threatened him that anybody comes between would be killed and therefore, he went away to his in-laws' place and thereafter came back after 3-4 days when he knew that police was searching him. Thereafter his statement was recorded by the police. The witness has given the details of the altercation which took place in para 5 of his deposition. In para 6 he has deposed that after sustaining the injury blood spilled out on the road and the deceased fell on road. He denied the suggestion that he was taken by some body to the police station though initially he stated that he was caught and taken to the police station. It appears that the witness was frighten for the reason that he was giving betel at the relevant time to the accused and the Rikshawala had asked his mobile shop of Pann to be removed from the road, and he ran away sensing some trouble as he was the source of altercation. There is nothing in the deposition of this witness which shows that he was at all interested in the deceased. He was not knowing even the name of the deceased nor he is shown to be enmical in any manner to the accused. His explanation that he ran to his in-laws' place at Jabalpur appears to be credible and reliable. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since this witness had not disclosed or narrated the incident to anybody nor lodged a report he is rendered unreliable. However, merely by this the deposition of the witness cannot be discarded as he is otherwise found to be reliable and his presence on the spot is clearly established. The incident is dated 17-7-1988 and the statement of this witness was recorded on 20-7-1988, just after two days. Thus there is delay of only two days and this delay has been satisfactorily explained by the witness. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. The incident is dated 17-7-1988 and the statement of this witness was recorded on 20-7-1988, just after two days. Thus there is delay of only two days and this delay has been satisfactorily explained by the witness. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda, . In the said case the witness was disbelieved on the ground that he did not disclose the name of the appellant for a day and half after the incident and explanation for non-disclosure was unbelievable. But, in the instant case, name is mentioned in the F.I.R. and moreover, the witness had run away as the altercation started over his mobile shop of pan and thereafter he came back when police started searching him and thereafter he narrated the incident to the police. In Peddireddy Subbareddi and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, eye witness's testimony was held to be suspicious. The said case turned on its own facts and delay simplicitier in every case cannot be held to be vital. The question is whether explanation is probable or not. In Alil Mollah and Another Vs. State of West Bengal, . There was no corroboration of the testimony of the witness and though he went to the work place he did not disclose the incident to anybody. Facts are different in the present case. Kashiram (PW 3) was declared hostile. Though he supported the incident of stabbing, but he did not state the name of the accused contradictory to his police statement. Kallu alias Bharose (PW 4) also turned hostile. He was not an eye witness Kashiram Raikwar (PW 5) also stated that he came to know that stabbing was caused to Bharat. This witness was also declared hostile. Munnalal (PW 6) also did not support the prosecution case. There is no serious dispute that stabbing was done and the doctor has proved the injuries. Ram prasad (PW 10) was also declared hostile. The investigating Officer P.W. 14 has clearly stated that he came to know that Lakhanlal had gone to Jabalpur and he was in search of him and the statement of the said witness was recorded as soon as he was available. In view of the fact that Lakhanlal's deposition is found to be truthful there is nothing to disbelieve his version. In view of the fact that Lakhanlal's deposition is found to be truthful there is nothing to disbelieve his version. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kalusingh vs. State of M.P.,1994 MPLI 560. That case has turned on its own facts. In the said case there was child witness giving vivid description of incident. There was possibility of tutoring the child. In the case of Rehmat Vs. State of Haryana, , in the medical papers of the complainant in primary health center where he had gone for treatment name of the assailant was not mentioned. That was a case under sections 307 and 393, Indian Penal Code and u/s 25 of the Arms Act read with section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The facts of the said case indicate that the appellant had sustained injuries and no explanation whatsoever was given from the side of the prosecution. It is in these circumstances that defence of the appellant that he was attacked by complainant party was held to be probable and consistent with the injury sustained by him. Name of the doctor was not disclosed to the doctor where the complainant had first gone for medical help. In the instant case the name of the appellant finds place in the F.I.R. Thus the above case is also distinguishable. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the case of Devinder Vs. State of Haryana, In the said case Ramphal (the deceased) used to sell vegetables from his shop. The accused went to his shop and asked for some vegetables on credit. Some altercation took place and the accused left and then came back with a knife and dealt two blows. The City Police received a telephonic message from the police post about the admission of Ramphal in the hospital with injuries on his person. Ramphal was operated upon by the doctor but he succumbed to the injuries on the following day. The injured had gone to the hospital directly and not to the police, hence disclosure of assailant to doctor was of importance. In the instant case, the deceased had gone directly to the police station and lodged report himself. Hence not finding the name of the accused or the correction in requisition does not come in the way of the prosecution. In the instant case, the deceased had gone directly to the police station and lodged report himself. Hence not finding the name of the accused or the correction in requisition does not come in the way of the prosecution. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the appeal. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Court are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed