JUDGMENT : The appellant-Chhattu Bhuiya @ Chhattu Ram was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Suresh Bhuiya. The trial court having found the appellant guilty for the charge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 07.05.2003 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life vide its order dated 07.05.2003. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Suresh Bhuiya in the night of 10.03.1998 at about 9.00 p.m. came out of the house to ease himself. At that point of time, the appellant came and inflicted injury on the abdomen of Suresh Bhuiya with Chhura. As a result of which, he became injured and fell down. When he raised alarm, several persons assembled and thereupon the appellant fled away. The deceased Suresh Bhuiya was removed to hospital where his statement to the effect as stated above was recorded by A.S.I. Mangta Purti of Sadar Police Station. On the next day, deceased died but that statement was never treated as dying declaration as the same could not be taken in to evidence. 3. On the next date i.e. on 11.03.1998 one Takeshwar Ram (P.W.5) brother of the deceased gave fardbeyan at 9.30 a.m. stating therein that the appellant had taken the deceased to his house at 9.30 p.m. on the plea of having dinner with him at his house. In course of taking food and drink, the appellant inflicted Chhura injury on the abdomen of the deceased. On being injured, the deceased fled away from there by raising alarm. On hearing his alarm, when he (P.W.5) came out of the house, he saw Suresh Bhuiya injured and as such he was removed to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, a case was registered upon drawing up a formal F.I.R. The matter was taken up for investigation by Ram Pravesh Kumar (P.W.7), who had recorded the fardbeyan of P.W.5. During investigation, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report. Thereupon, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. During investigation, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report. Thereupon, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Mahendra Prasad Choudhary (P.W.6), who upon holding autopsy on the dead body of the deceased did find following injuries :- Surgical stitch 6” in length over the abdominal wound from chest above the umbilicus to just below the 12th rib with drainage tube. On internal examination, both lungs were found intact and pale. Right chambers of heard contains dark fluid blood. Liver was intact. Spleen though was intact but was found ruptured. Omentum was found ruptured and there was haemorrhage. The doctor issued post-mortem examination report (Ext.2) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid injuries to the vital organs caused by sharp and pointed weapon. 5. Meanwhile, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, when charge-sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offence against the appellant. In due course, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial during which prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Of them, P.W.1-Juglal Ram, father of the deceased, happens to be a hearsay witness, who was informed about the occurrence when he was at Calcutta. P.W.2-Piyas Ram has testified that on hearing Hulla when he came to the place of occurrence, he found blood coming out of the abdomen of Suresh Bhuiya and therefore he alongwith others started taking him to hospital. In the way, he disclosed that it was the appellant, who inflicted injury. When they reached to hospital, the police came and recorded the statement of Suresh Bhuiya, which appears to be the first version in the case but unfortunately it was never taken in evidence on account of the documents being not proved by any of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.3 has testified that the appellant inflicted Chhura injury upon the abdomen of the deceased when he had come out of the house to ease himself. On hearing Hulla, when he came out he alongwith other chased the appellant to catch hold of him but the appellant fled away. P.W.3 has testified that the appellant inflicted Chhura injury upon the abdomen of the deceased when he had come out of the house to ease himself. On hearing Hulla, when he came out he alongwith other chased the appellant to catch hold of him but the appellant fled away. P.W.4-Tilwa Devi happens to be the wife of the deceased, who has testified that when her husband Suresh Bhuiya (deceased) came out of the house for easing himself, she also came out of the house. As soon as Suresh Bhuiya sat on the ground for easing himself, appellant came and inflicted injury on his abdomen. The appellant was chased by her husband and other persons and when her husband reached near the house of the appellant, he fell down and the appellant succeeded in fleeing away. P.W.5 has testified in the same manner as other witnesses have testified that when the deceased came out of the house for easing himself, the appellant inflicted Chhura injury over his abdomen. However he in his fardbeyan had given a slightly different story. 6. Upon closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure over incriminating material, he denied it. Thereupon, the trial court having placed reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses did find the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge. 7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case, submits that the informant (P.W.5) in his statement made under the fardbeyan has given altogether a different colour of the prosecution case wherein it has been stated that the appellant had taken the deceased to his house for having meal over there during which course, the appellant inflicted Chhura injury, whereas the case as has been projected by the other witnesses is that when the deceased had come out of his house for easing himself, he was inflicted with the injury by this appellant and under the circumstances, when the version of P.W.5 as well as other witnesses are not in unison, the prosecution can certainly be said to have failed to establish the charge against the appellant but the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter in right perspective and thereby committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence. 8. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is true that the statement made by P.W.5 in his fardbeyan is different than the testimonies of the witnesses but P.W.5 in his evidence has testified in the same manner as has been testified by the other witnesses wherein he has testified that when the deceased came out of the house to ease himself, the appellant inflicted injury whereupon the deceased was removed to hospital where he made statement, which was recorded by the police officer but unfortunately that has not been taken to be a dying declaration as the said statement could not be proved by the prosecution but in spite of that, prosecution can be said to have proved the case as almost all the witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 have testified that when the deceased was brought to hospital, he made statement before the police to the effect that while he had come out of the house for easing himself, the appellant came and inflicted injury and thereby this piece of evidences of the witnesses can easily be taken to an oral dying declaration, which gets corroboration not by the medical evidence only but also from objective finding of the I.O., who did find earth smeared with blood near the house of the appellant where the deceased in course of chasing the appellant had fallen down and thereby the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence, which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do find force in the submission advanced on behalf of the State. It be stated that P.W.5 had given altogether a different story from the story projected by the other witnesses and that some of the witnesses such as P.Ws.4 and 3 tried to project themselves to be the eye witnesses but they on scrutiny of their evidences never appear to be the eye witnesses. However, all the witnesses P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are consistent on the point that when the injured Suresh Bhuiya was removed to hospital, he in their presence gave statement before the police to the effect that when he had come out of the house for easing himself, he was inflicted with the Chhura injury by this appellant. However, all the witnesses P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are consistent on the point that when the injured Suresh Bhuiya was removed to hospital, he in their presence gave statement before the police to the effect that when he had come out of the house for easing himself, he was inflicted with the Chhura injury by this appellant. Further, from the evidences of P.W.3 and P.W.4, it does appear that when the deceased was inflicted with the injury, he tried to catch hold of the appellant alongwith other witnesses, who by that time, had arrived on hearing Hulla raised by the deceased. They chased them upto near the house of the appellant where the deceased fell down and bleeded there profusely. This fact gets corroboration from the objective findings of the I.O., who had seized earth smeared with blood from that place where the deceased had fallen down. Furthermore, the aforesaid piece of evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence whereby the doctor did find injury over the abdomen being caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon. 10. Under the circumstances, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence which is, hereby, affirmed. 11. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.