By Court.- Appellant on being tried before the Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 59/1987 for an offence punishable under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he caused death of the deceased Runia Devi with a sickle was found guilty by the trial Judge for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. 2. The facts are as follows: 3. The deceased Runia Devi is the mother of Shivnarayan Yadav PW 4 and Uma Charan Yadav PW 1. Putul Kumari, PW 2 is the grand-daughter of Runia Devi, the deceased. The appellant's wife fell sick and died and the appellant was entertaining a suspicion that the deceased Runia is a witch and that she killed his wife. A panchayat was convened in this connection, but the appellant was not willing to accede to the decision thus arrived at by the panchayat. A month, prior to the date of the incident, a quarrel ensued between the deceased and the appellant in respect of a land. The appellant uprooted the pegs to which cattle were tied and threw them away. On account of the above fact, the appellant and the deceased were inimical to each other. 4. At about midnight on 25/26th August, 1985 PW 1 Uma Charan Yadav heard the cries of PW 4 Shivnarayan Yadav. PW 4 rushed to the house where the deceased was living and he found the deceased Runia with injuries. On being questioned as to how she suffered the• injuries, the deceased Runia Devi informed PW 4 that she was given a blow with Jhorni (sickle) by the appellant. In the meantime, on hearing the cries, PW 3 Bishwanath Yadav, the village Mukhiya, PW 4 Chandrika Yadav and PW 9 Sitaram Yadav rushed to the place. PW 3 Bishwanath went to fetch a doctor but by the time the doctor could arrive, Runia Devi breathed her last. On the next day, on coming to know about the occurrence in the village, police officer went to the home of PW 4 Shivnarayan Yadav who gave faro beyan Ext. 2 which was formally registered at the police station at 1.30 p.m. on the printed FIR (Ext. 5). 5. PW 12 took up the investigation in the crime. On the next day, on coming to know about the occurrence in the village, police officer went to the home of PW 4 Shivnarayan Yadav who gave faro beyan Ext. 2 which was formally registered at the police station at 1.30 p.m. on the printed FIR (Ext. 5). 5. PW 12 took up the investigation in the crime. He reached the scene of the occurrence, conducted inquest, prepared inquest report (Ext. 4) and he also prepared a seizure list Ext. 3. As the deceased informed PW 4 that she was attacked with a sickle by the appellant, the police officer went to the house of the appellant and seized a blood-stained sickle attested by PWs 7 and 9 and thereafter, he sent the dead body to the hospital for post mortem. 6. On receipt of the requisition, PW 13 Dr. K.K. Sinha, CAS attached to the Sadar Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and the doctor on dissection of the dead body, found blood clot in the scalp bone and membrane. He also noticed a puncture wound between 4th and 5th left ribs. Pluera was seen punctured. Left pluera was full of blood. The doctor also found puncture on the left lung and left side of the heart. The doctor issued Ext. 6, post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of shock and haemorrhage due to puncture on the left lung and to the left side of the heart. The said injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. 7. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellant. 8. When questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant, he denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side. 9. Learned counsel, appearing as an amicus curiae submits that since the evidence of PW 4, that the deceased gave statement implicating the appellant with the crime is not corroborated by any other evidence, the said evidence of PW 4 is to be rejected. He did not examine any witness on his side. 9. Learned counsel, appearing as an amicus curiae submits that since the evidence of PW 4, that the deceased gave statement implicating the appellant with the crime is not corroborated by any other evidence, the said evidence of PW 4 is to be rejected. Learned counsel further submits that the seizure of the blood-stained sickle from the house to the appellant was not established by the prosecution before the trial court as the seizure list attested by PWs 7 and 8 turned hostile and it is not safe to act upon the only evidence of PW 12, the investigating officer. He therefore submits that the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the materials on record. 