Judgment: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. : Appellant Vinod Dhore feels aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.07.2012 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge 2, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.122 of 2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. five thousand in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was tried for the said offence for allegedly having committed murder of deceased Atish Armulla. 2. The appellant was friend of one Shahin and his associates. It is the case of prosecution that there was a prosecution against Mr. Shahin and others. It appears that the deceased was one of the witnesses in the said case. The appellant had sought help of the deceased to save Shahin and others. It is alleged that since the deceased did not assist the said Shahin and others in the said prosecution, the appellant had assaulted the deceased by means of a knife causing serious injury on his abdomen which had resulted into his death. 3. The complainant in this case was Sau. Swarupa Domat, sister of deceased Atish. She was staying at Ghuggus with her parents as she had been deserted by her husband about eight months prior to the date of the incident. Her parents were residing at Ram Nagar, Ghuggus. The incident had occurred on 8th May, 2007. The father of the complainant and the deceased was not at home as he had gone to attend his duties. Smt. Laxmibai, mother of the deceased, Mrs. Sangeeta and complainant and deceased Atish himself were present at home. The appellant had visited their house at about 5.00 p.m. He had asked the deceased to accompany him for a stroll. The deceased left home with the appellant. The deceased returned home at about 7.40 p.m. in an injured condition. He had injury on his abdomen. On inquiries, he disclosed to his family members, including both the sisters, that he was assaulted by the appellant by means of a knife because he had not extended help to Mr. Shahin and others in the pending criminal case. The deceased was immediately taken to Dr. Kolhe's Hospital. Dr. Kolhe advised them to take the deceased to Chandrapur Hospital. The deceased was first taken to Ghuggus Police Station. Shahin and others in the pending criminal case. The deceased was immediately taken to Dr. Kolhe's Hospital. Dr. Kolhe advised them to take the deceased to Chandrapur Hospital. The deceased was first taken to Ghuggus Police Station. He was being removed to Chandrapur General Hospital in the police vehicle. Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries on his way to Chandrapur. 4. The offence was registered on the report made by complainant Mrs. Swarupa at Ghuggus Police Station vide F.I.R. No. 88 of 2007. The incident had occurred at an open place in Ramnagar near W.C.L. Colony, Ghuggus. The said spot was visited by Investigating Officer after registration of the offence and spot panchnama was drawn. During the course of spot panchnana, blood stained soil was collected from the spot. The spot panchnama was produced before the trial Court at Exh.17. The appellant was arrested on next day at Shivnagar area. He was brought to police station and arrest memo Exh.18 was prepared by the police. The appellant was having injury on his left hand and he was, therefore, sent for medical examination. The Medical Officer had reported that the appellant had cut injury over little finger of left hand over palmer surface. The cut was 2 cm in length involving skin and superficia. According to the Medical Officer, it was caused by hard and sharp object. The age of the injury was 20 hours. During the course of further investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. It is alleged that the appellant, while in police custody, had made a statement that he would show the place where the knife was concealed by him. The statement of the appellant was recorded under memorandum Exh.20-B. Thereafter the appellant had led the police and panchas to first floor of the building where he had his quarter bearing No.310 Mother of the appellant was present in the said house No.310. The knife was found concealed under the mattress of a bed. It was removed from the said place by the appellant and was handed over to the police, the knife was having blood stains. The said knife was seized under panchnama Exh.20C. The clothes of the deceased and accused both were seized by the Investigating Officer. The dead body was examined by the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer had opined that the deceased had died of haemorrhage and shock due to stab wound. The said knife was seized under panchnama Exh.20C. The clothes of the deceased and accused both were seized by the Investigating Officer. The dead body was examined by the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer had opined that the deceased had died of haemorrhage and shock due to stab wound. The seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer. It was reported by Chemical Analyzer that the blood found on the clothes of the deceased was of group 'B' and that the blood stains found on the clothes of the appellant were also of the same group. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate. 5. The prosecution had examined in all ten witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 is complainant Swarupa. She has stated that deceased Atish was her elder brother. The incident had occurred on eighth day of the month. She was at home at Ram Nagar, Ghuggus. Her mother, sister and wife of the deceased were at home. The appellant had visited their house at about 5.00 p.m. and had asked the deceased to accompany him. The deceased had accompanied the appellant. The deceased returned home at about 7.30 p.m. in an injured condition. He had a bleeding injury on his abdomen. P.W. 1 asked the deceased as to how did he sustain injury. The deceased had stated that the appellant had inflicted knife blow on his abdomen. P.W.1, therefore, immediately brought a scarf and tied the same around west of the deceased. Thereafter the deceased got down from the staircase as they wanted to go to the doctor. The vehicle belonging to one Jaiswal uncle was called. The deceased was taken to Dr. Kolhe's Hospital. Dr. Kolhe advised them to take the deceased to Police Station. Accordingly, P.W. 1 and others brought the deceased to Ghuggus Police Station. The police was informed that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant. The report of P.W.1 was recorded which was produced in the Court which is at Exh.11. The deceased was taken to Chandrapur Hospital in the police vehicle. He was, however, declared dead by the doctors at General Hospital before admission. The articles seized by the police and produced in the Court were shown to this witness. The report of P.W.1 was recorded which was produced in the Court which is at Exh.11. The deceased was taken to Chandrapur Hospital in the police vehicle. He was, however, declared dead by the doctors at General Hospital before admission. The articles seized by the police and produced in the Court were shown to this witness. The witness had identified the articles 3 and 6 to be the shirt and pant, respectively of her deceased brother Atish. According to this witness there was one injury on left side of the abdomen of the deceased. 6. PW 2 is wife of the deceased. She has more or less given similar evidence to that of P.W. 1. She has also stated that the appellant had visited their house at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased had left along with the appellant and had come back at about 7.30 p.m. in an injured condition. He was bleeding profusely and was holding his hands over his abdomen. He has disclosed to P.W. 2 that the appellant had inflicted knife blow on his abdomen. It is stated by this witness that Ms. Soni sister of the deceased had tied scarf around the abdomen of the deceased. The deceased was taken to Dr. Kolhe's Hospital. Dr. Kolhe had examined the deceased in the vehicle itself and advised them to take the deceased to Chandrapur Hospital. P.Ws 1 and 2 and others had taken the deceased to Ghuggus Police Station and thereafter the deceased was referred to Chandrapur General Hospital. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police. 7. P.W. 3 is one of the neighbours of P.Ws. 1 and 2. She has, however, not supported the prosecution case. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 4 was also staying in W.C.L. Quarters. His Quarter number was 406. According to this witness, the incident had occurred at about 8.00 p.m. He was present at home. There was some commotion outside his quarter. Deceased Atish was seen by this witness holding his abdomen by both the hands. He had also seen blood oozing from the injury. This witness had his own Maruti Van in which the deceased was taken to 'Rajiv Ratan Hospital' (Dr. Kolhe's Hospital). Dr. Kolhe had come near the van and had examined the deceased. He had advised P.Ws. Deceased Atish was seen by this witness holding his abdomen by both the hands. He had also seen blood oozing from the injury. This witness had his own Maruti Van in which the deceased was taken to 'Rajiv Ratan Hospital' (Dr. Kolhe's Hospital). Dr. Kolhe had come near the van and had examined the deceased. He had advised P.Ws. 1, 2 and others relatives of the deceased to take the deceased to police station. Accordingly, the deceased was taken to Police Station. He was shifted to Chandrapur Hospital in a police vehicle. This witness had not supported the prosecution in respect of the panchnama and other evidence collected by the police and was, therefore, declared hostile. However, the fact remains that this witness had taken the deceased to Dr. Kolhe's Hospital. 8. P.W. 5 had examined the dead body of the deceased. She had found following injuries on the dead body of the deceased (i) Stab wound over the left side of lower chest, 1 cm lateral to mid clavicular line. Wound going in upward and reversed direction, deep in abdominal cavity. Tailing at upper end length 3 inches, breadth 1 inch, edges irregular at upper end and clean at the lower end. (ii) Lower three ribs on 8th, 9th and 10th were fractured on left side 1 cm lateral to mid clavicular line. On internal examination it was found that 8th, 9th and 10th rib were fractured on left side. Pleura was found torn on left side. According to this witness the deceased had died due to haemorrhage and shock due to stab wound. 9. P.W. 7 had also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 10. P.W. 8 Dr. Dharmendra had examined the appellant at Public Health Centre, Ghuggus. This witness has stated that he had found cut injury over little finger of left hand over palmer surface. The cut was 2 cms. in length involving skin and superficia. According to P.W.8, it was caused by hard and sharp object. The age of the injury was 20 hours. 11. P.W. 9 was attached to Ghuggus Police Station as an Assistant Sub Inspector. He was on duty on 8th May, 2007. It is stated by this witness that at about 8.15 p.m. a telephone call was received from Dr. According to P.W.8, it was caused by hard and sharp object. The age of the injury was 20 hours. 11. P.W. 9 was attached to Ghuggus Police Station as an Assistant Sub Inspector. He was on duty on 8th May, 2007. It is stated by this witness that at about 8.15 p.m. a telephone call was received from Dr. Kolhe's Hospital that patient by name Atish was brought to his hospital, that he had a knife injury and that he might probably not survive. After about five minutes the injured was brought to police station. According to this witness, sister of the injured had told him that the injured was assaulted by appellant Vinod Dhore. He took entry in the station diary. The deceased was referred to General Hospital, Chandrapur. At about 22.25 hrs, he received telephonic call from Police Head Constable Nilkanth that Atish (deceased) had died in the hospital. P.W.9, therefore, made Entry No.34 in the station diary at about 20.30 hrs. 12. The complainant had visited the police station and had given oral report. F.I.R. No.88 of 2007 was registered on the oral report. Further investigation was carried out by P.W.10. P.W 10 in his evidence has stated that during the course of investigation he had visited the spot and collected soil samples from the spot. The appellant was apprehended from near the river at Shivnagar area on the next day. Arrest Memo Exh.18 was prepared in respect of the arrest of the appellant. The appellant was sent to Medical Officer for examination. The evidence of Medical Officer had already been reproduced hereinabove. The Medical Officer had found an injury on the hand of the appellant. A knife was recovered from the quarter of the parents of the appellant. It is stated by this witness that the appellant had made a statement in police custody that he would produce the knife. Accordingly, a knife was produced by the appellant which was found concealed below the mattress of a bed in the house of parents of the appellant. The said knife was found to have stained with blood. Panchnama in respect of the seizure of knife was drawn. Article 11 produced in the Court was identified by this witness to be the same which was recovered by him on the basis of statement made by the appellant in police custody. 13. The said knife was found to have stained with blood. Panchnama in respect of the seizure of knife was drawn. Article 11 produced in the Court was identified by this witness to be the same which was recovered by him on the basis of statement made by the appellant in police custody. 13. The clothes, which the appellant was wearing at the time of the incident, were also seized by the police. The clothes of the deceased were also seized by the police. This witness had identified articles 9 and 10 to be the shirt and pant of the deceased. The inquest panchnama of the dead body was drawn. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The evidence of Medical Officer has already been reproduced hereinabove. The Medical Officer had opined that the deceased had died due to haemorrhage and shock due to stab wound. 14. Heard learned counsel Mr. Chop de on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sonare on behalf of the State. 15. Mr. Chopde has submitted that the whole case is based on the alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased before his wife, sisters and other family members. The prosecution has examined sister and wife of the deceased. Mr. Chopde has submitted that the learned trial Court should not have relied upon the evidence of these two witnesses. Firstly, because they were relatives of the deceased and as such were interested witnesses and secondly, because there is no corroboration to the evidence of these two witnesses in respect of the oral dying declaration of the deceased. It is also submitted that since the case is not based on direct evidence, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove that there was motive to commit an offence. 16. No doubt, the prosecution witnesses have not given evidence in their examination to prove the motive behind the crime. However, the cross-examination of P.W. 1 would indicate that Mr. Shahin was close to the appellant and that the deceased had taken money from Mr. Shahin for withdrawing a criminal case. It is also suggested in the cross-examination that there was a dispute in that regard. As such, though remotely, the cross-examination of P.W. 1 itself has indicated that there was motive to commit the crime. Shahin was close to the appellant and that the deceased had taken money from Mr. Shahin for withdrawing a criminal case. It is also suggested in the cross-examination that there was a dispute in that regard. As such, though remotely, the cross-examination of P.W. 1 itself has indicated that there was motive to commit the crime. Apart from this, it may be mentioned here that the motive, no doubt is relevant in the cases based on circumstantial evidence and may be one of the circumstances to be proved against the accused. However, in the absence of proof of motive, the case of prosecution cannot be thrown away if it is otherwise proved on the basis of rest of the evidence. 17. Learned Advocate Mr. Chopde has submitted that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which indicate that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case. P.W.1 has stated that she had tied scarf around the injury sustained by the deceased. P.W. 2, however, has stated that Ms. Soni had tied the scarf around the abdominal injury. In this regard, we have noted that there were 34 female family members at home and who tied scarf on the abdominal injury of the deceased is not an issue which could be stretched beyond a particular limit. The difference in the evidence of these two witnesses on this count would not make their evidence inconsistent as a whole. 18. It was also canvassed before us that the deceased had not reached home after sustaining injury and that he was lying on the road and therefore, there was no occasion for the deceased to make a statement either before P.W. 1 or before P.W. 2. In this regard, our attention was invited to the evidence of Investigating Officer. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer had not visited the first floor room of the deceased and his family members. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased there must have been the blood in the corridor and room of the deceased and his family. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer has purposefully avoided to prepare 'scene of offence' panchnama of first floor of the building where the deceased and his family members were staying. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased there must have been the blood in the corridor and room of the deceased and his family. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer has purposefully avoided to prepare 'scene of offence' panchnama of first floor of the building where the deceased and his family members were staying. No doubt such a panchnama had not been drawn by the Investigating Officer but the cross-examination of Investigating Officer would show that he had seen the blood in front of room of the deceased. The contention of the learned Advocate was that there was no blood at all in the corridor. The Investigating Officer has stated positively that he had seen the blood. Only omission committed by him is that he had not drawn panchnama of the said place. The Investigating Officer had drawn panchnama of the place where the incident of stabbing had allegedly taken place. In our considered opinion, failure on the part of Investigating Officer to draw a panchnama of corridor in front of room of the deceased does not falsify the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the oral dying declaration made by the deceased. Our attention was also invited to the isolated portion of cross-examination of P.W. 2 in which she had stated, it is true that my husband was lying on the road. This answer has come in reply to the deceptive question. This part of the cross-examination was left midway. As such, it is not clear as to in what context this statement was made by P.W. 2 in her cross-examination. In this regard, it may be noted here that after tying up scarf on the abdomen of the deceased he was brought down on the ground floor. P.W. 4 Deepak Jaiswal was called to take he deceased to Dr. Kolhe's Hospital. Till the time P.W. 4 Jaiswal brought his Maruti Van, the deceased was on the ground floor itself. As such, if the learned Advocate for the appellant before the trial Court wanted to demonstrate that the deceased had not gone to first floor room at all it was his duty to cross-examine the witness on this line in continuity with her earlier answer. As such, if the learned Advocate for the appellant before the trial Court wanted to demonstrate that the deceased had not gone to first floor room at all it was his duty to cross-examine the witness on this line in continuity with her earlier answer. If the cross-examination was left at midway, the Court cannot accept the contention of the appellant which suits to the case of the appellant, unless there is something else on record to substantiate the said contention. In our opinion, this isolated answer given by P.W. 2 to deceptive question will not help the appellant in any manner. 19. No doubt, both the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and the case is based on oral dying declaration. We are conscious of the fact that the evidence of relatives is to be examined very carefully and we are also conscious of the legal position that the oral dying declaration is normally considered to be a weak type of evidence and the Court might in a given case ask for corroboration. However, the corroboration is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence. The Court is not prevented from recording a judgment of conviction only on the basis of the dying declaration not reduced to writing if the Court is satisfied regarding correctness and volunteerness of the oral dying declaration. In this regard we have referred to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Balan Vs. V.T. Of Pondicherry, reported at 2010 Cri. L.J. 2234 SC : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3786 (S.C.)) has said: "...We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court, while appreciating the evidence of such "witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim." In the case pertaining to oral dying declaration the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heikrujam Chaoba Singh Vs. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim." In the case pertaining to oral dying declaration the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heikrujam Chaoba Singh Vs. State of Manipur, reported at 2000 Cri.L.J. 184 has said at para 3 : "3. An oral dying declaration no doubt can form the basis of conviction, though the Courts seek for corroboration as a rule of prudence. But before the said declaration can be acted upon, the Court must be satisfied about the truthfulness of the same and that the said declaration was made by the deceased while he was in a fit condition to make the statement. The dying declaration has to be taken as a whole and the witness who deposes about such oral declaration to him must pass the scrutiny of reliability. .. .." 20. We have carefully examined evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 keeping in view that they are close relatives of the deceased. After scrutinizing the evidence, we have come to a conclusion that the deceased had gone upstairs and had told P.Ws. 1 and 2 that he was assaulted by the appellant by means of knife. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are most natural witnesses in the circumstances of the case. Though both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length, their evidence with regard to oral dying declaration has remained unshattered. We, therefore, see no reason to reject their evidence. 21. Moreover there is corroboration in the nature of finding of blood stains of group 'B' on the clothes of the appellant. The clothes of the deceased and accused seized by the Investigating Officer were sent to laboratory through P.W. 6 Naik Police Constable Buckle No.47. It is stated by this witness that he was asked to carry articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory and he was given duty pass in that regard. He had deposited all the articles in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. He has denied that the articles were not in sealed condition. There is nothing more in the cross-examination of this witness. The reports of Chemical Analyzer do not appear to have been challenged. He had deposited all the articles in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. He has denied that the articles were not in sealed condition. There is nothing more in the cross-examination of this witness. The reports of Chemical Analyzer do not appear to have been challenged. The Chemical Analyzer in his report has stated that the clothes of the deceased were found stained with blood group 'B'. As such, the blood group of the deceased was 'B'. The Chemical Analyzer has also stated that the clothes of the appellant had also stains of same blood group. As such, it is obvious that the appellant had come into contact with the deceased at the time when the deceased had sustained bleeding injury on his abdomen. It was for the appellant to explain as to how his clothes could be found stained with blood group of the deceased. The blood group of the appellant separately collected by the Medical Officer was not found fit for analysis and the results were inconclusive. However, the fact remains that the clothes of the appellant were found stained with human blood. In addition to this, the appellant had an injury which was indicative of the fact that the appellant had used knife and while stabbing the deceased he had sustained cut injury over little finger of left hand palmer surface. As such, we do not find any fault in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.