JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed on 15th February, 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Case No. 1114 of 1994 convicting the accused under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life, the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant. 2.With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the defence and the learned Prosecutor we have scrutinised the evidence and have reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as revealed from the reappreciation of the evidence stated briefly is as under : 3.The deceased Mukhtar Ahmed Shabir Ahmed Khan was residing in Navneet Bhawan Chawl, Kharwa Galli, 3rd floor, Room No. 4 Pathe Bapurao Marg, Bombay 400 004 alongwith his family. The appellant/accused was also residing in the same area. One month prior to the incident the deceased had an altercation with one panwala on account of cigarette. At that time Sheru, the friend of the deceased had kicked by the present appellant/accused. On account of the said quarrel and kick inflicted to the accused, the appellant went to the deceased on 28-6-1994 at about 7.15 p.m. and met the deceased Mukhtar Ahmed near Amir hotel and started asking about the quarrel that had taken place one month prior to 28-6-1994. On account of this once again altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. Due to this altercation, the accused got annoyed and removed a knife from his pant pocket and inflicted two blows of knife on the abdomen as well as chest. In the meantime friends of deceased namely Kutubddin, Sheru, Mura arrived at the spot. The accused immediately ran away from the spot. These friends of the deceased carried him to J.J. hospital for treatment. On receiving the information the police reached J.J. hospital and recorded the statement of deceased and was treated as complaint and F.I.R. Mukhtar Ahmed succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 29-6-1994 while undergoing treatment. The accused was thereafter arrested and on completion of investigation, prosecuted him under section 302 of I.P.C. which resulted in conviction of the accused as aforesaid. The accused was thereafter arrested and on completion of investigation, prosecuted him under section 302 of I.P.C. which resulted in conviction of the accused as aforesaid. 4.The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case and we have to consider the rival contentions in the light of this evidence. 5.Of the 9 witnesses examined, P.W. 2 Chandrakant Khanvilkar is the Police Officer, who recorded the dying declaration of the victim and who has via his deposition proved the same. He has been cross-examined and the cross-examination does not lead anything which would require the witness being disbelieved. The witness has deposed that first the statement was recorded by him and the deceased was in conscious condition and oriented and was clearly in a position to do so. A certificate to that effect was also obtained by the P.W. 2 which is also on record as Exh. 22. In this Exh. 22, the doctor concerned has clearly certified that Mukhtar Ahmed (victim) is 19 year old male Muslim patient, who was suffering from multiple stab injury but his condition to give written as also verbal statement is good. He has signed it and it was dated 28-6-1999 at about 8.45 p.m. The time is also recorded in the dying declaration. By this dying declaration as recorded by P.W. 2 it is clearly stated that the accused was the person who gave multiple stab injury to the victim. It has signed by the Police Officer who has recorded it i.e. P.W. 2. From the perusal of the Exh. 22 certificate, the dying declaration has recorded and proved by P.W. 2 and his evidence normally goes to show that there is nothing wrong in the recording of the statement and the condition of the victim at the time when the statement was recorded was good. Medical evidence given by the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem is also an independent corroboration available to the eye-witness account given by P.W. 4. The doctor has stated that multiple stab injuries existed on the person of the victim, and he has described the injuries. They corresponds to the description as given by P.W. 4 in his deposition before the Court. It therefore lends substantial intrinsic corroborative support to the eye-witness account given by P.W. 4. 6.The prosecution does not rest at that. The blood group of the victim was ascertained. They corresponds to the description as given by P.W. 4 in his deposition before the Court. It therefore lends substantial intrinsic corroborative support to the eye-witness account given by P.W. 4. 6.The prosecution does not rest at that. The blood group of the victim was ascertained. It was group "A". The knife and clothes of the accused were sent to C.A. and the analysts report is also available which is on record. The C.A. report states that the blood stains found on the knife and clothes of the accused which were recovered by him is of group "A". There is thus ample evidence on record apart from the eye-witness account of P.W. 4, to show the incident and has given a detailed description as to how it occurred including the reason of assault. He has been cross-examined and there is nothing in his cross-examination which require this witnesss deposition being rejected. 7.The learned trial Judge has marshalled the evidence correctly and has appreciated the evidence properly. The finding recorded by him that it was homicidal death is well supported by the medical evidence and the dying declaration. The finding that it was accused who caused the homicidal death intentionally is also well supported by the eye-witness account and the dying declaration in which the victim was clearly naming the accused is the author of the injury. We endorse both these findings as there is no reason either in law or in facts which require any different conclusion being drawn. In our opinion, therefore there is no substance in this appeal. In the result therefore the appeal fails and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----