Judgment :- PAREED PILLAY, J. Appellant is the accused in S.C. 44 of 1989 of the Sessions Court, Wayanand Division, Kalpetta. He was charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for having caused the death of Thankappan in the courtyard of a toddy shop of 25-6-1988 at about 7 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused came to the toddy shop managed by P.W. 1 and asked for toddy, that he could not be provided with toddy by P.W. 1, that he became angry, that a verbal altercation followed between them, that P.W. 1 pushed him out of the toddy shop, that he abused P.W. 1, that Thankappan (deceased) who was there tried to pacify him, that he pulled out a dagger and stabbed the deceased, that the deceased fell down stating that he was stabbed by the accused and that P.W. 1 and others carried him to the toddy shop and later he was taken to Government Hospital, Sultan Battery. He was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode by P.W. 3 doctor. P.W. 3 informed the Sub Inspector, Sultan Battery about the incident. The Sub Inspector forwarded the information to Kenichira Police Station where the incident occurred. P.W. 9 Head Constable of Kenichira Police Station went to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and recorded the statement (Ext. P-13) of the deceased. P.W. 9 produced Ext. P-13 before P.W. 10 Sub Inspector Kenichira and the first information report was registered. Thankappan died on 30-6-1988. Consequent to the death the section of the offence was altered to 302 of the I.P.C. P.W. 10 held inquest and prepared Ext. P-15 inquest report. P.W. 5 doctor conducted autoposy and issued Ext. P-6 post-mortem certificate. Accused was arrested by P.W. 11 on 26-8-1988. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused, M.O. 1 knife was recovered. P.W. 12 completed the investigation and laid the charge before the Court. 3. Prosecution relied on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to prove this case. Prosecution has also relied on Ext. P-13 statement of the deceased. 4. Deceased was P.W. 1's father's brother. P.W. 1 was managing the toddy shop. P.W. 12 completed the investigation and laid the charge before the Court. 3. Prosecution relied on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to prove this case. Prosecution has also relied on Ext. P-13 statement of the deceased. 4. Deceased was P.W. 1's father's brother. P.W. 1 was managing the toddy shop. He stated that accused came to the toddy shop and asked for toddy, that he could not supply it as there was no stock, that that fact was informed to the accused, that he abused P.W. 1 insisting upon getting toddy, that P.W. 1 pushed him out of the toddy shop, that he continued to shower abusive words against P.W. 1, that deceased pacified the accused stating that toddy could not be supplied as there was no stock and that on hearing this he took out a knife (M.O. 1) and stabbed the deceased P.W. 2's presence at the place of occurrence is spoken to by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 had corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in all material particulars. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W. 2 to hold that he was not present at the place of occurrence or that he has given a false version before the Court. 5. On going through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 we hold that they have given a true version of the incident before the Court and there is absolutely nothing to suspect the veracity of their testimony. 6. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, prosecution could rely on Ext. P-13 statement of the deceased. As a dying declaration Ext. P-13 can be accepted and acted upon even without corroboration. Of course, dying declaration has to be scrutinised closely bearing in mind the fact that it was made in the absence of the accused and that he was not in a position to challenge the same in cross-examination. Once the Court finds that the dying declaration gives a truthful narration of the incident there is no question of further corroboration. Ext. P-13 was recorded by P.W. 9 from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on 27-6-1988. P.W. 9's evidence shows that at the time when he recorded Ext. P-13 statement nobody was near the deceased. In the cross-examination of P.W. 9 there is not even a faint suggestion that Ext. Ext. P-13 was recorded by P.W. 9 from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on 27-6-1988. P.W. 9's evidence shows that at the time when he recorded Ext. P-13 statement nobody was near the deceased. In the cross-examination of P.W. 9 there is not even a faint suggestion that Ext. P-13 was not really made by the deceased or that he made the statement at the instance of someone else. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 : (1958 Cri LJ 106), it was held that when a dying declaration has passed the test of reliability it does not require any corroboration. See also State of U.P. v. Chet Ram, 1989 SCC (Cri) 388 : (1989 Cri LJ 1785). Even if Ext. P-13 is not here, evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 sufficiently clearly established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Defence contention that the deceased would not have succumbed to the injuries had he been rendered proper assistance and so no offence under Section 302 is made out is untenable. Legally such a contention cannot be raised in view of Explanation 2 of Section 299 of the I.P.C. Explanation 2 makes the position clear that where death is caused by bodily injury the person who causes that injury shall be deemed to have caused the death although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. In view of the above Explanation, no accused can raise the contention that he did not cause the death as it might have been prevented by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment. If an accused cases an injury on a vital portion of the body and as a result of it victim died, it is no defence to a charge of murder for the accused to say that rendering of proper and expert medical assistance would have prevented the death and so he cannot be held liable for murder. P.W. 3 who issues Ext. P-2 would certificate stated that the injury was on the left lower chest. P.W. 5 doctor who conducted autopsy opined that deceased died due to collapse of left lung and left sided pleural effusion (collection of fluid on the chest cavity) following penetrating injury involving chest, diaphram and liver. His evidence also shows that the injury could be caused by stabbing with M.O. 1. P.W. 5 doctor who conducted autopsy opined that deceased died due to collapse of left lung and left sided pleural effusion (collection of fluid on the chest cavity) following penetrating injury involving chest, diaphram and liver. His evidence also shows that the injury could be caused by stabbing with M.O. 1. His evidence is categoric to the effect that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In view of the medical evidence in the case, there is hardly any substance in the defence contention that the offence would not fall under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 8. Defence contention that the action of the accused, at any rate, would come under Exception 1 or 2 of Section 300 is untenable as there is hardly any evidence to hold that accused was faced with any sudden and grave provocation or that there was any sudden fight. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 offers no scope for acceptance of such a contention. The ocular evidence and the narration of the incident as found in Ext. P-13 statement of the deceased clearly rule out the aforesaid defence contention. The evidence is categoric to the effect that it was only when the deceased tried to pacify the accused that he suddenly whipped out the knife and inflicted the injury on the deceased. 9. Learned defence counsel next contended that the failure to examine Biju, son of P.W. 1 who was the only sober witness in the toddy shop in detrimental to the prosecution. As there is not even a suggestion was put to P.Ws. 1 and in cross-examination that they were intoxicated, failure to examine Biju can never be taken as a circumstance unfavourable to the prosecution. The settled legal position is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. As the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Ext. P-13 statement of the deceased proved the prosecution case to the hilt, the above defence contention is only to be rejected. On going through the entire evidence we hold that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in upholding the prosecution case. Conviction and sentence entered against the accused are confirmed. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.