S. Haque, J— Jahidul Sikdar had been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dt. 10.6.82 passed by the Sessions Judge, Goal para at Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 52 (K) of 1981. The deceased Abdul Mannaf in injured state lodged the First Information Report Ext. 1 at Bijni Police Station on 27.2.80 at about 10.15PM. The Officer in-charge of the Police Station recorded the information as reported by the injured and took his thumb impression. It was stated that at about 9.30 PM Mannaf was returning with Jahidur from Cinema show, but all of a sudden Jahidul stabbed Mannaf on the chest and belly with a dagger over the bridge of Dulari river. From the Police Station injured Mannaf was taken to Bijni State Dispensary and he was given first aid. Dr. Munindra Nath Das recorded the dying declaration of Mannaf in that night and referred him to Barpeta Civil Hospital where he died in that night. So, the prosecution case that accused Jahidul caused death of Mannaf by stabbing with a dagger in the night of 27.2.80. Accused Jahidul faced trial for the charge under section 302 IPC pleading not guilty. Prosecution had examined six witnesses, and defence examined two witnesses. Trial Court convicted him for the offence of murder. There was no dispute on the fact of death of Mannaf in the night of 27th/28th February, 1980 as a result of injuries sustained by him. PW-5 Ratncswar Sarma, A.S.I, of Police of Barpeta P.S. held inquest over the dead body of Mannaf at Barpeta Civil Hospital in the forenoon of 28.2.80 and found 2 injuries on the chest and abdomen caused by sharp weapon. Ext.3 was the in quest report. Dr. Munindra Nath Das (PW-6) of Bijni State Dispensary gave first aid to the injured Mannaf. He found the injured in grave and shock position and the injuries were grievous in nature. Injuries found were one incised wound over (fee chest at the sternum point, size 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm outwardly and another incised wound in the epigastic region left side in the line of rib bone with the size 4 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm. Doctor K.K. Bora held autopsy on the dead body and found the following wounds :- 1. Doctor K.K. Bora held autopsy on the dead body and found the following wounds :- 1. One incized cut injury 2"x2"x1/2" about 1” away from the midline on left costal cartilage (chest', it was penetrating with regular and curved margin; 2. One incized cut injury I”x2”x1/2” passing through sternum just at the rib bone line left side, penenlrating and regular margin. The left lobe of liver was cut about 1" length, and whole thickness of liver was cut ; sternum was cut about I" length, costal cartilage left side (Sth/9th) cut; I" length injury caused to the stomach. All the injuries were found to be antimortem and caused by sharp cutting weapon. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the vital organ 'liver'. Considering the nature of the injuries, we accept the opinion of the doctor. PW-2 Sahjahan Ali, Mannaf and accused Jahidul were returning together from Cinema show. Sahjahan was proceeding few steps ahead and the other two following him close to each other. He suddenly heard Mannaf shouting "Oh Babago" (Oh father) and looking back he saw accused Jahidul and Mannaf scuffling. He then ran away. He was examined by the Investigating Officer and also gave statement before Magistrate under section 164 Cr. P.C. He stated before the Magistrate that Jahidul warned him not to disclose about the fact of his scuffling with Mannaf, He was an eye witness of the occurrence. He heard Mannaf shouting 'Oh Babago' and saw both scuffling. It is believed that he was present at the place of occurrence when Mannaf shouted 'Oh Babago' and then saw accused and Mannaf scuffling. During the cross-examination he had exposed tendency of softness towards defence and answered as desired by the defence counsel saying that Mannaf had a dagger in his hand. This fact, was not disclosed by him in his previous statement before the Investigating Officer or before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr. P.C This statement of Sahjahan can not be accepted as true. His statements during the cross-examination that Police assaulted him and forced him to say that Jahidul was killer, cannot be relied upon as he did not disclose it before the Magistrate under section 161 Cr. P.C. and also during evidence in chief. PW-3 Niranjan Mandal is another important witness. P.C This statement of Sahjahan can not be accepted as true. His statements during the cross-examination that Police assaulted him and forced him to say that Jahidul was killer, cannot be relied upon as he did not disclose it before the Magistrate under section 161 Cr. P.C. and also during evidence in chief. PW-3 Niranjan Mandal is another important witness. Hearing halla he came to the house of Madhusudan when the injured was taken from the place of occurrence and there he saw blood oozing from the injuries and he along with others took the injured Mannaf to Thana as requested. by the injured. He was present when the injured narrated to the Daroga that Jahidul stabbed him with a dagger and Daroga recorded the statement and took thumb impression of injured Mannaf. He along with others took the injured to the dispensary and then also he was present when injured Mannaf told Doctor that Jahidul assaulted him. He could not be dislodged by cross-examination. On scrutiny we find him to be a truthful witness. He was present when injured Mannaf disclosed the name of Jahidul as asailant before the Daroga at the Police Station and Daroga recorded over which Mannaf put his thumb impression. He was also present and heard when Mannaf disclosed Jahidul as his assailant before the Doctor at Bijni State Dispensary. We belief and rely on his statements. Court Witness No. 1 Khagendra Nath Talukdar was the Officer-in-charge of Bijni at the relevant time. On 27. 2. 80 as O/C he recorded the ejahar as narrated by injured Mannaf at the Police Station and he read over the same to Mannaf and obtained his thumb impression. Ext. 5 was the ejahar recorded by him. He dispatched the said ejahar to Court on 28. 2. 80. It was suggested to him by defence that he had falsely recorded the name of accused in the ejahar and to which he denied straight-forwardly. We find no reason as to why he would falsely record name of Jahidul as assailant. This F. I. R. Ext. 5 wherein injured Mannaf disclosed that Jahidul stabbed him over the chest and left side of abdomen with dagger was a piece of dying declaration and a valuable evidence in the case. We find no reason as to why he would falsely record name of Jahidul as assailant. This F. I. R. Ext. 5 wherein injured Mannaf disclosed that Jahidul stabbed him over the chest and left side of abdomen with dagger was a piece of dying declaration and a valuable evidence in the case. PW-3 Niranjan Mandal corroborated that Mannaf disclosed name of Jahidul as assailant before Daroga and Daroga recorded, that the medical evidence as to the injuries on chest and epigastic region have also corroborated the discloser in Ext. 5-F. I. R. There could be no reason as to why Mannaf would falsely implicate accused Jahidul. PW-2 Sahjahan corroborated stating that Mannaf shouted 'Oh Babago' and saw him scuffling with Jahidul. We believe the disclosers in Ext. 5 as true. First Information report lodged by the injured or recorded by Police Officer at the instance of the injured in accordance with the provision of section 154 Cr. P. C. wherein the injured informant discloses the name/names of the assailant/assailants causing the injuries and subsequently dies as a result of the injuries, the statements in such F. I. R. is very much a dying declaration within the purview of section 32 (I) of the Indian Evidence Act. The dying declaration Ext 5 corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 Sahjahan, PW-3 Niranjan and the medical evidences are found to be valuable and reliable. Evidence to bring home the charge against accused Jahidul Sikdar who had been correctly identified' with father's name in the Ext, 5 and also identified by PW-2 Sahjahan. We have another piece of dying declaration of Mannaf recorded by Doctor Munidra Nath Das (PW-6). He recorded the dying declaration of patient Mannaf, on the requisition of the Daroga, immediately he was brought to the dispensary for treatment. Patient condition was very grave. Doctor then immediately recorded the dying declaration Ext. 4 explained the contents to the patient Mannaf and took his L. T. I. on the declaration and doctor wrote the endorsement over the L. T. I. The patient spoke in Assamese but the doctor wrote it in English. In the declaration Mannaf stated that he was stabbed by Jahidul on returning from the evening show cinema just near the Dalani bridge. Ext. 4(1) was the endorsement of the doctor on the L. T. I. of Mannaf. In the declaration Mannaf stated that he was stabbed by Jahidul on returning from the evening show cinema just near the Dalani bridge. Ext. 4(1) was the endorsement of the doctor on the L. T. I. of Mannaf. It was true that he was brought to the Dispensary direct from Police Station and Doctor Munindra Nath Das attended him to give treatment. On careful scrutiny, we find that the doctor was a truthful witness and he did record the dying declaration Ext. 4 as per the statement of the injured Mannaf. It was suggested to the doctor that he prepared the dying declaration at the request and at the instance of 'Nur Nabi' uncle of the deceased and to which doctor denied straight-forwardly. What interest Nur Nabi could have to get such a document prepared by the doctor to falsely implicate Jahidul or why the doctor would do so on such request. There was no evidence on record that Nur Nabi was present at the Dispensary when injured Mannaf was taken there. PW-3 Ninnjin MinJal was present at the Dispen­sary as he along with others took the injured Mannaf there for getting treatment and Niranjan straight forwardly deposed on oath that the injured Mannaf told the doctor that Jahidul had assaulted him. His corroboration has perfected the evidence of the Doctor about recording the dying declaration Ext. 4 of Mannaf. The Daroga (C. W. 1) also corroborated stating that he made the requisition to the Doctor for recording the dying declaration, and he could know that doctor did record the dying declaration. The Daroga got a copy of a dying declaration from the Doctor. Ex. 4 was the copy which the Doctor gave to the Daroga. But it was not true copy of the dying declaration as categorically deposed by the Daroga. The sub­stance of the dying declaration in some u hat descriptive manner was noted in this copy. But it was clearly noted in that copy J x. A that Abdul Mannaf declared that Jahidul son of Haji Jalal stabbed him near Dalani brHgr while both returned from Cinema. Slight difference in writing the copy, keeping the material part fully- impact, does not in anyway diminishing the value of the dying declaration Ext. 4 nor crests suspicious. The doctor h found to be a truthful witness and we accept the dying declaration Ext. Slight difference in writing the copy, keeping the material part fully- impact, does not in anyway diminishing the value of the dying declaration Ext. 4 nor crests suspicious. The doctor h found to be a truthful witness and we accept the dying declaration Ext. 4 as genuine statement of Abdul Mannaf recorded by the Doctor. He sustained cut injury over the liver and so he was in a position to speak out while taken to Thana and then to Dispensary imme­diately after the occurrence without loss of any time. He was in a position to give the details to the Daroga in recording the Ext. 5 and could also speak out to the Doctor in recording Ext.4. If the dying declaration is acceptable as truthful, the Court can act upon it to base conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence. A truthful coherent consistent dying declaration needs no corroboration and a conviction can be based on it. It is true that a dying declaration must be approached with caution as its maker is not subject to cross-examination, it does not require corroboration to base a conviction, but corroboration becomes necessary only when it suffers from some infirmity. Greater solem­nity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death for the injuries sustained by him is not likely to tell lie to implicate an innocent person leaving the real assailant, and so, ordinarily a dying declaration recorded by doctor or Magistrate or by Police Officer under section 161 or in recor­ding ejahar of the victim/injured under section 154 Cr.P.C. be looked upon from this angle. Deceased Mannaf and accused Jahidul were coming together, at such moment their companion Sabjahan (PW-2) heard Mannaf shouting 'Oh Babago' and saw Mannaf scuffling with Jahidul and immediately he was found lying injured at that place, and he without delay narrated Daroga that Jahidul stabbed him on chest and belly, and again declared before the Doctor that it was Jahidul who assailed him, and on both occasion Niranjan was present and heard Maunaf declaring that Jahidul caused the injuries. Consistent and coherent declarations by Mannaf naming Jahidul as assailant has adorned the sanctity of his declarati­ons to be truthful and basis for acting upon without corroboration. But in this case we have very strong corroboration from witnesses Sahjahan and Niranjan and medical evidence. Consistent and coherent declarations by Mannaf naming Jahidul as assailant has adorned the sanctity of his declarati­ons to be truthful and basis for acting upon without corroboration. But in this case we have very strong corroboration from witnesses Sahjahan and Niranjan and medical evidence. The dying declarations were truthful and acceptable. The dying declarations Ext.5 and Ext. 4 corroborated by the evidence of Sahjihan and Niranjan (PW-2 and 3) and by the medical evidence have proved beyond doubt that accused Jahidul Sikdar caused the stab injuries on the chest and abdomen region of Abdul Mannaf leading to his death. The blows were giving on the chest and abdomen by dagger and this clearly indicated that Jahidul had intention to cause death of Mannaf. The learned Sessions Judge had Depreciated evidence and law and was justified to convict Jahidul Sikdar under section 302 IPC and appropriately punished. There is no force in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. The accused-appellant Jahidul Sikdar is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri immediately to serve out the imprisonment. Further more, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri shall issue notice to the bailor to produce the accused-appellant in Court and on such production shall send him to Jail to serve out the sentence of imprisonment for life. Chief Judicial Magistrate shall also take other necessary actions under the law to send ace used-appellant to Jail.