JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - Accused-appellants Banthia Dehuri, Khetramohan Mahanta and Piru Dehury initially stood challenged u/s 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code with having committed murder of Mayadhar Sethi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by means of Tangia (axe) and lathi. Upon trial, learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, convicted the accused persons u/s 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced accused Khetramohan to undergo rigorous to imprisonment for three years and the remaining two accused to undergo rigourous imprisonment for two years. It is against that order of conviction and sentence the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The prosecution case called out during trial may be briefly stated thus: The deceased and Bhanu were real brothers. Nilamani, P.W. 7, wife of Bhanu, owns certain properties and because of Bhanu's old age, the same were being looked after by the deceased. There were litigations between Nilamani- P.W. 7. and one Bansidhar Pati. At the instance of Bansidhar the accused Piru cultivated some lands of Nilamani, P.W.7. This led to a dispute in which accused Piru and Banthia and Ors. assaulted Nilamani's husband Bhanu for which a criminal case was initiated. It is alleged that since the deceased was helping Nilamani and her husband in all matters, accused Piru and Banthia had held out threats to assault him. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 18.7.85, Nilamani, P.W. 7 along with the deceased and two others while returning home after collecting mushrooms, the three accused persons being armed with lathi and axe suddenly emerged from the jungle and assaulted the deceased, seeing which Nilamani treated the accused persons not to assault him, but it was not heeded to. When accused Khetramohan gave Tangia blow at the neck of the deceased, the latter raised hands to ward off the blow as a result, the blow hit on his left hand causing injuries. Being so assaulted, the deceased fell down on the ground and at that time accused Khetramohan inflicted blow with the axe on his right leg. Hearing the shouts of Nilamani her grand children raised cries hearing which some of the villagers came to the spot whereafter the accused persons went away with the weapons held by them. The deceased was then carried to the police station and from there to Baisinga Hospital. On a written report being lodged by Nilamani, P.W.7. Hearing the shouts of Nilamani her grand children raised cries hearing which some of the villagers came to the spot whereafter the accused persons went away with the weapons held by them. The deceased was then carried to the police station and from there to Baisinga Hospital. On a written report being lodged by Nilamani, P.W.7. a case u/s 307/34, Indian Penal Code was registered as by then the deceased was alive. Requisition was also sent to the Medical Officer to examine the deceased and to record his dying declaration. Upon examination., the Medical Officer found 7 injuries and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. To provide better treatment, the deceased was removed to Baripada Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The case was then converted to one u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Accused Khetramohan, while in custody, led the police and gave recovery of the axe, M.O.I. and the remaining two also gave recovery of the lathis used by them in assaulting the deceased. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused persons to stand their trial u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial and false implication. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused persons examined 12 witnesses including 2 doctors P. Ws. 5 and 8 and proved the inquest report, injury report, post-mortem report, seizure list and chemical examiner's report and also marked the axe as M.O.I and the towel of the deceased as M.O.II. On the behalf of the accused one spot map and certified copy of the judgment in a criminal case was marked as Exts. A and B. 5. The deceased when alive was examined by the doctor, P.W. 5. On examination 7 injuries were noticed on his person of which 5 were cut injuries situated on left index finger, right foot and right big toe and two swellings on right arm and lower end of the right leg. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries on left ring finger, right foot and right big toe were grievous. On examination 7 injuries were noticed on his person of which 5 were cut injuries situated on left index finger, right foot and right big toe and two swellings on right arm and lower end of the right leg. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries on left ring finger, right foot and right big toe were grievous. The autopsy doctor, P.w. 8 found: (1) one stitched wound over each of index and middle finger of the left hand; (2) stitched wound over the base of the nail of the left ring finger, the distal phalanx being absent; (3) fracture of the right arm bone at the junction of upper two-third and lower one-third; (4) fracture of the middle phalanx of little middle finger; (5) stitched wound on the right foot; and (6) fracture of the right tibia and fibula above the ankle with gross haematoma. All the injuries according to him, were ante-mortem in nature and cause of death was due to shock resulting from haemorrhage from the wound on foot and other associated injuries. So far as the stitched wound on the right foot was concerned, in the opinion of P.W. 8 it was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and this injury could be caused by the axe, M.O.I. 6. The sole eye-witness was Nilamani, P.W. 7, whose evidence according to the learned trial Court, stood corroborated by the dying declaration recorded by the doctor- P.W.5 and also the find of blood of group 'A' on the axe, M.O.I. which was the blood group of the deceased. Relying upon the above evidence, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and held that the accused persons being the authors of the crime, assaulted the deceased and caused his death. He, however" on consideration of the nature of the injuries and the seat of assault held that they had intention to cause grievous hurt to the deceased and having so held, he convicted and sentenced them as hereinbefore stated. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons challenging the judgment and order of conviction would contend that P.W. 7. the sole eye-witness to the incident, being an interested witness and her evidence having not been corroborated by any other witness, the learned trial Judge should not have placed implicit reliance on her testimony to base conviction. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons challenging the judgment and order of conviction would contend that P.W. 7. the sole eye-witness to the incident, being an interested witness and her evidence having not been corroborated by any other witness, the learned trial Judge should not have placed implicit reliance on her testimony to base conviction. He further contended that the dying declaration, Ext.4/2 recorded by the doctor, P.W.5. should not have been accepted on its face value, since it was not recorded in question-answer form and besides, the same having not been supported by P. Ws. 3 and 4 in whose presence it was said to have been recorded, the learned Court below should have doubted its genuineness. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment contended that the ultimate finding of guilt recorded against the accused persons being based on thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence, there is no justifiable reason to upset the same. 8. The fact that the deceased had received some injuries on the date of the incident which ultimately resulted in his death has been deposed to by two doctors, namely, P. Ws.5 and 8. As would appear from the evidence of P.W.5, on 18.7.85 the deceased was brought alive to Baisingha Hospital where he on examination, found him having sustained 5 cut injuries on non-vital parts of the body, that is, left ring finger, left middle finger, left index finger, right foot and right big toe, besides two swellings on right arm and lower end of the right leg. According to him, injuries on left ring finger, right foot and right big toe were grievous and so far as injuries on right arm and lower end of right leg were concerned, he reserved his opinion until x-ray examination was made. Since the condition of the injured was critical, he referred him to District Headquarters Hospital. P.W.8 is the autopsy doctor and as would be seen from his evidence, on 19.7.85 he conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased and on examination he noticed a number of fractures on the right arm-bone, middle phalanx of left middle finger, right tibia and fibula, besides a severed incised wound on the right foot. P.W.8 is the autopsy doctor and as would be seen from his evidence, on 19.7.85 he conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased and on examination he noticed a number of fractures on the right arm-bone, middle phalanx of left middle finger, right tibia and fibula, besides a severed incised wound on the right foot. According to him, cause of death was due to shock resulting from haemorrhage from the wounds on the foot and other associated injuries and the very same wound on the foot was itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In course of argument there has been no challenge as to the cause of death as opined by P.W.8. In that view of the matter, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether it were the accused persons who assaulted the deceased and caused his death. It may be reiterated, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge to the accused persons relied upon ocular testimony of the sole eye-witness P.W.7 coupled with the dying declaration of the deceased,recorded by the doctor, P.W.5 and the find of human blood of group 'A' which is the blood group of the deceased, on the Tangia (axe) recovered pursuant to the statement of accused khetramohan while in custody. P.W. 7 on whose evidence prosecution sought to rely upon to prove its case, is a relation of the deceased, being his brother's wife. She is an interested witness, as admittedly there was land dispute between her husband and the deceased on one hand and one Bansidhar Pati and his field servants, namely, accused Piru and Banthia, on the other. In that view of the matter, her evidence is required to be scrutinised with due care and caution. As would appear from her evidence, on the date of incident she along with the deceased and two grandchildren had been to the near by jungle to collect mushrooms, and while they were so collecting at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet from the Highway, the incident occurred. According to her, the accused persons emerged from a bush being armed with lathis and axe, She has specifically stated that accused Banthia and Piru inflicted blows on the deceased with lath is on receiving which he fell down whereafter accused Khetramohan assaulted him with axe. According to her, the accused persons emerged from a bush being armed with lathis and axe, She has specifically stated that accused Banthia and Piru inflicted blows on the deceased with lath is on receiving which he fell down whereafter accused Khetramohan assaulted him with axe. She entreated them not to assault but they did not listen. She raised alarm whereafter the accused persons took to their heels with their respective weapons. She was cross-examined at length by the defence and except some minor discrepancies nothing substantial could be elicited to cast doubt on her veracity. Her evidence although is cogent, consistent and inspires confidence in order to bring home the guilt to the accused persons, yet the prosecution sought corroboration from other materials, such as, dying declaration recorded by the doctor, P.W. 5 and the other incriminating materials, such as, presence of human blood of group 'A' being the blood group of the deceased on the axe recovered at the instance of one of the accused persons. 9. Dying declaration u/s 32 of the Evidence Act is a statement made by the person as to the cause of his death or as to any other circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. The admissibility of such statement rests on the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a man's mind the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath: 'nemo moriturus praesumuntar mentiri'. In other words, a man who is on the verge of meeting the maker does not speak lies. Keeping this principle in mind the apex Court has consistently held that if after careful scrutiny of the dying declaration it is found to be true, coherent and consistent, then there is no legal impediment to form such dying declaration the basis of conviction without any corroboration. ( Tarachand Damu Sutar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ; Kusa and Others Vs. State of Orissa, ; Meesala Ramakrishnan v. State of A.P.: (1994) 4 SCC 181 ; Goverdhan Raoji Ghyare Vs. State of Maharashtra, ; Gangotri Singh Vs. State of U.P., and State of Rajasthan v. Kishore: 11(1996) CCR 1 (SC). 10. ( Tarachand Damu Sutar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ; Kusa and Others Vs. State of Orissa, ; Meesala Ramakrishnan v. State of A.P.: (1994) 4 SCC 181 ; Goverdhan Raoji Ghyare Vs. State of Maharashtra, ; Gangotri Singh Vs. State of U.P., and State of Rajasthan v. Kishore: 11(1996) CCR 1 (SC). 10. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, I have scanned the evidence of P.W 5, the doctor in order to find whether the dying declaration (Ext.4/2) recorded by him is true and the same can be relied upon to support the prosecution case. It would appear from the evidence of the said witness that On the very day the deceased was brought to the hospital. 11. The next item of evidence on which reliance was placed by the prosecution is the find of human blood of group 'A', the blood?group of the deceased, on the weapon of offence, i.e. axe recovered at the instance of accused Khetramohan Mahanta. The witness to the seizure of the said weapon was P.W. 1 who, as it appears from his evidence, denied to have witnessed any such seizure. Therefore, the only witness on whom reliance was placed, was P.W.12, the I.O., who stated in his evidence that accused Khetramohan while in custody made a statement of having kept the axe in his backyard and so saying, he led him and the witnesses and gave recovery of the same which was seized under the seizure list, Ext. 1/1. The said axe along with other materials such as, blood-stained earth, cut piece of a towel, banian, etc. were sent for chemical examination and as borne out from the serological report, the said axe was stained with human blood of group 'A' which was the blood group of the deceased. So presence of human blood of group 'A' in the axe supported the prosecution case that Khetramohan had used the said axe and caused injuries to the deceased. 12. On an appraisal of the evidence as discussed above. I concur with the findings and ultimate conclusion recorded by the 'trial Court holding the Appellants guilty u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed