and large consistent with the prosecution story and corroborates all what has been stated in the FIR. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the Complainant (PW-1) in his statement has affirmed on oath that the Accused/Appellant was not eligible for appearing in the examination since he did not have the requisite 80% attendance. A week before the occurrence, the Accused/Appellant had visited the Complainant and at his instance, the Complainant had taken the Accused/Appellant to the office of the Principal, but the Principal did not yield to the request of the Accused/Appellant. No doubt, there are some exaggerations and embellishments in the statements made in the Court by the prosecution witnesses that the Accused/Appellant had given a threat in the office of the Principal that he shall get his work done by hooliganism ( gundagardi ) and committing murder. These facts have not been corroborated with what has been recorded in the FIR. But, on the basic issue, the statements are ad idem. Aatmaram (PW-1) further states that on 11.06.1999, at about 8:30 – 9:00 pm, the Accused/Appellant came to his house. When the Accused/Appellant knocked the door, it was opened by Indrajeet Varik (PW-3), who called the Complainant. Again, the Accused/Appellant raised a demand that his attendance be suitably modified. However, when the Complainant refused to do so, the Accused/Appellant attacked the Complainant from behind and stabbed him on his chest and stomach etc. and attempted to kill him. The witness also states that he caught hold of the dagger, the weapon of assault and then he called Indrajeet Varik (PW-3). The wife and niece of Aatmaram (PW-1)
