JUDGMENT : Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.:- Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30th September, 1997 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.254/1985 convicting him under section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that there had been enmity between acquitted accused Shyam Kesarwani and Shankerlal @ Bhola, the deceased. Appellant Sushil Yadav was the friend of Shyam Kesarwani. On 15.3.1985, at about 6:00 p.m., when deceased was sitting on his ration shop for selling sugar, appellant came armed with a knife and dealt its blow on his abdomen, back, hand and leg and ran away. Deceased believed that appellant assaulted him on the move of Shyam Kesarwani. Deceased was taken to police station Kotwali, Jabalpur where he lodged first information report Ex.P/12, thereafter he was shifted to Victoria Hospital for treatment. 3. Dr. Sheela Agrawal (PW-5) examined the injuries of injured Shankerlal and found four injuries on his body. The injuries were deep and bleeding. 4. On the requisition by police, G.P.Gonthiya, Tehsildar (PW-13) went to Victoria Hospital and recorded dying declaration Ex.P/10 of Shankerlal. 5. On 17.3.1985, at about 11:55, Shankerlal died. His dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur. Dr. T.Mohan (PW-17), demonstrator of Forensic Medicines Department conducted the postmortem examination and found six injuries on the body of deceased. The injuries were caused by some sharp pointed weapon. Injury on the abdomen was sufficient to cause death of deceased in the ordinary course of nature. 6. The case, after the death of deceased, was converted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. During investigation, police arrested appellant on 23.3.1985 and on his information under section 27 of the Evidence Act recovered a knife from his possession. Though the said knife was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, but no report was produced in the Court. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against six accused persons. 7. On charge being framed against the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. he pleaded false implication. 8. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against six accused persons. 7. On charge being framed against the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. he pleaded false implication. 8. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence. The eyewitnesses examined in the case though did not support the prosecution case, but relying on the evidence of dying declaration Ex.P/12, the F.I.R. lodged by the deceased and Ex.P/10, dying declaration recorded by Tehsildar, learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him under section 302 I.P.C. Finding the evidence insufficient against rest of other accused persons, learned Judge acquitted them of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 and section 109 I.P.C. Aggrieved by his conviction, appellant has filed this appeal. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Surendra Singh submitted that in the absence of corroboration the evidence of dying declarations was not reliable or sufficient for holding the appellant guilty. None of the eyewitnesses supported the prosecution case. In the first information report and in the dying declaration Ex.P/10 recorded by Tehsildar, deceased merely named 'Sushil' without giving out the name of his father. Correct address of the assailant was also not given to fix the identity of the culprit. He submitted that in these circumstances trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant. In the alternative, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of injuries found on the body of deceased, the conviction of appellant under section 302 I.P.C. was not justified. At the most the case against the appellant might fall under section 304 Part II I.P.C. Appellant had already served out the sentence of 5 years imprisonment. On the other hand, Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the evidence of dying declarations adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to indicate that it was appellant only who caused the death of deceased. In the circumstances of the case, trial Court was justified to hold appellant guilty under section 302 I.P.C. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully. 11. In the circumstances of the case, trial Court was justified to hold appellant guilty under section 302 I.P.C. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully. 11. It is not disputed that the eyewitnesses namely Umashanker Soni (PW-2), Prakash Agrawal (PW-3), Mohanlal Burman (PW-4), Ganesh Prasad (PW-7) and Dashrathlal Gupta (PW-12) examined in the case, did not support the prosecution case. It is also not disputed that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. In the first information report Ex.P/12 lodged by deceased himself, it was clearly mentioned by the deceased that Sushil Yadav Chandal Bhatawala dealt knife blows to him as a result of which he suffered injuries. This first information report was recorded by Sub Inspector Vishwanath Dubey (PW-15). Dr. Sheela Agrawal (PW-5) of Victoria Hospital stated that she examined the injuries of Shankerlal who was brought to hospital by constable Darshan Singh of City Kotwali, Jabalpur. She found four incised injuries on his body. Dr. R.S.Chakrawarti (PW-16) stated that on 17.3.1985, Shankerlal died in Victoria Hospital. Dr. T.Mohan (PW-17) deposed that on postmortem examination of the body of Shankerlal, he found six incised injuries on his body. The cause of death of Shankerlal was peritonitis due to injury on caecum. This injury alone was sufficient to cause death of deceased. The postmortem examination report Ex.P/12 was written and signed by him. It is thus established that deceased met with a homicidal death. 12. Since the eyewitnesses of the occurrence examined in the case did not support the prosecution case, the case rested mainly on the evidence of dying declarations. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that in the two dying declarations namely the first information report Ex.P/12 lodged by the deceased and dying declaration Ex.P/10 recorded by Tehsildar, no paternity of assailant Sushil was given. In Ex.P/12, deceased stated that Sushil Yadav Chandal Bhatawala, who ran a tea shop near the petrol pump of Cherital, dealt knife blows to him whereas the appellant was resident of Bhandhiya Mohalla, P.S. Gohalpur, therefore, it could not be held that the person Sushil Yadav named in the first information report was the appellant. There was no other corroborating evidence on record to indicate that appellant assaulted deceased. There was no other corroborating evidence on record to indicate that appellant assaulted deceased. In the first information report Ex.P/12, which has been proved by Sub Inspector Vishwanath Dubey (PW-15), it has been mentioned that the deceased himself was resident of Miloniganj (Bandhiya Mohalla) P.S. Gohalpur. From seizure memo Ex.P/8, it is apparent that appellant Sushil Kumar S/o Kandhilal Yadav was resident of Bandhiya Mohalla, opposite to Chandal Bhata Hospital, P.S. Gohalpur and from his house the knife was recovered by Sub Inspector Vishwanath Dubey (PW-15). Vishwanath Dubey categorically stated that on 23.3.1985 he went at the address given by the appellant and seized a knife from the house. The fact of knife being seized from the house of appellant situated in Bandhiya Mohalla Chandal Bhata was not challenged by the appellant in the cross-examination of Vishwanath Dubey (PW-15). It can be gathered from Ex.P/8 that Bandhiya Mohalla and Chandal Bhata are situated in the same locality within the jurisdiction of police station, Gohalpur. We are also unable to accept that if the paternity of accused was not given in the dying declaration, the dying declaration would necessarily become doubtful. It was not challenged by the defence that the first information report, which was treated as dying declaration, made by the deceased was a concocted or fabricated document. 13. As far as dying declaration Ex.P/10 recorded by Additional Tehsildar G.P.Gonthiya (PW-13) is concerned, G.P.Gonthiya clearly stated that on being called by Sub Inspector he went to Victoria Hospital for recording the dying declaration of Shankerlal who was admitted in the hospital. Shankerlal was in a fit condition to give his statement. Though he was speaking slowly but he was capable of speaking. Shankerlal told to him that Sushil Yadav, on being exhorted by Shyam Kesarwani, came at his shop and dealt knife blows on his abdomen, back, hand and leg. Sushil Yadav had a tea shop in Cherital. There had been enmity between him and accused Shyam Kesarwani, and Shyam Kesarwani was the friend of Sushil Yadav, therefore, Sushil Yadav had stabbed him. G.P.Gonthiya (PW-13) stated that after recording the statement of deceased he signed Ex.P/10. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the cross-examination this witness admitted that some persons were sitting around the bed of Shankerlal but he did not know that they were his relatives. G.P.Gonthiya (PW-13) stated that after recording the statement of deceased he signed Ex.P/10. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the cross-examination this witness admitted that some persons were sitting around the bed of Shankerlal but he did not know that they were his relatives. He admitted that those persons asked Shankerlal to name Sushil as assailant because he was friend of Shyam Kesarwani, but he rebuked them and asked them to not to interfere and let Shankerlal speak himself. Thereafter those persons kept quiet. It is true that deceased might have been influenced by his near relatives and friends, but the statement given by him in the instant case to Naib Tehsildar finds sufficient corroboration from the first information report Ex.P/12 which was treated as a dying declaration, as such it cannot be held that deceased named Sushil Yadav on the prompting of the persons present near him. It has not been challenged by the defence that at the time of recording of dying declaration deceased was not in a fit condition to give his statement. 14. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination of investigating officer Vishwanath Dubey (PW-15), or on any other occasion in the trial, accused/appellant no where challenged that he was not the person who was named by the deceased in the dying declaration. Nothing was stated by the accused in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. disputing his identity as accused. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not the person who was named by the deceased in the dying declarations Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/12. 