S. N. CHAKRABARTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 16. 5. 92 passed by an Additional Session Judge of Midnapore in Session Trial No. XVI of December 1988 convicting the appellant Under Section 304 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo 10 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further R. I. for six months. ( 2 ) SUBROTO Das, brother of the victim Ashis Das filed a written complaint at Kotwali Police Station at 9. 35 P. M. on 29. 8. 1986 alleging that on that day at about 8. 45 P. M. when Ashish was going to their shop at Judges' Court compound, the accused appellant Nanku Hati stabbed him on his belly with a knife, as a result Ashis fell down on the way and was groaning with pain when Nanku fled away. The injured was taken to hospital, where he expired at 9. 50 P. M. ( 3 ) THE defence version as can be gathered from trend of cross-examination of the P. W. s and examination of accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. is that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case out of grudge and strained relationship between the accused's father and the local Jadav Sampradaya who forcibly took possession of some landed property of the accused's father for which litigation was going on in the Hon'ble High Court. The learned Session Judge, however, on a consideration of the materials on record convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. ( 4 ) THE learned defence Counsel submitted before us that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the order of conviction and sentence is against the weight of evidence. ( 5 ) IT is to be seen as to whether the learned Court below was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant as he did. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the materials on record carefully. We are afraid, we are unable to interfere of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below. In this case there is of course an eye-witness of the occurrence, but there are other evidence and unimpeachable circumstances pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the materials on record carefully. We are afraid, we are unable to interfere of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below. In this case there is of course an eye-witness of the occurrence, but there are other evidence and unimpeachable circumstances pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 2 Anil Kumar Sen, who is the Sister's husband of the deceased, on 12th of Bhadra about 5 years ago at about 8. 30 to 9. 00 P. M. when he was washing his mouth after taking meal he heard a sound 'ma go' and coming out of their house saw Ashis going pressing his belly in his hand and on query Ashish told him that Nanku stabbed him with a knife. He also saw that Asu alias Ashim Das just went inside the compound of nearby house of Chaira babu and fell down there and vomited blood and he asked the female folk of the house of Chaira babu to give some water to Asu. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicitated from his cross-examination which renders his evidence unbelievable. Though he is a relation of the victim, after scrutinizing his evidence we do not find any infirmity in the same and accordingly we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence. According to P. W. 3 Smt. Parul Chaira on 12th Bhadra, 5 years back, at about 8. 00 m 8. 30 P. M. from behind the door curtain hanging at the front door of her house she heard a 'thud' sound on the Courtyard and also heard that "nanku Hati Khun karechhe" and she came out from her room and found Asu lying on the courtyard and was vomiting blood. She brought a glass of water and gave it to P. W. 2 for giving it to Asu and thereafter, Asu was taken to hospital by a vehicle of Bankura babu. P. W. 3 also being a chance of witness like P. W. 2 can not be dis-believed. That apart there is the evidence of Dr. S. N. Sannyal (P. W. 12) who examined injured Ashis on that day at about 9. 30 P. M. He found one incised wound ?" X 1?" fugiform in shape over the left side of epigastrium. That apart there is the evidence of Dr. S. N. Sannyal (P. W. 12) who examined injured Ashis on that day at about 9. 30 P. M. He found one incised wound ?" X 1?" fugiform in shape over the left side of epigastrium. The patient was found with profused haematemesis (blood vomit) and the general condition of the patient was very low and the patient stated before him that he was stabbed by one Nanku Hati at about 9 P. M. on that day. When the weapon of offence (Mat ext. II) was shown to the witness he opined that the above mentioned injury might be caused by the knife. It of course appears from the evidence of this witness and the statement recorded by him that the last two lines of the injury report viz, 'statement given by the victim' were added with asterix mark at the bottom of the report but this does not appear to us to have been done mala fide. The writing with asterix mark appears to have been done at the same sitting with the same pen and the same bears the dated signature of the Medical Officer with his office seal. Of course the report is not attested either by the injured or any other person, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the materials on record, we are unable to throw away the statement recorded in the normal course of business by a responsible Doctor of the District Hospital, there being no evidence that the doctor had any enmity or ill will against the accused or that he was influenced in many way to do that. According to the Doctor, the injured was in his sense at the time of making the statement and as he was on the verge of death it is wild to imagine that he will falsely implicate the appellant sparing his assailant. According to the other witnesses the victim was in his sense before he was taken to the hospital and he named his assailant. The Medical Officer-cum-Surgeon P. W. 18 Dr. P. N. Meddya of Midnapore District Hospital, Midnapore examined the patient at 9. 45 P. M. on that day and the patient was under his treatment and care. According to the other witnesses the victim was in his sense before he was taken to the hospital and he named his assailant. The Medical Officer-cum-Surgeon P. W. 18 Dr. P. N. Meddya of Midnapore District Hospital, Midnapore examined the patient at 9. 45 P. M. on that day and the patient was under his treatment and care. He found one stab injury over the left side of the left upper abdomen and according to him at that time general condition of the patient was very very low and no pulse was felt at wrist or at elbow. According to him, the nature of injury detected was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also opined that the injury mentioned might have been caused by the knife (Mat. Ext. II ). The defence did not dare to ask this doctor, as to whether the patient was in a condition to make any statement at about 9. 30 P. M. It is unnecessary to mention that condition of such an injured will certainly deteriorate with passage of time. The dying declaration recorded in this case passed the test of Courts careful scrutiny and it thus became the most reliable piece of evidence which does not need any corroboration and there is no legal impediment in basing conviction merely on such dying declaration. ( 8 ) THERE is also the circumstantial evidence of recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused in presence of independent witnesses. From the evidence of P. W. s 6 and 7 and the I. O. (P. W. 17) it appears that the appellant while in police custody made disclosure statement and he led the police party and the witnesses to the place, viz, a bush, where the offending weapon was secreted and he brought out the knife. Not only the conduct of the accused is relevant under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act but that part of the information received by police during investigation from the accused who was in custody leading to this discovery of the offending weapon is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Not only the conduct of the accused is relevant under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act but that part of the information received by police during investigation from the accused who was in custody leading to this discovery of the offending weapon is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The witnesses also identified in Court the knife, as the knife bought out in their presence by the accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery from inside a bush at the back of the house of P. W. Nirmal Chakrabarty at the instance of the accused. ( 9 ) THERE was also evidence before the learned Judge of the quarrel, assault and counter assault between the accused and the deceased as well as threatening to the deceased by the accused in the hair cutting Saloon over the matter of taking of fuchka from the vendor (P. W. 16) free of cost a few hours before the occurrence showing positive tendency for involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime subsequently. Nemai Bej, owner of the Saloon gave evidence about the incident and there was no earthly reason to disbelieve his evidence. P. W. 13 Sreekanta Hati and P. W. 14 Sanat Kr. Das who were going towards their club at about 8. 30 to 8. 45 P. M. on 29. 8. 1986 saw a man running towards the Judges Court and on their asking as to who was so going the man replied saying 'aami' and by the voice they could well recognize that man as Nanku Hati and after proceeding further, they saw an assembly of persons inside the boundary of Chaira babu and also found that the victim was lying on the ground and he was vomiting blood and he was telling that he was stabbed by Nanku with a knife. There is also nothing to think that these witnesses who were local men falsely implicated the accused. The learned Court below, therefore, on the materials on record was justified in convicting the accused appellant as he did. There is also nothing to think that these witnesses who were local men falsely implicated the accused. The learned Court below, therefore, on the materials on record was justified in convicting the accused appellant as he did. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the serious nature of the injury caused by the appellant at the vital part of the body, that is between chest and abdomen and also having regard to the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 18) that the injury was sufficient in ordinary courses of nature to cause death, the Count below was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant as he did. To our considered mind the order of conviction and sentence does not require any interference which is hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. R. Bhattacharyya, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.