JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Appellants have been convicted u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Padman (Appellant No. 1) is the husband of Gurubari (Appellant No. 2), who is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased had three daughters and no sons. The deceased therefore had brought the accused and kept them in his house. In January, 1962, the deceased sold away all his moveable properties to his co-villager P.W. 5. This led to ill feeling and quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The deceased left his own house and resided with P.W. 5 till 28-7-1963. On that day in the morning, the deceased was going towards the nala in his village. The accused followed him with lathis and assaulted him on the way. P.ws. 1 to 3, who are eye-witnesses, raised a hulla. Many villagers gathered at the spot and the deceased told them that he was assaulted by the accused. 2. The defence is one of pure denial. 3. The learned Sessions Judge's finding that death was homicidal is not assailed. There is some apparent conflict that only lath is were used for causing the injuries while some of the injuries, which, according to the doctor (p.w. 4), were incised and punctured, could not have been caused by lathis. The learned Sessions Judge explained this by saying that the eye-witnesses saw the occurrence from a distance and the lathis used might have contained some pointed sharp cutting instrument which could not have been noticed by the eye-witnesses from the distance. The reasoning appeals to us. The doctor was of opinion that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as the cumulative effect of all the injuries and that external injury No. 3 with its internal injuries may be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. After going through the evidence carefully, we are satisfied that the finding is correct. 4. The learned Judge believed only part of the statement of P.W. 1 that he saw both the accused persons going away from the spot of occurrence armed with lathis. He did not accept his evidence that he actually saw the assess, according to the learned Judge. P.W. 1 did not make such a statement before the police. 4. The learned Judge believed only part of the statement of P.W. 1 that he saw both the accused persons going away from the spot of occurrence armed with lathis. He did not accept his evidence that he actually saw the assess, according to the learned Judge. P.W. 1 did not make such a statement before the police. In order to appreciate this criticism, the statement of P.W. 1 may be critically examined. In the Sessions Court, he stated that he saw both the accused persons assaulting the deceased and there after they went away with the lath is in their hands. He was confronted with his previous statement before the police u/s 145 of the Evidence Act. That statement was to the effect: He saw Padman and Gurubari going away towards their house with big lathis in their hands after assaulting the deceased Chintamani who fell down at the spot. From the evidence of the I.O. (p.w. 11) the following statement was obtained in cross-examination: P.w.1 has not stated before me that he saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. He has simply stated before me that at about Randhuni Godhua he heard the cry of the deceased at the sport in one corner of the Tala Doli of Chowkidar Sugri Ganda. He saw Padman and Gurubari going away towards their house with big lathis in their hands after assaulting the deceased Chintamani who fell down then at the spot. From these statements, taken together, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that P.W. 1 did not state before the I.O. that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased. The learned Judge's view suffers from a confusion of thought arising out of misconception of law. The statement of P.W. 1 to the police would clearly show that he stated to have seen the accused persons going away with lathis after assaulting the deceased. The statement was not recorded by the police in simple sentences but in a compound form. The compound sentence carries the meaning that P.W. 1 saw the accused assaulting the deceased and thereafter going away with the lathis. As no exclusive statement that P.W. 1 saw the assault was recorded, P.W. 11 answered by saying that P.W. 1 did not make a statement to the effect that he saw the assault on the deceased. In Tahsildar Singh and Another Vs. As no exclusive statement that P.W. 1 saw the assault was recorded, P.W. 11 answered by saying that P.W. 1 did not make a statement to the effect that he saw the assault on the deceased. In Tahsildar Singh and Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the am bit and nature of confronting with previous statement u/s 145, Evidence Act, is clearly enunciated. A bare reference to that decision would have led the learned Judge to come to the conclusion that in fact P.W. 1 had stated to the police that he saw the actual assault and that there is no contradiction in the two statements. The learned Judge was therefore wrong to rejecting the statement of P.W. 1 in Sessions Court that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased. The learned Judge had similarly rejected the statement of P.W. 2 in the Sessions Court that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased. For identical reasons it was rejected contrary to law. P.w 3's evidence does not suffer from the allged infirmity and is not vulnerable to the same criticism even on the standard prescribed by the learned Sessions Judge. On going through the evidence of the eye-witness we are impressed that they are truthful witnesses and the conviction is sustainable on their evidence alone. They are disinterested and independent witnesses and have no remains to falsely implicate the daughter and the son-in-law in the murder of the deceased. The learned Judge has further relived on the evidence of of p.ws. 6 and 7 in support of the dying declaration made by the deceased that the accused assaulted him. These witness's are reliable and we accept their evidence as true. Mr. Acharya very vehemently contended that the statements made to p.ws. 6 and 7 are not in writing and are oral and that the oral dying declaration should not be accepted as the Court, is not in a position to know the exact statements made. We are unable to accept such a bald proposition. It is true that when the dying declaration is in writing, the Court is in a better position to assess the import of the declaration. But in a case where the verbal declaration consists of fact that the accused assaulted the deceased, there is no room for confusion of construction or thought if those witnesses are reliable and their evidence is acceptable. But in a case where the verbal declaration consists of fact that the accused assaulted the deceased, there is no room for confusion of construction or thought if those witnesses are reliable and their evidence is acceptable. It is not necessary in this case to examine if the dying declaration made before p.ws. 6 and 7, by itself, can constitute the basis for conviction. It would be sufficient to say that it furnishes a strong piece of evidence corroborating p.ws. 1 to 3. But as has already been said, the evidence of p.ws. 1 to a is fully acceptable and the conviction can be sustained on their testimony without any other corroboration. 5. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Barman J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed