Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. The sole appellant Bhutu @ Parme @ Parmeshwar Murru was convicted under Sec. 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by Shri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, Sessions Judge, Dumka by judgment dated 7th June, 1989 in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution as per fardbeyan of the informant was that on 9-1-1986 he had gone to the house of Som Tudu to take meal on a particular occasion to which he was invited by the latter in the company of one Barka Hansda. After meal Barka Hansda and the informant were returning home and round about mid-night they reached, Dharampur Mission, Barka Hansda proceeded ahead and the informant himself sat for urination. Suddenly, he was accosted by accused Bhutu @ Parme @ Parmeshwar Murmu as to who he was. The accused was guarding the horticultural garden of the Mission where cauliflower plants were over growing in the campus of the Mission, Even though the informant gave reply, the accused shot an arrow which hit the informant in his left panjra. He fell down but any how managed to reach house, he attempted to extricate the arrow which had penetrated into his body, but failed. Subsequently, the police was informed who recorded his fardbeyan on 11-1-1986 in the morning at 9 a.m. 3. The accused denied the charge and alleged false implication. 4. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence of six witnesses found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 5. I find that out of the witnesses examined. PW6 was the I.O. who submitted charge-sheet, but did not examine any witness in the case. PW5 was a formal witness and he brought on the record Ext. 2 which was formal FIR. PW4 was Dr. Bimal Kumar who held autopsy on the dead body of the informant (deceased). This doctor also treated the injured and took out the arrow embedded in his body. PW3 was tendered. PW2 was Barka Hansda who had accompanied the informant up to the house of PW1 Som Tudu where he had taken meal with the deceased. This witness stated that while he was returning from the house of Som Tudu, he proceeded ahead and left behind the informant who was under intoxication. PW3 was tendered. PW2 was Barka Hansda who had accompanied the informant up to the house of PW1 Som Tudu where he had taken meal with the deceased. This witness stated that while he was returning from the house of Som Tudu, he proceeded ahead and left behind the informant who was under intoxication. But in the morning he went to the house of the informant and saw the arrow embedded in his body and he was also informed by the deceased that the accused had shot an arrow into his body near Dharampur Mission. PW1 was Som Tudu and he supported the story of mean at his house in which PW2 and the deceased had participated. He also went to the house of the deceased on learning that he was subjected to assault by the accused. He saw the arrow embedded in the body of the deceased and he learnt of the alleged shooting of arrow in the body of the deceased at the hands of the accused. Thus on the record there was informants statement on the basis of which the fardbeyan (Ext.3) was recorded and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to support the alleged injury upon the deceased from whom they learnt of the alleged occurrence. Since the deceased had given his statement before the police and he subsequent died in the hospital at Dumka in spite of treatment the fardbeyna of the informant could very well be treated as dying-declaration and it may be treated as substantial piece of evidence. The dying-declaration is not only statement made immediately preceding the death of the person making the statement, but death may take any time after the alleged statement and if such statement is otherwise reliable and convincing, that statement cannot be rejected from the purview of evidence. In the instant case, the statement of the informant was recorded by the I.O. at his house in an injured condition and he was subsequently brought to the hospital for treatment. So nobody expected that he would die and therefore, there was no question of any further precaution in order to give the statement convincing and reliable character other than formal practice of recording the fardbeyan. The alleged occurrence took place near about mid-night of 8-1-1986 which would be almost 9-1-1986 at 1 a.m. as given in the formal FIR (Ext.2). So nobody expected that he would die and therefore, there was no question of any further precaution in order to give the statement convincing and reliable character other than formal practice of recording the fardbeyan. The alleged occurrence took place near about mid-night of 8-1-1986 which would be almost 9-1-1986 at 1 a.m. as given in the formal FIR (Ext.2). Of course, one day had passed before the police was intimated, but it may be noted that the police station is 9 km. away from the house of the deceased, who was a rustic tribal. The innocence and simplicity of tribals is well known and, therefore, the statement of the deceased that he was trying to extricate the arrow from his body cannot be disbelieved. The fardbeyan of Chhatish Kisku bore LTI of himself as also one Kesar Paharia. It was recorded by ASI Madhu Ram. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve this fardbeyan and hence it may be treated as dying declaration as the learned Sessions Judge has also held in his judgment. The accused in his examination under Sec. 364, Cr. P.C. simply denied the alleged occurrence and offered no explanation as to why he was falsely implicated. No enmity of the informant with the accused has also been exposed from the evidence on record. No suggestion was given to the DWs as to why the accused was falsely implicated. So far as the evidence of the Doctor is concerned he found two injuries on the body of the victim. However, the second injury was an injury of the operation after which the arrow was extricated from the victims body. PW4 had himself performed the operation to take out the arrow. So I am of the opinion that the evidence on the record was sufficient to hold the accused guilty. 6. Now the point is simply whether the accused was rightly convicted under Sec. 304, Part II, IPC. In this connection, it is apparent from the evidence of the informant Chhatish Kisku that the accused shot only one arrow which hit the deceased on the back of his left chest and it got embedded. 6. Now the point is simply whether the accused was rightly convicted under Sec. 304, Part II, IPC. In this connection, it is apparent from the evidence of the informant Chhatish Kisku that the accused shot only one arrow which hit the deceased on the back of his left chest and it got embedded. Of course, intention of the accused to kill the informant cannot be gathered from the circumstances on record, but ordinary knowledge that shooting by an arrow may result in an injury killing the victim can very well be attributed to even tribals who are expert in the art of archery. So, I think, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused under Sec. 304, Part II, IPC. 7. Before concluding I am reminded of the criticism advanced by the appellants lawyer that the night of the occurrence being dark one, it was not understandable how the informant identified the accused. In this connection, the statement of the informant in the fardbeyan is very much significant where he has stated that the accused had accosted the informant and both the accused and the informant were known to Som Tudu, so there was chance of the accused being identified by his voice by the informant. This will meet the criticism with respect to the identification of the accused in the darkness. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed.