JUDGMENT : A.K. MISHRA, J. 1. The sole appellant was convicted under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C. in brevity) read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short R.I.) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) in default to undergo further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand) in default to undergo further R.I. for six months for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) in default to undergo further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 25 Arms Act and to undergo further R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 27 Arms Act. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently with set off privilege under Section 428 Cr. P.C. by the judgment dated 21.03.2012 in S.T. Case No. 04/78 of 2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri. Hence, this appeal. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.11. 2001 at about 8.00 P.M. deceased-Jagannath Das, Badrinarayan Tiwari (PW-9) and Kabuli Moharana (PW-3) were coming to market chhak through Chudapatti. Kabuli (PW-3) was riding a bicycle. Deceased-Jagannath and Badrinarayan were coming in another bicycle. At Chudapatti, accused-appellant attacked them and dealt blows by means of a sword. All of them sustained injuries. They were taken to District Headquarters Hospital, Puri (in short DHH, Puri). The father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. at 9.10 P.M. resulting registration of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No. 191 of 2001, under Section 307 I.P.C. In course of treatment, as the condition of the deceased become serious, the I.O. made requisition and doctor recorded the dying declaration of the deceased implicating the accused at 10.00 P.M. Thereafter the deceased was referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. He was brought to causality outdoor of SCB Medical College, but succumbed to injuries on the next day i.e. 26.11.2001. On getting information, Mangalabag P.S. U.D. Case No. 895 dated 26.11.201 was registered. Inquest over the dead body was made and postmortem was conducted. He was brought to causality outdoor of SCB Medical College, but succumbed to injuries on the next day i.e. 26.11.2001. On getting information, Mangalabag P.S. U.D. Case No. 895 dated 26.11.201 was registered. Inquest over the dead body was made and postmortem was conducted. On being aware of, the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) at Kumbharapada P.S. added the offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. On 5.08.2002 the accused was arrested as he was found absconded soon after the incident. He was produced in the court and remanded to judicial custody. On 8.08.2002 the I.O. took the accused to police custody and on that day he gave a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and led to give discovery of a sword. The sword was examined by the doctor and opinion was obtained. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session and accused-appellant faced trial for the charges under Sections 302/307 I.P.C. read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act. He was convicted and sentenced as stated in prologue. 3. The plea of defence was denial simpliciter. 4. Prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. PW-1 is the informant. PWs. 3 and 9 are the injured-cum-eye witnesses. PW-14 is the doctor who conducted P.M. over the dead body. PW-15 is the doctor who had examined examined the injured victim. PW-17 is the H.O.D. of F.M.T. at SCB Medical College, Cuttack, who had given opinion on weapon of offence. PW-18 is the I.O. who has submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation. PW-16 is the I.O. who had registered the case and had taken up the initial investigation. PWs. 2, 4 to 7, 10 and 13 are hostile witnesses. PW-12 is the doctor who had recorded dying declaration. PW-11 is a witness to seizure and to the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. PW-8 is a witness to the seizure. 5. On behalf of defence one witness was examined, who was the A.S.I. of Mangalabag Police Station and conducted the inquest vide Exhibits-A & B. Seizure lists, dying declaration, F.I.R. injury reports etc. are marked Exts.1 to 26. One sword, one Atlas Cycle, one cassette containing the recording of recovery of sword and attires of the deceased are made M.O.-I to M.O.-VII. 6. Learned 1st Addl. are marked Exts.1 to 26. One sword, one Atlas Cycle, one cassette containing the recording of recovery of sword and attires of the deceased are made M.O.-I to M.O.-VII. 6. Learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri, relying upon the evidence of the doctor held the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Further basing on the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs. 3 and 9 coupled with dying declaration and discovery of facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act held the accused-appellant guilty passed sentence supra. 7. Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel for the appellant buttress the following submissions:- (i) PW-9 injured having not got any corroboration from another injured PW-3, the learned trial court has committed error in relying upon both of them as eye-witnesses. (ii) The dying declaration Ext. 3 is not proved as the doctor PW-12 has admitted that he was facing a proceeding under Section 218 I.P.C. (iii) As no blood stain is found on the recovered sword M.O.-I, it cannot be said that it was the weapon of offence for causing death of the deceased. (iv) The prosecution has filed to prove the motive. It is urged that for the above infirmities found in the prosecution case, the accused should be given benefit of doubt. 8. Mr. L. Samantray, learned Standing Counsel for the State supports the judgment and conviction on the ground stated in the impugned judgment. He unequivocally pointed out that the learned trial court has considered all the aspects raised here. 9. It is indisputable that deceased faced homicidal death on 26.11.2001 for the injuries inflicted on 25.11.2001 at about 8.00 P.M. at Chudapatti, Puri. PW-15 is the doctor. He initially examined the deceased and his examination report Ext. 9 proves that deceased had sustained six incised injuries. PW-14 is the doctor who had conducted post mortem of the deceased. Post mortem report is Ext.4. He had opined that the external and internal injuries were ante mortem in nature and could be caused by heavy/moderately cutting weapon and all the injuries combined together were fatal in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has also stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by sword. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 could be caused by one infliction while injury Nos. 4 to 6 could also be caused one infliction. He has also stated that injury Nos. He has also stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by sword. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 could be caused by one infliction while injury Nos. 4 to 6 could also be caused one infliction. He has also stated that injury Nos. 7 to 8 had occurred due to self-defence. The above facts leaves no scope to doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the injuries found could be caused by sword like weapon. 10. The broader view of the prosecution case which is revealed from the evidence of the informant father PW-1 and injured PWs. 3 and 9 that the injuries were inflicted to all three i.e. deceased, PW-3 and PW-9 at Chudapatti and they were immediately thereafter treated at District Headquarters Hospital, Puri. The F.I.R. (Ext.13) was lodged by the father of the deceased at 9.10 P.M. The sequence of arrival of police and examination of the injured persons in Puri hospital established that the incident had taken place within close proximity of the hospital and police station at Puri. 11. With this backdrop the prosecution is found to have rested its case on the four following facets of the evidence: (a) Eye-witness PWs. 3 and 9. (b) Dying declaration Ext.3 and testimony of PW-12. (c) Fact discovered due to recovery of sword under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ext.15, Ext. 2. (d) Motive-groupism and PW-9. 12. PWs. 2, 4, 7, 10 and 13 are declared hostile witnesses and nothing is stated by them to support either prosecution or defence. PW-1 the father of the deceased, informant is partly declared hostile. PW-3 has stated about the infliction of injury on him by the accused at the spot but had not stated anything about attack on deceased and PW-9. For that part, he was declared hostile. The evidence of hostile witnesses is not required to be thrown out at the threshold. The reliability part can be considered while appreciating the evidence. PW-1 informant stated to have gone to D.H.H. Puri and found his son and two others under treatment. He has stated that he heard about the incident from the injured Badrinarayan Tiwari (PW-9). PW-9 has admitted that he disclosed before the family members of the deceased Jagannath Das that accused had inflicted sword blows to him. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 and PW-3 proved that after incident PWs. He has stated that he heard about the incident from the injured Badrinarayan Tiwari (PW-9). PW-9 has admitted that he disclosed before the family members of the deceased Jagannath Das that accused had inflicted sword blows to him. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 and PW-3 proved that after incident PWs. 3 and 9 and deceased were in the hospital for the injuries sustained by them by sword. PW-3 has stated that accused had dealt a sword blow to his right hand above the wrist when he turned to back side hearing shouting as “Marigali” in-front of the flour mill. PW-9, the other injured, has testified that on that day morning he along with PW-3 and deceased had been to Bhubaneswar. They returned at about 8.00 P.M. From the railway station they came to bus stand and picked up bicycle kept at bus stand. They came to Bhanga shop at Chudapatti. Thereafter, PW-3 in his cycle proceeded ahead while he and deceased proceeded in another cycle. Deceased was riding the cycle. While crossing the flour mill, the accused suddenly attacked them and dealt sword blow on the back side of Jagannath. It was a big sword and on the second blow given on the right upper arm of the deceased, he fell down from the cycle. Accused- appellant when attempted to inflict a sword blow on his head, he raised his left hand as a result he sustained injury on his wrist joint. By then Kabuli (PW-3) came to their rescue and accused also inflicted a sword blow on him on the right lower arm causing bleeding injury. Somehow he could escape and ran to hospital for treatment. Subsequently PW-3 and deceased were brought for treatment. On next day morning he came to know that deceased Jagannath died at SCB Medical College, Cuttack. He had clarified that within fifteen minutes of his arrival, PW- 3 and deceased were brought to hospital and police had also come and the father of deceased had lodged F.I.R. No material contradiction is elicited which could create doubt over his testimony. In cross-examination he has admitted that there were two groups in their Sahi (Hamlet) and accused appellant was heading one group while Narayan Sahu was the leader of another group. 13. Three persons were attacked. PW-3 has stated that accused dealt sword blow causing injury on his body. In cross-examination he has admitted that there were two groups in their Sahi (Hamlet) and accused appellant was heading one group while Narayan Sahu was the leader of another group. 13. Three persons were attacked. PW-3 has stated that accused dealt sword blow causing injury on his body. PW-9 also stated that accused had inflicted sword blow on his person and on the person of PW-3 and deceased. The manner of attack, defence and their proceeding to hospital for treatment and disclosure of PW-9 before the family members at the hospital, inspire confidence in the credibility of the eye witnesses. PW-9 is a wholly reliable witness. When injured persons have testified the incident disclosing the author of the injuries inflicted on their bodies, their credibility cannot be seen with pinch of salt for the minor discrepancies. 14. Injury reports in respect of PW-3 is Ext.6. Ext.5 is the injury report of PW-9. The reports are proved by the doctor PW-15. It may be stated here that Ext. 8 is the weapon examination report which also corroborates that the injuries sustained by the deceased and PWs. 3 and 9 could have been caused by M.O.-I. Learned trial court has not committed any mistake in appreciating the evidence of PW-9. 15. Doctor (PW-12) has stated that he recorded dying declaration of the deceased vide Ext.3. It is recorded at 10.00 P.M. The I.O. has stated that he made a requisition for recording of the same vide Ext. 24 at 9.25 P.M. The F.I.R. was registered at 9.10 P.M. The location of the hospital, police station and availability of the injured persons in the hospital do not create any doubt about the time sequence for recording of dying declaration Ext.3. The evidence of PW-12 that he was facing a proceeding under Section 218 of the I.P.C. cannot be a ground to doubt the recording of the dying declaration. We have carefully perused Ext.3 dying declaration and also requisition for recording of dying declaration Ext.24. The dying declaration inspires confidence. It is genuine as thereafter he was referred to SCB Medical College, Cuttack at 10.30 P.M. vide Ext.10. The fact that deceased was referred for better treatment to SCB Medical College, Cuttack, is indicative of the genuineness of the dying declaration. The dying declaration inspires confidence. It is genuine as thereafter he was referred to SCB Medical College, Cuttack at 10.30 P.M. vide Ext.10. The fact that deceased was referred for better treatment to SCB Medical College, Cuttack, is indicative of the genuineness of the dying declaration. There is no material that doctor was inimically disposed of towards accused or acted in a motivated manner to record dying declaration under Ext.3. The deceased was in fit mental condition. The questions put and answers given as recorded under Ext.3 are prognostic of fitness of mind of the deceased by the time of recording dying declaration. We accept the dying declaration Ext.3 as genuine and truthful. Resultantly it corroborates the evidence of the eyewitness, though dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. 16. The next piece of evidence is the discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As per the evidence of the I.O. (PW-16), accused-appellant was arrested on 5.08.2002 and forwarded to court. On 8.08.2002 on the prayer the I.O. he was remanded to police custody and during interrogation he gave statement to give recovery under Ext. 15. Thereafter he gave recovery of the sword M.O.I, which was seized under Ext.2. Ext. 15, the statement of accused in custody, is admissible to the extent that he would give recovery of the sword as it relates distinctly. Ext.2 is the seizure list prepared on 8.08.2002 at 2.30 P.M. The accused had shown the place where the sword was kept concealed, i.e. damaged latrine near Akhandalamani temple and brought out the sword M.O.I. PW-11 is an independent witness to the seizure and has corroborated Ext.2 and I.O. PW-16. The accused was found absconded soon after the incident dated 25.11.2001. He was arrested on 5.08.2002 and was sent to judicial custody. On 8.08.2002 he was taken into police custody and gave statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and led to discovery of the sword M.O.-I. When statement made by the accused is sought to be introduced into the evidence by recourse to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is necessary to determine first as to what fact was really discovered inconsequence of the statement made by the accused. Here the fact that weapon of offence, i.e. sword M.O.-I was concealed in a place and that accused had knowledge of the same is admissible. Here the fact that weapon of offence, i.e. sword M.O.-I was concealed in a place and that accused had knowledge of the same is admissible. Learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. 17. It is true that M.O.-I was found to have not contained any blood stain. It was kept in the concealed place for about nine months after the occurrence and for that non-availability of blood stain cannot outweigh the evidentiary value of recovery of facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The conduct of accused that he absconded soon after the occurrence and remained fugitive for about nine months is a tell tale story to establish his complicity by way of connecting M.O.-I with the injuries inflicted on three persons on 25.11.2001. 18. On the aspect of motive in a criminal trial, the contention of defence is neither factually acceptable nor legally tenable. PW-9 has stated clearly that there was a groupism in their Sahi (hamlet) and accused was heading one group as against another group headed by Narayan Sahu. So factionalism might have acted as a motive behind the attack by the accused. That apart, in the murder case the absence of the motive is not a defining factor when the case is established by eye-witness. 19. Learned trial court has appreciated the evidence from all angles and on our careful anatomical survey of the same, we do not find any infirmity therein. In view of the injuries found on the body of PWs. 3 and 9 the offence under Section 324 I.P.C was established. The weapon of offence was a sword and it come under the definition of the Arms Act. 20. Taking all the aspects into consideration, the prosecution is found to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appreciation made by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality. The sentence is the minimum prescribed as far as Section 302 I.P.C. is concerned and for other offences is proportionate and adequate. 21. In the appeal record the material is available to show that the appellant-convict is involved in more than 39 cases. There being no sufficient ground found warranting any interference in the conviction and sentence of the appellant-convict, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 23. Return the L.C.R. immediately to the lower court.