Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code(in short "Penal Code") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. On the basis of a fardbeyan (Ext. 3) made by the deceased in the Colgong State Dispensary on 13-4- 1984 at 11-30 p.m. recorded by P.W. S. a formal first information report (Ext. 4) was drawn up. The prosecution case according to the said fardbeyan (Ext. 3), in short, is that on the date of occurrence i.e. 13-4-1984 at about 8-00 p.m. while the deceased Bohi Mandai was going to the field of his master Dip Narain Singh, (P.W. 2), from his house, and when he reached near Pee pal tree on Durga Bandh situated at village - Aurangabad within the police station of Colgong in the district of Bhagalpur the appellant Jairam Mandai came before him with a pistol in his hand and fired at him, which hit below his left chest as a result of which he fell down on the ground crying. On his hullah many people of the village came there and took him to the Colgong State Dispensary ill an injured condition. He was admitted in the emergency outdoor ward of the said hospital vide Bed Head Ticket (Ext. 6) and his injuries were examined by the doctor (P.W. 6) on the same night The police was informed and on that information the Officer Incharge of Colgong Police Station (P.W. 5) reached the Colgong State Dispensary in the same night and recorded the fardbeyan of the injured at about 11-30 p.m. As stated above, on the basis of the said fardbeyan a formal first information report was drawn up against the appellant at about 1-15 A.M. on 14-4-1984 and Colgong Police Station Case No. 39 (4) 84 was registered against the appellant under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Since the condition of the injured was deteriorating, he was referred to Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital, where he died of the said injury. Since the condition of the injured was deteriorating, he was referred to Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital, where he died of the said injury. The post-monem examination of the dead body was conducted by P.W. 1 at about 11-45 A.M. on 14-4-1984 and the offence was convened from Section 307 to Sec. 302 of the Penal Code. In the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) it was also recorded that the deceased became the victim on account of Rangbazi. 3. The police after making investigation in the case submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. wherein the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur took cognizance and the case was committed to the court of Session. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty. According to him, he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, has examined as many as six witnesses. Out of them P.W. 1 is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the doctor who admitted the deceased in the Colgong State Dispensary when he was brought in the night at about 0-30 p.m. on 13-4-1984 in an injured condition by P.W. 3. P.W. 2 is said to be the master of the deceased and also the attesting witness on the fardbeyan. P.W. 4 is a tendered witness. P.W. 5 is the Investigating Officer, who made investigation into the case and submitted the charge-sheet. 6. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge on a careful consideration of the entire evidence in the light of the circumstances of the, case was of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant submitted that the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant on the basis of the meagre evidence available on the record and he has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant solely on the evidence of P.W. 6 and the so called dying declaration. It was further contended that the fardbeyan should not be treated as the dying declaration on account of certain infirmities and also because it was not recorded as the dying declaration. It was further contended that the fardbeyan should not be treated as the dying declaration on account of certain infirmities and also because it was not recorded as the dying declaration. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses available on the record. 8. Before going into the evidences and in order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it is relevant to examine the statement made by the deceased in the hospital at about 1130 hours in the night of 13-4-1984. According to the said statement the prosecution case is that while the deceased was going to the field of his master, Dip Narain Singh, P.W. 2, from his house and, when he reached near peepal tree on Durga Bandh. Jairarn .came there and shot at him, as a result of which he fell down crying. On his hullah many villagers came and carried him to the hospital. It has also been stated in the fardbeyan that the appellant fired from his pistol in Rangbazi. P. W. 6 has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence i.e. 13-4-1984. Bohi Mandai was brought to the hospital in the night in an injured condition and he treated him in outdoor and referred him on that very night to Bhagalpur Medical College and hospital for treatment. He made an entry of his arrival in the hospital entry book vide entry No. 306 (Ext 6). He also examined the injured and found the following injuries and prepared the injury report: "(1) gun shot injury. The wound of entry, was one inch in diameter over upper portion of left hypogastric region. Stomach contents were coming out of the wound. The wound of exit over the back was one inch diameter." According to the doctor, P.W. 6, injury was grievous in nature and was caused by gun shot within six hours of the examination P.W. 6 has also proved the injury report, which is Ext. 7. This witness has also stated that the police officer recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital and the injured was conscious and was in a position to make statement. 7. This witness has also stated that the police officer recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital and the injured was conscious and was in a position to make statement. From his statement it appears that he examined the injured at 11-35 p.m. and prepared the outdoor slip and after that he made injury report and requisitioned the police for recording the statement of the injured. He has further stated that the injury examined by him might have caused internal haemorrhage which might not have given copious blood. He has further stated that after 3 hours of such injury a man becomes very weak, but he could be in a position to reply to the questions. P.W. 2 has stated that the injured Bohi Mandai was working at his place. On the date of occurrence he was at Colgong in connection with the arrangement for a meeting, where he received the information about the occurrence and he at once rushed to the village. According to this witness he had gone to the hospital and in his presence the statement of the injured was taken by the investigating officer, P.W. 5 and he has signed on that statement. P.W. is the brother of P.W. 2 who has carried the injured to the hospital. P.W. 4 is the nephew of P.W. 2 who has been tendered by the prosecution. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of P.W. 3 where he has stated that the injured was unconscious. But this fact is belied by the Statement of P.W. 6, who is a doctor and who has made specific statement that while the statement of the deceased was recorded by the investigating officer, P.W. 5 he was conscious and in a position to make such statement. Nothing has been shown on the record as to why this medical officer will make a false statement. In this connection I may also refer to the statement of P.W. I, who is also a doctor and who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. From this statement it appears that specific question was asked; viz "Are you definite that the man will not become unconscious as soon as he receives the above said injuries?" The reply was "I am definite that he would not become unconscious after receiving injuries". From this statement it appears that specific question was asked; viz "Are you definite that the man will not become unconscious as soon as he receives the above said injuries?" The reply was "I am definite that he would not become unconscious after receiving injuries". One more question was asked that "how long would the injured remain conscious for 3 hours or 6 hours 7" the reply was "about three hours". Here I may point out that the time of occurrence is said to be 8-30 p.m. and the statement was recorded at about 11-30 p.m. i.e. nearly three hours after the occurrence. Therefore, in view of the statements made by these two medical officers it is difficult to accept the submission made by the learned counsel that the injured was unconscious when he was brought at the hospital. 9. After scrutinising the evidence on the point as to whether the injured was conscious or unconscious at the time of recording of the statement, I am of the view that in view of the statements of the two medical officers and also the Investigating Officer, P.W. 5, the injured was conscious at the time of making statement i.e. the fardbeyan on the basis of which the first information report was drawn up. 10. In this connection the evidence of the Investigation officer is also clear. - The Investigating Officer in his evidence has also said that on the date of occurrence he was Officer Incharge of Colong Police Station and at about 11-15 hours he received a telephonic call from the hospital and on that information he reached the hospital at about 11-30 p.m. and took the statement of injured. According to the investigating Officer P.W. 6 was also there. The injured after hearing the statement put his left thumb impression on the statement. He has also stated that P.W. 2,Dip Narain Singh, who was also present at the time of recording of the statement also put his signature. In his cross-examination this witness has specifically stated that the injured was in a position to make statement. In view of these statements, the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 cannot be accepted on the point of consciousness because it is well settled that where there is a conflict between the statement of a lay person and a medical expert, weightage should be given to the medical experts. 11. In view of these statements, the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 cannot be accepted on the point of consciousness because it is well settled that where there is a conflict between the statement of a lay person and a medical expert, weightage should be given to the medical experts. 11. It was next contended that it is very difficult to say whether it was a dying declaration and whether the court below was right in convicting on such statement. In this connection it may be noticed that dying declaration is a statement by a person as to cause of his death or as to the circumstances resulting in his death and it becomes very relevant in case in which the cause of death of that person comes into question. It is no doubt true that great sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies, but the court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Here I have discussed that according to the doctors and the investigating officer he was in a fit state of mind to make statement. Therefore, it can be treated as dying declaration and also admissible in evidence. In this connection in the case of Ramawati Devi V/s. The State of Bihar the Hon ble Supreme Court has stated that the statement made by the deceased before the police relating to cause, of death is admissible and such statement need not necessarily be made before a magistrate. In proper cases, such dying declaration properly proved can be acted upon and conviction can be based on such dying declaration. In the instant case, the dying declaration has been properly proved and as have already indicated above during the course of examination of the witnesses, namely, P.W. 5,1 and 6 it has been proved that it was a properly dying declaration and the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make such statement. The doctors evidence also clearly indicates that it was possible for the deceased to make the statement attributed to the appellant in the dying declaration in which his left thumb impression has also been affixed. The doctors evidence also clearly indicates that it was possible for the deceased to make the statement attributed to the appellant in the dying declaration in which his left thumb impression has also been affixed. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that there is no mention of the fact in Ext 6 that the injured was conscious when he arrived in the hospital, and the doctor P.W. 6 who is said to have been present at the time of recording such statement and who had already prepared Ext. 6 was not asked by the investigating officer to sign such statement. But according to me that will not be lie the statement as made by the deceased in view of the formal evidence, discussed above. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of Khushal Rao V/s. The State of Bombay. In the aforesaid case the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that it could not be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated and that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration is made. 12. It is true that dying declaration recorded at a suspicious circumstances cannot be made basis for conviction unless it is corroborated. When it suffers from some infirmities it requires corroboration. In order to pass the test of reliability it has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny. One must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. I have already stated above that in the instant case there is no infirmity in the dying declaration and the evidence of P.W. 1 and 6 are quite clear. Therefore, the instant case is covered by the principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision in ihe case of Zahir Mian V/s. The State of Bihar: but the facts of that case is distinguishable so far as the facts of the present case is concerned and that case will not help the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. Considering all the materials, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was right in relying upon Ext. 13. Considering all the materials, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was right in relying upon Ext. 3 as well as on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,5 and 6 and rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant I do not find any cogent and sufficient ground to take a. different view as that of the learned Sessions Judge. In the result the appeal is dismissed.