ORDER 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29th July,2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in connection with Sessions case no.132 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of making payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the fardbeyan of Hopa Tuddu recorded on 11.11.2003 at 10.15 hours in the Government Hospital, in brief, is that on 10.11.2003 in the evening, the appellant went to the house of Hopa Tuddu(deceased) and requested him to accompany for some work. Conceding the request, Hopa Tuddu left home with appellant. It is alleged that after reaching near a pond, the appellant inflicted knife blow on the stomach of Hopa Tuddu and fled away. Presence of injured Hopa Tuddu was noticed by a passers-by, who ran to the village and raised hulla whereafter Kuanwar Tuddu and Nandu Tuddu reached to the place to whom injured Hopa Tuddu disclosed about the assault caused to him by the appellant. Thereafter, Hopa Tuddu was brought home, but could not be removed to hospital for treatment due to night. On the following morning, he was taken to Barharwa Hospital where some treatment was provided. In the Hospital, fardbeyan of Hopa Tuddu was recorded, on the basis of which, Rajmahal-Barharwa P.S. Case no. 77 of 2003 dated 11.11.2003 under sections 324 and 307 I.P.C. was registered. Since the injury caused to Hopa Tuddu was grievous, he was removed to Pakur Hospital where he died on 14.11.2003 and thereafter section 302 I.P.C. vide order dated 19.11.2003 was added. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet and accordingly cognizance under section 302 I.P.C. was taken and the case was committed to the court of session and registered as Sessions Case no. 132 of 2004. 3. Charge under section 302 I.P.C. against sole appellant-Manjhi Tuddu was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge has examined altogether nine witnesses and proved documents like inquest report, post mortem report, fardbeyan, injury report etc. 132 of 2004. 3. Charge under section 302 I.P.C. against sole appellant-Manjhi Tuddu was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge has examined altogether nine witnesses and proved documents like inquest report, post mortem report, fardbeyan, injury report etc. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence and documents, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that death of Hopa Tuddu occurred due to delay in providing proper treatment. Had he been removed to hospital just after he sustained injury, his life could have been saved. According to fardbeyan, occurrence took place at about 8 P.M. but the deceased remained at home till the following morning. Thereafter, he was removed to local hospital. Furthermore, the evidence available on record did not indicate that the appellant was having intention to commit murder, had it been so there was no intervening circumstance to prevent him from inflicting further blow till the death of deceased. He should not have left him alive to disclose about incident. Motive as assigned by the informant(deceased) has not been substantiated by the witnesses examined. The fardbeyan of Hopa Tuddu was not recorded in presence of any doctor nor any certificate to the effect that he was conscious and capable of giving statement, was obtained. The statements of witnesses examined are also not consistent. P.W.2-Nandu Tuddu says that he was sleeping at home, his aunt came and asked him to bring Hopa Tuddu, who is lying in the field in a drunken state. She did not disclose that Hopa Tuddu was assaulted by Manjhi Tudu and he is lying in the field after having injuries. This fact goes to show that Hopa Tuddu was not conscious after having injuries and he had not disclosed the incident to persons, who brought him home from the place of occurrence. If it was so, fardbeyan, which has now been treated as 'dying declaration', is not free from doubt. Learned counsel has further submitted that P.W. 8-Junas Tuddu has not supported the prosecution case as made out by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty, mainly considering the fardbeyan as 'dying declaration'. If it was so, fardbeyan, which has now been treated as 'dying declaration', is not free from doubt. Learned counsel has further submitted that P.W. 8-Junas Tuddu has not supported the prosecution case as made out by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty, mainly considering the fardbeyan as 'dying declaration'. Since authenticity of aforesaid fardbeyan is shrouded with doubt, finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge of murder. Last but not the least, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant may be altered to one under section 304, Part-I I.P.C. because the appellant was not having intention to commit murder. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that Hopa Tuddu after receiving knife blow inflicted by the appellant was lying in the field. The presence of injured was noticed by a passer-by, who informed the villagers. Thereafter P.W.1-Kuanwar Tuddu and P.W.2-Nandu Tuddu reached to the place to whom Hopa Tuddu(deceased) disclosed about the occurrence. It is submitted that the occurrence took place in a village of Sub Divison-Rajmahal. Due to night, the deceased was bound to be kept at home, but on the following morning, he was immediately removed to hospital for his treatment where fardbeyan was recorded. Since Hopa Tuddu succumbed to the injury inflicted by the appellant, fardbeyan has been considered as 'dying declaration' after his death. P.Ws. 1, 2 & 5 also corroborated this fact that Hopa Tuddu had disclosed the incident to them and had said that knife blow was inflicted to him by the appellant. P.Ws. 1,2 & 5 have fully supported the prosecution case. Dr. Praveen Kumar Santhalia, who had first attended the deceased at Barharwa Hospital, has proved the injury report. Dr.Lalit Kumar Bhagat has proved the post mortem report. P.W. 9-Arjun Sharma is the Investigating Officer and he has proved the fardbeyan, inquest report and other documents. Prosecution evidence is fully intact and there is no merit in this appeal. 6. We have considered the evidence and documents available on record and we have also gone through the impugned judgment. It is not a case that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment on any provocation. Prosecution evidence is fully intact and there is no merit in this appeal. 6. We have considered the evidence and documents available on record and we have also gone through the impugned judgment. It is not a case that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment on any provocation. It is disclosed in the fardbeyan(now considered as 'dying declaration') that about a weak prior to the incident, some altercation had taken place between deceased and the appellant for partition of land. It is necessary to mention here that the appellant is related to the deceased and he happens to be nephew. It reveals from the fardbeyan that the appellant told the deceased to accompany him on some pretext and took him to a lonely place. The appellant was armed with knife from before and no sooner he had succeeded to bring the deceased to a suitable place, he had inflicted knife blow on the abdomen and according to post mortem report, internal organ like left kidney, liver, spleen and small intestine got damaged. Dr. Praveen Kumar Santhalia, who has proved injury report, has also disclosed that injury caused to Hopa Tuddu was grievous. Intention to commit murder could be gathered from the facts and circumstances prevailing in each individual case. It is true that it is a case of single blow and there was no intervening circumstance available, which prevented the appellant from inflicting further blow, but then we have considered other surrounding circumstance for coming to a conclusion, whether the appellant was having intention to commit murder ? We have also considered the evidence available on record, which speaks that the appellant took the deceased to a lonely place, he was having knife in his possession from before. He had inflicted knife blow on the abdomen and left Hopa Tuddu to die at that place. Time of occurrence is 8 P.M.; place of occurrence is a lonely place situated near the pond away from the village; possibility of having rescue to the deceased was remote and, therefore, in such circumstance, Inference could be drawn that the appellant had made out a plan to commit murder and to give it effect he had inflicted knife blow on vital part of the body of the deceased, which damaged internal organs. This was unfortunate for the appellant that a passer-by noticed presence of the injured (deceased) and he rushed to the village and raised hulla, which attracted P.Ws. 1, 2 and other villagers. They immediately reached to the place of occurrence and brought Hopa Tuddu home from the place of occurrence. Since it was night, the deceased was compelled to be kept at home, but on the following morning, he was immediately removed to nearby Government Hospital. The matter was reported to the police and fardbeyan was recorded on 11.11.2003 at about 10.15 hours in the morning. Names of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 find mentioned in the fardbeyan itself and both of them have supported this fact that they brought Hopa Tuddu home in injured condition. They have also supported the fact that Hopa Tuddu disclosed about incident and name of the assailant to them. Learned counsel has pointed out some facts, which he had obtained from P.W.1 & P.W,2 in their cross-examination. It is submitted that they were informed that Hopa Tuddu had been lying in the field in a drunken state. Even for the sake of argument, this is admitted to be true, fact remains that both the witnesses have clearly stated that they had noticed blood injury in his stomach. We have to keep in mind that witnesses are illiterate tribals and residing in a remote village in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, such minor contradictions in their statement are always expected. We do not feel inclined to discard testimony of these two witnesses because deceased had disclosed their name in the fardbeyan and these two witnesses have fully supported the fact that the deceased had told them about occurrence and name of the assailant. The case of the prosecution got strengthen when we considered the statement of Dr. Praveen Kumar Santhalia, who had attended the deceased at Barharwa Hospital and has proved that injury, which was grievous and that was the reason deceased was referred to suitable hospital and accordingly, he was removed to Pakur Hospital. Since the knife blow given by the appellant had caused damage to internal organ, Hopa Tuddu could not survive and those injuries have been described by Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat. 7. We have also gone through the statement of P.W.9, who had conducted investigation. Since the knife blow given by the appellant had caused damage to internal organ, Hopa Tuddu could not survive and those injuries have been described by Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat. 7. We have also gone through the statement of P.W.9, who had conducted investigation. He has proved the fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. He has described place of occurrence inspected by him in paragraph-4. He had found blood marks at the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has stated that he had seen Hopa Tuddu, who had wrapped the injury tightly with a cloth to protect bleeding. Only because one of the witness Junas Tuddu(P.W.8) had turned hostile, evidence of other material witnesses whose testimony is reliable cannot be thrown away. 8. In view of discussion made above and the evidence available on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.