JUDGMENT P.V. HARDAS, J.:- The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default of which to undergo imprisonment for three months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha by Judgment dated 3.5.2006 in Sessions Trial No.68/04, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. At the outset, it may be stated that the appellant along with other accused was shown as the accused but since the appellant was absconding the other accused were tried and convicted by the Judgment of the trial Court dated 13.4.2000 in Sessions Trial No. 168/98. The appeals of the accused appearing therein viz. Criminal Appeal Nos. 172/2000 and 179/2000 were dismissed by the High Court on 21.9.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused therein. After his arrest the present appellant was tried and convicted by the trial Court. 2. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:- P.W.4 P.I., Rathod, who on 16.9.1998 was attached to the Police Station, Karanja (Ghadge), recorded the report of P.W.1 Liladhar at Exh. 16. On the basis of the said report, an offence vide Crime No. 146/98 under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and other accused. The printed F.I.R. is at Exh. 22. P.W.4 P.I., Rathod thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident and searched for the accused but they were not found in the village. On the next day, the scene of the offence panchanama in the presence of the panchas was drawn at Exh. 20. The other accused were arrested and thereafter inquest panchanama was drawn in the presence of the panchas at Exh.23. Certain weapons came to be seized from the accused arrested. On 18.9.1998 the clothes of deceased Sanjay were seized vide seizure memo at Exh.24. The weapons were referred to the medical officer for seeking his opinion along with the covering letters at Exh.25 and 26. Seized property was referred to the chemical analyser along with the requisitions at Exh.27 and 28. The appellant was arrested by P.W.5 P.S.I., Ade who was attached to Karanja Police Station on 18.5.2004 vide arrest panchanama at Exh.33. The weapons were referred to the medical officer for seeking his opinion along with the covering letters at Exh.25 and 26. Seized property was referred to the chemical analyser along with the requisitions at Exh.27 and 28. The appellant was arrested by P.W.5 P.S.I., Ade who was attached to Karanja Police Station on 18.5.2004 vide arrest panchanama at Exh.33. Further to the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant was submitted. 3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial court vide Exh.8 framed charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses. The trial Court by the Judgment impugned in the present appeal convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated. 4. Before we deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri Junaid Ahmed, the learned counsel appointed for the appellant and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. P.W.1 Liladhar, who is an eye witness, states that on the day of the incident at about 8.00 p.m. he along with Sanjay had gone to the grocery stores of one Marotrao Dhole. They had purchased bidis from that shop and were returning back to their house. When they had reached near the flag post, the appel1ant and other accused came there and chilly powder was thrown in the eyes of San jay while chilly powder fel1 on the neck of Liladhar. All the accused surrounded them and thereafter assaulted the deceased. The appellant is alleged to have wielded a weapon called katara, which is an instrument which has an iron blade with a wooden handle. On account of the injuries, Sanjay fel1 on the ground and the accused then fled away. Liladhar states that they went to the Police Station, Karanja, where Liladhar lodged his report at Exh.16. In cross examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his report about the date of the incident and the time of the incident. The aforesaid omission is completely misconceived. In the report at Exh.16, the time and the date is clearly stated. In cross examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his report about the date of the incident and the time of the incident. The aforesaid omission is completely misconceived. In the report at Exh.16, the time and the date is clearly stated. Though, Liladhar has been cross-examined, nothing of substance has been elicited which would in any manner impel us to discard the evidence of the witness. Liladhar has admitted as true that he was a friend of Sanjay. He has, however, denied the suggestion that because of his strained relations with the accused, he had falsely implicated the appel1ant and other accused. 6. P.W.2 Shriram, uncle of deceased Sanjay also states that on the day of the incident the accused had come to his house and had inquired from him whereabouts of Sanjay. Shriram states that he informed the accused that Sanjay had gone to the grocery shop. Shriram further states that he heard cries and, therefore, went near the square and noticed the accused assaulting Sanjay. He claims to have seen the appellant assaulting Sanjay by a katara. In cross-examination, an omission is elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that he had informed the accused that Sanjay had gone to the grocery shop. An omission has also been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about going on to the square. He has admitted that he and Sanjay used to reside in the same house. He has denied the suggestion that since 1997 the appellant was residing at village Shevati. He then admits that he had gone to the square after the appellant had fled arid at that time no one was present at the scene of the incident. He had admitted that he had not gone to the Police Patil to inform him about the incident. He has then denied the suggestion that he had not seen the appellant assaulting deceased Sanjay. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that no reliance at all can be placed on the evidence of two eye witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. It is urged before us that there is variance in the evidence of the eye witnesses and consequently the evidence needs to be discarded. The learned APP has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court. 8. It is urged before us that there is variance in the evidence of the eye witnesses and consequently the evidence needs to be discarded. The learned APP has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court. 8. As pointed out by us above, Liladhar, who is an eye witness, had promptly lodged the First Information Report at Exh.16. The evidence of P.W.1 Liladhar is corroborated by the recitals of the First Information Report. There is hardly any cross examination which would impel us to discard the evidence of P.W.1 Liladhar. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.2 Shriram also deserves to be accepted. It is no doubt true that in the cross examination an admission is elicited that when he had gone to the square the appellant had fled. However, his evidence is that on hearing the cries he had proceeded to the square and had seen the appellant assaulting deceased Sanjay. When he had actually reached the square the appellant may have fled. That admission does not in any manner, according to us, wipe away the examination-in-chief of the witness. Subsequently, in his cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the appellant assaulting deceased Sanjay. Innumerable injuries had been noticed by P.W.6 Doctor Sarkate, who had performed the post mortem. There were 13 injures and consequently the weapons which were seized had been referred to the Medical Officer, who had stated that the injuries could be caused by the said weapons. The evidence of the two eye witnesses, therefore, inspires confidence of the court. These two eye witnesses have been relied upon by the trial Court and by the high Court in confirming the conviction and sentence of the other accused. We see no reason whatsoever to take a view different from the view taken by the trial Court. 9. We, thus, see no merit in the present appeal and the present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the appellant are quantified at Rs. 5000/-. Appeal dismissed.