JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore on 30th June, 1976 by which he convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under : In the evening of 26.6.75 Kishorisingh, deceased, was sitting on the Chabutri of his house in his courtyard. His three brothers Jaisingh, Umsingh and Veersingh were also sitting there. Jodhsingh (P.W.4) and Bhura (P.W.6) also reached there. Bhim Singh (P.W.5) son of kishorisingh and Deepsingh appellant, another son of kishorisingh, were also there. 3. Kishoresingh asked Deepsingh not to interfere with Veersingh, Jaisingh and Umsingh ploughing the field. At this Deepsingh told him that he would not allow them to do so and he will kill and die for that cause. Thereupon, there was hot altercation between the father and the son regarding the field and Deepsingh went away to his house. His brother Bhim Singh also accompanied him and went towards his house. In the night Kishoresingh supplied food to Jodhsingh (P.W.4) and Bhura (P.W.6) who had stayed there for the night. Jodhsingh and Bhura slept there at a distance of 8 or 9 pawandas away from the place where Kishoresingh was sleeping on the cot. Early in the morning at 4.00 a.m. Kishoresingh grumbled and raised a cry of 'MARE RE-MARE RE'. His shrieks awakened Bhura and Jodhsingh and they saw towards Kishoresingh. Bheem Singh also rushed to the place where his father was sleeping on hearing the shrieks of his father. All these persons saw Deep Singh appellant standing near the cot of Kishoresingh with a dagger in his hand. On seeing Bheem Singh and others, Deep Singh hurriedly went away from that place with the blood stained dagger in his hand. Bheem Singh enquired of his father Kishoresingh as to what had happened to him and the latter replied that Deep Singh had stabbed him with a dagger. Kishoresingh had a bleeding injury on his forehead and his weddings and clothes were drenched with blood. Bheem Singh called Moolraj Singh (DW 1) son of appellant Deep Singh and asked him to bring the pen and paper. Kishoresingh had a bleeding injury on his forehead and his weddings and clothes were drenched with blood. Bheem Singh called Moolraj Singh (DW 1) son of appellant Deep Singh and asked him to bring the pen and paper. At the dictation of Bheem Singh, Moolraj Singh (DW 1) scribed the report. Bheem Singh left Jodh Singh and Bhura near his injured father and went with the report to Police Station. Bagora. He reached Police Station Bagora at about 6 a.m. and presented the written report Ex. P. 1 before the S.H.O. Bagora. S.H.O. Anop Singh (PW 7) registered a case under sections 307 and 324 IPC. On the basis of that report the S.H.O. immediately went to the house of Kishoresingh. At the instance of Bheem Singh he inspected the site and prepared the site inspection memo and the site plan. Kishoresingh was lying on a cot on the 'chabutri' in the courtyard of his house. The S.H.O. inspected the injuries and prepared the injury report. He made necessary investigation from the witnesses present there. The Doctor was not available at Bogara Hospital and, therefore, Kishoresingh was sent with Bheem Singh to Jalore Hospital for treatment. Dr. B.L. Rai (P.W.2) examined Kishoresingh at 5.30 p.m. on 26.6.75 and noted the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 19cms x 2.5cms. x brain deep on front-temporal region from 5cms. above medial end of left eye brow extending transversely 5cms. above right eye brow and extending I.5cms. above right ear, deeper at temporal end. 2. Under injury No. 1 there is fracture of frontal and right temporal bones with 0.5cms. gaping between fracture margines through which brain matter was visible. 4. In the opinion of the Doctor, injury no. 1 was simple in nature and injury no. 2 was grievous and both were caused by sharp weapon. The duration of these injuries was about 12 to 18 hours. The Doctor advised x-ray of the skull. The injury report prepared by Dr. Rai is Ex.P.3. Kishore-singh expired on 1.7.75 and Dr. B.L. Rai conducted the autopsy over the dead body at 3.00 p.m. on 1.7.75 and observed as under: Body of an average built old men. Eyes closed, stitched wound from medial end of left eye brow, extending transversely up to 1.5cm above right ear. No other external injury. Rigor mortis present all over the dead body. 5. B.L. Rai conducted the autopsy over the dead body at 3.00 p.m. on 1.7.75 and observed as under: Body of an average built old men. Eyes closed, stitched wound from medial end of left eye brow, extending transversely up to 1.5cm above right ear. No other external injury. Rigor mortis present all over the dead body. 5. The examination of Cranium and Spinal Cord showed: 1. Stiched wound as noted above. 2. Fracture of frontal bone under the wound above medial end of left eye brow. There was a 2 cm. triangular piece of bone slightly depressed. The fracture line then extended upto 4 cms. above lateral ⅓ of left eye brow, the fracture line from upper end of triangular piece extended upwards and posteriorly for 5 ems. The fracture line from right ear region extended backwards up to right parieto-occipital suture 4 ems. above and behind right mastoid. Both the lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were healthy and pale. Rest all other organs of the thorax and abdomen were healthy. 6. The postmortem report is Ex. P. 4. 7. In the opinion of the Doctor, injury No. 2 was corresponding injury of injury No. 1. According to him. the cause of death was shock due to antemortem fracture of skull and injury to brain and haemorrhage, 8. On 29-6-75 Anopsingh arrested the appellant. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing trousers which had stains of blood. The trousers was taken in possession 'by the S.H.O. and sealed then and there, in the presence of the motbirs. On the same day, whip under police custody, appellant furnished information to the S.H.O. for getting recovered the dagger concealed by him in the 'pol' of his house. The S.H.O. reduced the information into writing and took the appellant to his house where the appellant got the dagger recovered at his instance from his residential house and gave it to the S.H.O. Some blood was visible on the dagger. The S.H.O. prepared the recovery memo and sealed the dagger. The clothes of the deceased and his beddings were also taken in possession and sealed. 9. After the death of Kishoresingh on 1-7-75 the case registered under section 307 and 324 IPC was converted into Section 302 IPC. The articles recovered during the course of investigation were sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police through Gumansingh Constable wherefrom Gani Mohd. 9. After the death of Kishoresingh on 1-7-75 the case registered under section 307 and 324 IPC was converted into Section 302 IPC. The articles recovered during the course of investigation were sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police through Gumansingh Constable wherefrom Gani Mohd. (PW 8) Head Constable, after checking the seals, sent them with the same constable to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur. Gumansingh entrusted the sealed packets there and obtained the receipt Ex. P. 16 and produced the same at the Police Station. The Chemical Examiner noted blood on all the articles received by him and prepared the report Ex. P. 14. He sent the cuttings and scrapings of the articles for serological test. The report of the Serologist is Ex. P. 15. According to the Serologist, all the items were stained with human blood. 10. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal. The learned Magistrate, finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of sessions, committed the appellant to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore. The Additional Sessions Judge charge sheeted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and record-ed his plea. He denied the indictment and claimed to be tiled. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. totally denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that Jodh Singh was inimical to him because of the transaction of a she buffalo and Bheem Singh intends to devour the property of his father and, therefore, has given evidence against him. He also stated about a case under Section 307 1PC being instituted against him by Bheem Singh, Umsingh in which he was acquitted. According to him, he was at his well in the fateful night and at about 11.00 in the morning when he got up, he came to know about his father sustaining injury and then went to Jalore Hospital where he was arrested by the police. Mool Raj Singh was examined as DW 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and held the appellant guilty for the murder of his father Kishoresingh and passed the judgment under appeal. 11. Mool Raj Singh was examined as DW 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and held the appellant guilty for the murder of his father Kishoresingh and passed the judgment under appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the two eye witnesses viz; Bheem Singh and Jodh Singh, being inimical to the appellant and Bheem Singh the son of the deceased being interested in him, should not have been believed. About the dying declaration, the argument advanced is that looking to the nature of the injury Kishoresingh must have died instantaneously and there could not have been any occasion for him to name the assailant. Regarding the circumstantial evidence of there being blood on the trousers and the dagger the learned counsel has urged that the report of the Chemical Analyser is perfunctory because it does not contain the extent of the blood stains on those articles. 12. Controverting these arguments Mr. N.S. Acharaya, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that presence of Bheem Singh and Jodhsingh at the site on hearing the shrieks of Kishoresingh was natural and Bheemsingh had promptly lodged the FIR hence the testimony of these two witnesses was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge. That, the two witnesses having reached the site immediately, it was not impossible for the injured to make the dying declaration in their presence. He has thus tried to justify the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. 13. Prosecution has led directed as wall as circumstantial evidence to substantiate its case. Jodh Singh, Bheem Singh and Bhura have been examined to substantiate the case that it was the appellant who had caused injuries to the deceased and was seen at the site by the witnesses. The incriminating circumstances brought on record against the appellant are as follows; (1) motive of the appellant to kill Kishoresingh on account of the quarrel between the two on the evening of 26-6-75; and the appellant telling Bheem Singh on the same evening while going towards their houses that he would kill Kishoresingh; (2) Dying declaration made by Kishoresingh in the presence of Jodh Singh, Bhura and Bheem Singh.(3) Recovery of the blood stained trousers from the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest and the dagger from his residential house in pursuance of the information furnished him to the S.H.O. 14. Jodhsingh has stated that he and Bhura had gone to Jalore in connection with a hearing for levy and while returning, it being night, they had stayed at the house of Kishoresingh. In their presence Kishoresingh had asked the appellant not to interfere with his brothers Jaisingh, Umsingh and Veersingh ploughing the field. The appellant insisted upon not permitting those persons to plough the field and warned that if it was done, he would kill and die. Then there was hot altercation between the deceased and the appellant and the latter went away from there. According to the witness, he slept there at a distance of 8 or 9 pawandas from Th. Kishoresingh. Early in the morning he heard the grumbling of Kishoresingh and the cry of "MARE RE MARE RE". He got up and looked towards Kishoresingh and went towards him and saw the appellant standing there by the side of the cot of his father with a dagger in his hand. Bheem Singh also reached there and on seeing him and the witness the appellant hurriedly went away from there. According to this witness on being questioned by Bheem Singh as to what had happened, Kishoresingh, who was lying injured, disclosed that he had been stabbed by Deep Singh. 15. Mr. M.M. Singhvi vehemently argued that the relations between Jodhsingh and appellant Deep Singh were strained on account of a transaction of a she-buffalo and therefore the witness had tried to falsely implicate the appellant, otherwise it could not have been possible for the witness to see the assailant because the person committing the crime must have immediately run away after fulfilling his mission. Presence of Jodh Singh and Bhura in the night of the occurrence at the house of Kishoresingh has been duly established. Even Moolraj Singh (DW I) son of the appellant has deposed that these two persons were there at the house of the deceased in the previous evening and were given food. Jodhsingh admitted that he had purchased one she-buffalo from Deepsingh for which neither he made the payment nor Deepsingh made the demand and the she-buffalo was returned. The witness denied the suggestion that Deep Singh had forcibly taken it back. In our opinion this petty matter, even if any. Jodhsingh admitted that he had purchased one she-buffalo from Deepsingh for which neither he made the payment nor Deepsingh made the demand and the she-buffalo was returned. The witness denied the suggestion that Deep Singh had forcibly taken it back. In our opinion this petty matter, even if any. is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the relations between Jodhsingh and appellant Deep Singh were so strained so as to give a cause to the former to falsely implicate the latter in such a heinous crime. Statement of Jodhsingh has been carefully examined by us and it suffers from no infirmity and can not be discarded merely on this ground. 16. Another important witness examined by the prosecution in the case is Bheem Singh son of deceased Kishoresingh and brother of Deepsingh appellant. The witness has corroborated the testimony of Jodhsingh regarding the hot altercation between the deceased and the appellant in the evening of 26-6-75 and the appellant throwing a warning that he would kill and die but not permit his uncles to plough the field. According to the witness when he and the appellant were returning to their respective houses after the hot altercation between the deceased and the appellant, the latter told him that he would kill Kishoresingh and the witness asked him not to do so. The witness has also reached the site on hearing the shrieks of "MARE RE. MARE RE" raised by his father Kishoresingh. He also stated about Deep-Singh being there with a dagger in his hand near the cot of injured Kishore Singh and on seeing him hurriedly going away from there. The witness further deposed that on being questioned Kishoresingh told him that he had been stabbed by Deep Singh. 