Judgment P. V. HARDAS, J. 1. The appellant original accused, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months and sentenced of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days respectively, with the direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, by judgment and order dated 10/9/2004, in Sessions Trial No.20/2003, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus : P.W.7 PI Dhanraj Pakhide, who was attached to Police Station Salekasa, recorded the complaint of P.W.1Dinesh Madame, a Police Patil of village Vicharpur at Exh.13. On the basis of the said report, an offence came to be registered and P.W.7PI Dhanraj Pakhide arrested the accused under arrest panchanama at Exh.22. P.W.8 PSI Sahebrao Bangad, who was attached to Salekasa Police Station, was handed over the case diary of Crime No.15/2003 for further investigation and accordingly visited the scene of the offence and drew the scene of the offence panchanama at Exh.20. Inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Vandana came to be drawn at Exh.21. The dead body of deceased Vandana was forwarded for postmortem examination along with the requisition at Exh.29. On the same day at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant/accused expressed his willingness to point out the place where the knife had been hidden by him. Accordingly, a memorandum came to be drawn in the presence of P.W.6 Santosh and another panch at Exh.23. The appellant led the police and the panch witnesses to the house of one Urmilabai and produced a knife, which came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.24. On the same day at about 1000 p.m. blood stained clothes worn by the appellant/accused came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.25. Clothes of deceased came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.26. The blood sample of the accused, which had been drawn by the Medical Officer, came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.31. On the same day at about 1000 p.m. blood stained clothes worn by the appellant/accused came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.25. Clothes of deceased came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.26. The blood sample of the accused, which had been drawn by the Medical Officer, came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.31. The seized property was forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer along with the requisition at Exh.33. The report of the Chemical Analyzer is at Exh.35. Further to the completion of the investigation a chargesheet against the appellant/accused came to be filed. 3. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Vandana had been performed by P.W.9Dr. Pariyal. P.W.9 Dr. Pariyal noticed the following external injuries on the dead body of deceased. (1) Abrasions five in numbers ¼ x ¼ cm. right supra memory region. (2) Incised wound – three in numbers 1 x ¼ left shoulder. (3) Incised wound 2 x ½ cm. right armpit. (4) Incised wound little finger left hand 2 x ½ cm. (5) Incised wound four in numbers ½ x ¼ cm. dorsal aspect of left forearm 3 cm. above left wrist joint. (6) Abrasion–four in numbers 2 x 1 cm. middle of interscapuler region. (7) Stab wound middle and 4 cm. below right sub costal margin 2 ½ cm. x ½ cm. x 16 cm. inward and laterally. (8) Lacerated wound 2 ½ x 2 cm. below 10th ribs right side posteriorly. 4. On internal examination, he noticed a stab wound 4 cm. below right side costal margin inward and laterally. He also noticed rupture at right side superiorly. Abdominal cavity was full of blood. There was a stab wound to the lower margin or right lobe 2 ½ x 4 cm. inward and laterally. P.W.9 Dr. Pariyal, therefore, opined that cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to hepatic rupture. The postmortem report is at Exh.42. 5. On committal of the case to the Court of Session, the trial Court vide Exh.9 framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/ accused denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. The defence of the accused is of false implication at the behest of the Uncle of deceased Vandana. The appellant/ accused denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. The defence of the accused is of false implication at the behest of the Uncle of deceased Vandana. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated. 6. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri Wasnik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case revolves around the evidence of two eye witnesses namely, P.W.2Sangeeta and P.W.3 Manoj. 7. P.W.2Sangeeta states that deceased Vandana was her cousin while P.W.3Manoj was the younger brother of deceased Vandana. Both Vandana and Manoj were residing with the parents of Sangeeta. Sangeeta states that her parents had gone to Mumbai for earning their livelihood. She states that on the day of the incident at about 700 p.m. she, deceased Vandana and Manoj were present in the house. Vandana was sitting near the hearth and was cooking food while Manoj was taking his dinner in the kitchen near the door. Sangeeta was standing near Manoj. She states that the appellant came inside the room and took out a knife from his sock and stabbed deceased Vandana on the back. She states that she fled outside the house and Manoj also followed her. After stabbing Vandana, the appellant came out of the house and thereafter again went inside the house and assaulted Vandana and then fled away. She states that the Police Patil had arrived at the scene of the offence and was informed by Sangeeta and others about the incident. She states that Vandana succumbed to her injuries immediately. In cross-examination , she has admitted as true that Vandana had been previously working as a maid servant for 2 to 3 years at Banglore and therefore, used to wear fancy dresses. Deceased Vandana, Deorao and the appellant were working as labour at the Railway site. She has admitted as true that she had gone outside the house after the accused entered the house. She has admitted that she had fled from the house as soon as the accused took out the knife. She has denied the suggestion that P.W.3Manoj followed her immediately. She has admitted as true that she had gone outside the house after the accused entered the house. She has admitted that she had fled from the house as soon as the accused took out the knife. She has denied the suggestion that P.W.3Manoj followed her immediately. She has denied the suggestion that one Deorao had entered the house and had killed Vandana. 8. P.W.3 Manoj, a child witness, states that deceased Vandana was his elder sister while P.W.2Sangeeta was his cousin. He states that on the day of the incident at about 700 p.m. he, Sangeeta and deceased Vandana were present in the house. He further states that he was taking his dinner while Vandana was sitting in the kitchen and Sangeeta was standing. He states that the appellant entered the house, took out a knife and stabbed Vandana on her back and stomach. The appellant had in all delivered about 4 to 5 blows. He states that he was near other door and had watched the entire incident at that door. After assaulting Vandana, accused fled from the house. He states that Vandana had died on the spot. In cross-examination , he has admitted that he used to go to school at Darekasa, which is situated at a distance of 5 km. and while Vandana was used to go for work in the morning. He has pleaded ignorance if the relations between Deorao and the appellant were strained. He has denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident Deorao had entered the house and that he was deposing as per the instructions of his maternal Uncle. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in the light of the admission given by Sangeeta that she had fled from the house as soon as the appellant had brandished a knife, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon. It is also urged before us that P.W.3Manoj apart from being a relative, is a child witness and therefore, his evidence ought not to have been relied upon. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. 10. It is true that P.W.2 Sangeeta has admitted that after the accused had entered the house and had removed a knife from his sock, had fled outside the house. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. 10. It is true that P.W.2 Sangeeta has admitted that after the accused had entered the house and had removed a knife from his sock, had fled outside the house. P.W.3Manoj deposes that he was inside the house and had seen the entire incident. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to doubt P.W.3 Manoj is an eye witness and is giving a truthful account of the incident. There is nothing on record to indicate that P.W.3Manoj has been tutored. Even if the evidence of P.W.2 Sangeeta is accepted to the extent of the appellant entering the house and removing the knife from his sock, the presence of the appellant in the house is firmly established. P.W.2 Sangeeta has deposed about the incident and we have found her to be a reliable witness. In circumstances, therefore, according to us, the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The knife, which is alleged to have been discovered from the appellant, was found stains of human blood. The clothes of deceased Vandana were found stains with blood of 'A' Group. The shirt of the appellant/accused was also found stains with blood of 'A' Group. The appellant has not offered any explanation for the presence of blood stains on his clothes. In circumstances, therefore, according to us, the circumstantial evidence also corroborates the version of the eye witnesses. The prosecution has thus proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and no interference is called for in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Ordered accordingly.