( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is brought from the judgment of the Sessions judge, Revenue Dist, Bangalore in a case under S. 302 of the IPC whereby Bomma was convicted utvdev S. 304 Part-II and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution caes was that one Kuppaiah had his land adjacent to the land of Bomma in Thigalarahally village. Kuppaiah had grown coconut trees and there was some complaint that Bomma used to commit theft of coconuts. At a later date, the deceased Goosappa married the daughter of Kuppaiah. He came to reside with him and it was stated that both Kuppaiah and Goosappa used to look after the garden work. On 13-6-1976 both Kuppaiah and Goosappa went to their garden as usual. They had engaged one Puttaswamy to pluck the coconuts and while he was doing so, either the coconuts or the leaves fell towards the land of Bomma and caused some injury to his jack fruit tree. Accordingly, in the evening when Goosappa was returning from the garden with a bundle of mulberry leaves on his head, Bomma appeared and accosted him in the way and there was some altercation. The prosecution case was that the appellant was holding a sickle (MO. 1) and during the course of altercation, he gave a blow by the blunt side of that sickle on the abdomen of Goosappa. Thereafter, Goosappa came back to his house and complained of pain in the abdomen. Two witnesses PWs. 7 and 8 bearing the name Channasetty had witnessed the occurrence. On the next day Goosappa was removed to the hospital at Kanakapura where he was examined by Dr. Shivaji Rao (PW. 6 ). As his condition deteriorated, Goosappa was shifted to Victoria Hospital on 18-6-76 where he was operated upon and succumbed to the injury on the same night. ( 3 ) WHILE Goosappa was admitted in the hospital at Kanakapura, pw-6 sent information to the police and Maniyappa, Head Constable (PW. 12) came and recorded his statement Ext. P6 which was subsequently used as a dying declaration. In that statement Goosappa no doubt mentioned Bomma the appellant to be his assailant. Immediately after the occurrence when Goosappa had gone to his house, he gave a similar dying declaration to Kuppaiah (PW. 10) and his wife Laxmidevi (PW. 11 ). 12) came and recorded his statement Ext. P6 which was subsequently used as a dying declaration. In that statement Goosappa no doubt mentioned Bomma the appellant to be his assailant. Immediately after the occurrence when Goosappa had gone to his house, he gave a similar dying declaration to Kuppaiah (PW. 10) and his wife Laxmidevi (PW. 11 ). After the death of Goosappa the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. H. A. Somaiah (PW. 5) of the Victoria Hospital. According to him, the death was due to exhaustion and shock as a result of peritonitis consequent to perforation of intestine caused by blunt force impact. This injury was directly attributable to the blow administered by the sickle (MO. 1) and on that ground the police at Kanakapura converted the case into one under S. 302 of the IPC. This in short was the prosecution case. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned trial Judge the prosecution produced 15 witnesses of whom pws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were the Doctors. Dr. H. A. Somaiah (PW. 5) came to prove the post-mortem examination while Dr. Shivaji rao (PW. 6) came to prove the dying declaration as well as the first injury report written by him. The two eye witnesses Channasetty pws. 7 and 8 however did not support the prosecution story in its entirety. Kuppaiah PW. 10 and Laxmidevi PW. ll gave their own statements. The Head Constable Muniyappa PW. 12 had registered the case. He also proved Ext. P6 the dying declaration which he recorded. The other witnesses were more or less formal in character. ( 5 ) THE accused did not set up any definite defence. It was accepted on his behalf. that their lands were contiguous and due to coconut plucking some altercation took place. It was even accepted that there was pulling and pushing on either side and suggestions were made to the witnesses tha,t Goosappa had a fall. The Doctors were asked that because of impact of abdomen against some hard substance, the injury could be caused for which there could be no dispute. At the same time, the Doctors very much adhered to their statements that the blunt side of mo. 1 could have also caused the injury. It was therefore argued on behalf of the defence that the injury was due to some accidental fall for which the appellant was not responsible. At the same time, the Doctors very much adhered to their statements that the blunt side of mo. 1 could have also caused the injury. It was therefore argued on behalf of the defence that the injury was due to some accidental fall for which the appellant was not responsible. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced Bomma the accused in the manner stated above. He has felt aggrieved of the decision and has preferred this appeal. ( 7 ) AS to the preliminary part of the prosecution version, there does not appear to be any dispute. The two lands of Bomma the appellant and kuppaiah were contiguous. Coconut trees were grown on the land of Kuppaiah and there was also plucking of coconuts on that day. As regards the thefts of coconuts, both PWs. 10 and 11 stated about them. The appellant was suspected for having committed those thefts. According to tkese witnesses due to the arrival of Goosappa the incident of thefts had decreased and perhaps that could be the reason why the appellant developed a grievance against Goosappa. In his own statement the appellant admitted that during the course of the altercation some pulling towards either side did take place. He further admitted that ha accosted Goosappa while he was coming with the load of mulberry leaves on his head. Both PWs. 7 and 8 stated about the altercation between the deceased and the appellant. However, according to these witnesses, the sickle MO. 1 was in the hand of the deceased and not the accused. These witnesses further stated that there was a fall and the deceased perhaps suffered an injury because of that fall. Since they had stated before contrary to this fall being sustained by the deceased, permission was accorded to the prosecution to cross-examine them. The witnesses having prevaricated from one stage to the other, they could not be explicitly relied upon. The learned Sessions Judge was right in picking out a part of their version which stood corroborated from the own admission made by the accused in his statement before the trial judge. The crux of the matter lay in the decision as to whether the appellant was armed with the sickle MO. 1 and gave the blow by its blunt side. The crux of the matter lay in the decision as to whether the appellant was armed with the sickle MO. 1 and gave the blow by its blunt side. That was the question which fell for decision and the learned sessions Judge has agreed with the prosecution version for that part of the case. ( 8 ) SINCE the reliance on behalf of the prosecution was essentially placed on the dying declaration, the learned Counsel for the appellant attacked the dying declaration and advanced his argument pointing out that the Doctor PW. 6 did not append his certificate on Ext. P. 6 signifying therein that the deceased was in a fit state of health to give the statement. For this, reliance could be placed upon the statement of pw. 6 the Doctor himself and also upon the statement of PW. 12 the head Constable who recorded the statement. According to these witnesses, the deceased was in entire conscious state and suffered only the stomach pain. His general condition was good and that is why the doctor summoned for the police and got the statement recorded in his presence. If the certificate was not appended describing the condition of the deceased, that was only an irregularity which should not affect our decision, as long as reliance could be placed upon the statements of PWs. 6 and 12. It was then stated that Exhibit p-6 could even be fabricated at a subsequent stage. That is an argument without any foundation. The learned counsel then submitted that there was an opportunity of tutoring to the extent that the sickle MO. 1 was introduced which perhaps was not there. But the significant feature is that according to the statement of the appellant under S. 313, the sickle m. O. 1 was already stated to be there although in the hands of the deceased and not in his own hands. Thus there was no occasion for the sickle M. O. 1 to have been introduced. P. W. 6 stated that besides him and P. W. 12, no other person was present when the dying declaration was recorded. Thus, there was no occasion, at any rate, at that time, for the tutoring of the maker of that statement. According to PWs. Thus there was no occasion for the sickle M. O. 1 to have been introduced. P. W. 6 stated that besides him and P. W. 12, no other person was present when the dying declaration was recorded. Thus, there was no occasion, at any rate, at that time, for the tutoring of the maker of that statement. According to PWs. 10 and 11, who testified to the previous two dying declarations, utilised to corroborate Exhibit P-6 the third dying declaration before the Doctor, the sickle was mentioned as the weapon of the attack. The learned counsel pointed out that P. Ws. 10 and 11 did not tell that the deceased stated that the blunt side of the sickle was used, although according to them, he did state that the attack was made by the help of the sickle. In fact, there is no discrepancy on that account. If the deceased, while making his statement before P. Ws. 10 and 11 barely stated that he was hit by a sickle, from that alone it could not be inferred that he was hit by the sharp side of the sickle and not. by its blunt side which, of course, he made clear in the subsequent dying declaration Exhibit P-6. If P. Ws. 10 and 11 were so much eager to implicate the appellant, they could have immediately instituted the report right at the beginning. As stated by the learned Sessions Judge, Exhibit P-6 the written dying declaration is corroborated, by the previous two verbal dying declarations, by the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8 and by the admissions of the accused so far as the preliminaries in the case were concerned, chiefly the coconut plucking, the altercation due to that and the push-and-pull which took place during the course of that altercation. Above all, the medical evidence confirmed the dying declaration in as much as the blunt side of the sickle could have caused the disputed injury. It is well settled that a dying declaration can exclusively base a conviction provided it is voluntary and truthful. It has never been a rule of prudence much less a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. It is well settled that a dying declaration can exclusively base a conviction provided it is voluntary and truthful. It has never been a rule of prudence much less a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. The Court has to look out for corroboration only when it comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration suffers from any infirmity by reason of which it is necessary to look out for eorroboration. No such infirmity can be detected in the present dying declaration. ( 9 ) IN respect of the F. I. E. Instituted in the case, there was some controversy. P. W. 10 stated that while he was present at Kanakapura, hospital, he sent some information to the police. He was cross-examined and was made to say that he gave his impression on some document which was sent to the police at the instance of the Doctor. But that statement is belied for the obvious reason that the Doctor P. W. 6 never stated that he got written any F. I. R. by P. W. 10 nor was it sent to the police station. The learned Counsel referred to Ext. Dl the statement of p. W. 6 which he made during the investigation and in that statement he seemed to have stated that P. W. 10 stated before him that he had already informed the local police regarding the assault. From this statement, it cannot be inferred that the Doctor stated before the police that a report was written by P. W. 10 in the hospital, that he gave his impression on that report and that the same was sent to the police station. It appears some talk might have arisen about the police report and kuppaiah P. W. 10 might have had that talk with some one. All that accounts for this discrepancy. The fact of the matter was that at that time no report was sent to the police station. It was for the first time that P. W. 6 called the Head Constable P. W. 12 when the latter recorded the dying declaration. In fact the dying declaration Exhibit P-6 was the basis of the F. I. R. and the registration of the case against the appellant. It was for the first time that P. W. 6 called the Head Constable P. W. 12 when the latter recorded the dying declaration. In fact the dying declaration Exhibit P-6 was the basis of the F. I. R. and the registration of the case against the appellant. P. W. 11 the wife of the deceased very much stated that the police had interrogated her husband on the next day in the hospital, meaning thereby, that whatever information was sent to the police, that was done only while her husband was admitted in the hospital. That was also the statement of the Head Constable P. W. 12. Thus, there was no difficulty regarding the F. I. R. and the dying declaration could not be influenced by any such suggestion. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 the Doctor who examined the deceased first noted down that there was a mark of abrassion on the stomach. It was reddish brown in colour and the patient was complaining pain over the abdomen and chest region. It appears P. W. 11 had seen that injury and that is why she stated that there was visible mark of injury and further that the clothes got stained. Being a lady belonging to the village and obviously not conversant with the- nature of the wounds, she stated before the Court that even blood had come out so that she could see the stains. Nothing definite can be inferred from that statement. P. W. 1 another Doctor who examined the deceased before he was operated upon however stated that there was no visible injury. But that statement too is of no value because the Doctor was more concerned with the then condition of the patient who was about to be operated upon for a serious injury. The Doctor must not have paid attention to detect carefully if there was any external mark of injury because that was not the work assigned to him at that time. Moreover, in the very pattern of the defence case, whether or not a mark of injury was caused is immaterial. So long as the appellant admitted to have participated in the altercation, the only question that arose before the Court was, as to whether he attacked the deceased with a sickle and thereby caused the injury. Moreover, in the very pattern of the defence case, whether or not a mark of injury was caused is immaterial. So long as the appellant admitted to have participated in the altercation, the only question that arose before the Court was, as to whether he attacked the deceased with a sickle and thereby caused the injury. For that, exclusive reliance was placed on the dying declaration coupled with the statements of P. Ws. 10 and 11 and also part of the statements of P. Ws. 7 and 8. In fact, the appellant had not any specific defence and nowhere stated under S. 313 that the deceased had an accidental fall during the course of altercation and received the injury. It is true that he was not required to make out a specific defence and could avail of the suggestions thrown to the prosecution witnesses. But, for a consistent defence, something more was needed than the mere suggestions made here and there to the witnesses. The burden of proof lay upon the prosecution and they have discharged their burden by bringing in the three dying declarations which could be explicitly relied upon. The suggestions made to the witnesses on behalf of the defence and the circumstances pointed out which I have already dealt with, in my opinion, do not go to dislodge the confidence that could be reposed in the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore correct when he arrived at the conclusion that the appellant caused the injury by the sickle M. O. 1 and knowing that he was inflicting the injury on a vital part of the body, he should have further known that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death and as such the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s. 304 was decidedly made out. It could not be stated tha,t the punishment awarded was in any manner serious. ( 11 ) THE appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .