Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts. On 19th July, 1991 at about 5.30 or 6 p.m. Jagbir deceased and his friend Rajesh Kumar P.W.5 were sitting in front of the house of Ram Kishan in Ravi Dass Nagar, Rohtak, Jagbir was playing cards with Jaswant when accused Brij Mohan alias Bajja (hereinafter referred to as `Brij Mohan) came to the place carrying a Rapi (an instrument used for cutting leather) and inflicted a blow on the shoulder of Jagbir. He also tried to repeat the blow, on which Rajesh and Jaswant tried to catch hold of him but be ran away from the spot. Rajesh removed the injured to the Medical Hospital, Rohtak and he was got admitted there. The police was summoned to the hospital and A.S.I. Mam Chand recorded his statement exhibit PS at 10.50 p.m. and on its basis a formal first information report was registered at Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak at 11.10 p.m. under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on 2nd August, 1991 and on interrogation revealed that he could get the Rapi recovered. His statement was reduced into writing and a blood- stained Rapi was recovered. Jagbir succumbed to his injuries on 3rd August, 1991 and the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and on the completion of the investigation the accused was challaned for the said offence and as he pleaded innocence, was brought to trial. 2. The prosecution in support of its case examined, inter alia, P.W.2 Dr. Vimal Kumar Sharma who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead- body and had noticed one wound on the back of the neck in the cervical region, P.W.3 Dr. S.P. Chug who at 7.30 p.m. on 29th July, 1991 had examined Jagbir and had admitted him to the hospital; P.W.4 Dr. Vimal Kumar Sharma who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead- body and had noticed one wound on the back of the neck in the cervical region, P.W.3 Dr. S.P. Chug who at 7.30 p.m. on 29th July, 1991 had examined Jagbir and had admitted him to the hospital; P.W.4 Dr. Umesh Kalra who on the same day had made his endorsement on the application Exhibit PM at 10 p.m. certifying that the injured was fit to make statement; P.W.5 Rajesh Kumar the solitary eye-witness produced by the prosecution; P.W.6 Ram Niwas, the witness to the arrest and the recovery of the murder weapon at his instance, and P.W.9 Constable Ramesh Kumar who had on the dictation of ASI Mam Chand recorded the statement of Jagbir which formed the basis of the first information report. ASI Mam Chand, however, could not be examined as he had in the meanwhile died. The prosecution case was thereafter put to the accused. He denied his involvement and pleaded false implication on account of strained relations as criminal proceedings were going on between him and the deceased. 3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence produced on record suggested that there was previous enmity between Jagbir and the accused and, as such, the motive for crime stood proved. The Court also held that there was no delay in the lodging of the first information report as the primary effort of Rajesh would have been to remove Jagbir to hospital rather than to go to the police station. The Court further held that merely because Rajesh alone had been examined and Jaswant - the other eye-witness not so, could not be fatal to the prosecution case. The trial Court nevertheless found that the statement of Jagbir could not be termed as a dying declaration and could at best be a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it had not been attested by any doctor nor even by Constable Ramesh Kumar P.W.9 who had recorded it on the dictation of ASI Mam Chand. The Court also repelled the arguments of the defence that a case under Section 304 Part-I alone was made out against the accused and having held as above, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. The Court also repelled the arguments of the defence that a case under Section 304 Part-I alone was made out against the accused and having held as above, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, the learned counsel representing the appellant, has urged that there was a serious delay in the lodging of the first information report and, as such, the prosecution case was liable to suffer on that account. We have considered this argument and find on merit in it. The incident had taken place at about 6 p.m. on 29th July, 1991. The injured was carried to the hospital by Rajesh P.W.5 and medico-legally examined by Dr. Chug at 7.30 p.m. and found to be in a semi-conscious state. A ruqa was sent to the police station at 8.25 p.m. which brought ASI Mam Chand to hospital who recorded the statement of Jagbir at 10.50 p.m. with the formal FIR being registered at 11.10 p.m. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was any delay in the lodging of the first information report. We are also of the view that the statement of Jagbir recorded in the hospital would constitute a dying declaration. The learned trial Court has held that as this statement had not been attested by a doctor, it could not be treated as a dying declaration. We find this conclusion to be wholly erroneous. A statement which has not been attested by a doctor may be found to be untrustworthy and lacking in credibility but it cannot be said that it was not a dying declaration. We are of the opinion that from the facts as made out on record the statement given by Jagbir was a dying declaration and as it was recorded without delay naming a single accused, it must be believed on that account. 5. Mr. Bhatia has then pointed out that Jagbir had enmity with the appellant and, as such, he had involved him in a false case. We find absolutely no basis for this argument. We find it difficult to accept that Jagbir would wrongly name only one person leaving out the true assailants as suggested by the learned counsel. 5. Mr. Bhatia has then pointed out that Jagbir had enmity with the appellant and, as such, he had involved him in a false case. We find absolutely no basis for this argument. We find it difficult to accept that Jagbir would wrongly name only one person leaving out the true assailants as suggested by the learned counsel. We are also of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.5 Rajesh inspires full confidence. Admittedly, he was closely involved with the deceased but in the case of a solitary accused, a chance of false implication is remote. Mr. Bhatias final argument that no case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was made out from the facts of the case and the appellant was liable for an offence under Section 304 Part-I of the Code. We have considered this argument as well and find that it cannot be accepted. We reproduce here the injury caused to the deceased : "A stitched wound 4 cm long on the back of the neck in the cervical region. Horizontally placed. On dissection, skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscle and underlying body of vertebrae was partially cut. C-6 ecchymosis was present in all tissues. Body of C-6 vertebra was cut and spinal cord was also partially cut. Haematoma was present. Membrane, brain cord, plourse, right lung and left lung, liver, spleen, and kidney were congested." 6. The doctor also opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. It is true that a small weapon had been used for commission of the crime but the injury caused was extensive. Moreover, the appellant had come to the place of accident armed with a weapon after a quarrel had taken place between him and the deceased some time earlier the same morning. The ferocity of the attack and that he had made a futile attempt to cause a second injury as well, clearly makes out a case of murder. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal.