C.M. LODHA, C. J.—This is an unfortunate case in which the appellants Tolaram and Dana Ram are alleged to have murdered their father Nyolaram and brother Noranglal, with the assistance of a third person-Tejaram, brother of Tolarams wife. The motive behind the murder is alleged to be strained relations between Tolaram and Danaram on the one hand and the deceased Nyolaram and Noranglal on the other. 2. Nyolaram had five sons, viz. Tolaram, Danaram, Noranglal (deceased), Banna Ram and Dungar Ram. Except Dungar Ram the other four brothers lived in village Nuvan. Nyola Ram was residing with Tolaram but his relations with Tolaram were not happy. Danaram used to side with Tolaram. On November 19,1973 Tolaram and Danaram gave beating to Nyolaram. The next day the deceased Nyolaram went to Ratangarh with Noranglal for treatment. The prosecution case is that when both the deceased were returning in a bullock cart in the evening from Ratangarh to their village Nuvan, situated at a distance of seven miles from Ratangarh, they were way-laid at about 8.30 p.m. by the three accused viz. Tolaram, Danaram and Tejaram-brother-in-law of Tolaram. Tejaram and Tolaram were armed with lathis, and the accused Danaram was armed with a chosangi i.e. an iron pronged lathi. All the three accused inflicted multiple injuries on Noranglal and Nyolaram. The victims raised a hue and cry which attracted the attention of P.W. 6 Jeewan Singh, who came to the spot, but did not stay there out of fear and ran to the village and informed P.W. 1 Banna Ram of the incident. P.W. 11 Madanlal and P.W. 18 Chhaganlal brothers and one Jankilal, who were in a hut, nearby also came to the spot on hearing the cries of the victims. They could not identify the assailants but when Madanlal and Chhaganlal reached the spot, they found both the victims lying in a pool of blood. Noranglal told them that his brothers Tola Ram and Dana Ram, and Tola Rams brother-in-law had beaten them. Madanlal and Chhaganlal brought both the injured on the bullock cart to the village and took them to the house of Norang Lal. P.W. 2 Likhma Ram, P.W. 4 Taja Ram, and P.W. 13 Pura Ram came to the house of Norang Lal along with other villagers to look after the injured, and before these witnesses as well as before P.W. 5 Mst. P.W. 2 Likhma Ram, P.W. 4 Taja Ram, and P.W. 13 Pura Ram came to the house of Norang Lal along with other villagers to look after the injured, and before these witnesses as well as before P.W. 5 Mst. Naraini, daughter of Norang Lal and P. W. 2 Mst. Bhanwari Bai, widow of Noranglal, the injured stated that they had been beaten by the three accused. Since the condition of both the injured was serious, P.W. 2 Likhmaram went to Ratangarh to bring a vehicle. However, by the time Likhmaram returned with a vehicle from Ratangarh, Nyolaram had breathed his last and consequently Noranglal was taken to the hospital, at about 4 in the night. P.W. 14 Dr. B.N. Bhargava examined Norang-Lal and finding his condition serious, he sent a letter Ex. P.29 to the Station House Officer, Ratangarh to come to the hospital to record the dying declaration of Noranglal. On receipt of the letter, P.W 16 Nagarmal started for the hospital but on the way he received another letter from Dr. Bhargava, marked Ex.P.30, stating that since the condition of Noranglal deteriorated, and he died shortly before, he had himself recorded the dying declaration of Noranglal (Ex.P.17), which was also sent along with the letter. P.W. 16 Nagarmal went to the hospital and placed the dead body of Noranglal in the mortuary, and thereafter went to village Nuvan, where the dead body of Nyolaram was lying. From village Nuvan he went to the place of occurrence and after carrying out the necessary investigation at the spot, he handed over the investigation of the case to P.W. 17 Bhopal Singh on November 22, 1973. P.W. 17 Bhopal Singh recorded the information given by the three accused regarding the weapons of offence and made recoveries of the same at their instance. The information given by Tejaram is Ex.P.40. The recovery memo of the lathi Art. 15, pointed out by Tejaram, is Ex.P.25. Ex.P.39 is the information memo, whereby Tolaram gave information regarding the lathi used by him and the recovery of the same is Ex.P.26. Dana Ram also gave information regarding the Chosangi, weapon of the offence used by him. Ex.P.41 is the information memo and Ex.P.22 is the recovery memo of Chosangi. Both the lathis and the chosangi were sent for chemical analysis. Dana Ram also gave information regarding the Chosangi, weapon of the offence used by him. Ex.P.41 is the information memo and Ex.P.22 is the recovery memo of Chosangi. Both the lathis and the chosangi were sent for chemical analysis. The Chemical Analysers report is Ex.P.42 and the Serologists report is Ex.P.43 All the three weapons were found to be stained with human-blood. Thus after the investigation had been completed, all the three accused were prosecuted to stand trial for the offences of committing murders of Nyolaram and Noranglal. 3. The three accused, in the course of their statements, denied having committed the offence, and produced four witnesses in defence. 4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, found that the accused Tola-Ram had been identified at the spot by P.W.6 Jeewan Singh. He accepted the evidence regarding dying declaration made by the deceased Noranglal to Madanlal at the place of occurrence as well as to P.W.2 Likhma Ram, P.W.4 Teja Ram, P.W.5 Mst. Naraini, P.W. 12 Mst. Bhanwari, Bai and P.W 13 Pura Ram, at the house of Noranglal, in village Nuvan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the dying declaration Ex.P.17 made to Dr. Bhargava, at the hospital in Ratangarh, was also proved. He also relied upon the recovery of the lathis and the Chosangi at the instance of the accused. He disbelieved the defence evidence of alibi. In the result, he came to the conclusion that the offences of murders of Nyolaram and Noranglal had been fully established against all the three accused. Consequently, he convicted them under sec. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life. 5. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the appellants, has strenuously urged that none of the assailants were identified at the spot and the accused have been falsely implicated on account of the previous days incident and the strained relations between the parties. He has also submitted that the evidence regarding dying declaration is not reliable and at any rate the dying declaration Ex.P. 17 is inconsistent with medical evidence. Learned counsel has also argued that the recovery cannot be relied upon, in as much as, none of the weapons recovered can cause incised wounds found on the body of Nyola Ram. 6. He has also submitted that the evidence regarding dying declaration is not reliable and at any rate the dying declaration Ex.P. 17 is inconsistent with medical evidence. Learned counsel has also argued that the recovery cannot be relied upon, in as much as, none of the weapons recovered can cause incised wounds found on the body of Nyola Ram. 6. It is fully established by the prosecution evidence that Nyolaram and Noranglal died on account of the injuries caused to them, on the night of Nov. 20, 1973, while they were coming to their village in a bullock cart from Ratangarh. On this point there is over-whelming evidence. P.W.6. Jeewan Singh P.W. 11 Madanlal and P.W.18 Chhaganlal are the witnesses, who had seen both the deceased lying seriously injured, on the way between Ratangarh and village Nuvan. P.W.6 Jeewan Singh informed P.W.1 Bannaram of the occurrence. P.W. 11 Madanlal and P.W.18 Chhaganlal took them in a bullock cart to their house in village Nuvan. P.W.2 Likhmaram took Noranglal to the Government Hospital at Ratangarh. P.W. 14 Dr. Bhargava examined the injuries of Noranglal and recorded his dying declaration. Dr. Bhargava also performed autopsy on the dead bodies of both the deceased. Thus from the above evidence, it is conclusively proved that both the deceased were brutally belaboured as a result of which they received a number of injuries, and ultimately died. The important question is, whether the three accused or any one of them were among the assailants ? 7. The case against the accused rests on three types of evidence: (1) Identification at the spot, (2) Dying declarations made by the deceased, and (3) Recovery of the weapons of offence, on the information supplied by them, and at their in stance. 8. We propose to deal with the aforesaid evidence ad-seriatim. 9. Excep Tolaram, no other accused was identified at the spot. P.W.6 Jeewan Singh states that he could not identify the other two assailants, but he had identified Tolaram. Learned counsel has urged that since it was a dark night, it was not possible for Jeewan Singh to have identified any of the assailants. P.W.6 Jeewan Singh states that on the night of occurrence he had seen Noranglal and Nyolaram going towards village Nuvan, in a bullock cart and he also saw Tolaram accused going that way with a lathi in his hand. P.W.6 Jeewan Singh states that on the night of occurrence he had seen Noranglal and Nyolaram going towards village Nuvan, in a bullock cart and he also saw Tolaram accused going that way with a lathi in his hand. Suspecting him to be Tolaram, the witness asked him, whether he was Tolu?, but Tolaram did not give any reply, and shortly thereafter he stopped the bullock-cart in which the deceased were going. In the course of cross-examination the witness has stated that when he called Tolu, he answered in the affirmative "Hoon", but he had no other talk with him. He states that he saw also two persons beat-ing Noranglal and Nyolaram, but he could not recognise them. He further states that out of fear, he ran away. It appears to us that the witness hearing the hue and cry made by Nyolaram and Noranglal, went near them. It further appears that he was able to recognise Tolaram only, inasmuch as, he immediately ran to the village and informed P.W.I Banna Ram that Nyolaram and Norang Lal had been beaten by Tolaram and two others. The evidence of this witness is thus corroborated by the statement of P.W.I Bannaram. The conduct of the witness is also most natural inasmuch as he lost no time in informing the next of kin of the deceased of the occurrence. If at all. the witness was out to tell a lie, then he could have deposed regarding the identification of the other two accused also, but he has not done so. Consequently we are persuaded to believe that there is a grain of truth in the statement of this witness. Tolaram is said to have passed by his side and therefore it was not difficult for him, known as he was from before, to recognise him. The lower court has accepted the testimony of P.W.6 Jeewan Singh and we also do not see any ground for discarding it. Thus the presence of Tolaram at the place of occurrence has been proved by P.W.6 Jeewansingh. Of course, there is no evidence regarding the identification of the other two accused at the spot. 10. This brings us to the evidence regarding dying declaration recorded by Dr. B.N. Bhargava. Ex. P. 17 is the dying declaration recorded by Dr. B. N. Bhargava. Of course, there is no evidence regarding the identification of the other two accused at the spot. 10. This brings us to the evidence regarding dying declaration recorded by Dr. B.N. Bhargava. Ex. P. 17 is the dying declaration recorded by Dr. B. N. Bhargava. Translated into English, it reads as under :— "Yesterday, when I was going home from the hospital and was about one mile away from the village, Dana, Tola and Tolas brother-in-law (sala) beat me and my father with, lathis. What happened thereafter, I do not know. I have pain in my stomach. My hands and legs were broken. They beat with lathis. 1 had dispute with them. Previously, also they had beaten." 11. P.W. 14 Dr. Bhargava has stated that the deceased Norang Lal had been brought to the hospital on 21-11-73 at 4.45 A. M. with multiple injuries and since his condition was critical, he sent letter Ex. P. 29 to the Police, for recording his dying declaration, but thereafter the condition of the patient deteriorated and therefore he recorded his dying declaration (Ex. P. 17) and sent it to the police under covering letter Ex. P. 30. He further states that after having written the dying declaration, he obtained the thumb-impression of the deceased on it. The dying declaration was witnessed and attested by Babulal compounder. He has also proved his own signatures on Ex. P. 17. He further states that the dying declaration was recorded at 4.50 A.M., and the victim died at 5.25 A.M. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. The evidence of Dr. Bhargava is further corroborated by P.W. 7 Babulal-compounder, who attested it. P.W. 16 Nagarmal received it soon after while he was proceeding from the police station to the hospital. Thus the genuineness of the dying declaration is beyond doubt. Learned counsel has, however, urged that Norang Lal may have made this dying declaration after consultation, which may have taken place between him and his relations at village Nuvan before he was brought to the hospital, and further that he might have implicated the accused on account of strained relations. We are, however, not prepared to accept the contention. There is nothing on the record to show that there was consutlation between Norang Lal and his relations regarding the assailants to be named. We are, however, not prepared to accept the contention. There is nothing on the record to show that there was consutlation between Norang Lal and his relations regarding the assailants to be named. On the other hand, we have it in the evidence of PW 2 Likhma Ram, P.W. 4 Teja Ram, P.W. 5 Mst. Naraini, P.W. 12 Mst. Bhanwari Bai and P.W. 13 Pura Ram that Norang Lal had named the assailants to them, at his house. The dying declaration Ex. P. 17, therefore, cannot be said to be a result of prior discussion and consultation. 12. It is true that the relations between the deceased Norang Lal and his brothers Tola Ram and Dana Ram—accused were strained and an incident of beating had taken place previous day, but for this reason it cannot be said that Norang Lal while struggling between life and death would have falsely named his own brothers as the assailants for such a serious crime. On the other hand, the likelihood is that on account of the strained relations between the parties Tolaram and Danaram committed this henious crime against their own father and brother. 13 As to the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the dying declaration, pointed out by the learned counsel, it may be stated that so far as Noranglal is concerned, he had not received any injury by a sharp-weapon. It may also be borne in mind that the incident took place at night and, therefore, if any weapon, other than lathis was not mentioned by the deceased, in his dying declaration^ it cannot be said that the declarant was telling a lie. Cho-sangi, it may be point out here, is also a sort of stick with iron prongs at one end. In these circumstances, while the deceased was in the jaws of death, if he made mention of lathis as the weapons and forgot or omitted to make mention of Chosangi in his dying declaration, it cannot be said that the dying declaration is false. 14. Then it is argued that the incised wounds would not! have been caused either by chosangi or by lathis, and, therefore, the dying declaration should not be believed. 14. Then it is argued that the incised wounds would not! have been caused either by chosangi or by lathis, and, therefore, the dying declaration should not be believed. In our opinion, the presence of incised wounds on the body of Nyola Ram does not in any way detract from the evidentiary value of the dying declaration regarding the complicity of the assailants mentioned therein. As stated above, the occurrence took place in the night, the deceased were caught unawares and at any rate the dying declaration cannot be interpreted like a legally drafted document so as to contain minute details. On reading the dying declaration as a whole an impression is left on our minds that it contains substratum of truth. 15. At this juncture, we may refer to the previous oral dying declarations alleged to have been made by Noranglal. The earliest one was made to P.W. 11 Madanlal, at the spot, when Madanlal reached there, on hearing the cries of the victims. Madanlal has clearly stated that Noranglal told him that he and his father had been beaten by Tolaram, Danaram and Tolarams sala Tejaram. We have carefully read the statement of Madanlal and do not find any infirmity in it. His statement appears to be forth-right. He was the person, who had taken the victims to their house in village Nuvan. This dying declaration was made by the deceased at the earliest possible opportunity in respect of which even the argument of tutoring is not open to the defence, and we are persuaded to believe it on account of its corroboration by the dying declaration Ex. P. 17. Mr. Arora has been at pains to show that PW 18 Chhaganlal, who accompained Madanlal to the place of occurrence has not deposed to the fact of Noranglal making a dying declaration to Madanlal. It is sufficient to point out that Chhaganlal may have been a little away from Madanlal and Noranglal, at the time the dying declaration was made, and may not have heard it. Chhaganlal does not deny that Madanlal had a talk with Noranglal. In any view of the matter, the fact of dying declaration having been made by Noranglal to Madanlal is fortified by Ex. P. 17. Chhaganlal does not deny that Madanlal had a talk with Noranglal. In any view of the matter, the fact of dying declaration having been made by Noranglal to Madanlal is fortified by Ex. P. 17. There is further corroboration of this dying declaration, in as much as, as many as five witnesses: P. W. 2 Likhmaram, P. W. 4 Tejaram P.W. 5 Mst. Naraini, P.W. 12 Mst. Bhanwari Bai and P.W. 13 Pura Ram have stated that in the village Noranglal made such a dying declaration in their presence. We do not see any ground for rejecting their testimony. Thus it is not a case where there is uncorroborated evidence of a single dying declaration, even though conviction can be based on the sole evidence of dying declaration. 16. We may, now, consider the evidence regarding the recovery of the lathis and the chosangi Both the lathis and the chosangi have been found to be blood-stained. Their recovery, on the information supplied by the accused, is established. We are alive to the fact that this recovery by itself cannot connect the accused with the crime, but so far as Tolaram and Danaram are concerned, we have the evidence of the dying declaration against them Again so far as Tolaram is concerned, there is the evidence of identification against him Learned counsel for the accused has urged that the chosangi was recovered from an open field though both the lathis were recovered from a Bada. It is argued that the places from where the recoveries were made, are accessible to all and sundry, and, therefore, the recovery should not be believed. It is true that the places from where these articles were recovered were not in exclusive possession of the accused, but since they have been recovered on their information and at their instance, it would not be unreasonable to presume that they had placed them. There is no suggestion by the defence that this evidence was implanted against the accused. However, as pointed out earlier, we are not basing our conclusion on this recovery alone but are treating it only as a corroborative piece of evidence. 17. The last contention of the learned counsel has been directed against the conviction of Tejaram. It is submitted that Tolaram had three salas (brother-in-laws) as deposed by P.W.5 Mst. Naraini and P.W. 12 Mst. 17. The last contention of the learned counsel has been directed against the conviction of Tejaram. It is submitted that Tolaram had three salas (brother-in-laws) as deposed by P.W.5 Mst. Naraini and P.W. 12 Mst. Bhanwari and the name of Tejaram has not been mentioned in the earliest dying declaration made by Noranglal, at the spot to Madanlal, nor in Ex. P. 17. On the other hand, all that is mentioned is "Tejaram Sala ". Consequently, it is argued by the learned counsel that the possibility of any other Sala of Tolaram being among the assailants cannot be excluded, and hence in the circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to the accused Tejaram. No doubt, Tejaram is said to have been named by Noranglal in the dying declaration, alleged to have been made by him in the village at his house but in the absence of his name in Ex. P. 17 some doubt is created as to whether Tolarams sala referred to in Ex. P. 17 was the accused Tejaram. Consequently, to be on safer side, we deem it proper to give benefit of doubt to Tejaram. 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Tolaram and Danaram is dismissed, and their convictions under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to each of them is maintained. 19. Tejarams appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against him are set aside. He is on bail, and need not surrender. 20. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.