17. Mr. M.M. Singhvi has levelled manifold criticism to point out that Bheem Singh is not a witness of credence. It has heed stressed that the relations between the two brothers were strained and therefore without there being any opportunity to identify the assailant of his father the witness has tried to falsely name the appellant. Bheem Singh has admitted that his father Kishoresingh got instituted a criminal case against Deep Singh for the latter firing a shot towards his nephew Haksingh in which he (Bheem Singh) was a witness. He further stated that in that case compromise was filed and because of that compromise Deep Singh was acquitted. Bheem Singh has admitted that his father Kishoresingh got instituted a criminal case against Deep Singh for the latter firing a shot towards his nephew Haksingh in which he (Bheem Singh) was a witness. He further stated that in that case compromise was filed and because of that compromise Deep Singh was acquitted. It is not a case in which Bheem Singh might have given evidence against his brother in a case relating to some stranger. Haksingh was his cousin and therefore it cannot be said that Bheem Singh had falsely tried to implicate the appellant in that criminal case. There is nothing to point out that Bheem Singh has actually appeared in the witness box to state against his blether in that case because he merely stated that he was a witness in that case and the compromise was filed. Be it as it may, even if there was any ill will between the two brothers on account of Bheem Singh being a witness in that case still it cannot be said that the ill will was substituting till the present incident so as to lead Bheem Singh to falsely implicate his brother for his father's murder. 18. So far as the argument about Bheem Singh being the son of kishoresingh deceased and being interested in him is concerned, we may observe that relation between the deceased and the witness is not in all cases a ground to doubt the truthfulness of the testimony of that witness. Cases are not rare in which relatives alone have the occasion to witness the crime. 19. It has been emphatically argued by Mr. Singhvi that the distance between the place where deceased was and the place where Bheem Singh was at the time of hearing the shrieks of his father was about 20 pawandas and it was not possible for Bheem Singh to reach his father in such a short time so as to have actually seen the assailant standing near the cot. It has been vehemently argued that no assailant would commit a blunder to remain standing at the site after the fulfilment of his mission in order to create evidence of persons reaching there. It has been vehemently argued that no assailant would commit a blunder to remain standing at the site after the fulfilment of his mission in order to create evidence of persons reaching there. So far as the distance between the two places is concerned we may observe that the distance is not such so as to make it impossible for a person to reach the site in a minute or two. It depends upon the speed in which the witness runs at the moment. Regarding the unnatural act of the assailant in remaining standing near the cot till Jodhsingh and Bheem Singh reached there it is relevant to note that these two persons have not professed to witness the actual assault on Kishoresingh. It cannot be said with certainty that the cry was raised by Kishoresingh after sustaining the injury. Possibility of his raising a cry just on seeing the assailant coming towards him cannot be ruled out. In this connection we may refer to the statement of Jodhsingh that when he reached near the injured Kishoresingh the latter had a 'Danda' in his hand. On this ground Mr. N.S. Acharaya, learned public prosecutor has contended that it so appears that on seeing Deep Singh, Kishoresingh might have tried to face the ensuing situation by picking up a 'Danda' in his hand and it was just possible for him to grumble and raise a cry at that moment. The argument is not devoid of force and if it was so it probables the possibility of Bheem Singh reaching near his father immediately after the latter sustaining the blow and, therefore, the presence of the assailant near the cot of the victim could not have been unnatural. Cases are not rare in which person commuting the crime becomes stunned for a while and then decides to take to heels. The incident is said to have taken place at about 4.00 a.m. on 26.6.75. Bheem Singh has specifically deposed that it was a moon lit night and moon was visible on the sky. The equivalent hindi miti of that day is " Jk"kkB onh pkSFk " and from 9.00 p.m. onwards there must have been moon light throughout the night. It was, therefore, possible for the witnesses Bheem Singh and Jodhsingh to identify the assailant having blood stained dagger in his hand. The equivalent hindi miti of that day is " Jk"kkB onh pkSFk " and from 9.00 p.m. onwards there must have been moon light throughout the night. It was, therefore, possible for the witnesses Bheem Singh and Jodhsingh to identify the assailant having blood stained dagger in his hand. Deep Singh appellant was not a stranger and it was easy for the witness to identify him in that moon lit night. 20. Mr. M.M. Singhvi has next argued that the conduct of Bheem Singh had been so unnatural throughout that he should not be considered to be a truthful witness. According to him, instead of calling his uncles residing nearby he had called Moolraj Singh son of the appellant and asked him to write the report. It has been stressed by Mr. Singhvi that it was done so only to give strength to the prosecution case that the contents of the F.I.R. must be taken to be true as they were written by the son of the appellant. Be it as it may, simply because Moolraj Singh alone was called by Bheem Singh, it cannot be said that efforts were made to concoct a false story against the appellant. Moolraj Singh is of course son of the appellant but the fact can not be overlooked that the deceased was his grand father and this being the position if Bheem Singh just called his nephew and asked him to bring pen and paper, we do not find any abnormality in it. 21. Coming to the point as to why Bheem Singh himself being lite-rate did not write the F.I.R. and asked moolrajsing to do so we may observe that it will not make much difference because Bheem Singh might have found it more convenient to dictate the report than himself writing the same. At this juncture we may also discuss the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the report in fact was not written at that time rather it was got forcibly scribed by Moolrajsingh after the arrival of the police. The reasoning given to substantiate this contention is that in the report it has been mentioned that Deep Singh was missing from the house while there was no occasion for Bheem Singh to find out whether Deep Singh was there at the house or not when he got the report written by Moolrajsingh. According to Mr. The reasoning given to substantiate this contention is that in the report it has been mentioned that Deep Singh was missing from the house while there was no occasion for Bheem Singh to find out whether Deep Singh was there at the house or not when he got the report written by Moolrajsingh. According to Mr. Singhvi S.H.O. Anop-Singh has deposed that on reaching the site, he tried to trace out the appellant from his house but he was not available there and therefore it appears that the report containing the fact of Deep Singh missing from his house might have been written thereafter. The argument is not convincing because Bhim Singh has explained that after causing injury to Kishoresingh Deep Singh had gone away from there and he thought that Deep singh might have run away from his house. We are also not inclined to place reliance on the statement of Moolrajsingh that the police had forced him to scribe the report. The reason is that he is a grown up boy of 20 years and could not be so forced to write a report against his will against his own father. Another reason for our discrediting this allegation by Moolrajsingh (D.W. 1) is that according to him his father was at the charawad (place where grass is stored) at a distance of only 500 to 600 feet away from his house which is near the house of Kishoresingh and in case he was forced to write any thing against his father he must have told his father by going to him. Moolrajsingh has stated that he came to know about the murder of his grand father at about 8.00 a.m. when he went to the house of his grand father and saw him lying injured. If it was so then it was natural for him to go to his father, who according to him was at charawad, and inform him as to what had happened. Moolrajsingh does not give any reason for this unnatural conduct. It being so we are not inclined to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness that the report was forcibly got written from him by the police. 22. It has been next canvassed by Mr. Moolrajsingh does not give any reason for this unnatural conduct. It being so we are not inclined to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness that the report was forcibly got written from him by the police. 22. It has been next canvassed by Mr. Singhvi that conduct of Bheem Singh had been unnatural throughout because instead of taking his injured father to the hospital for treatment, he had wested about an hour in getting the report written and taking it to the police station. Mr. Acharaya, on the other hand, has contended that Bheemsingh might have thought it proper to take a written report to the police Station. The report was written promptly and therefore it cannot be said that it was reduced into writing after consultation with any body. The evidence of Bheem Singh is that while going to Bagora he made enquiries about the Doctor and came to know from one person that both the doctor and the compounder were on leave. Anop Singh also stated that the Doctor were not available in the hospital. Hence it cannot be said that no efforts were made to take the injured to the nearest hospital. 23. With the above discussions, we are inclined to hold that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Bheem Singh about his immediately reaching the site and seeing the assistant with a blood stained dagger in his hand. 24. So far as witness Bhura is concerned his statement does not help either side. He has supported the prosecution version regarding the hot altercation between appellant and the deceased on the evening of 26-6-75 and also his remaining there at the house of Kishoresingh in the night along with Jodh Singh as well as hearing the shrieks of Kishoresingh but in his deposition he refused to have identified the assailant. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that his attention was drawn to his statement in this case at the previous trial which could not be completed, where he had totally supported the prosecution case and, therefore, his testimony should not be discarded as a whole. The argument is not appealing because the witness at denovo trial has deposed that he could not identify the assailant. This being the position we are not inclined to place any reliance on the statement of Bhura. 25. The argument is not appealing because the witness at denovo trial has deposed that he could not identify the assailant. This being the position we are not inclined to place any reliance on the statement of Bhura. 25. Prosecution has tried to prove the inimical relations between the appellant and the deceased. From the cross-examination of Bheemsingh it is evident that Kishoresingh got criminal case instituted against the appellant in connection with the latter firing a shot towards Haksingh nephew of Kishoresingh. There is satisfactory evidence on record to prove that in the evening of 26-6-75 there was hot altercation between the deceased and the appellant concerning the fields which Jaisingh, Umsingh and Veersingh, the brothers of the deceased wanted to plough and the appellant was obstructing. There is also the evidence of Bheem Singh that when he and the appellant were returning to their respective houses after the hot altercation between the deceased and the appellant, the latter told him that he would kill Kishore Singh. 26. Mr. Singhvi has contended that if that would have been so Bheem Singh would have taken steps to save his father. We are not impressed with this contention because Bheem Singh could not have thought that his brother would take such a drastic step on such a petty quarrel. According to Bheem Singh when his brother told him about his determination to kill his father he asked him not to do so. From this type of evidence it can be inferred that the relations between the father and the son were not cordial and on the formers siding his brothers, the latter got annoyed and determined to get rid of his father. 27. Another circumstance against the appellant is the oral dying declaration by Kishoresingh before Bheem Singh and Jodhsingh. Both these witnesses have stated that when they reached near the cot of injured Kishoresingh, the latter informed that Deep Singh had stabbed him. It has been emphatically stressed by Mr. M.M. Singhvi that the injury sustained by Kishoresingh is of the nature that he must have become unconscious instantaneously and there could not be any possibility of his telling anything to Bheem Singh and Jodhsingh who must have taken at least a few minutes to reach the site after the injury was caused to him. M.M. Singhvi that the injury sustained by Kishoresingh is of the nature that he must have become unconscious instantaneously and there could not be any possibility of his telling anything to Bheem Singh and Jodhsingh who must have taken at least a few minutes to reach the site after the injury was caused to him. While discussing the evidence of Bheem Singh we have considered the point as to whether Bheem singh is to be believed that he had reached near his father in a minute or two. We have also observed that the possibility of Kishoresingh raising the cry just on seeing the assailant and Bheemsingh rushing from his house towards his father immediately thereupon cannot be ruled out. While expressing opinion regarding the seriousness of the injury and the capacity of the injured to speak Dr. B.L. Rai has stated that on receipt of such injury it is just possible that before entering into coma the injured may utter a few words. He has further stated that normally the person will enter into come after the receipt of such injuries within a minute or two and if a question is put to an injured person after entering into coma there is no question of giving any reply to that question. It has also been opined by the Doctor that the moment a person receives such injury and at the same moment some question is put to him he may utter a few words but he cannot narrate the whole story. With these observations of the Doctor in view, when we turn to the facts and circumstances of the case before us, it appears that it cannot be said that Kishoresingh must have entered into coma the moment he sustained injury so as to disable him from uttering even a few words. As we have noted above the two witnesses had reached near Kishoresingh just after his sustaining injuries even prior to the assailant managing to make good his escape and wherefore it could have been possible for Kishoresingh to utter a few words on being questioned by Bheem Singh. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Kishoresingh was suffering from Hemipleqia when Dr. B.L. Rai examined him any therefore, there could not have been any possibility for him to speak. Dr. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Kishoresingh was suffering from Hemipleqia when Dr. B.L. Rai examined him any therefore, there could not have been any possibility for him to speak. Dr. B,L. Rai has clearly stated that Hamipleqia is not a disease but a sign and it does not cause death. It has also been stated by Dr. Rai that on postmortem of the dead body of Kishoresingh he did not find any blood clotting in his brain. In this situation the prosecution case coming forth from the statement of Bheemsingh and Jodhsingh, on whose testimony we are inclined to place reliance, that Kishoresingh has disclosed the name of the assailant and cause of his death is worth reliance. 29. Yet another argument advanced in this concern by Mr. Singhvi is that if Bheemsingh and Jodhsingh had seen the appellant with a blood stained dagger in his hand near the cot of the injured where was the necessity for Bheemsingh enquiring of his father as to what had happened. The answer is not far to seek, The two witnesses have not professed to be the eye-witnesses of the actual striking of the blow rather have stated that when they reached. injury to Kishoresingh had already been caused. In such circumstances it was quite natural for Bheemsingh to ask his father as to what had happened. We are, therefore, of the opinion that oral dying declaration by injured Kishore Singh is a strong circumstances against the appellant. 30. Yet another circumstance brought on record is the recovery of the blood stained trousers from the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest and the blood stained dagger from his residential house in pursuance of the information furnished by him to the S.H.O. So far as the recovery of these two articles in the manner alleged by the prosecution is concerned, there is trustworthy evidence and the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the recoveries except that the recovery memo of the dagger shows the time to be 3.00 p.m. while Umsingh motbir to the recovery memo has given the time to be 10-11 a.m., and that Umsingh was not a good terms with the appellant. This minor discrepancy about the time does not deserve much consideration because the villagers often have no idea about the exact time by the watch. This minor discrepancy about the time does not deserve much consideration because the villagers often have no idea about the exact time by the watch. This is correct that Umsingh was one of the uncles of the appellant who were obstructed by him in ploughing the field but the recovery has been proved by the concerned S.H.O. and nothing could be brought on record to disbelieve the recovery or to suggest that the blood stained dagger was planted at the house of the appellant and false recovery was shown. 31. The only argument advanced by Mr. Singhvi to attack the circumstance of recovery of the blood stained trousers and dagger being used against the appellant is that the Chemical Examiner has not precisely stated the number and extent of blood stains on these articles and therefore the reports of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist are perfunctory. He has referred to the case of Dhanji v. The State of Rajasthan, 1980 RLW 208 decided by this very Bench. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Babaji v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51 have been pleased to lay emphasis on the duty of the Chemical Examiner to indicate the number of blood stains found by him on each exhibit and the extent of each stains unless they are too minute or too numerous to be described in detail. The necessity for such a clarification in the report cannot be under estimated. But what value is to be attached to the recovery, in absence of the specific report of the Chemical Examiner as noted above, depends on the circumstance of a given case and the criteria to be adopted differs from case to case. In the present case the appellant was arrested on 29-6-75 and at the time of his arrest he was wearing the trousers with stains of blood on both the sleeves which was taken in possession by the Anop Singh. On the same day on interrogation appellant furnished the information about the dagger being concealed by him in his residential house and the same was recovered that very day. This case is, therefore, of the type in which some weight can be put to the recovery and it may be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant. On the same day on interrogation appellant furnished the information about the dagger being concealed by him in his residential house and the same was recovered that very day. This case is, therefore, of the type in which some weight can be put to the recovery and it may be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant. There is the evidence of the Serologist that the blood on those articles was human blood. 32. From the above discussions we are inclined to hold that prosecution has succeeded in bringing guilt home to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has properly taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances and has given good reasoning's to hold the appellant guilty and we find no reason to interfere with those findings. 33. Consequently, the appeal having no force is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******