15. It is true that dying declaration which does not contain complete names and addresses of the persons charged with the offence, may not be of such nature on which conviction can be based in the absence of corroboration [Gopal Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. and another- AIR 1972 SC 1557 ], but in the instant case, the fact that the person named as Sushil Yadav in the dying declaration was the appellant has been corroborated by the evidence of investigating officer Vishwanath Dubey (PW-15) who recorded first information report Ex.P/12 and also recovered a knife from the house of appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/8. The main feature of the case remains that appellant did not challenge his identity as accused all through the trial. We are, therefore, of the view that the trial Court committed no error in accepting the evidence of dying declarations Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/12. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that from the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries found on the body of deceased, no offence under section 302 I.P.C. was made out. The cause of death of deceased was peritonitis due to injury on the caecum (lower portion of large intestine). The incident had occurred on 15.3.1985 and the deceased had died on 17.3.1985. Injury No.5 and injury No.6, which were respectively found on the abdomen and lumbar region of the deceased, were found meeting inside the body, as such the possibility that it was one through and through injury could not be ruled out. Therefore, it could not be held that appellant caused two stab injuries on the vital parts of the body of deceased and that appellant intended to cause death of deceased. We are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel. 17. Dr. Sheela Agrawal (PW-5) found following four injuries on the body of deceased:- (i) Incised wound 1½" x ½" on right side of anterior abdominal wall in hypochondrium region. Bleeding present. (ii) Incised wound ¼" on the back on right lumbar region and haematoma around the wound 3" x 2". (iii) Incised wound ½" x 1/8" x skin deep on right leg anterior side. Bleeding present. (iv) Incised wound 1" x ¼" x skin deep on right hand. In her opinion, all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No.3 & 4 were simple in nature. The opinion in respect of Injury No.1 & 2 could be given by the treating doctor. MLC report is Ex.P/5. 18. After death, Dr.T.Mohan (PW-17) found following injuries on postmortem examination on the body of deceased:- (i) Stitched wound over lateral aspect of middle right leg. (ii) Stitched wound over the base of thiner eminence of right hand 4cm x 1/2cm x 1cm. (iii) Stitched wound over upper part medial aspect of right thigh 3cm x 1/2cm x 2cm. (iv) Stitched wound over anterior part of abdomen slightly right to midline. (v) Stitched wound over right side of abdomen 4.5cm x 1cm entering into abdominal cavity. (ii) Stitched wound over the base of thiner eminence of right hand 4cm x 1/2cm x 1cm. (iii) Stitched wound over upper part medial aspect of right thigh 3cm x 1/2cm x 2cm. (iv) Stitched wound over anterior part of abdomen slightly right to midline. (v) Stitched wound over right side of abdomen 4.5cm x 1cm entering into abdominal cavity. Margins show infected granulation tissues. Purulent material was coming out through the wound. (vi) Stitched wound present over back of trunk on right side obliquely 5cm x 1cm entering into abdominal cavity. 19. Doctor (PW-17) found that on inserting a probe through injury No.5 it was coming out through injury No.6 indicating that they were communicating. However, it was not stated by doctor (PW-17) that injuries No.5 & 6 were one and the same and not caused by two different blows. Merely because those injuries met inside the abdominal cavity it could not be held, in the absence of specific medical evidence, that they were one and the same. Postmortem examination report is Ex.P/12. 20. Merely because deceased died after two days of the assault and there had been peritonitis in the wound, it could not held that assailant did not intend to cause the death of deceased or did not intend to cause such bodily injury to deceased as he knew to be likely to cause the death of deceased. Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury is to be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment, the death might have been prevented. Dr. T. Mohan categorically stated that even the sole injury caused on the caecum of deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause his death. 21. From the evidence of dying declarations and the medical evidence, it has been amply established that deceased repeatedly caused injuries to deceased by knife. The injuries caused on the lumbar region and on the abdomen were deep up to abdominal cavity. Therefore, it was established beyond doubt that appellant assaulted deceased by knife with the intention of causing his death. In our opinion, trial Judge committed no error in holding the appellant guilty under section 302 I.P.C. 22. Accordingly, the order of conviction of appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him is affirmed. 23. Therefore, it was established beyond doubt that appellant assaulted deceased by knife with the intention of causing his death. In our opinion, trial Judge committed no error in holding the appellant guilty under section 302 I.P.C. 22. Accordingly, the order of conviction of appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him is affirmed. 23. Appeal fails and is dismissed.