Judgment :- D.D. Sinha, J. Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Mujumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 366/2003, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal. 3) The circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellant, in nutshell, are as follows: Deceased Prashant was a tailor by profession and had a tailoring shop in Kunjilal Peth, opposite the house of the appellant. Prashant was in love with Sandhya, who is sister of appellant and wanted to marry her. The love affair between Prashant and Sandhya was not liked by the family members of Sandhya, particularly the appellant, who was completely against the said love affair. On 30.4.2003, around 9 p.m. Prashant and Sandhya were chitchatting at a short distance from their house. The appellant saw them chitchatting and got enraged. He went on the spot with a big knife and assaulted Prashant. Prashant received serious bleeding injuries on his person and fell down on the ground. The appellant fled away from the spot. Police party, which was passing from the road, heard the shouts of Sandhya, stopped the jeep, got down from the same, went near injured Prashant, put him in the jeep and took him to the Government Medical College. Sandhya also accompanied the Police party. 4) In the hospital, PW 7 Meshram, PSI recorded statement of injured Prashant. Prior to recording of his statement, Dr. Dubewar, who was on duty at the relevant time in the Casualty Department, certified Prashant to be fit to give his statement to the Police. The statement of Prashant was treated as first information report and on the basis thereof, PW 7 Meshram, PSI registered an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The Investigating Officer issued requisition to the Special Judicial Magistrate Shri Prakash Somkuwar (PW 3) for recording dying declaration of injured Prashant. PW 3 Somkuwar, Special Judicial Magistrate, on 1.5.2003, recorded dying declaration of injured Prashant. Prashant died in the Hospital on 2.5.2003. The Police converted the offence from Section 307 into one under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer issued requisition to the Special Judicial Magistrate Shri Prakash Somkuwar (PW 3) for recording dying declaration of injured Prashant. PW 3 Somkuwar, Special Judicial Magistrate, on 1.5.2003, recorded dying declaration of injured Prashant. Prashant died in the Hospital on 2.5.2003. The Police converted the offence from Section 307 into one under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. PW 7 Meshram, PSI after completing the formal investigation, i.e. recording of statements of witnesses, drawing spot panchanama and inquest panchanama, seizure of clothes and other articles, etc. filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution held appellant guilty of murder. 5) Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that prosecution has examined PW 4 Suresh, PW 5 Sandip and PW 6 Ku. Sandhya as eye witnesses to the incident. However, all the three eye witnesses did not support the prosecution and, therefore, the Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission of the trial Court to cross-examine them. It was contended that entire case of the prosecution is based on dying declarations - one recorded by PW 7 Meshram, PSI on 30.4.2003 and other recorded by PW 3 Prakash Somkuwar, Special Judicial Magistrate on 1.5.2003 in the Hospital. The learned Counsel submitted that there is a discrepancy in both these dying declarations, which is inherent in nature and creates doubt about genuineness and authenticity of these dying declarations. It was contended that in the first dying declaration (Exh. 26) recorded by PW 7 Meshram, PSI, deceased Prashant has stated that on 30.4.2003 at about 9.15 p.m., after seeing deceased and Sandhya chitchatting, appellant got annoyed and took out knife and inflicted two blows with it on his person, i.e. on right thigh and below left side rib. It was contended that in the second dying declaration (Exh. 20) recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, deceased Prashant has stated that appellant came on the spot armed with knife and inflicted injuries by means of knife on his back and thigh. It was contended that in the second dying declaration (Exh. 20) recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, deceased Prashant has stated that appellant came on the spot armed with knife and inflicted injuries by means of knife on his back and thigh. It was contended that there is no mention in this dying declaration about any injury caused by the appellant on the ribs of deceased Prashant and this inconsistency in two dying declarations being material in nature creates suspicion about genuineness of the prosecution case, particularly because as per medical evidence of Dr. Amit Kumar (PW 1), injury no.1 mentioned in column no. 17, i.e. injury on chest was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Prashant. It was contended that in the second dying declaration, deceased Prashant did not mention about any injury caused to his chest and, therefore, it is difficult to conclude which dying declaration is correct and truthful, with the result, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 6) Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court had summoned Dr. Mohan and Dr. Dhirendra, who were examined as Court Witnesses. Dr. Mohan (Court Witness No.1) in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not specifically stated on Exh. 25 or Exh. 26 that he had examined the patient and, therefore, certificate of fitness given by the Doctor is also not free from doubt. It was contended that taking into consideration the discrepancies in the two dying declarations as well as fitness certificate issued by the Doctor coupled with the fact that three eye witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant for the offence of murder and, therefore, appellant is liable to be acquitted. 7) Shri Mujumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. It was contended that though three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution in the Court, however, the evidence of dying declarations recorded by PSI as well as Special Judicial Magistrate is cogent, consistent and reliable and same is also corroborated by the medical evidence. It was submitted that deceased Prashant was fit to give statement to the Police as per certificate issued by the Doctor. It was submitted that deceased Prashant was fit to give statement to the Police as per certificate issued by the Doctor. It was contended that the weapon of offence, i.e. knife had a human blood and clothes of appellant, i.e. manila and baniyan seized by PW 7 Meshram, PSI also stained with human blood of `B’ group, which was the blood group of deceased Prashant. It was submitted that taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the trial Court was justified in holding that prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of murder against the appellant and convicting the appellant for the offence of murder. 8) We have given anxious thought to the various contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the prosecution evidence. It is no doubt true that PW 4 Suresh, PW 5 Sandip and PW 6 Sandhya did not support the prosecution in the Court. However, that cannot be the ground to discard the other prosecution evidence, if the same is cogent, truthful and trustworthy. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of dying declaration. However, rule of prudence is to seek corroboration. In this background, it will be appropriate to scrutinise the two dying declarations of deceased Prashant recorded by the Police Officer and Special Judicial Magistrate. 9) The incident in question had taken place on 30.4.2003. PW 7 Meshram, PSI, at the relevant time, was attached to Police Station, Ajni and was on duty. The testimony of PW 7 Meshram, PSI shows that he received information from Government Medical College that one person was admitted in the Hospital in an injured condition and, therefore, he went to the Government Medical College. Injured Prashant was in the O.P.D. This witness gave requisition to the Medical Officer and requested him to examine injured Prashant and give certificate whether he was fit to give his statement to this witness. This witness has stated in his testimony that the Medical Officer after examining injured Prashant certified that Prashant was fit to give his statement. It has come in the evidence of this witness that after obtaining the fitness certificate, he had recorded the dying declaration of Prashant (Exh. 26). The material particulars mentioned therein are as follows: On 30.4.2003, at about 9.15 p.m. Prashant was standing in front of his tailoring shop and was talking to Ku. It has come in the evidence of this witness that after obtaining the fitness certificate, he had recorded the dying declaration of Prashant (Exh. 26). The material particulars mentioned therein are as follows: On 30.4.2003, at about 9.15 p.m. Prashant was standing in front of his tailoring shop and was talking to Ku. Sandhya. Appellant came there and got annoyed on seeing them together. He took out a knife, which was with him and delivered two blows by means of that knife on right thigh and below left side rib of Prashant with the intention to kill him. 10) The Court witness No.1 Dr. Mohan, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 30.4.2003 at the relevant time, he was on duty in the Government Medical College as CMO. Police Station Officer, Ajni Police Station gave him a requisition to issue fitness certificate. Hence, he examined the victim and certified that he was fit to give his statement. This witness has also mentioned in his testimony that statement of Prashant was recorded in his presence and during the course of recording of statement, Prashant was in a fit condition to speak. In cross-examination, Dr. Mohan has admitted that he examined Prashant in the Casualty Ward and statement of Prashant was also recorded in the said Casualty Ward. However, endorsement on Exh. 25 was made by him in the duty room, which was attached to the Casualty Ward. The cross-examination of Dr. Mohan reaffirms the case of the prosecution that deceased Prashant was examined by Dr. Mohan before recording of his dying declaration by PW 7 Meshram, PSI and Dr. Mohan also certified that Prashant was in a fit condition to give his statement. Merely because Dr. Mohan made an endorsement about mental fitness of the patient on Exh. 25 in the duty room, does not affect the credibility of his testimony, in the present case. The evidence of PW 7 Meshram, PSI is also straight-forward and demonstrates that he has recorded the dying declaration of deceased Prashant as per his version. There is nothing in the cross-examination brought by the defence to discredit the testimony of this witness. 11) PW 3 Somkumar, Special Judicial Magistrate recorded the second dying declaration of deceased Prashant (Exh. 20) on 1.5.2003. The testimony of this witness shows that on 1.5.2003 he received requisition from Police Station, Ajni (Exh. There is nothing in the cross-examination brought by the defence to discredit the testimony of this witness. 11) PW 3 Somkumar, Special Judicial Magistrate recorded the second dying declaration of deceased Prashant (Exh. 20) on 1.5.2003. The testimony of this witness shows that on 1.5.2003 he received requisition from Police Station, Ajni (Exh. 18) for recording dying declaration of deceased Prashant at about 2.30 pm. On receipt of the said requisition, he went to Government Medical College for recording dying declaration of Prashant. On reaching Government Medical College, he gave letter to CMO requesting him to certify whether Prashant was in a fit condition to give his statement. At about 3 p.m., after examining Prashant, Medical Officer gave certificate that Prashant was fit to give his statement. The said endorsement was made by the Medical Officer on Exh. 19. The evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate shows that on receipt of fitness certificate of Prashant, dying declaration was recorded, by this witness as per version of deceased Prashant, which is Exh. 20. It is no doubt true that in the dying declaration (Exh. 20), it is mentioned that appellant inflicted blows by knife - one on the back and other on the thigh of deceased. However, the evidence of PW 3 Somkuwar, in our view, is cogent, trustworthy and also supported by the evidence of Medical Officer. Nothing tangible has come in the cross-examination of this witness in order to affect veracity of testimony of this witness. 12) The next important question is whether so called inconsistency as alleged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in two dying declarations adversely affects the evidence of dying declaration and creates doubt about genuineness thereof? On close scrutiny of Exhs. 20 and 26 as well as evidence of witnesses, who had recorded the dying declarations and the Medical Officers, who had issued fitness certificates about condition of deceased, we are of the view that there is no inherent inconsistency in respect of material particulars of the prosecution case, i.e. presence of appellant at the relevant time armed with a knife, causing of injuries by knife on the person of deceased Prashant. Deceased Prashant was in a fit condition at the time of recording of both the dying declarations. Merely because in Exh. Deceased Prashant was in a fit condition at the time of recording of both the dying declarations. Merely because in Exh. 20, deceased Prashant failed to mention about injuries caused to his chest, that does not render any of the dying declarations either unreliable or untrustworthy when both the dying declarations are consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case. Similarly, there is another reason to reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard, i.e. medical evidence. The medical evidence of PW 1 Dr. Amit Kumar corroborates both the dying declarations recorded by the respective prosecution witnesses. PW 1 Dr. Amit kumar conducted post mortem examination and noticed following external injuries on the person of deceased Prashant: (i) Stitched wound over left side of chest 9th intercostal space in posterior axillary line of size 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. angles and margins clear cut cavity deep. (ii) Contused abrasion left shoulder, anterior aspect, 3 cm. x o.5 cm. reddish. (iii) Graged abrasion over left arm, anterior aspect 4 cm. x 3 cm. reddish brown. (iv) Contused abrasion over dorsum of left hand - 3 cm. x 2 cm. reddish brown. (v) Stab wound in the mid of right thigh medial aspect 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep, angles and margins clean. (vi) Stab wound over right thigh, lateral aspect, in its middle, 4.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. muscle deep, angles and margins clear out. PW 1 Dr. Amit Kumar also noticed the following internal injuries: (i) internal injuries to thorax-cut injury to the parietal pleaura corresponding to injury no.1 of col. no.17. (ii) internal injury to diaphragm-cut injury through and through corresponding to injury no.1 in col. no.17. (iii) peritoneum-cut injury to peritoneum corresponding to injury no.1 in col. no.17. (iv) cut injury to the left gastric artery, cut injury to outer layer of stomach corresponding to injury no.1 in col. no.17.” The Doctor opined that cause of death of Prashant was haemorrhagic shock due to stab injury. On examining the weapon, PW 1 Dr. Amit Kumar opined that injuries at serial nos. 2 and 4 mentioned in column 17 could be caused by handle of the knife, i.e. weapon of offence and injuries nos. 1, 5 and 6 in column no.17 were possible by sharp and pointed object like knife. Nothing tangible has come in the cross-examination of this Medical Officer. Amit Kumar opined that injuries at serial nos. 2 and 4 mentioned in column 17 could be caused by handle of the knife, i.e. weapon of offence and injuries nos. 1, 5 and 6 in column no.17 were possible by sharp and pointed object like knife. Nothing tangible has come in the cross-examination of this Medical Officer. The medical evidence being completely consistent with the prosecution case and corroborated material particulars mentioned by deceased Prashant in the dying declarations, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 13) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the criminal appeal suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed.