R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgement dated 26th March, 1984 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Sessions Case No. 3/83, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) and in default of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) THIS incident, which led to the prosecution took place on 1st of September, 1980 at about 9 P. M. Paresh Pramanik was running a hair cutting saloon in Durgapur. He was proceeding in Dhandabad from Benachiti Bazar. He reached near a government well near football ground at village Dhandabag. At that time the present appellant Rabi Naidu and his 2/3 associates encircled him. Rabi Naidu assaulted him with knife on his back causing deep penetrating wound at the back between right scapula and vertebral column. The wound was so deep that a nick (cut) was caused at the posterior part of the right upper lobe of the right lung. An additional injury i. e. a fracture on the posterior part on the right 5th rib, was also caused. These people escaped. A number of persons collected there as Paresh Pramanik was in injured condition. Among them there were P. W. 1 Parimal Debnath, P. W. 6 Monohar Kundu and P. W. 7. The injured told them that he was stabbed by Rabi Naidu and that the assailants had already fled. Paresh Pramanik was taken to DSP hospital in Dhandabad. P. W. 3 Dr. Prahalad Sarkar examined him and since his condition was precarious, he was taken to the operation theater and P. W. 5 Dr. J. Mukherjee operated him and repaired his injuries. Blood transfusion was done. Although the injury was dangerous, with proper timely medical aid and good luck, he survived. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 Parimal Debnath had lodged the first information report on the same night at 11 p. m. on 1st September, 1980 at Police Station Durgapur. In this FIR, based on the information received from the victim, Parimal Debnath had narrated the abovenoted facts. This information was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, namely, Krishnaprosad Sarkar, who is P. W. 4. In this FIR, based on the information received from the victim, Parimal Debnath had narrated the abovenoted facts. This information was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, namely, Krishnaprosad Sarkar, who is P. W. 4. The investigation was handed over to P. W. 8, A. K. Mitra, S. I. The injured remained in a precarious condition for long periods and was in the hospital. His statement was recorded on 2nd December, 1980 by the Investigation Officer, A. K. Mitra P. W. 8. The accused could be arrested only on 12th February, 1981. His other companions remained absconding. ( 4 ) IN evidence the prosecution had relied upon the statement of injured himself as P. W. 2, Parimal Debnath the first informant as P. W. 1. Two other persons were also with P. W. 1 namely Monohar Kundu and P. W. 7, they were among those collected around the injured soon after injuries. P. W. 3 is Dr. Prahled Sarkar who initially examined the injured at 22. 40 in the hospital and P. W. 8 is investigation officer. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgement, has found the statements of the injured P. W. 2 and his informant P. W. 1 as fully reliable and truthful, supported by the medical evidence of the two doctors. The weapon of offence had been seized by the Investigation Officer on the night of incident itself. The knife was found still stuck in the back of the injured when the people had collected around him. P. W. 1 and others had taken the injured as well as the knife to the hospital. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that P. Ws. 6 and 7 had partly turned hostile in so far as they resiled from the statements initially made by them to the appellant regarding what the injured had stated as to who caused the injuries. They kept silent on that aspect. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that so far as the statement of P. W. 1 is concerned, he gave the first information on the basis of what he heard from the injured and so it was based on hearsay. He was not eye-witness to the occurrence. Thus according to him, evidence of P. W. 1 should not carry any weight regarding who gave the stab. He was not eye-witness to the occurrence. Thus according to him, evidence of P. W. 1 should not carry any weight regarding who gave the stab. So far as the evidence of injured is concerned, since the stab was on the back it must have been difficult for him to know who caused the stab and his statement without corroboration should not be believed, when there were 2/3 other persons who also circled him with this accused. The evidence of P. W. 2 was recorded about three months after the incident as per statement of the Investigation Officer, although it was recorded in the hospital itself. So, it is argued, the evidence is weak or hearsay and the standard of proof required for conviction in such cases had not been achieved. ( 6 ) I haw carefully gone through the evidence myself. An important factor in this case, is that the FIR is based on what the injured said about his assailants soon after injury, while knife was still stuck on his back and people had collected. He charged that this accused Naidu had stabbed him. At that time the injured was having the fresh wound with the knife stuck in his back. The assailants had escaped and people had collected around him. At such an occasion whatever the injured speaks is a continuity of his conduct which is continuity of the incident itself and so whatever he speaks comes within the scope of being part of res gestate, which itself is an independent evidence. Such statement is part of incident itself. So these circumstances, take the narration of P. W. 1 out of the scope of hearsay evidence. Prosecution can prove what the injured soke at the time of incident being part of res gestate. This is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is in following terms :"6. Relevancy of fact forming part of same transaction :- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and place. "illustration (a) to this Section is in following terms :" (A) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. "illustration (a) to this Section is in following terms :" (A) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. " ( 7 ) IT becomes clear from a perusal of above illustration that the evidence in the case before me is parallel to the illustration and the statements which was made by the injured to the bystanders would be covered by the illustration as to Section 6. So whatever the injured Paresh Pramanik spoke to the bystanders is a relevant fact which could be proved independently. P. W. 1 had proved it and evidence of P. W. 1 is corroborated by his FIR after the incident without delay. So far as the P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 are concerned they admit that they were present there. But they tried to conceal some aspects of what was stated by the injured and they were quiet on the issue. speaking neither way. But they did see Pramanik in injured state with knife stuck on his back and according to them P. W. 1 was also there. P. W. 1 had taken the injured to the hospital along with Kundu and others. So P. W. 1 is believable that at the time of incident itself, Pramanik had spoken that this accused gave him stab wound. He is narrating this in evidence also. The statement of P. W. 2, that Naidu stabbed him, is fully supported by above independent evidence. No questions were asked from I. O. or P. W. 2 or Doctors why statement of P. W. 2 could be recorded only on 2-12-80 and not earlier. So, no explanation was sought. The fact that P. W. 2's statement was recorded in hospital shows that he continued in hospital for such long period. This is a prima facie, explanation of his delayed statement. If defense wanted to challenge it they could probe by questions. They chose not to do so. So statement of injured is believable particularly when supported by independent evidence of his conduct in naming the accused at the time of incident, which I have discussed above. This is a prima facie, explanation of his delayed statement. If defense wanted to challenge it they could probe by questions. They chose not to do so. So statement of injured is believable particularly when supported by independent evidence of his conduct in naming the accused at the time of incident, which I have discussed above. ( 8 ) AS regards motive, in this case the only fact stated by Pramanik is that earlier this accused and his companions had come to his shop in drunken state and he has asked them not to go there in such a state. We do not know whether this led the accused to teach a lesson to Pramanik, by stabbing him. However, the law is clear that when evidence of the assailant is clear and unambiguous, the motive becomes dormant. In a number of cases, evidence of motive does not come on record as motive is something which remains dormant in the mind of the accused and-many a time it does not become expressed. ( 9 ) THE evidence of the Doctors shows that the injuries were caused on the night of 1st September before 10. 30 A. M. This clearly corroborates the narration of witnesses that incident had occurred at about 9 p. m. on 1st September, 1980. It is believable. ( 10 ) THE injuries had cut vital parts of Pramanik in so far as there were cut in the lung also. He was saved by timely medical aid and proper operation otherwise the injuries were likely to prove fatal. Blood transfusion was given to him. Doctor Mukherjee has clearly narrated that there was a nick at the posterior part of the right upper lobe of the right lung and a fracture on the posterior part on the right 5th rib. He had to open thorex and had to repair the pulmonary injuries and had to give two bottles of blood by transfusion during operation and injury might have caused death. It was caused by sharp weapon like Exhibit I produced before him and this weapon could cause injury found on the body of Pramanik. ( 11 ) THIS evidence thus clearly established that whatever injury was caused, was dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature. ( 12 ) THE evidence is clear and unambiguous that this accused stabbed Pramanik on his back. ( 11 ) THIS evidence thus clearly established that whatever injury was caused, was dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature. ( 12 ) THE evidence is clear and unambiguous that this accused stabbed Pramanik on his back. The fact that the stabbing was done on the back, and the depth of injury. The vital part cut, the nature of weapon used, lead to the inference of intention on mens rea of the accused being to caused such injury as was likely to cause death. It was not result of provocation at a fight at the time of this incident. If death had occurred, Section 300 Parts 1, 2, 3 as well as 4 would have been attracted, as (mens rea) state of mind of the accused would, in such a case, be covered under all the four clauses of Section 300. ( 13 ) THE net result of this discussion is that there was an attempt to cause death and only timely medical aid saved the accused. The accused had done everything in his hand to cause death of the injured. He was the Perpetrator of this crime. ( 14 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge in my view, rightly observed that it was this accused who caused the stab and his act was such as to he covered by Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. I uphold the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC. ( 15 ) THE only next question is regarding sentence. An offence under Section 307 IPC, when injury is caused, is punishable with imprisonment up to life or with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. Considering these circumstances, I am of the view that the punishment meted out to the accused cannot be called harsh. I uphold the conviction as well as the sentence. The accused shall surrender to his Bail and undergo sentence. The trial court shall take steps for sending him to jail under proper warrants. The appeal is rejected. ( 16 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge immediately. Appeal dismissed.