JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2001 convicting all the found Appellants, namely, Md. Moin Uddin @ Lucky Moin, Md. Abdul Hannan @ Hannan, Md. Sakat Ali @ Sakai and Md. Manjir Ali Laskar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months each. 2. An ejahar was lodged before the Officer-in-charge, Hailakandi Police Station on 29.7.1996 by one Lalu Mia Laskar alleging that the aforementioned four accused persons had caused injuries on the person of the deceased Md. Moin Uddin by means of sharp weapons with the intention to kill him. It has been mentioned in the ejahar that having coming to know about the occurrence at around 2.30 hours (night), the informant went to the place of occurrence where the injured Moin Uddin told him that the said accused persons had injured him. The FIR also discloses that in view of the deteriorating condition of the injured Moin Uddin he was shifted to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. The police, on receipt of the ejahar, registered Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 287 of 1996, took up investigation and on completion thereof, submitted charge-sheet against the above mentioned four accused persons. On commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi framed charges against all the accused persons under Sections 147, 149, 449 and 302, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. As many as ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The defence case, as it appears from the trend in the cross-examination as well as from the answers given to the questions put under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, is of complete denial. 5. Before referring to the other evidence on record, we may refer to the evidence of P.W. 10, Dr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty who had performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Md. Moin Uddin. 5. Before referring to the other evidence on record, we may refer to the evidence of P.W. 10, Dr. Kalyan Kr. Chakraborty who had performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Md. Moin Uddin. The injuries found by this witness with his opinion are quoted below: Male dead body of stout built wearing a checked lungi handed over the escorting constable. (1) Cut injury on left elbow 13 x 5 x 3 cm with cut in muscle, vessels and nerve. Margins regular. (2) Cut injury left forearm 2½ cm below the injury No. 1 measuring 10 x 2½ x 3 cm with cut in muscles, vessels and nerves; margins regular. (3) Cut injury left forearm 3 cm above the wrist joint 2 x ½ x ¼ cm; margins regular. (4) Stitched wound middle of forehead 4 x ¼ x ¼ cm margins regular. (5) Linear cut 1 cm right to injury No. 4 in forehead 3½ cm. (6) Stitched wound of left side of forehead along the lateral and of eye-brow 6 x ½ cm x bone deep with cut in underline bone. Margins regular. (7) Stitched injury chest wall in mid half 8 cm in length. (8) Stitched wound right shoulder blade 9 cm medial to right shoulder tip 13 x 2 x 2 cm. Margins of the wound regular. (9) Stitched wound right shoulder blade 2 cm medial to right shoulder tip 6 x 1 x 1 cm. Margins regular. (10) Stitched wound left chest wall along with nipple 7 x 1½ x 1 cm; margins regular. (11) Stitched wound left chest wall 1 cm medial to injury No. 10 measuring 4 x ¼ x ¼ cm. Margins regular. (12) Cut injury right forearms 4 x 2 x 1 cm. (13) Cut injury 1½ cm above the injury 12 measuring 1 x 1 x 1½ cm. (14) Stitched injury right forearm 3 cm below the elbow joint-(1) 6 cm (2) 3 cm. (15) Abrasion front of right leg mid half 1 x 1 cm All the injuries are fresh and ante-mortem caused by sharp weapon except injury No. 15 caused by blunt weapon. Opinion-Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries described caused by sharp weapon homicidal in nature. Time past since death 4 to 8 hrs. approximately. Ex.-9 is P.M. report, Ex.-9(1) is my signature. Opinion-Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries described caused by sharp weapon homicidal in nature. Time past since death 4 to 8 hrs. approximately. Ex.-9 is P.M. report, Ex.-9(1) is my signature. The patient may be survived for 2 hrs. after receiving such type of injuries. The patient can remain conscious approximately ½ hrs. after receiving such type of injuries. 6. It would appear from the medical evidence that Md. Moin Uddin sustained multiple injuries on his person which were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp weapon homicidal in nature. According to the doctor, the injured in such a condition may survive for two hours. In his cross-examination also this witness stated that the patient can remain conscious approximately for ½ hours after receiving such type of injuries. This means that a person after having sustained such injuries may remain conscious and capable of narrating the facts and circumstances under which he sustained injuries before his death. 7. P.W. 1 Md. Abdul Latif stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. 28.7.1996 he was present in the Masjid where the occurrence took place. The Masjid is situated near Hailakandi Court premises. He was presiding over Owaj celebration. One Fakaruddin, a tenant of the Masjid informed him at around 2.30/3 O'clock that some persons had assaulted Md. Moin Uddin who was also a tenant of the Masjid. This witness was informed by Fakaruddin that Moin Uddin, the injured was already shifted to Hailakandi Civil Hospital. P.W. 1 went to the hospital where he found Moin Uddin lying on a pushcart on the verandah of the hospital smeared with blood. Moin Uddin saluted him and asked for his blessings. At that point of time, Rajen Roy, an officer of Hailakandi Police Station asked him as to who had caused the injuries. In reply, injured Moin Uddin told that Lucky Moin, Hannan, Sakat and Manjir assaulted him. The doctor present gave him a saline drip and sent him to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the Fakar did not disclose the names of the assailants and it is only the injured Moin Uddin who told the names of the four accused persons. The contradiction suggested in his cross-examination is of no significance in so far his evidence relating to dying declaration is concerned. 8. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the Fakar did not disclose the names of the assailants and it is only the injured Moin Uddin who told the names of the four accused persons. The contradiction suggested in his cross-examination is of no significance in so far his evidence relating to dying declaration is concerned. 8. P.W. 2 Sri Subhash Deb stated that at about 2.45 p.m. Moin Uddin's brother Aainuddin (P.W. 5) woke him up from the sleep and reported that his brother Moin Uddin had been injured by dao within the Masjid campus. He immediately went Hailakandi Police Station along with Aainuddin and reported the matter to Rajen Roy, S.I. Rajen Roy immediately came to the Masjid along with them and found Moin Uddin lying on the ground with multiple injuries on his person. The injured was placed on a pushcart for taking him to hospital. The police officer also went with him. This witness came to his home situated nearby and left for the hospital in his scooter. At the hospital a doctor examined Moin Uddin and advised that he should be shifted to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. At the Hailakandi Civil Hospital S.I. Rajen Roy asked Moin Uddin as to who had assaulted him. In presence of this witness, Moin Uddin stated that Lucky Moin, Hannan, Saukat Ali and Manjir Ali assaulted him. The police officer recorded the statement and after that Moin Uddin was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital in an ambulance. This witness along with Aainuddin and another person also accompanied injured Moin Uddin. At the Silchar Medical College and Hospital a doctor examined the injuries and stitched them. The doctor prescribed some medicines to be brought from outside. The witness went to a pharmacy and while purchasing medicine he was informed that Moin Uddin had died. 9. The evidence of P.W. 2 Subhash Deb also shows that Moin Uddin made a statement before his death indicating the accused persons as his assailants. In his cross-examination, a number of suggestions were given to this witness which were denied. We have considered the same along with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and, in our considered opinion, the suggestions have no adverse affect on the evidence of this witness to the effect that Moin Uddin disclosed the names of the four accused persons as his assailants. 10. We have considered the same along with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and, in our considered opinion, the suggestions have no adverse affect on the evidence of this witness to the effect that Moin Uddin disclosed the names of the four accused persons as his assailants. 10. The evidence of Ali Aktar Tarafdar, P.W. 3 who was present at the Owaj ceremony also testify that in his presence Moin Uddin named all the four accused persons as his assailants. In his cross-examination he has stated that there were about 15 persons in the hospital including P.W. 1 and P.W. 5. According to him, the injured was almost unconscious and the police officer had whispered something into the ear of the injured and, thereafter, he was shifted to the ambulance parked nearby. He specifically denied the suggestion that Moin Uddin did not tell the names of the accused Moin Uddin and Sakat on being asked by the police officer. This suggestion on the other hand shows that the prosecution story of dying declaration is not totally denied. Read with the statement of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 this Court is unable to find out any major contradiction in the evidence of this witness in so far as the dying declaration is concerned. 11. P.W. 4 Md. Lalu Mia in the same vein stated that on being asked by the police officer injured Moin Uddin told him about the occurrence and the police officer (P.W. 7) recorded Moin Uddin's statement. This witness further testified that the injured Moin Uddin told the police officer that after having broken the door the accused persons, namely, Lucky Moin, Abdul Hannan, Sakat Ali and Manjur Ali hit him with crow-bars and fishing daos causing him injuries. The injured also insisted for his immediate shifting to hospital. The injured was given a saline drip and sent to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. He was accompanied by his brother Nasir (P.W. 3) and a couple of other persons. Later he came to know that Moinuddin died on the next day. The statement made during the course of cross-examination by this witness rather reiterates that the deceased Moin Uddin made a dying declaration before the Investigating Officer as to the cause of his death. 12. Later he came to know that Moinuddin died on the next day. The statement made during the course of cross-examination by this witness rather reiterates that the deceased Moin Uddin made a dying declaration before the Investigating Officer as to the cause of his death. 