JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The sole accused, in S.T. No. 63/24 of 1989 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, has filed this appeal calling in question the validity, legality and propriety of the order of the trial Court whereby he has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") for commission of murder of one Basir Hussain and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The short history of the prosecution case is that on 2.3.1982 at about 8.30 P.M. deceased Basir Hussain along with some Ors. was taking tea in the tea-stall of Muna Nath Choudhury (P.W.6). At that time, all on a sudden, the Appellant appeared there and called Basir on the pretext that the former had some urgent work with him. Both of them went to a little distance in front of the tea-stall. It is alleged that the Appellant pierced knife blows on the abdomen and chest wall of Basir, as a result of which he sank down with bleeding injuries. The neighbouring people rushed to the spot and some time thereafter police also arrived there. The Police authorities shifted the injured Basir to the Government Hospital for treatment. The Medical Officer, who was on duty, recorded the dying declaration of Basir, following which he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of complete denial of the incident and his false implication in the case. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge to the Appellant had examined eight witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the persons of the locality where the incident took place, P.W.6 is the owner of the tea-stall, P.Ws.4 and 7 are doctors and P.W.8 is the police officer who investigated into the case. The defence did not choose to examine any witness. 5. It is unfortunate to note that P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution was loft with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 7 and 8. P.W.4 was the doctor who recorded dying declaring and P.W.7 was the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on Basir. 6. From the evidence of P.W.1 it appears that on 02.03.1982, while he was in his workshop, a lady came running and told him that one person was killed. P.W.4 was the doctor who recorded dying declaring and P.W.7 was the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on Basir. 6. From the evidence of P.W.1 it appears that on 02.03.1982, while he was in his workshop, a lady came running and told him that one person was killed. She also indicated the place where the incident had occurred. He immediately rushed to the spot and found the deceased sinking down. His belly had been cut and intestine had come out. There was profuse bleeding from the wound. The deceased was thrashing his leg and hands. When P.W.1 went nearer to Basir he asked for water and said that Samser had assaulted him. At that time, one boy named Sahajahan (P.W.5) was also present. P.W.1 asked P.W.5 to go to the police-station and lodge report immediately. Accordingly, P.W.5 went to the police-station. Within 5 to 7 minutes, police people came in a van. At that time also Basir uttered the name of Samser to be his assailant. Later on, police seized the blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot and prepares seizure list, in which P.W.1 signed as a witness. Police also collected cement plastering and polythene bag and prepared seizure list in which P.W.1 signed as a witness. From his evidence it is emerged that the Appellant was one on the inhabitants of his own Basti for which he could know him. The deceased was lying at a distance of about 35 to 40 feet from his workshop. 7. Much comments have been made by Mr. Palit as to why the lady who gave information to P.W.1 was not examined. It is true that had she been examined, some evidence could have been gathered. But, only due to her non-examination, the prosecution case cannot be thrown over board, if it can be otherwise proved. 8. The defence has not brought out any circumstances or situation to treat the evidence of P.W.1 with suspicion. There was also no suggestion by the defence that P.W.1 was inimical to the Appellant. Therefore the statement of P.W.1 cannot be viewed with suspicion inasmuch as his workshop was close to the place of occurrence; he had gone there immediately after the incident: and in his presence the deceased had uttered the name of the Appellant to be his assailant. It is true that P.W.1 was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Therefore the statement of P.W.1 cannot be viewed with suspicion inasmuch as his workshop was close to the place of occurrence; he had gone there immediately after the incident: and in his presence the deceased had uttered the name of the Appellant to be his assailant. It is true that P.W.1 was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. But in case his statement is otherwise found to be trustworthy, the dying declaration can be relied on. There is nothing in law preventing a Court from convicting an accused on the uncorroborated dying declaration of the deceased provided the Court is of the opinion that its contents are true. Apart from the testimony of P.W.1, if the dying declaration is corroborated by any other evidence, then the statement of P.W.1' can definitely be taken as credible. Therefore, we have to find out whether the declaration has passed the test of reliability. Dying declaration is a substantial piece of evidence which does not require any corroboration. From the statement of P.W.1 we find that within minutes of the incident he rushed to the spot and found the deceased in a dying stage. Before him, the deceased allegedly stated that the Appellant was his assailant. Although P.W.2 was declared hostile, but from his evidence it appears that after he came out of the tea-stall he noticed a person lying injured on the ground. He was writhing in agonising pain and shouting for water. To this extent, his evidence, though he was a hostile witness, can be taken into consideration. On a comparative study of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it appears that he deceased Basir was lying on the ground after receiving injuries. The evidence of P.W.3 was also on the same line as P.W.2. P.W.4 was the Medical Officer attached to Rourkela Town Hospital on 02.03.1982. On that day, he examined Basir (deceased) at 9.00 P.M. and found one stab injury 3" ? 1-1/2" over the lower abdomen. The Small intestine had come out through the opening of the abdomen. There were-cut injuries at three places on the intestine. He also found one stab injury 1-1/2" ? 1" over the abdominal wall which was then bleeding. There was Anr. sharp cutting injury on the left side of the chest mid part, size of which was 3" ? 1-1/2" ? Skin deep. P.W.4 noticed that the condition of the injured was deteriorating. He also found one stab injury 1-1/2" ? 1" over the abdominal wall which was then bleeding. There was Anr. sharp cutting injury on the left side of the chest mid part, size of which was 3" ? 1-1/2" ? Skin deep. P.W.4 noticed that the condition of the injured was deteriorating. Accordingly, he recorded his dying declaration at 9.15 P.M. on 02.03.1989. The recording was in question and answer form. P.W.4 asked questions to Basir in Oriya, to which the latter replied in Hindi. The mental condition of the injured, as noted in the dying declaration, was quite alright' arid he was giving intelligent answers. After P.W.4 recorded the answers, he read out the same to Basir who admitted the same to be correct. The "injured was brought to-the Hospital around 9.00 P.M. A few-minutes thereafter he was given saline and pain killer injections. In the same night Basir expired around 3.45. P.M. The time gap between the recording of the dying declaration and the death of Basir was 6-1/2 hours. The signature of the deponent could not be obtained as the doctor did not feel it proper to disturb the patient; Ext. 6 is the dying declaration. 9. Mr. Palit has again made critical comments on the evidence of the doctor. It was highlighted that had Basir been mentally alert and was capable of understanding questions put by the doctor, why was it not noted in Ext.6. It is true that in Ext; 6 the Medical Officer had not specifically recorded the mental condition of the deceased. But, while deposing in Court, he has stated; that the deceased was mentally alert and was capable of giving such statement. We find that the dying declaration was recorded by P.W.4 in question and answer form. Even if the signature of the deceased could not be obtained on the dying declaration, the evidentiary value of such declaration cannot be rendered otiose on that ground alone. Apart from the dying declaration and the evidence of P.W.4. we have the statement of P.W.1 who has clearly and unequivocally deposed in Court that the Appellant Samser had plunged the fatal blows on the abdomen and chest wall of the deceased Basir. The evidence of P.W.4 leaves no manner of doubt to assume that the mental condition of Basir was alert at the time of recording of the dying declaration. The evidence of P.W.4 leaves no manner of doubt to assume that the mental condition of Basir was alert at the time of recording of the dying declaration. We have already discussed that the deceased died 6-1/2 hours after recording of the dying declaration by the doctor. 10. In support of his contention Mr. Palit has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. where in the apex Court has held that while examining the reliability or otherwise of the dying declaration, the question that needs to be considered by the Court is about the mental state of mind of the maker of such statement, in that case, there was no opinion of the-Medical Officer-regarding the mental, condition of the injured. But in the present case, even though such certificate was not there in the dying declaration, the doctor while being, examined in Court as a witness has unequivocally stated that Basir was in a fit mental condition to give such dying declaration. 11. Another decision on which reliance was placed by Mr. Palit is in the case of Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar. The facts situation of that case is different and distinguishable from that of the present case. Death of the victim in the case referred to above had taken place within ten seconds of recording of the dying declaration by reason of the extensive nature of burn. Therefore the apex Court felt that it was improbable and incredible to hold that the deceased was in a fit mental state of mind to give such a declaration. 12. The other decision relied on by Mr. Palit is in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Parasuram Naik. In that case, the victim died within 15 minutes of the recording of her statement. Therefore, the apex Court held that it was improbable for the deceased to give such a statement, in such situation, it did not feel inclined to rely on the dying declaration. It also did not accept the ocular statement of witnesses since their evidence was incredible and unbelievable. 13. The evidence of P.W.5 stands corroborated by P.W.1 to the extent that he also saw a person lying in injured condition, but out of fear he did not go to the place of incident. It also did not accept the ocular statement of witnesses since their evidence was incredible and unbelievable. 13. The evidence of P.W.5 stands corroborated by P.W.1 to the extent that he also saw a person lying in injured condition, but out of fear he did not go to the place of incident. The dying declaration stated to have been made, by the deceased Basir has not been corroborated by P.W.5. Notwithstanding this, the presence of P.W.5 near the place of, occurrence can hardly be disbelieved. P.W.6, the owner of the tea-stall, has also not supported the prosecution. But, on a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6, it is. Established that a person was lying at the place of incident haying been injured by the time these witnesses visited the spot. From the facts situation narrated by P.W.1, it has been established that he found the deceased lying at the spot of occurrence after receiving severe bleeding injuries. The deceased also narrated to P.W.1 the manner in which it had taken place. P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the body of Basir. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7, it is established that the deceased Basir was brought to the hospital in injured condition and he made a dying declaration before P.W.4 implicating the Appellant to be the culprit. In the aforesaid context, we find no discernible means to discredit the evidence of P.W.4 who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. A conjoint reading of the dying declaration and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 would establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was responsible for the death of Basir. It is unsafe to reject the dying declaration on the basis of the some trivial contradictions between the ocular statement and the dying declaration. 14. Mr. Palit's Anr. limb of submission is as to why Mr. Ray, who allegedly took the injured to the Hospital, was withheld from being examined in Court. But we do not find his non-examination has weakened the prosecution case in any manner The defence was unable to place anything on record to show that the deceased was in any way tutored to utter the name of the Appellant as his assailant. 15. But we do not find his non-examination has weakened the prosecution case in any manner The defence was unable to place anything on record to show that the deceased was in any way tutored to utter the name of the Appellant as his assailant. 15. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced before us, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has taken a correct view and we approve its findings while convicting the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant are confirmed. From the records it is not clear whether the Appellant has surrendered before the trial Court after the period of his bail as granted by this Court. If in fact he has not surrendered, he snail be taken to custody immediately under warrant of arrest to suffer the sentence imposed against him. P.K. Misra, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed