AMARESH KUMAR LAL, J.:–This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2007 and the order of sentence dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.305/2004/88/2006 by which the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year and further he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.08.2003, Akhshay Lal Singh (deceased), Mukhiya of Arang Gram Panchayat, son of the informant Budh Ram Singh (P.W.5) had gone to Dinara Block with Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) on a Rajdoot Motorcycle to distribute the old age pension. The informant had also gone to Dinara market. At about 3.00 P.M., the informant came on the road for returning to his house and saw that a Jeep came near the Gopalpur village with 5-6 co-villagers. Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) told the informant that 5-6 shots have been caused to Akshay Lal Singh (deceased). The informant went to the Jeep and sat besides him. Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) told the informant that when he was going with the Shaktidhar Singh by a Rajdoot motorcycle on the bridge Dhanmun Yadav (appellant), Upendra Yadav and the brother-in-law of Dhanmun Yadav (appellant) stopped the motorcycle and all the three persons made indiscriminate firing at Akshay Lal Singh (deceased). 5-6 shots hit Akshay Lal Singh (deceased). He fell down. The informant was also told that the appellant and others also shot fired at Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2), but he jumped in the canal and he did not receive any shot, as he went to the other side of the canal and raised alarm. Thereafter, all the three accused fled away. This fact was also supported by Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2). The injured was taken to the Dinara Police Station by the Jeep. Thereafter, injured was taken to Dinara Hospital. During treatment Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, all the three accused fled away. This fact was also supported by Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2). The injured was taken to the Dinara Police Station by the Jeep. Thereafter, injured was taken to Dinara Hospital. During treatment Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. It has been further alleged that a few days prior to the occurrence, Akshay Lal Singh had told the informant that Dhanmun Yadav (appellant) had asked Akshay Lal Singh to pressurize the witnesses in a case against the brother of the appellant, which was refused by the deceased. Since that time the appellant had became the enemy of the deceased. The occurrence of firing has taken place at 2.00 P.M. on 20.08.2003. The fardbeyan of the informant has been recorded by S.I. Sitaram Singh on 20.08.2003 at 22 hours. The fardbeyan has been witnessed by Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2), Rajendra Prasad Singh (not examined), Rajendra Prasad Singh (not examined) and Babu Ram Singh (not examined). On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Dinara P.S. Case No.109/2003 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole appellant showing accused Upendra Yadav and Jitendra Yadav as absconders. The cognizance was taken by the S.D.J.M against all the three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The charges were framed against the sole appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial proceeded against the appellant. After the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment, as aforesaid. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the material witnesses are interested and the testimony of P.W.5 claiming to be the witness of dying declaration cannot be believed in the light of the testimony of P.W.6, the doctor who has held the autopsy. The testimony of P.W.2 is also not fit to be believed as eye witness. The motorcycle on which the alleged occurrence took place has not been produced by the police. 4. The testimony of P.W.2 is also not fit to be believed as eye witness. The motorcycle on which the alleged occurrence took place has not been produced by the police. 4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that due to enmity, the appellant with the help of two other accused Upendra Yadav and Jitendra Yadav has stopped the motorcycle and has caused the death by indiscriminate firing, as a result of which, the deceased died during treatment in the hospital. The deceased has made the statement before the informant in presence of Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) who is also an eye witness of the occurrence and also the victim. The accused has also made firing on P.W.2, but fortunately he jumped in the canal and did not receive any fire shot injury. The fardbeyan may be treated as a dying declaration before the informant. After making statement to the informant the deceased became senseless and succumbed to his injuries during his treatment in the hospital on the same day. The learned trial court has considered the prosecution evidence and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and no interference is required by this Court. 5. This Court is required to reappraise the prosecution evidence and to consider as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its charges against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. 6. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses to prove its case: P.W.1 Ramji Singh, P.W.2 Shaktidhar Singh, P.W.3 Shri Bhagwan Singh, P.W.4 Ashok Singh, P.W.5 Budh Ram Singh, P.W.6 Dr. Tej Narayan Singh, P.W.7 Satya Narayan Roy and P.W.8 Sujit Kumar Choudhary. 7. P.W.1 has stated that the occurrence has taken place at 2.30 P.M. At that time, he was going to Dinara market with Ashok Singh (P.W.4) and Sri Bhagwan Singh (P.W.3) and saw that Dhumun Yadav (appellant), Upendra Yadav and brother-in-law of Dhunmun Yadav were going by motorcycle fastly. P.W.1 and others saw near the village Gopalpur the bloodstain and several people had assembled there. They stated that Akshay Lal Singh (deceased), the Mukhiya of Arang Gram Panchayat was shot by the appellant and others and fled away by motorcycle towards the southern side. Thereafter, P.W.1 and others went to Dinara Hospital. He has identified the accused appellant in the court. They stated that Akshay Lal Singh (deceased), the Mukhiya of Arang Gram Panchayat was shot by the appellant and others and fled away by motorcycle towards the southern side. Thereafter, P.W.1 and others went to Dinara Hospital. He has identified the accused appellant in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had also stated before the Investigating Officer that the persons standing there of the Gopalpur village stated that Akshay Lal Singh has been killed by the appellant, Upendra Yadav and brother-in-law of appellant and after killing him, they fled away. It appears that P.W.1 is a hearsay witness and has seen the accused fleeing away by motorcycle soon after the occurrence. 8. P.W.2 has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, he was going with Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) on the motorcycle. When they reached between the old bridge and new bridge of Dinara near the Gopalpur village, Dhunmun Yadav, Upendra Yadav and Jitendra Yadav stopped the motorcycle and all the three persons started firing at Akshay Lal Singh which hit him who fell down. He (P.W.2) jumped from the motorcycle and jumped in the canal and he went the western side of the canal and raised alarm. The villagers assembled. Thereafter, Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) was taken to the Dinara Hospital by Jeep where he died during treatment. He has also stated that in course of taking the injured to Hospital, his father Budhram Singh (P.W.5) met him. He also boarded on the Jeep. The reason for the occurrence is that the brother of Dhunmun (appellant) was the accused in a case and the Harizans were the witnesses. Dhunum Yadav (appellant) asked Akshay Lal Singh (deceased), the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat to make pressure on the witnesses (Harizans) not to depose which was refused by the deceased. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded in his presence by the police officer which was witnessed by him. He has identified his signature (Ext.1). He has also identified the accused Dhunmun (appellant) in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after knowing about the occurrence, the co-villagers of the deceased reached Dinara Hospital by several vehicles. Ramji Singh (P.W.1) and Shri Bhagwan Singh (P.W.3) were out of them. In paragraph 13, he has stated that the police officer did not take statement of any person in the Hospital. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after knowing about the occurrence, the co-villagers of the deceased reached Dinara Hospital by several vehicles. Ramji Singh (P.W.1) and Shri Bhagwan Singh (P.W.3) were out of them. In paragraph 13, he has stated that the police officer did not take statement of any person in the Hospital. He has further stated that there was rush in the Hospital due to death of Mukhiya Ji (deceased). He has further stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Sasaram at about 11.30 P.M. in the same night. He has been cross-examined at length, but the defence has failed to demolish his evidence. 9. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are also hearsay witnesses and they have stated as P.W.1. They have also been cross-examined at length. 10. P.W.5 is the informant and the father of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 20.08.2003 at about 2.30 P.M. At that time, he was in the Dinara Bazar. His son (deceased) had gone to Dinara Block office to get the old age pension distributed by his motorcycle with Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2). In the Dinara Bazar, Akshay Kumar Singh and Shaktidhar (PW 2) had met him and they told that they were returning to the village. He also told that he would also return to his house after purchasing some articles. After purchasing, he came to the Chowk Bazar Dinara at about 3.00 P.M. A Jeep came there on which Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) and 4-5 persons of Gopalpur were boarding. On his query, Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) told him about the occurrence. He also boarded on the Jeep. Akshay Lal Singh also told him that the appellant, Upendra Yadav and brother-in-law of appellant shot fire at him. P.W.5 and others went to the police station where the Officer-in-charge told them to get the treatment of the injured in the hospital which is in front of the police station. Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) was taken to the Hospital where he succumbed to his injury during treatment. The persons assembled in the hospital raised alarm. He has further stated that his co-villagers P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 told him that they had also seen the accused persons escaping by motorcycle. Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) was taken to the Hospital where he succumbed to his injury during treatment. The persons assembled in the hospital raised alarm. He has further stated that his co-villagers P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 told him that they had also seen the accused persons escaping by motorcycle. He has further stated that the reason of the murder of Akshay Lal Singh is that the brother of accused Dhunmum (appellant) was in jail in a case of murder and Dhunmun was making pressure upon his son, who was the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat to get the case compromised which was refused by the deceased. Due to resistance and raising alarm by the local people for the murder of the deceased, the police officer came to the hospital at about 10.00 P.M. and recorded his fardbeyan. Thereafter, he put his signature (Ext.1/A). The fardbeyan was also witnessed by P.W.2 and others. In his cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.2 is not his relative, but belongs to his caste. He has further stated that deceased had started from his house at about 8-9 A.M. after taking meal. Dinara Bazar Chowk and Dinara Chowk are adjacent. Dinara Block is also near the Dinara Chowk. In paragraph 20, he has stated that he had gone to the police station. Thereafter, he went to the hospital. He remained in the police station for a minute. The police officer asked to go to the hospital. He would also go there. In paragraph 21, he has stated that the motorcycle of his son (deceased) had been thrown in the canal as he was told by Keshav Singh, Prayag Singh etc. (not examined). He did not state before the I.O. regarding motorcycle thrown in the canal. The motorcycle had been taken out from the canal after a few days of the occurrence and it was given in the Sasural of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that no occurrence has taken place as disclosed by him and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case. 11. P.W.6 Dr. The motorcycle had been taken out from the canal after a few days of the occurrence and it was given in the Sasural of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that no occurrence has taken place as disclosed by him and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case. 11. P.W.6 Dr. Tej Narayan Singh has held the post-mortem examination on 21.08.2003 at 7.15 A.M. while he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Sasaram on the dead body of Akshay Lal Kushwaha, aged about 48 years, son of Budha Ram Singh (P.W.5) and found the following ante-mortem injuries :– (i) Lacerated wound with inverted charred and blackened tattooed margin 1 cm x 1 cm below right ear (wound of entry). (ii) Lacerated wound with everted margin 3cm x 2 cm in upper part of neck (wound of exist). Injury nos. (i) and (ii) communicate each other. (iii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, with inverted and blackened margin over right arm (wound of entry). (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm deep to chest cavity with inverted blackened charred margin over left third inter-costal space (wound of entry). (v) Lacerated wound with everted margin 3 cm x 2 cm deep to chest cavity over left inter-scapular region (wound of exit). Injury nos. (iv) and (v) inter communicate with each other. (vi) Lacerated wound with inverted charred blackened margin 1 ½ cm x 1 cm over right shoulder (wound of entry). (vii) Lacerated wound with everted margin 3 cm x 2 cm deep to chest cavity over right with inter-coasted space interiorly (wound of exit). Injury nos. (vi) & (vii) inter communicate each other. (viii) Lacerated wound with inverted charred blackened margin 1 cm x 1 cm deep to chest cavity over anterior surface of left side of chest (wound of entry). On dissection–Skull- Skull bones intact, mininges and brain intact and pale. Chest- Chest cavity contained dark blood. Both lungs lacerated and a pillate found in left lung. Heart- Heart intact and contained blood in both chambers. Abdomen- Abdomen cavity contained dark fluid blood. Liver lacerated in upper part. Spleen and both kidneys pale and intact. Stomach contained semi digested food material. Small intestine contained fluid and gas. Large gut contained facets and gas. On dissection of right arm: - Soft of right humerus found fractured. Heart- Heart intact and contained blood in both chambers. Abdomen- Abdomen cavity contained dark fluid blood. Liver lacerated in upper part. Spleen and both kidneys pale and intact. Stomach contained semi digested food material. Small intestine contained fluid and gas. Large gut contained facets and gas. On dissection of right arm: - Soft of right humerus found fractured. A pillate was lodged there which was removed. Cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by above mentioned injuries caused by firearms. Time elapsed since death was within 6 to 18 hours. The post-mortem examination report has been marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that except injury no. (iii), all the injuries have been found on the vital part of the body. The above said injuries may be sufficient to cause instantaneous death. 12. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he got the information that Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat has been shot. He went to the Govt. Hospital, Dinara and saw that Akshay Lal Singh died in course of treatment. He prepared the inquest report in carbon process which was witnessed by Mahendra Singh and Sachidanand Singh (both not examined). The inquest report has been marked as Ext.3. He visited the place of occurrence which is eastern side of Chousa- Nokha canal in front of the village Gopalpur which touches the N.H.30 in the northern side and Bikramganj- Sasaram Road on the southern side. At the place of occurrence the width of the road is about 10 feet. Durgapur village is at a distance of about 2 K.M. in the east and Gopalpur village is ¼ K.M. in the west. He found bloodstain on the place of occurrence. He took restatement of the informant, statement of other persons. He received the post-mortem examination report. He has proved the fardbeyan (Ext.4) and formal FIR (Ext.5). After the inquest report, the dead body was kept on the road which caused the blockage of the road. After recording the fardbeyan, the dead body was sent to the Sadar Hospital, Sasaram. During investigation, he has been transferred. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the fardbeyan of P.W.5 was recorded on 20.08.2003 at 22 hours and the FIR was lodged at 22-30 hours. He has also stated that the deceased was not taken to the police station prior to going to the hospital. During investigation, he has been transferred. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the fardbeyan of P.W.5 was recorded on 20.08.2003 at 22 hours and the FIR was lodged at 22-30 hours. He has also stated that the deceased was not taken to the police station prior to going to the hospital. Prior to 10.00 P.M., he did not record the statement of any person. The job of investigation was assigned to him at 22.30 hours. In paragraph 15, he has stated that the place where the motorcycle was thrown in the canal is between Dinara and Arang. He did not made any attempt to search the motorcycle. In the re-statement, the informant has told him that the motorcycle was thrown in the canal near the pool. 13. P.W.8 is also the Investigating Officer, who was handed over the charge of investigation on 5.01.2004. On 6.05.2004, he made the raid for the arrest of the accused Dhanjee Yadav (appellant) and Upendra Yadav, both of them were absconding. On query, the villagers told that Dhanjee Yadav has been arrested by the Buxar Town police 15 days ago in a case under the Arms Act and he was sent to Central Jail, Buxar, but he stated his wrong name as Surendra Yadav, son of Mahendra Yadav. The Officer-in-charge of Buxar Police Station was intimated for the verification and it was found that Dhanjee Yadav was in custody in the name of Surendra Yadav, son of Mahendra Yadav. Thereafter, he was remanded in this case. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that during investigation, he had gone through the case diary of the previous investigation. 14. The defence has not adduced any evidence in support of the case. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that P.W.5 Budhram Singh, father of the deceased has stated that his son Akshay Lal Singh has made statement while he was sitting besides him that the appellant and other two accused (absconding) made indiscriminate firing at him causing him injuries. This statement has been made in presence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. This statement has been made in presence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. There is also evidence to show that after making the statement about the narration of the occurrence disclosing the name of the appellant and two others Upendra Yadav and brother-in-law of the appellant. He became senseless. He was taken to the Hospital where he died during treatment. As such, it appears that it was the last version of the deceased to his father (P.W.5) in presence of P.W.2. 16. The narration of the occurrence by the deceased to his father (P.W.5) is oral dying declaration and it comes within the preview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The inability of the deceased to give dying declaration has not been categorically stated by the doctor (P.W.6) in his evidence. He has only opined that the injuries caused to the deceased by firearms may cause instantaneous death. He has not given the definite opinion that it will cause instant death. As such, the statement made by the deceased to P.W.5 cannot be ruled out. 17. It appears that the deceased has made dying declaration to his father. Certainly, father of the deceased (P.W.5) is interested witness, but on this ground alone, his evidence cannot be discarded. The occurrence has also been supported by P.W.2, who is the eye witness. His evidence is also convincing and natural and it has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial court. P.W.2 is also an interested witness, but he is not the relative of the deceased. He was accompanying the deceased on the motorcycle while both of them were travelling. The occurrence has taken place in the presence of P.W.2 and he has seen the occurrence. He has fully supported the prosecution case and it also corroborates the evidence of P.W.5. the ocular evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6. 18. The dying declaration given to interested witness is no ground to discard the evidence. This view gets the support from the decision in the case of Vishram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 250. The oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6 who had found the injuries on the person of the deceased causing his death by firearms injuries. This view gets the support from the decision in the case of Vishram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 250. The oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6 who had found the injuries on the person of the deceased causing his death by firearms injuries. The Investigating Officer has also found bloodstain on the place of occurrence. P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have also supported the prosecution case as hearsay witnesses, who have seen the appellant and other two assailants going by motorcycle soon after the occurrence. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is upheld. 20. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J.:–I agree.