JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2005 and 30.11.2005 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 234 of 2004 arising out of Majhgaon P.S. Case No. 33/2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 284 of 2004 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The facts arising from the fardbayan of Sanatan Tiria recorded on 03.07.2001 at 8.30 p.m. at P.H.C. Majhgaon is that on the same date at about 12:30 noon, while the informant after having meal was taking rest in his house, the appellant armed with knife reached to the place and inflicted knife blow on his abdomen which penetrated through and through causing damage to abdominal cavity. The wife and daughterinlaw of the informant raised alarm but till then the appellant fled away from the place. On the basis of fardbayan of Sanatan Tiria (deceased), Majhgaon P.S. Case No. 33/2004, dated 03.07.2001 under Sections 341, 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. During treatment Sanatan Tiria died in Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa whereafter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 06.07.2004 was added. The police after due investigation, submitted chargesheet and accordingly, cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 234 of 2004. The appellant was put on trial. Charges under Sections 302, 452 and 311 of the Indian Penal Code were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge examined altogether thirteen witnesses and proved documents like injury report, postmortem report, fardbayan, inquest report etc. The learned Trial Judge, at the conclusion of trial, placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. Learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court has challenged the finding of the trial court on the ground that Dr. Rabindra Kumar Mishra (P.W.7) has proved the injury report of the deceased as Exhibit-2 and Dr. Umendra Prasad (P.W.10) has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-3. 4. Learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court has challenged the finding of the trial court on the ground that Dr. Rabindra Kumar Mishra (P.W.7) has proved the injury report of the deceased as Exhibit-2 and Dr. Umendra Prasad (P.W.10) has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-3. Both the doctors in their depositions in Court have admitted, had there been proper treatment provided, life of Sanatan Tiria could have been saved. It is further pointed out that description of injury given by aforesaid two doctors are not consistent. As per the fardbayan, Jabani Kui (P.W.6 – wife of the deceased) had not seen the occurrence. It is disclosed in the fardbayan that the appellant went to house of the informant and asked whereabout of Sanatan Tiria from P.W.6. She replied that Sanatan Tiria is sleeping on a cot inside the house. Thereafter, the appellant went inside and inflicted blow on the abdomen of Sanatan Tiria. Thereafter, Sanatan Tiria raised alarm which attracted P.W.6 (Jabani Kui) and P.W.5 (Sumi Tirya) who had seen Sanatan Tiria having injury on his abdomen. Patar Purty Munda (P.W.1), Mangal Singh Tiria (P.W.2), Ismail Barua (P.W.3), Raj Kumar Purty (P.W.4), Ruguria Tiriya (P.W.8) and Masai Tiriya (P.W.9) are either hearsay witnesses or formal witnesses. They have repeated the story narrated to them by P.W.5 and P.W.6. Tes Lal Ram (P.W.11) happens to be investigating officer but the investigation done by him appears perfunctory. He did not collect blood stained soil nor did he take effort to find out weapon of the offence although appellant was arrested on the date of occurrence itself. Ram Swarath Prasad, A.S.I. of Police had recorded fardbayan but he did not come forward to support prosecution case. Sanatan Tiria died in Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa on 05.07.2004 where fardbayan of Masai Tiriya (P.W.9) was recorded and it was forwarded to O.C. Majhgaon for registering the case but the investigating officer is silent as to what happened to that fardbayan, whether any case on the basis of that fardbayan was registered or not. The prosecution story brought on record is highly doubtful. So called eye witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.6 are not reliable, the learned Trial Judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder. 5. The prosecution story brought on record is highly doubtful. So called eye witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.6 are not reliable, the learned Trial Judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder. 5. Learned APP has opposed the arguments and submitted that the deceased died of the injury inflicted to him by the appellant and, therefore, fardbayan of the informant is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Besides the above, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the eye witnesses in whose presence injury by means of knife by the appellant was caused. Mangal Singh Tiria (P.W.2) had reached to the place of occurrence on hulla and at the time he was going to the house of informant he saw the appellant fleeing with a knife in his hand. P.W.8 (Ruguria Tiriya) and P.W.9 (Masai Tiriya) are the sons of deceased and they have reproduced the story narrated to them by informant as well as their mother – P.W.6. The prosecution has proved injury report, postmortem report and inquest report. The evidence and documents available on record sufficiently prove guilt of the appellant and trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty and the impugned Judgment need no interference. 6. After granting hearing to both the parties, we have examined the case record and we find that prosecution has taken all efforts to prove the guilt of appellant by examining altogether 13 witnesses. On the basis of fardbayan of Sanatan Tiria (deceased), Majhgaon P.S. Case No. 33/2004 was instituted and it is not in dispute that Sanatan died due to the injury inflicted to him by the appellant on the date of occurrence. Therefore, fardbayan (Exhibit-4) is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and it may be considered as dying declaration. It is not a fact that the learned Trial Court has recorded conviction only on the basis of fardbayan of informant rather the trial court has considered evidence of other witnesses. We find that P.W.5 who is the daughter-in-law and P.W.6 who happens to be wife of deceased, were present in the house at the time of occurrence. The appellant came in their presence and inflicted blow by means of knife causing injury on the abdomen of Sanatan Tiria. We find that P.W.5 who is the daughter-in-law and P.W.6 who happens to be wife of deceased, were present in the house at the time of occurrence. The appellant came in their presence and inflicted blow by means of knife causing injury on the abdomen of Sanatan Tiria. Both the eye witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and we do not find that anything material has been elicited from their mouth by the defence counsel. P.W.1 – Patar Purty Munda happens to be Munda of the village and after receiving information of the incident, he had transmitted the information to the Police. P.W.2 – Mangal Singh Tiria had reached to the place on hulla and he had seen the appellant fleeing from the place having knife in his hand and this witness has fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.4 – Raj Kumar Purty happens to be Tempo driver who took Sanatan Tiria from P.H.C. Majhgaon to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. According to P.W.4, P.W.6 was present in the Tempo along with Sanatan Tiria. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Mishra (P.W.7) has proved the injury report and he supports that Sanatan Tiria in injured condition was brought to PHC Majhgaon and he was provided some sort of treatment and was referred to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. Dr. Umendra Prasad (P.W.10) had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sanatan Tiria and he has proved postmortem. The injury inflicted by means of knife causing damage to abdominal cavity find support from evidence of aforesaid two doctors. Tes Lal Ram (P.W.11) has supported the investigation done by him and he has proved the fardbayan recorded by Ram Swarath Prasad. The informant Sanatan Tiria died in Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa where inquest report was prepared by Indradeo Ram (P.W.13) and that has been proved by him. Guddu Mistry (P.W.12) happens to be witness to inquest and he has proved his signature appearing on the inquest report and also signature of Ravi Prakash. Since death of Sanatan had occurred in Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, it was not known to police officer of Sadar Police Station, therefore, S.I. Indradeo Ram (P.W.13) had recorded fardbayan of Masai Tiria ((P.W.9) and it was duly forwarded to O.C., Majhgaon and fardbayan of Masai Tiria has been proved as Exhibit9. Since a case was already instituted on the basis of fardbayan of Sanatan Tiria (deceased), there was no need to register a second case. Since a case was already instituted on the basis of fardbayan of Sanatan Tiria (deceased), there was no need to register a second case. 7. We have gone through the contents made in Exhibit9 and that also support contention made by deceased in his fardbayan (Exhibit4). From the evidence and documents available on record, we find that prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant had caused injury by means of knife to Santan Tiria as a result he died. In a case of murder, intention of accused is to be considered from the facts and circumstances available in each and every case. In the case at hand, the appellant armed with knife, went to the house of deceased and without assigning reason, inflicted blow which was so forceful that caused through and through injury to the deceased. So far providing proper treatment is concerned, Sanatan Tiria was immediately removed to PHC and then to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa but the damage caused to the deceased due to said injury were fatal and it is apparent from the statement of P.W.10 when he says that injury caused to the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. Considering all these aspects, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.