11. The cause of death of Runia was not disputed before the trial court nor before this Court. PW 13 Dr. Kishore Kumar Sinha who conducted the autopsy and issued Ext. 6, the post mortem certificate, gave evidence in court that he found the injuries, external and internal, on the dead body of the deceased and that he mentioned the same in the post mortem certificate (Ext. 6). He also stated that the deceased must have died en account of punctured wound. The evidence of PW 13 therefore shows that the deceased Runia died on account of homicidal violence and that those injuries must have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 12. The prosecution before the trial court, in order to establish that the appellant caused fatal injuries, relied on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PW 4. The statement of the deceased, if it relates to the cause of death, can be acted upon to find a person guilty, if there is no material to show that the said statement was false. On going through the evidence of PW 4, we find no material to come to such a conclusion. It is true that the other witnesses have not stated anything about the deceased giving statement of PW 4. But it is to be remembered that it was PW 4 who rushed to the place of the occurrence immediately on hearing the distressing cries of the deceased and thereafter the other witnesses reached the place of the occurrence. It is true that the other witnesses have not stated anything about the deceased giving statement of PW 4. But it is to be remembered that it was PW 4 who rushed to the place of the occurrence immediately on hearing the distressing cries of the deceased and thereafter the other witnesses reached the place of the occurrence. It could therefore be easily inferred that on reaching the place first, and on seeing the deceased with the injuries, PW 4 must have asked the deceased as to the cause of the injuries and the deceased thereafter must have informed about the attack on her by the appellant. The evidence also shows that the other witnesses including PW 3 the village Mukhiya, later came to the scene of the occurrence and therefore could not have been present when the deceased gave statement to PW 4. It is also worthwhile to remember the evidence of the prosecution that PW 3, the village Mukhiya, went to fetch a doctor but by the time the doctor arrived, the deceased breathed her last. It is therefore clear that after •giving a cryptic statement to PW 4 that she has been attacked by the appellant with a sickle she must have lost her consciousness only to die thereafter. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that since the other witnesses did not speak about the statement made by the deceased to PW 4, the evidence of PW 4 is to be rejected. It is to be remembemd at this stage that PW 12 on reaching the scene of the occurrence and after the lard beyan was given by PW 4, he went straightway to the house of the appellant and seized the sickle. If the deceased had not given any statement to PW 4, then the latter could not have mentioned the said fact to the investigating officer and he could not have gone to the house of the appellant to seize the sickle. This fact of the officer going to the house of the appellant for the seizure of the sickle after the recording of the fard beyan corroborates the evidence of PW 4•that the deceased gave the statement implicating the appellant with the crime by saying that she was attacked by the appellant with the sickle. This fact of the officer going to the house of the appellant for the seizure of the sickle after the recording of the fard beyan corroborates the evidence of PW 4•that the deceased gave the statement implicating the appellant with the crime by saying that she was attacked by the appellant with the sickle. The fact that PWs 7 and 8, the witnesses who attested the seizure list, turned hostile is no ground for the Court to reject the evidence of the police officer. There is no rule, which provides that the evidence of a police officer is to be rejected unless it is corroborated. The evidence of the police officer is to be evaluated and appreciated in the same manner as the evidence of any other witnesses. 13. On going through the evidence of the Police Officer, we find no infirmity in his evidence. In fact, the defence did not even suggest as to why PW 12 had come out with a false version that he searched the house of the appellant for seizure of the sickle and in the absence of any motive for him to give false evidence against the appellant, there is no reason for the police officer to come out with false version to implicate the appellant by stating that he went to the house of the appellant and seized the blood stained sickle. We accept the evidence of PW 4 and the evidence of the police officer that he seized the blood stained sickle from the house of the appellant. The prosecution failed to mark the report of the chemical examiner, but the lacunae on this aspect in the prosecution case will not come to the rescue of the appellant. The fact is that the deceased gave an oral statement to PW 4 implicating the appellant with the crime and later a blood stained sickle was seized from the house of the appellant. It is also worthwhile to remember that the deceased in fact specifically informed PW 4 that she was attacked by the appellant with the sickle. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the evidence is satisfactory and we do not find reason to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the evidence is satisfactory and we do not find reason to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. The Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka will take all steps to commit the appellant to prison. We, however, appreciate and put on record the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae during the course of the hearing of the appeal.