the other aspects relating to the accused damaging glasses in the shop and taking away money from cash counter. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that in Ex.P-1 time of offence is noted as 4.30 P.M and that presence of P.W-5 is not stated therein. Absence of mention of P.W-5’s name in Ex.P-1 is not material. Ex.P-1 is only a first information report and it need not contain each and every particulars of the crime and names of witnesses to the crime. P.W-2 gave time of offence as 10.00 A.M. It is his evidence that when he and P.W-1 were present in the shop, the accused called him to come out of the shop and when he came out of the shop, the accused stabbed him with knife on his abdomen and that P.W-1 came to his rescue and that the accused also attacked with the same knife on P.W-1’s left wrist and P.W-1 sustained bleeding injury. P.W-5 deposed that at about 2 or 2.30 P.M. the accused came to shop of P.W-1 and that the accused called P.W-2 from outside the shop and that P.W-2 went towards the accused and that both of them had some discussion and thereafter the accused stabbed P.W-2 and that when P.W-1 tried to rescue P.W-2, the accused also stabbed P.W-1. P.W5 did not give seat of injuries of P.Ws 1 and 2. But his evidence is to the effect that it was the accused who stabbed P.W-2 as well as P.W-1. P.W-5 in cross-examination deposed that there was no enemity between P.W-2 and the accused. In spite of it, after some discussion with P.W-2, the accused stabbed P.W-2 on his stomach. Evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 5
