was present at the place of occurrence by chance. P.W.3 is a friend of P.W.2 and not related to the deceased. P.W.4 is a friend of the deceased. He has stated that he was present at the place of occurrence by chance. P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 during the cross examination has stated that before the occurrence, he was not aware of the name and other details of both the deceased as well as the accused. He has further stated that he came to know about the name of the accused as well as the deceased only after the occurrence. Referring to the same, the learned counsel would submit that his evidence cannot be acted upon. But we find no force at all in the said argument. He has explained that for medical purpose, he was present at the place of occurrence by chance. He has further stated that the accused stabbed the deceased. It may be true that he was not aware of the name of the accused as well as the deceased, on that score, we cannot reject his entire evidence. His explanation that the occurrence had taken place at around 08.45 p.m., in which the deceased was done to death by another person, his evidence can be acted upon. The person who stabbed the deceased has been identified by P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5, more particularly P.Ws.1 and 5. We find no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 5, who were the brother and wife of the deceased, who have categorically stated that in the quarrel this accused had stabbed the deceased. Though these witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to create even a slightest doubt in their evidence. Thus, the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 5 are so cogent and convincing, which would clearly establish that it was this accused who stabbed the deceased and caused his death.
