Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. This appeal by Om Prakash alias Omi is directed against judgment and order dated 19-11-1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 11.3 of 1995. 2. In nut-shell, facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus : Surjit Singh, since deceased, (24 years) was running a Tea-stall in a Khokha (Kiosk) in the Grain Market at Kalanwali town, District Sirsa. He had also employed appellant-Om Prakash at his Khokha on monthly wages of Rs. 800.00 , On 23-4-1995, he removed him (appellant) from his Khokha as he proved to be mischievous and did not work properly. 3. On 5-5-1995 at about 9.00 p.m. Surjit Singh (since deceased) in the company of Kalu Ram and Raju (PWs), after closing his Khokha was coming towards his house. When they reached near the street Peer Khanawali, appellant Om Parkash suddenly came from behind and gave a fist blow from his left hand in the abdomen of said Surjit Singh and thereafter, he immediately gave another knife blow on his left side of the chest on the lateral aspect. As a result of this blow, Surjit Singh fell-down and raised alarm - "Mar Dia, Mar Dia" (Killed-Killed). Then Kalu Ram and Raju intervened and rescued him from the clutches of the appellant. The appellant also threatened these aforesaid two persons that if they tried to catch hold of him, he would stab them also. After tills occurrence, the appellant fled away from the spot. The motive behind this occurrence was that accused-appellant Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") had demanded his salary of full month, whereas, he had worked only for 4-5 days. On the refusal of Surjit Singh to pay the full months salary, the appellant committed this offence. 4. After the occurrence, Surjit Singh, in the injured condition, was taken and got admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Kalanwali by 5-6 persons on the same day, i.e., 5-5-1995. Dr. Bhushan Garg, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kalanwali, sent a ruqa (Ex. PC) to the Police Station, Kalanwali from where Head Constable Gharsa Ram (PW-9) rushed to the hospital and moved an application (Ex. Dr. Bhushan Garg, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kalanwali, sent a ruqa (Ex. PC) to the Police Station, Kalanwali from where Head Constable Gharsa Ram (PW-9) rushed to the hospital and moved an application (Ex. PE) for obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to make a statement, whereupon, vide opinion of the doctor, Ex.PE/1, dated 5-5-1995, the injured was found unfit to make his statement at 10.00 p.m. Again on 6-5-1995, he was found unfit to make the statement vide opinion Ex. PE/2. Ultimately, on 7-5-1995, at about 10.00 a.m., Dr. Bhushan Garg (PW-4) vide his opinion Ex. PE/3 declared the injured fit to make his statement. Accordingly, statement (Ex.PR) of injured Surjit Singh was then taken down and completed at 11.15 a.m. on 7-5-1995 by H. C. Gharsa Ram (PW-9), in the above narration of the facts. He then made his endorsement Ex.PR/1 and sent the same to the Police Station through Constable Dharam Pal (PW-8) for registration of the case under Seciton 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code"). Ultimately, formal FIR Ex.PR/2 was recorded by MHC Rajeshwar Kumar. Dr. Bhushan Garg, (PW-4) had examined injured Surjit Singh (deceased) vide MLR Ex.PD and found two injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 was found to have been caused with sharp edged weapon for which X-ray was advised, whereas, injury No. 2 was declared simple in nature. 5. It was on 8-5-1995 that Surjit Singh, Injured, was referred to the General Hospital, Sirsa, where he died on 13-5-1995 at 12-05 p.m. (after mid-night). Then, on receipt of the information (Ex. PH) regarding his death, the offence was converted from Section 324 to Section 302 of the Code. Thereafter PW-7 ASI Satbir Singh reached General Hospital, Sirsa and prepared the Inquest report Ex.PK. Post-mortem on the dead-body was conducted by a Board of Doctors vide Post-Mortem Report Ex. PJ. The appellant was arrested in this case by PW-9 HC Gharsa Ram on 8-5-1995. He also took into possession a sealed packet of clothes of Surjit Singh (deceased) and then deposited the same with the MHC. On completion of the formal investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned. 6. PJ. The appellant was arrested in this case by PW-9 HC Gharsa Ram on 8-5-1995. He also took into possession a sealed packet of clothes of Surjit Singh (deceased) and then deposited the same with the MHC. On completion of the formal investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned. 6. The appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-10-1995, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, PW-1 Kalu Ram, PW-2 Rajinder Kumar, they both were eye-witneses to the occurrence. However, they turned hostile and thus resiled from their earlier statements made before the police under Section 161, Cr.P.C. PW-3 Satish Makani, Pharmacist, Government Hospital, Sirsa, he produced medical report and treatment chart of Surjit Singh (deceased); PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Garg, had medically examined the deceased when he was admitted In an Injured condition in Primary Health Centre, Kalanwali. In his statement, he also proved MLR Ex.PD; PW-5 Dr. S. L. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa, he also gave treatment to the injured/deceased from 8-5-1995 to 13-5-1995. He then also proved the post-mortem report Ex.PJ. PW-6 Constable Subhash Chand, he prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PM); PW-7 ASI Satbir Singh, on receipt of the information regarding the death of Surjit Singh, he prepared the inquest report Ex. PK; PW-8 Constable Dharam Pal, he had handed-over the clothes of the deceased to HC Gharsa Ram; PW-9 HC Gharsa Ram, he was the main Investigating Officer in this case. 8. After examining the aforesaid nine witnesses, learned Public Prosecutor also tendered into evidence, affidavit (Ex.PT) of Constable Jagdish Chander. He also tendered into evidence FSL reports, Exs. PU, PV and PX and then closed the prosecution case. 9. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he denied the incriminating evidence put to him in toto. He led no evidence in his defence. 10. Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the opening para of this judgment. This is how, feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. 12. 10. Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the opening para of this judgment. This is how, feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has put-forth his two-fold argument. At the first place, he submitted that the statement (Ex.PR) of Surjit Singh (deceased) recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken as a Dying-Declaration and as such, the same is inadmissible under the Evidence Act. Moreover, that statement was recorded after two days of the occurrence in spite of the fact that he (Surjit Singh) remained conscious throughout i.e., from the time of occurrence to the recording of his statement (Ex.PR). At the second place, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, Surjit Singh (deceased) had not sustained any serious injuries at the hands of the appellant. However, later on, some complications arose due to the carelessness in the treatment of injured Surjit Singh in the hospital, which ultimately caused septicaemia resulting into his death. In such a situation, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Code and at the most, he could have been made liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the Code only. In support of these aforesaid points of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Raja Ram V/s. State of Haryana 1998 (4) RCR (Crl) 99; Sumer Chand V/s. State of Haryana etc. 1998 (1) RCR (Crl) 399; and Harish Kumar V/s. State (Delhi Admn.) 1994 SCC (Crl) 581 : 1993 CriLJ 411. 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the statement Ex.PR of Surjit Singh (deceased) recorded by PW-9 Gharsa Ram, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case, is to be taken as a dying-declaration, inasmuch as the same was made by him (Surjit Singh-deceased) as to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. He further submitted that the contents of the statement of the deceased also find corroboration from the medical evidence consisted in the statement of PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Garg and PW-5, Dr. S.L. Aggarwal. In such a situation, if the statement made by the deceased is found to be truthful, the same is sufficient to pass conviction without any further corroboration and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the other eye-witnesses had turned hostile. In support of his this aforesaid argument, he also relied upon State of U.P. V/s. Ameer Ali 1997 (1) RCR (Crl) 203 and Najjam Faraghi @ Najjam Faruqui V/s. State of West Bengal 1998 (1) RCR (Crl) 403. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid points of arguments, raised on behalf of the parties and find no force in the first contention of the appellant regarding inadmissibility of the statement (Ex. PR) made by the deceased under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that Surjit Singh deceased had sustained two injuries on his person on 5-5-1995 at about 9.00 p.m. and thereafter, he was first taken to Primary Health Centre, Kalanwali by 5-6 persons and without disclosing their names to the doctor, they had left the Health Centre, as stated by PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Garg. It is further evident that Surjit Singh was not found fit to make his statement on 5th and 6th May, 1995. It was only on 7-5-1995 at 10.00 a.m. that he was declared fit to make the statement. It Is also to add here that injury No. 1 on the left side of the chest of the deceased was described as a stab wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 6.5 cm. There was also fresh bleeding from the said injury. Margins were sharp and there was also corresponding cut in the shirt of the injured. It is further in the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Bhushan Garg that the injured also complained of pain in the epigastric region. This injury No. 1 which was found to have been caused with a sharp pointed weapon, was also kept under observation and X-ray was advised, whereas, injury No. 2 was simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon. It. is then also stated by PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Garg that the injured was conscious, but he could not speak clearly. This injury No. 1 which was found to have been caused with a sharp pointed weapon, was also kept under observation and X-ray was advised, whereas, injury No. 2 was simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon. It. is then also stated by PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Garg that the injured was conscious, but he could not speak clearly. Later on, injured Surjit Singh was shifted to the General Hospital, Sirsa on 8-5-1995 where he ultimately expired on 13-5-1995 at 12.05 p.m. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead-body of Surjit Singh (deceased) by Dr. N.C. Chaudhary and PW-5 Dr. S.L. Aggarwal vide post-mortem report, Ex. PJ. According to their opinion, the cause of death was due to Septicaemia as a result of injury to large gut which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient, to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. A perusal of the medical evidence consisted in the statement of PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Garg and PW-5 Dr. S.L. Aggarwal, goes a long-way to corroborate the contents of statement (Ex. PR) made by Surjit Singh (deceased). At this place, it is also pertinent to mention that there was no interaction of the maker of the statement (Ex. PR) with any person, who could tutor or influence him for making a false statement to involve the appellant in this case. Not only that, it has no where been alleged or proved if the deceased or the police had any animus or bias against the appellant for involving him falsely in this case. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the statement Ex. PR made by the deceased is true, co-herent, consistent and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement. Thus, in our holistic view, the same was sufficient for recording the conviction without looking for further corroboration from the two eyewitnesses, who turned hostile in this case. In our this view, we find support from the following observations made in paragraph 9 of the judgment, by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Najjam Faraghis case (supra) (1998 (1) Rec Cri R (Cri) 403) :- - 9. There is no merit in the contention of that the appellant died long after making the dying declarations and therefore, those statements have no value. The contention overlooks the express provision in Section 32 of the Evidence Act. There is no merit in the contention of that the appellant died long after making the dying declarations and therefore, those statements have no value. The contention overlooks the express provision in Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The second para-graph of Sub-section (1) reads as follows : "Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question." No doubt it has been pointed out that when a person is expecting his death to take place shortly he would not be indulging in falsehood. But that does not mean that such a statement loses its value if the person lives for a longer time than expected. The question has to be considered in each case on the facts and circumstances established therein, If there is nothing on record to show that the statement could not have been true or if the other evidence on record corroborates the contentions of the statements, the court can certainly accept the same and act upon it. In the present case both courts have discussed the evidence on record and found that two dying declarations contained in Exs. 5 and 6 are acceptable. 15. In view of the above observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, and our foregoing discussion, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from the ratio of law laid-down in Raja Rams case (1998 (4) Rec Cri R (Cri) 99) (supra) of this Court, relied upon by counsel for the appellant, as the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. 16. Now, adverting to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to conversion of conviction and sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Code, admittedly, Surjit Singh (deceased), who had received one serious injury on the left side of his chest, died after 8 days of occurrence. He first remained admitted in the Primary Health Centre at Kalanwali and later on, he was also shifted to General Hospital, Sirsa. It appears that at the initial stage, after his medico-legal examination vide report Ex. PD, Dr. He first remained admitted in the Primary Health Centre at Kalanwali and later on, he was also shifted to General Hospital, Sirsa. It appears that at the initial stage, after his medico-legal examination vide report Ex. PD, Dr. Bhushan Garg (PW-4) could not give a definite opinion regarding the gravity and nature of injuries and as such, as per his opinion, only a case under Section 324 of the Code was registered. Later on, when his condition started deteriorating, the injured was referred to the General Hospital, Sirsa, where he was treated by PW-5 Dr. S. L. Aggarwal, but there he expired on 13-5-1995. While conducting the autopsy on the dead-body the following condition was found :- - Peritoneum was thick and adherent to the momentum and gut. On opening, peritoneal cavity was full with thick foul smelling pus in the left side of abdomen. Small intestine was adherent to peritoneum and pus was present in between the two. There was perforation in the descending part of large intestine in its upper 1/3rd part. There was thick flank pus all around the descending part of the large gut. The cause of death in this case in our opinion was due to septicaemia as a result of injury to large gut which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that in the postmortem report, Ex. PJ, both the doctors, who conducted the autopsy on the dead-body, had opined that the death in this case was due to septicaemia as a result of injury to large gut, which is ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in this case. However, while appearing as PW-5, Dr. S. L. Aggarwal has improved the aforesaid version when he states that the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The words "in the ordinary course of nature" were not there in the post-mortem report, Ex. PJ. It is also to add here that according to PW-5, Dr. S.L. Aggarwal, there was a thick frank pus all around. It is also an admitted fact that as per medical evidence brought on the file, septicaemia had developed as a result of injury No. 1. PJ. It is also to add here that according to PW-5, Dr. S.L. Aggarwal, there was a thick frank pus all around. It is also an admitted fact that as per medical evidence brought on the file, septicaemia had developed as a result of injury No. 1. In these facts and circumstances and having regard to the nature of injuries, time gap between the time of infliction of the injury till the time of death, and lack of sufficient material as to the nature of treatment given to the deceased during that period, it cannot be conclusively said that the injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. In this view of our fore-going discussion, the offence would fall under Section 304, Part II and not under Section 302 of the Code. 17 In the result, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Code, and sentence of life and convict him under Section 304, Part II of the Code and impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years in this case. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent, as indicated above.