PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal from the Circle Jail, Baripada, Mayurbhanj, Suguda Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the (accused) calls in question the legality of his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the TIPCT) and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. Way back in July, 1973, the alleged occurrence took place for which the accused faced trial in late eighties after he was apprehended in December, 1987. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows: the sister of one Phulrai Majhi (P. Ws. 3) was married and as is the custom in the tribe to which P. Ws. 3 belongs, some persons of the brides party went to see off the grooms party near the outskirts of the village Sarabania where the marriage was performed. Dugri (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was a member of the brides party and had gone to set off the bride. While she had bent for prayer, the accused suddenly shot an arrow at her which pierced into her chest and in spite of best effort the deceased could not pull out the arrow. She questioned the accused as to why he shot the arrow at her, and asked for some water. The accused threatened to shoot at any person who ventured to give water to the deceased. Some how the persons present could manage to over-power the accused, and tied him with a view to take him to the poi ice station. The occurrence took place near about the evening. While the villagers were going with the accused towards the police station, it rained heavily on the way and they had to take shelter in order to save P. Ws. 1 selves from getting drenched. The accused taking advantage of the darkness, managed to untie, the knots of the rope and slipped away. The F. I. R. was lodged at Bangriposi Police Station, investigation was under taken: But as the accused had absconded, there was delay in arresting him. Post-mortem was conducted by doctor (P. Ws. 4 ). Subsequently, after the accused was apprehended, trial began. The accused took a plea of complete denial of the occurrence. Because of long passage of time, many witnesses were not available and the Investigating Officer (in short, 1. 0. Post-mortem was conducted by doctor (P. Ws. 4 ). Subsequently, after the accused was apprehended, trial began. The accused took a plea of complete denial of the occurrence. Because of long passage of time, many witnesses were not available and the Investigating Officer (in short, 1. 0. who had undertaken investigation had breathed his last. However, the case diary written by him was proved through another Police Official (P. Ws. 5) who was acquainted with his handwriting. ( 3 ) IN all, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution, P. Ws. 4 was the doctor the conducted autopsy over the dead body. His evidence is to the effect that he found one injury i. e. , an incised wound spindle shaped itt x 1/2 placed vertically in front of the right chest on the mid clavicular line 5t1 below the right clavicle. He found that in the wound an arrow was found sticking. On dissection he found the also to have pierced obliquely from the right to the left passing through the right lung and the right chamber of the heart. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are stated to be the witnesses to the occurrence.-Without much empbasis on the trifle discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. ( 4 ) IN support of appeal Mr. Das, learned counsel for appellant has urged an interesting point, apart from the attack on the veracity of the witnesses examined after long passage of time. According to him non-examination of the 1. 0. rendered the prosecution case vulnerable and on that score alone, accused is entitled to an order of acquittal. Additionally, it is submitted that evidence is shaky and because of the admitted position that evening had set it, the version of the witnesses that they have witnessed the occurrence can hardly be accepted. Learned counsel for State on the other hand, contended that non-examination of the 1. 0. is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is also submitted that notwithstanding passage of time the witnesses have recapitulated ghastly as seen by P. Ws. 1. and there is nothing to disbelieve P. Ws. 1. ( 5 ) WE shall first deal with the question relating to effect of non-examination of the 1. 0. and whether same has rendered the prosecution version vulnerable. It is also submitted that notwithstanding passage of time the witnesses have recapitulated ghastly as seen by P. Ws. 1. and there is nothing to disbelieve P. Ws. 1. ( 5 ) WE shall first deal with the question relating to effect of non-examination of the 1. 0. and whether same has rendered the prosecution version vulnerable. It cannot be gainsaid that the 1. 0. is a vital witness. His evidence assumes significance when statement of a witness in Court is sought to be contradicted vis-a-vis statement made during investigation. With reference to the records, particularly the case diary, contradictions in the evidence of a particular witness are brought to the fore. It has to be specifically asked to the 1. 0. whether a particular witness gave a particular statement before him during investigation. In that sense, evidence of the 1. 0. is vital. He may also be questioned about the procedure followed by the and lapses, if any, in the conduct of enquiry. In a given case he may be questioned as to why he gave precedence to non-vital witnesses and did not record evidence of the eye witness or vital witnesses earlier even though they were available. But ultimately it is question of prejudice, supposing in a given case no contradiction is pointed out. It is not even suggested to a particular witness that he/she did not make a particular evidence during investigation. In such an event, can it be said that the accused is prejudiced by non-examination of the 1. 0. The Court has to consider these aspects while dealing with submission about vulnerability of prosecution case on account of non examination of the 1. 0. In the instant case, we do not find even a remote suggestion given to the witnesses who claimed to be the eye witnesses, about having made a different statement before the 1. 0. Additionally, we find that a portion of the case diary written by the 1. 0. has been proved through P. Ws. 5 who was acquainted with the handwriting of the 1. 0. ( 6 ) THE question can be considered keeping section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Actt) in the background. Clause (2) of section 32 is the second exception enumerated to the general rule of hearsay that derivative or second-hand proofs are not receivable in evidence. 0. ( 6 ) THE question can be considered keeping section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Actt) in the background. Clause (2) of section 32 is the second exception enumerated to the general rule of hearsay that derivative or second-hand proofs are not receivable in evidence. The statements and entries enumerated are receivable in evidence on the principle of necessity. The witness being dead or unavailable; it is the best evidence the nature of the case admits of. The ground of admission is that a statement or entry made in the ordinary course or routine of business or duty may be presumed to have been done from disinterested motive and may therefore be taken to be generally true. Clause (2) of Section 32 relates to relevancy of evidence, and not to manner of its proof. Before a relevant statement is admitted, its authorship must be proved in the ordinary way. In almost an identical fact situation Allahabad High Court in Abdul Aziz and others v. Emperor held that statement in police diary could be brought into evidence In terms of clause (2) of Section 32 of the Act. We, therefore, find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the accused that non-examination of the 1. 0. whose examination was impossible on account of his death has rendered prosecution version vulnerable. ( 7 ) COMING to the acceptability of evidence of P. Ws, 1 and 3, their memory does not appear to have become hazed on account of passage of time. They have graphically described the assault by the accused P. Ws. 1 has stated to have seen the arrow shot from a distance of 2. cubits. P. Ws. 3 has also stated in his evidence as to how the accused shot, the arrow which pierced into the chest of the deceased. We find no crack in the evidence of these witnesses to doubt veracity thereof, feeble attempt was made by learned counsel for the accused to submit that alleged occurrence having taken place during evening time, injury which ultimately proved fatal, could not have been intended. A close distance from which the arrow shot was made and force with which it was given is apparent from the description of injury given in the post-mortem report and as indicated by P. Ws. 4. A close distance from which the arrow shot was made and force with which it was given is apparent from the description of injury given in the post-mortem report and as indicated by P. Ws. 4. We do not find any merit in the submission that particular injury which proved fact was not intended. Additionally, the conduct of the accused in restraining others from rendering assistance to the deceased clearly indicated that he intended the death of the deceased. ( 8 ) IT is submitted that there was no motive for the crime. It is trite law that motive is not a relevant fact or while deciding the question of guilt of an accused, unless motive is indicated to be the basis for the crime. We find there is some evidence that accused was inimically disposed towards the deceased on account of some land dispute. But that is of no consequence because of our conclusion that motive is not a determinative factor regarding guilt of a person. ( 9 ) THE conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge are irreversible. There is no merit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.