12. P.W. 5 Aainuddin, brother of the deceased in full corroboration to the evidence of the witnesses already discussed hereinbefore stated that his brother Moin Uddin gave his statement to the police in presence of 10/12 persons including Lalu Mia, Subhas Deb and himself. According to him, his brother Moin Uddin stated that four persons namely, Lucky Moin, Sakat, Hannan and Manjir Ali assaulted and injured him. Apart from his evidence regarding dying declaration, this witness further stated that he is also a tenant in the Masjid complex having his quarter on the southern side. He heard some commotion at around 2/2.30 a.m. He woke up and saw four persons assaulting Moin Uddin with dao and sword. An electric bulb was glowing inside the Masjid complex and in the light he recognised the four accused persons who had assaulted his brother. When he went ahead to protect his brother, the accused persons threatened to kill him. So, he did not go ahead. He went to the house of Subhash Deb and informed him about the matter. 13. Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W. 5 Aainuddin that he had seen the accused persons assaulting Moin Uddin is not at all believable as because he had at the very first instance reported the incident to P.W. 2 Subhash Deb but did not disclose the name of any of the accused persons to him. Undoubtedly, this witness did not tell the names of the accused persons to P.W. 2 and this part of his evidence may be an embellishment to re-inforce the prosecution case since his brother was the victim who eventually succumbed to the injuries. For this reason alone it will not be proper to reject his evidence altogether branding him as wholly unreliable. In view of the evidence of the four P.Ws. i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 who are consistent in so far the dying declaration is concerned, the evidence of this witness in so far it relates to the dying declaration cannot be ignored. It may be mentioned here that P.W. 1 Md. In view of the evidence of the four P.Ws. i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 who are consistent in so far the dying declaration is concerned, the evidence of this witness in so far it relates to the dying declaration cannot be ignored. It may be mentioned here that P.W. 1 Md. Abdul Latif, P.W. 2 Subhash Deb, P.W. 3 Ali Aktar Tarafdar and P.W. 4 Md. Lalu Mia are all independent witnesses and their version that deceased Moin Uddin on being asked by Rajen Roy, S.I. told the names of the four accused persons establish beyond all shadow of doubt that deceased Moin Uddin made a dying declaration implicating all the accused persons immediately before his death. Ext. 4 is the dying declaration recorded by Rajen Roy, P.W. 7. Ext. 4(1) is his signature. The dying declaration recorded by him reads as follows: Statement of injured Md. Moin Uddin S/o Herji Tasir Ali, Village - Panighat, P.S. - Karimganj, District - Karimganj, Age 45 years. Tonight, when I was sleeping, the persons namely, (1) Md. Lucky Moin (Fishmonger) of Panighat, (2) Md. Sakat (Fish-monger) of Hailakandi Town (Narayanpur), (3) Manjir Ali, S/o. Jobaid Ali of Hailakandi Town Ward No. 5 and (4) Hannan (Fish-monger), S/o Arzid Ali of Panighat, Karimganj entered by room by breaking open the door and started hacking me inside the room. I recognized them by the glow of light. I woke up by the sound, jumped out of the room and ran. But they waylaid and hacked me. I raised a commotion. Later, finding no way out, I pretended to die of the injuries and lay still. I could not recognize another man. Ext.-4(1) Sd/- Illegible, District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, 3.9.2001 Sd/- Illegible, Camp - Hailakandi Civil Hospital, 3-50 A.M., 29.7.1996 14. The above statement recorded by the Investigating Officer immediately after the occurrence and sometime before the death of the deceased cannot be attributed with any imputation to tender it as unreliable. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submitted that a doctor was available at Hailakandi Civil Hospital and, therefore, the dying declaration recorded by the Police Officer creates a doubt as to whether Moin Uddin had made any statement before his death. Mr. Choudhury further argued that the details revealed in the dying declaration about address etc. is not expected from a dying person. Mr. Choudhury further argued that the details revealed in the dying declaration about address etc. is not expected from a dying person. But the injuries caused on different parts of the body had no impact on the brain and the heart. Therefore, such a statement in a given case may be possible. 15. Mr. Choudhury relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Panchdeo Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 577 in order to show that in such a situation the dying declaration recorded by a police officer cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment dealt with the question of conviction based solely on dying declaration. Here we have the evidence of five P.Ws. including the Investigating Officer, who emphatically deposed that the deceased made the dying declaration before his death implicating all the four accused persons. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are independent witnesses. P.W. 2 is from a different community and cannot have any special interest for the deceased. P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer asked the question to the injured in presence of all the witnesses and recorded his statement. Therefore, recording of the dying declaration by the Investigating Officer though a doctor was available, will not have any adverse affect on the prosecution case. True, this case is based on dying declaration, however, in view of the overwhelming evidence of different witnesses, this Court finds no option but to come to the conclusion that the accused persons have assaulted and caused death of Moin Uddin. It has been argued by Mr. Choudhury that Fakaruddin who had reported the matter to P.W. 1 at the first instance has not been examined. In our considered opinion, non-examination of this man cannot be a ground for rejection of evidence of the other witnesses. 16. For reasons above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.