Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 41 (GAU)

Sanjoy alias Sanjit Naha v. State of Tripura

2011-01-14

A.C.UPADHYAY, UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2011
JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-6-2005 and sentence dated 30-6-2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in S.T. (WT/ A) No. 04 of 2004, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. 2. Facts, leading to filing of this appeal, may be stated, in brief, as follows: Shri Sanatan Ch. Dutta (P.W. 1) lodged an 'Ejahar' before the Officer-in-Charge, Bishalgarh Police Station on 30-5-2002 at 10-30 a.m., stating inter alia therein that at about 8.00 a.m. on the same day Shri Sanjoy alias Sanjit Naha attacked his son Uttam Dutta and struck blows by knife and as a result of which Uttam sustained grievous injuries on his person. Initially the injured was shifted to Bishramganj P.H.C. and thereafter, he was evacuated to the G.B. Hospital, Agartala for medical treatment. It was further stated in the 'Ejahar' that his son Uttam was struggling with life in the hospital. 3. On the basis of 'Ejahar' filed by the father of the victim, the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh Police Station registered a case under Section 326 of IPC and launched investigation. However, unfortunately, on the way to G.B. Hospital, injured Uttam Dutta succumbed to his injuries. Accordingly, Section 302 of IPC was added in the case. 4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map with separate index; seized some blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence; exam-ined and recorded the statements of witnesses available in the place of occurrence under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the report of the post-mortem examination of the deceased, finding sufficient materials against the accused Appellant, submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC. 5. During consideration of charge, the learned Sessions Court finding sufficient materials, framed formal charge against the accused under Section 302 of IPC and on reading over and explaining the charge to the accused-Appellant as aforesaid, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. During consideration of charge, the learned Sessions Court finding sufficient materials, framed formal charge against the accused under Section 302 of IPC and on reading over and explaining the charge to the accused-Appellant as aforesaid, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused-Appellant, adduced testimony of as many as 26 prosecution witnesses, who were duly cross-examined by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused Appellant. 7. On completion of recording of the prosecution evidences, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused-Appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-Appellant in his statement made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure took the stand of total denial. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, on completion of the trial and after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, convicted the accused-Appellant as aforesaid giving rise to this appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned amicus curiae for the accused-Appellant and Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional public prosecutor for the Respondent-State. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and as such the findings and the order of sentence are liable to be set aside and quashed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradiction and embellishment, which cannot be relied on to convict the accused-Appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant further pointed out that due to previous enmity between the deceased and the accused-Appellant, most of the eye-witnesses who deposed in the learned Court, being relatives of the deceased, falsely implicated the accused-Appellant for the alleged commission of offence. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution witnesses proved the offence of murder against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. In order to appreciate the rival contention made by the learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant as, well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State-Respondent, we propose to scrutinize the core of the prosecution witnesses in the instant case. 13. 12. In order to appreciate the rival contention made by the learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant as, well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State-Respondent, we propose to scrutinize the core of the prosecution witnesses in the instant case. 13. At the very outset, what needs to be considered is that the case of the prosecution revolves round the evidence of eye-witness, circumstantial evidence and also dying declaration made by the deceased before his death. P.W.5, Habul Bir, knew accused Sanjit Naha from before. In his deposition P.W. 5 stated that he came to know from Haripada about the incident and rushed to Bishramganj PHC. At Bishramganj PHC, P.W. 5 was told by Uttam (deceased) that he was struck by the accused Sanjit Naha with a dagger. 14. P.W. 6, Smti. Sikha Datta, who is the wife of the victim, also stated that on hearing the incident of assault she along with her other family members rushed to Bishramganj Hospital. P.W. 6 stated that on her query in the hospital, her husband told her that accused struck him with a dagger on his back and abdomen. P.W. 6 also confirms that her father-in-law, sister-in-law were all present in the hospital beside her husband (deceased). 15. On careful scrutiny of both P.W. 7, Sukumar Datta and P.W. 8, Surja Dutta, we find that they deposed to confirm that they were told by the deceased that accused had assaulted him by means of a dagger. P.W. 9, Amulya Das, is also a reported witness. 16. On the other hand, P.W. 10, Biswajit Das, stated that after coming to know about the incident of assault rushed to Bishramganj Hospital and found the deceased in the bandage condition from where he was referred to G. B. Hospital, Agartala. P.W. 10 stated that he himself along with Habul Bir, Sukumar Datta and Bijoy Ghosh took deceased Uttam to G. B. Hospital for treatment, where the doctor examined Uttam and declared that the deceased was brought dead. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. However, fact remains that the evidence of a hostile witness is admissible in evidence and it is open to Court to rely upon its dependable point, found to be acceptable and duly corroborated by other witnesses. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. However, fact remains that the evidence of a hostile witness is admissible in evidence and it is open to Court to rely upon its dependable point, found to be acceptable and duly corroborated by other witnesses. Apparently, P.W. 10, though declared hostile, he corroborated the testimony of other prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased and that the shifting of the deceased for treatment to G.B. Hospital, P.W. 11 is a reported witness. 17. Before proceeding further, we may also note that P.W. 12, Nirmal Sharma is a resident of Bishramganj-Udaipur Road, adjacent to the Bishramgani bazaar. His house is situated about 40-45 cubits to the south from the road, where there are other houses also. P.W. 12 stated that on 30-5-2002 at about 8.00 a.m. to 8-15 a.m. when he was working in his house, he suddenly saw accused Sanjit Naha running away towards south towards the jungle. When the P.W. 12 got suspicious of the movement of the accused Sanjay alias Sanjit, he came out from his house and found people gathered by the side of the road. P.W. 12, further stated that accused Sanjit alias Sanjay ran away from the place of occurrence by uttering that extremists have come. However, he could confirm at the place of that there were no extremists around. 18. Keeping in mind the evidence of P.W. 12, if we look into the evidence of P.W. 13, Narayan Chakraborty we find that his house is situated by the side of Bishramganj-Udaipur Road, on the left side middle portion of the downward of the road towards Udaipur. The gate of P.W. 13's house is adjacent to the said road, where the occurrence took place i.e. just opposite to his gate, across the road. P.W. 13 heard someone was crying by uttering "Mago, Mago". He came out from his house and found the injured still standing with his injuries. When P.W. 13 reached near him and asked him why he was crying, in reply, the injured (deceased) told him that he was stabbed by the accused Sanjay Naha. P.W. 13, also found blood oozing out from his injuries. Accordingly, he arranged to send the injured to Bishramganj PHC by hiring a van rickshaw. 19. When P.W. 13 reached near him and asked him why he was crying, in reply, the injured (deceased) told him that he was stabbed by the accused Sanjay Naha. P.W. 13, also found blood oozing out from his injuries. Accordingly, he arranged to send the injured to Bishramganj PHC by hiring a van rickshaw. 19. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 14, Nibash Das, we find that he knew the deceased and the accused from before. On the date of occurrence he was coming from Salgara to Bishramganj by a vehicle (Commander) at about 8.00 a.m. While the vehicle reached Bishramganj market and was negotiating the up portion of the road he saw from the vehicle at a distance of 4/5 cubits accused Sanjit hitting a blow with a dagger on the back of Uttam (deceased). P.W. 14 also deposed that Uttam had the leash of the cattle in his hand. P.W. 14 asked the driver to stop the vehicle but the driver did not stop the vehicle. P.W. 14 further stated that he also drew attention of Taher (P.W. 15) to the occurrence. P.W. 14 further stated that he saw accused Sanjay running away telling extremists have come. P.W. 15, Taher Miah corroborated the testimony of P.W. 14 and stated that he was also in the same vehicle together with P.W. 14 and affirmed of having noticed accused Sanjay striking knife blows on the deceased. 20. The incident took place on broad day light in a market day. When we examine the evidence of P.W. 18, Priyatosh Dutta, an eyewitness to the occurrence we find that he found Sanjit coming with a knife and stabbing Uttam (deceased) from behind and when deceased turned around the accused struck another dagger blow on the abdomen. Thereafter, by giving kick on deceased, the accused fled away. According to P.W. 18, immediately after stabbing the deceased the accused fled away. P.W. 18 was sitting in a standing auto rickshaw by the side of the road just near the place of occurrence since the auto in which he was travelling got out of order on the road and the, driver of the said vehicle had gone out in search of a mechanic. Cross-examination of this witness by the defence counsel did not yield any fruit in favour of the accused. 21. Cross-examination of this witness by the defence counsel did not yield any fruit in favour of the accused. 21. The chain of events confirms complicity of the accused when we examine the evidence of P.W. 19, Maya Rani Roy, who is a resident of the locality where the occurrence took place. She stated in her deposition that she saw the accused running away by her side when she was taking bath. 22. P.W. 20, Dr. Ranjit Kr. Das, carried out the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following: 1. Stab injury elliptical in shape with both the angles acute present on the middle of left side of anterior abdominal wall at the level of umbilicus and 4 cm lateral to midline measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep producing sharp cut wound of lower part of jejunan and superior mesenteric vessel with protrusion of amentum through the wound. 2. Stab would elliptical in shape with both angles acute present over the right side of back of lower abdomen in the renal region 5 cm. lateral to midline measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep producing sharp cut injury over the right kidney measuring 1 cm x .5 x .5 cm. Brain and ling were congested. Liver and all are congested. The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries produced by sharp cutting and stabbing weapon. Both injury Nos. 1 & 2 are fatal and sufficient to cause death individually as well as collectively in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries are all ante-mortem in nature and fresh in nature. This is my report which bears my signature marked as Ext. 8. Such injuries may occur by weapon like dagger-knife. 23. In his cross-examination P.W. 20 clarified that after having sustained such an injury, the injured may die instantly or may survive for few hours. Apparently in the instant case as stated by the witnesses, the deceased did not die instantly. He survived for few hours and narrated the incident and the cause of his death to the witnesses. 24. P.W. 22, Ratan Chakraborty is a resident of the place where the occurrence took place. On the date of occurrence he and his elder brother Narayan were at home. He survived for few hours and narrated the incident and the cause of his death to the witnesses. 24. P.W. 22, Ratan Chakraborty is a resident of the place where the occurrence took place. On the date of occurrence he and his elder brother Narayan were at home. On hearing someone crying 'Mago Mago', P.W. 22 came out from his house and rushed to the spot and found a person lying by the side of the road in a pool of blood. He found one Subrata and two others at the place of occurrence. P.W. 22, arranged for auto-rickshaw to send the injured to Bishramganj hospital. However, this witness was declared as hostile. Though P.W. 22 was declared hostile by the prosecution, however, this witness corroborated the testimony of other prosecution witnesses to narrate and support the sequence of events that took place after the assault was made by the accused upon the deceased. 25. The doubt clear up when we look into the evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws. 15 and 18, who witnessed the accused Sanjit Naha striking knife blows upon the person of the deceased. Neither these witnesses are related to the deceased nor did they have any interest to develop the story on behalf of the prosecution and depose against the accused. 26. Question, which arises for consideration is, as to whether the witnesses, P.Ws. 14 and 15, who were travelling in a jeep vehicle could have seen the occurrence. Both these witnesses deposed to have seen the occurrence, which took place by the side of the road while they were travelling in a vehicle. The sequence narrated by the witnesses and the circumstances under which the witnesses saw the incident of assault is but natural. In a broad day light, a person travelling in a vehicle in a village road may manifestly and clearly notice an incident of assault happening on the road side. Cross-examination of these witnesses could not dislodge their forthright testimony. 27. On the other hand, ocular testimony of P.W. 18, who was waiting in the auto rickshaw, by the side of the road, near the place of occurrence, cannot be ignored. The evidence of eye-witnesses support the testimony of P.W. 19, a village lady, who stated in her deposition that on the date and time of occurrence she found accused Sanjay Naha running away from the place of occurrence. The evidence of eye-witnesses support the testimony of P.W. 19, a village lady, who stated in her deposition that on the date and time of occurrence she found accused Sanjay Naha running away from the place of occurrence. P.W. 12 also saw the accused running away towards jungle, which corroborates the prosecution story of accused running away from the place of occurrence, immediately after assaulting the deceased. 28. Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the I.O:, while preparing the hand-sketch map, did not show the position from where the eye-witnesses to the occurrence could see the incident, and further submitted that this lapse on the part of the investigating officer to indicate such information, in the hand-sketch map, is fatal to the prosecution case and, consequently, the finding of the learned trial Court, on the basis of such evidence, is liable to be set aside. 29. The hand-sketch map, which is prepared by the I.O. during the investigation, cannot be deemed to be an exact drawing of the location at the time of the incident. The hand-sketch map is meant to identify the place of occurrence and the surrounding areas near the place of occurrence, so that such information recorded during investigation can be confronted with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Sketch map placed on record by the investigating police officer cannot be treated to be gospel truth for the purpose of identification of the location or the placement of the witnesses to the occurrence or the position of the witnesses at the time of occurrence. The defence is ever allowed during trial to question the authenticity of such sketch map, prepared by investigating officer at the time of his cross-examination. However, admissibility or otherwise of such evidence on record would depend upon the quality of evidence of the witnesses. However, the defence counsel, during the cross-examination of the investigating officer, tried to clarify the authenticity of the sketch map prepared by the I.O., but the Investigating Officer, P.W. 26, plainly admitted not to have indicated the position of the witnesses in the Sketch map. However, the defence counsel, during the cross-examination of the investigating officer, tried to clarify the authenticity of the sketch map prepared by the I.O., but the Investigating Officer, P.W. 26, plainly admitted not to have indicated the position of the witnesses in the Sketch map. In State of H.P. v. Prem Chand (2002) 10 SCC 518 : (2003 Cri LJ 872) the Apex Court observed that the sketch/map prepared by the I.O. and particularly when no evidence has been adduced with reference to the sketch by the witnesses, such statement even if admissible in evidence and is not hit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure still it cannot be of much use unless some of the witnesses state as to the state of affairs at the scene. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in this context, do not seem to us to be acceptable. In our considered opinion, failure on the part of the Investigating Officer in not indicating the position of the witnesses in the sketch map is not fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently, the forth-right testimony of an eyewitness cannot be disbelieved only because of the reason that the I.O. did not indicate the position of the eye-witness in the hand-sketch map. 30. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, drawing the attention of the Court to the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1, submitted that P.W. 1, in his examination-in-chief, had stated that Haripada had told him that he saw accused striking blow on the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that he made such statement before the I.O., however, such statement was not found in his previous statement recorded by the police. The defence counsel confronted the I.O. to prove the omission in the statement of P.W. 1. However, in our opinion, the contradiction, which is sought to be established by the Appellant counsel, does not appear to be a major contradiction stirring the value of the prosecution evidence. 31. The defence counsel confronted the I.O. to prove the omission in the statement of P.W. 1. However, in our opinion, the contradiction, which is sought to be established by the Appellant counsel, does not appear to be a major contradiction stirring the value of the prosecution evidence. 31. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that as per admission of P.W. 1, (the father of the deceased), P.W. 3, (brother of the deceased) and P.W. 6, (wife of the deceased), it is apparent that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased, therefore, on the face of the existence of previous enmity between the deceased and the Appellant, the trial Court ought to have rejected the prosecution story. The evidence of R Ws. 1, 6 and 9 reveals that the: accused had strained relation with the de-ceased relating to cutting of trees and tres- pass by the cattle. Relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased itself is not sufficient for disbelieving the testimony of relative witnesses unless the motive is alleged and proved against them to spare the real assailant. 32. In the case of State of U.P. v. Saman Das AIR 1972 SC 67 the Apex Court held that "relationship of the prosecution witness to the deceased, itself is not sufficient for disbelieving his testimony unless the motive is alleged and proved against them to spare the real assailant. It is well known that the close relative of a murdered person are most re-luctant to spare the real assailant falsely involve another person in place of the assailants and when there is no cogent evidence on the record to show that any of the witnesses had any animus against the accused". 33. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Vinod Kumar 1992 Cri LJ 1115, reiterated its earlier observation in the following words: Mere interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding rejecting the sworn testimony and nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction. 33. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Vinod Kumar 1992 Cri LJ 1115, reiterated its earlier observation in the following words: Mere interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding rejecting the sworn testimony and nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction. What all that is necessary is that the evidence of interested or related witnesses should be subjected to a very careful scrutiny with extreme care and caution and if on such scrutiny the testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable then that evidence may be relied upon in the circumstances of the particular case to base a conviction thereon. 34. The Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 2 SCC 353 : AIR (2010 SCW 3954) at page 367 held that there should not be hesitation in relying upon the truthful testimony of the relatives and neighbours of the deceased which unerringly establishes that the deceased had made a dying declaration before those witnesses implicating the Appellant. The Apex Court, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, comes to the conclusion that the circumstance, namely, the deceased had made a dying declaration before six witnesses implicating the Appellant, is firmly established. It is natural when a previous enmity is apparent from the evidence on record the Court is required to be vigilent in scrutinizing the testimony of the interested witnesses. Nevertheless, the forth right statement of the eyewitnesses fully corroborated by independent witnesses in material particulars, gives no scope for the defence to question the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 35. Section 32 of the Evidence Act presents provision of law in respect of cases in which statement of relevant fact by person, who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. The relevant extract of the provision of law reads as follows: 32. 35. Section 32 of the Evidence Act presents provision of law in respect of cases in which statement of relevant fact by person, who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. The relevant extract of the provision of law reads as follows: 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.: Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: (1) When it relates to cause of death.: When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. 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... 36. From the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, it appears that the accused was seen committing the crime. Over and above that the deceased, who survived the injury for some time, specifically told the name of the assailant to the witnesses before his death. Though the oral dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded, however, the statement of the witnesses who were present alongside the deceased, immediately after the occurrence, cannot be disbelieved, if the dying declaration is found to be truthful version, as to the circumstances of the death of the deceased. Despite the fact that some, of the witnesses were close relations of the deceased, but other independent prosecution witnesses have fully corroborated the fact of fatal assault made by the accused upon the person of the deceased. We find no aberration in the evidence of the witness regarding shifting of the deceased immediately to the Bishramganj PHC, for treatment, from where he was shifted to G. B. Hospital. We find no aberration in the evidence of the witness regarding shifting of the deceased immediately to the Bishramganj PHC, for treatment, from where he was shifted to G. B. Hospital. Though the deceased did not survive for a long period after the assault on him by the accused, but within the time he was capable and conscious, he had informed all those, whomsoever he came across, that he was assaulted by the accused by means of a dagger. From the evidence, of the witnesses, it clearly transpires that he was capable of making statement before his death. 37. P.W. 20, the doctor who carried out P.M. examination clarified that after having sustained such kind of injury; the injured may die instantly or may survive for few hours. Apparently in the instant case as stated by the witnesses, the deceased did not die instantly. He survived for few hours to narrate the incident and the name of his assailant, to the witnesses. The aforesaid fact is fully corroborated by another Medical witness, P.W. 2, who attended the deceased immediately after the occurrence in the local hospital. 38. In the State of H.P. v. Rakesh Kumar (2009) 6 SCC 308 : (2009 Cri LJ 3060) at page 311, the Apex Court observed as follows: The deceased Sanjiv Sen after opening the door was stepping out to urinate when he was immediately given, a blow on his chest. At that stage, the deceased came running inside and he named the accused for stabbing him in his chest. Gagnesh Kaushal (P.W. 1) has also stated that he along with Sanjiv Rana (P.W. 2) and Yash Pal (P.W. 3) tried to chase the accused but he ran away from the spot. The aforesaid statement of the deceased which was relied upon by Gagnesh Kaushal (P.W. 1), Sanjiv Rana (P.W. 2) and Yash Pal (P.W 3) was in the nature of a dying declaration made to them. There is no reason why the said statement cannot be taken into consideration as a relevant fact. There is also no reason as to why the deceased would falsely implicate the accused to save the real assailant. There is no reason why the said statement cannot be taken into consideration as a relevant fact. There is also no reason as to why the deceased would falsely implicate the accused to save the real assailant. Again the Apex Court in Baboo v. State of M.P. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 411: (1994 Cri LJ 2249) observed that just because the evidence regarding the oral dying declaration is doubted by the Courts that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 39. P.W. 2 Dr. Braja Dulal Saha, was posted as Medical Officer at Bishramganj PHC, on 15-6-2002. P.W. 2, clarified that Uttam Dutta (deceased) was brought to the PHC with stab injuries on the left side of abdomen and on the back. P.W. 2 further confirmed that he made necessary arrangement for his shifting to G.B. Hospital for better treatment as per Exhibit 3. P.W. 2 confirmed that the injured was in sense and was capable of speaking. According to P.W. 2 the injured on his query replied that he was stabbed by one Mr. Naha. We find from the statement of Dr. Braja Dulal Saha, P.W. 2 that the dying declaration was made by the deceased before him, in the hospital, just before his death. 40. In the instant case also, witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 categorically stated that the deceased had made a dying declaration before his death implicating the accused for his death. There is no reason why such dying declaration corroborated by the witnesses cannot be taken into consideration as a relevant fact. Attendant facts and circumstances do not spell out any reason to hold that the deceased would falsely implicate the accused to save the real assailant, at the fag end of his life, when the death was looming large on him. 41. Therefore, in the circumstances, the dying declaration made by the deceased in presence of the witnesses is admissible evidence. Reliance also can be placed on the dying declarations made by the deceased to different persons including the doctor P.W 2, who attended the deceased in the hospital immediately after the occurrence. Apparently, in the instant case as stated by the witnesses, the deceased did not die instantly after sustaining the injuries. Reliance also can be placed on the dying declarations made by the deceased to different persons including the doctor P.W 2, who attended the deceased in the hospital immediately after the occurrence. Apparently, in the instant case as stated by the witnesses, the deceased did not die instantly after sustaining the injuries. Therefore, in the instant case, the evidence of the witnesses on oral dying declarations made by the deceased after the occurrence before his death can be relied on, since it is corroborated by other independent witnesses. Further, the evidence of all the witnesses are wholly natural and do not belie their presence. 42. Apart from above dying declaration made by the deceased before the witnesses, P.Ws. 14 and 18 were direct eye-witnesses, who saw the accused committing the offence alleged and they were not relatives of the deceased. Out of the 26 witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 are the brothers and wife of the deceased. But P.Ws. 4, 5, 13, 14 and 18 are in no way related with the injured. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 13 were witnesses to the dying declaration made by the deceased. Aforesaid witnesses came to know from the deceased before his death that the deceased was fatally assaulted by the accused. Apparently the facts stated by the witnesses clearly established that the accused committed the murder of the deceased and fled away from the place of occurrence. 43. So far the minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses are concerned, these are the natural fall out when the witnesses depose after a long gap and these are immaterial and they do not go at the root of the case. We find that the prosecution evidence is convincing, true and reliable and the learned Sessions Judge rightly relied on the same. The evidences against the accused Appellants are overwhelming and the gult has been well established. 44. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no error is committed by the trial Court in convicting the Appellant under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Uttam. Therefore, the appeal, which lacks merit, deserves dismissal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 45. 44. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no error is committed by the trial Court in convicting the Appellant under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Uttam. Therefore, the appeal, which lacks merit, deserves dismissal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 45. Before we part, we record out appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae in this appeal and hereby order for payment of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), as his fee to be disbursed forthwith. 46. Send a copy of this judgment and order with the Lower Court Records to the learned Court below. Appeal dismissed.