K. K. ADHIKAR, J. ( 1 ) IS appeal by the appellants is against their conviction and sentence under section 302 read with section: 14 of the Indian Penal Code for an incident which occurred on 18. 7. 1980 at 8. 30 P,m. at the Air Strip, Satna, wherein it is alleged that the appellants intentionally caused the death of Mohan Singh who was working as a Choukidar at the said Air-strip, by inflicting injuries on his person. The report of the incident was lodged by the injured Mohan Singh himself at the Police Station, Kolgawan, situated at a distance of three furlongs within 45 minutes of the incident vide Ex. P. 10, in which the appellants have been named to be his assailants. The injured Mohan Singh was sent for medical examination and Dr. G. C. Chaturvadi (P. W. 3), who examined him M about 10 P. M. the same night, found him conscious. The injuries noted by him in Ex. P. 5 on the person of Mohan Singh were as follows: 1. Lacerated wound- 11/2 x 1/2 on left parietal region running obliquely upwards-down-wards left to right anterior. 2. Lacerated wound-Swelling 2 x on left parietal region laterally oblique upwards to downwards at middle. 3. Lacerated wound- 1 x 1/2 on right parietal region 2 away from the midline oblique upwards-downwards at middle anteriorly. 4. Lacerated wound 2 x 1/2 on right parietal region at postero-medially oblique upwards- downwards left to right 2 away from the midline. 5. Lacerated wound- 2 x 1 on scalp at posteriorly on occipital region at upper part horizontally at middle. 6. Lacerated wound- x on right frontal area at upper part. 7. Lacerated wound- 1/2 x on left eye brow oblique right to left. 8. Lacerated wound- 11/2 X on left occipital region at upper part oblique right to left laterally. 9. Lacerated wound abrasion- 2 x 1/2 on left face at laterally below the eye oblique left to right 1 below the eye. 10. Lacerated wound- 2 x 1/2 on right parieted region near the ear. 11. Abrasion -Multiple in numbers on forehead at lateral middle and right side caused by hard and rough object simple in nature. 12. Abrasion- 2 x 2 on right maxillary region caused by hard and blunt object due to rubbing- simple in nature. 13. 10. Lacerated wound- 2 x 1/2 on right parieted region near the ear. 11. Abrasion -Multiple in numbers on forehead at lateral middle and right side caused by hard and rough object simple in nature. 12. Abrasion- 2 x 2 on right maxillary region caused by hard and blunt object due to rubbing- simple in nature. 13. Lacerated wound- 1/2 x 1/2 on right chin 1 away from the midline caused by hard and blunt object-simple in nature. 14. Injury on the lower and upper jaw and broken of teeth caused by hard and blunt object. Referred to the Dental Surgeon for his opinion. 15. Bruise redish in colour- 2 x 1 on left upper arm at lower and caused by hard and blunt object-simple in nature. 16. Lacerated wound-Contusion and Swelling 1/2 x 1/2 on left upper arm at lower and laterally caused by hard and blunt object-simple in nature. 17. Bruise redish in colour crepitus and tenderness on palpation 2 x 2 shaft of humerous lower end caused by hard and blunt object-grievous in nature. 18. Bruise and abrasion redish in colour 2 x 1 on left upper arm at upper end laterally caused by hard and blunt object. Simple in nature. 19. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 on right elbow region laterally caused by hard and blunt object- simple in nature. 20. Lacerated wound and swelling and tenderness 2 x 2 on left fore arm at lower end and crepitus and shaft redius bone left caused by hard and blunt object grievous in nature. 21. Abrasion Multiple on left forearm at upper and caused by hard and rough object-simple in nature. 22. Multiple abrasion left forearm at upper end and at elbow region posteriorly caused by rubbing due to bard and rough object- simple in nature. 23. Lacerated wound and contusion 1 x 1/2 right forearm posteriorly and upper part caused by hard and blunt object simple in nature. 24. Multiple abrasion on right knee joint at front caused by hard and rough object-simple in nature. 25. Abrasion 2 x 2 on left knee joint at front and middle caused by rubbing against hard and rough object-simple in nature. 26. Abrasion on left leg at lower end above the lateral malleus 1 x 1/2 on lateral aspect caused by hard and rough object -simple in nature. 27. 25. Abrasion 2 x 2 on left knee joint at front and middle caused by rubbing against hard and rough object-simple in nature. 26. Abrasion on left leg at lower end above the lateral malleus 1 x 1/2 on lateral aspect caused by hard and rough object -simple in nature. 27. Abrasion- 1 x 1/2 on right leg lower and at lateral aspect due to hard and rough object- simple in nature, 28. Lacerated wound- x on right ring finger at middle phalanx on dorsal aspect caused by hard and blunt object - simple in nature. ( 2 ) MOHAN Singh, however succumbed to his injuries in the early hours of 19. 7. 1980. The postmortem was performed by Dr. S. C. Khare (P. W. 4) vide Ex. P-3. According to the opinion of Dr. S. C. Khare (P. W. 4), the cause of death of Mohan Singh was shock due to excessive bleeding and multiple injuries received by the deceased Mohansingh. It is further seen from his testimony that no individual injury sustained by the deceased Mohansingh was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and no definite opinion was given by him as regards the cumulative effect of these injuries. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in support of it's case has tendered evidence with respect to motive showing previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased Mohansingh. Ex. p. 7 and Ex. p. 8 are the copies of the Sanha reports made by the deceased Mohansingh against the appellants. The prosecution has also relied on the testimony of the eye-witness Shambhudayal Singh (P. W. 15), a ten year son of the deceased Mohansingh, who has been named in the first information report Ex. P. 10 and on the testimony of Puniyabai (PW. 17), who is the widow of the deceased Mohansingh and was informed of the incident by Shambhudayal Singh (P. W. 15 ). Reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the first information report Ex. P. 10 as a dying declaration. Further reliance has been placed on the information given by the deceased Mohansingh to Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) before taking the injured Mohansingh to the Police Station for lodging of the first information report. P. 10 as a dying declaration. Further reliance has been placed on the information given by the deceased Mohansingh to Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) before taking the injured Mohansingh to the Police Station for lodging of the first information report. ( 4 ) ON evaluation, of the prosecution evidence, on record, the learned trial Court rejected the testimony of both -Shambhudayal Singh (P. W. 15) and Puniyabai (P. W. 17) on the ground that the presence of Sambhudayal Singh (P. W. 15) on the spot of incident does hot inspire confidence as also in view of the discrepancy found in his testimony with respect to actual assault. Puniyabai (P. W. 17) has also been found to be not reliable in view of her silence in not disclosing the names of the appellants to Motilal (P. W. 13) even though according to her testimony, she remained with him for over five hours from the time of the death of Mohan Singh till the completion of the postmortem. The learned trial Court also rejected the first information report Ex. P. 10 and the case diary statement. Ex. P-B of the deceased Mohan Singh on the reasoning that the testimony of S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 20), the investigating officer, to the effect that soon after the first information report was recorded he recorded the statement of the injured Mohan Singh vide Ex. P-B does not inspire confidence when, taking into consideration the, injuries sustained by Mohansingh, the injured ought to have been provided with medical aid and not detained for the recording of the statement. The said statement Ex. P-13 was, therefore, held to be suspicious. The first information report Ex. P- 10 lodged by the injured Mohansingh also did not find favour with the learned trial Court on the ground that the said report was not written by S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 20) himself but was written by Tejbhan Singh, Head Constable, who has neither been cited nor examined as a witness by the prosecution and on the countrary, Ramgopal (P. W. 9) in his testimony does not state that the said report was written in his presence. Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) states in his testimony that the injured Mohansingh did not sign the report in his presence though the same was written by Tejbhan Singh. Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) states in his testimony that the injured Mohansingh did not sign the report in his presence though the same was written by Tejbhan Singh. Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12), however, in his testimony, states thatthe report was written by S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 20) and Mohansingh lad signed the said report. . The testimony of Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) shows that after the injured Mohansingh was brought to the police Station, the report was written by Tejbhan Singh but according to him, during this period he did not notice the presence of S. K. Shri vastava (P. W. 20 ). In view of these contradictions, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the said report Ex. P. 10 appears to be suspicious and that the same was not signed by the injured Mohansingh. The learned trial Court in reaching this finding, has referred to the testimony of Lallu Brahman (P. W. 11), who has deposed that no sooner the injured Mohansingh was brought to the police station by Ramgopal (PW 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (PW 12) be was immediately sent in a Richshaw to the hospital. The testimony of Premchandra, Gupta (P. W. 19), who has been examined to prove the signature of the deceased Mohansingh on Ex. P. 10 with those contained in Ex. P- 14 and Ex. P - 15, which are the applications made by the deceased to his superior officers. The learned trial Court did not place reliance and held that toe first information report Ex. P. 10 did not contain the signature of the deceased Mohansingh since he was not in a position either to lodge the report or sign it. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Court, however, placed reliance on the oral dying declaration made by the injured Mohan Singh to Ram Gopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12), who had reached the place of incident and brought the injured Mohan Singh to the police and taking into consideration the answer and nature of injuries convicted the appellant. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court committed no error in rejecting the first information report Ex. P. 10 purported to be lodged by the injured Mohan Singh. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court committed no error in rejecting the first information report Ex. P. 10 purported to be lodged by the injured Mohan Singh. According to the learned counsel, the injured Mohan Singh was not in a position to lodge the report and the same, therefore, appears to be fabricated document. In this respect, the learned counsel referred to the testimony of Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) and submitted that these witnesses were constables and, therefore, the information report could be manipulated subsequently, a fact which is borne out by the contradictions concurring in their testimony. The learned counsel laid great stress on the point that even though S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 20) was available, the report was written by Tejbhan Singh who has not been examined by the prosecution It was further argued on the basis of the testimony of Lallu Brahman (P. W. 11) that even assuming that Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 11) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) had brought the injured Mohan Singh, he was immediately sent for medical examination within minutes of his arrival in the police station and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The learned counsel also, on the same reasoning, submitted that the statement Ex. P-13 of the injured Mohan Singh could not have been recorded as he was not in a position to either lodge the first information report and/or make a statement. The learned counsel also contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the first information report is suspicious and/or that it did not bear the signature of the deceased Mohan Singh; is based on proper appreciation of evidence. It was further argued that the nature and the number of injuries sustained by Mohan Singh completely rules out the possibility of his being conscious to reveal the names of the appellants to Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10), Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) and Lallu Brabman (P. W. 11 ). The learned counsel further submitted that according to the medical testimony of Dr. The learned counsel further submitted that according to the medical testimony of Dr. S. C. Khare (P. W. 4), none of the injuries, either individually or cumulatively, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, therefore the offence could not be, at any rate, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel, number of injuries inflicted on the deceased would not be enough to draw the conclusion that the appellants intended to cause the death of Mohan Singh. The learned counsel referred to the injuries inflicted on the deceased Mohan Singh and submitted that the offence, if any, would be under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) COUNTERING the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, the learned Penal Advocate for the State supported the judgment of conviction and contended that the learned trial Court wrongly rejected the first information report Ex. P. 10. It was further argued that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the signature on the first information report is not that 9-f the deceased Mohan Singh, is perverse in view of the testimony of Premsharan Gupta (P. W. 10), who bas proved thet signature of the deceased Mohan Singh by comparing the same from the signature contained in the appellants Ex, P-14 and Ex.-P-15. which were sent by the deceased Mohan Singh. The learned Penal Advocate extensively referred to the testimony of Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) to show that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because they are police constables. According to the learned counsel, taking into consideration the number and nature of the injuries inflicted by the appellants and the medical evidence on record, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and, at any rate, this Court can certainly form its own opinion on the basis of the injuries as regards their sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 8 ) HAVING considered the arguments advanced and perused the records, in our opinion, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court rejecting the testimony of Shambhu Dayal Singh (P. W. 15) and Puniyabai (P. W. 17) is based on correct appreciation of their testimony and does, not call for any interference. ( 8 ) HAVING considered the arguments advanced and perused the records, in our opinion, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court rejecting the testimony of Shambhu Dayal Singh (P. W. 15) and Puniyabai (P. W. 17) is based on correct appreciation of their testimony and does, not call for any interference. ( 9 ) AS regards the oral dying declaration made by the deceased Mohan Singh to Ram Gopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) is concerned, we find no difficulty in endorsing the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, it is seen from the testimony of Ramgopal (P. W. 9) that at his residential quarter on the night of incident, he heard agonising cries and when he came out, he saw the injured Mohan Singh and on enquiry from him was told by him that the appellants have beaten him and that he should be immediately taken to the police station for lodging of the report. Since Ramgopal (P. W. 9) could not take him alone in view of severe swelling and pain all over the body, this witness went to the police station and returned with Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12 ). Their testimony also discloses that the injured Mohan Singh bad named the appellants as his assailants. Their statement further gets corroboration from the testimony of Lallu Brahman (P. W. 11), as far as the appellants being the assailants of Mohan Singh. The criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the appellants that the statements of Ram Gopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) deserve to be d is carded in view of their being police constables, is, in our opinion, hardly a ground for rejecting their otherwise consistent testimony. The other ground raised by the learned counsel that no person from public was present when the injured Mohan Singh was brought to the police station, cannot also be accepted as it is seen from the testimony of Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) that he had not noticed presence of any person in the police station, which, by itself, is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that Lallu Brahman (P. W. 11) was not present in the police station. Even if the presence of Lallu Brahman (P. W. 11) is excluded, in our opinion, the testimony of Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) is sufficient to reach the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in this respect. ( 10 ) SO far as the rejection of the first information report Ex. P- 10 and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the report does not bear the signature of the deceased Mohan Singh is concerned, in our opinion, on close scrutiny of the evidence on record and for the reasons hereinafter stated, the said finding cannot be sustained. According to the testimony of Ramgopal (P. W. 9), on the date of incident when he was inside his quarter, he heard the agonising cries and came, out only to find Mohan Singh whom this witness bad known from before, in injured condition and on enquiry, the injured Mohan Singh named the appellants to be the assailants- and wanted to be taken to the police station for lodging the report. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the injured Mohan Singh was first medically examined by Dr. G. C. Chaturvedi (P,w. 3) on the same night within one and half hours of the incident and was conscious. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that Mohan Singh could not have been in a position to lodge the report because of the injuries on his person. So far as the rejection of the first information report is concerned, it is, no doubt, true that Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) have made contradictory statements as regards the person who has written the first information report as well as on the fact whether the same was signed by the deceased Mohan Singh but from the testimony of S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 20) it is clear that the first information report was written by Tejbhan Singh on the dictation given by this witness of the facts as narrated by the injured Mohan Singh. The mere fact that the Station House Officer S. K. Shrivastava, (P. W. 20), did not record it personally though present in the police station, would not be a circumstance to reject the first information report Ex. P- 10. The mere fact that the Station House Officer S. K. Shrivastava, (P. W. 20), did not record it personally though present in the police station, would not be a circumstance to reject the first information report Ex. P- 10. It is pertinent to note from his testimony that all proceedings which had been taken in the night of 18-7-1980, were written by Tejbhan Singh. In view of above, in our opinion, the rejection of the first information report by the learned trial Court is erroneous. It has already been seen that the injured Mohan Singh was conscious when he was medically examined around 10 P. M. on the date of incident and, therefore, it can safely be inferred that he was conscious when he was brought in the police station by Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) and that he was in a position to lodge and sign the first information report. That the first information report bore the signature of Mohan Singh, is proved by Premchandra Gupta (P. W. 19) under whom the deceased was working, by comparing his signatures on the first information report and his two applications Ex. P-14 and Ex. p. 15. Nothing has been shown or brought to our notice to reject the testimony of Premchandra Gupta (P. W. 19 ). In view of this evidence on record, in our opinion, it has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased Mohan Singh lodged the first information report Ex. P- 10 and bad signed the same which mentions the Mmes of the appellants as the assailants of the deceased Mohan Singh and thus the oral statement made by the deceased Mohan Singh to Ramgopal (P. W. 9), Ugrasen Singh (P. W. 10) and Jainarayan Singh (P. W. 12) that the appellants caused him the-injuries, gets corroborated. ( 11- ) THE only question which now requires consideration is regarding the offence which has been made out against the appellant. It bas already been seen that the number of injuries found on the deceased Mohan Singh was twenty eight, out of which the first nine lacerated wounds, though described as simple by Dr. G. C. Chaturvedi (P. W. 3), were on the head. The injury No. 14 resulted in breaking of a tooth, while for the injuries Nos. It bas already been seen that the number of injuries found on the deceased Mohan Singh was twenty eight, out of which the first nine lacerated wounds, though described as simple by Dr. G. C. Chaturvedi (P. W. 3), were on the head. The injury No. 14 resulted in breaking of a tooth, while for the injuries Nos. 17 and 20, which Were on the upper arm and fore-arm respectively, Dr. G. C. Chaturvedi (P. W. 3) advised X-ray. These two injuries have been described as grievous. Rest of the injuries were on different parts of the body and have been noted to be simple in nature. Dr. S. C. Khare (P. W. 4) who conducted the post-mortem, opined that none of the injuries individually was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and no definite opinion was rendered on the question whether cumulatively these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In view of such medical opinion, we have carefully perused the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased Mohan Singh to satisfy ourselves and for determining the nature of offence committed by the appellants. The third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of intention to cause bodily injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death and in determining whether such sufficiency exists, the number of injuries inflicted, the nature of weapon used and the part of the body on which the injuries are caused, are relevant to arrive at the intention. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the medical evidence on record the offence committed by the appellants was not murder because none of them have been proved to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, in our opinion, cannot be accepted for the reason that as many as twenty eight injuries were inflicted on the deceased Mohan Singh. Some of the injuries were on the vital part of the body and, therefore, taking into consideration the medical opinion that the death of Mohan Singh was due to shock and excessive bleeding from the multiple injuries along with the fact that Mohan Singh died within a very short time of the assault shows that the deceased could not survive the ferocity of assault. Further more, even if according to the testimony of Dr. S. C. Khare (P. W. 4), none of the injuries by themselves, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, in our opinion, the fact that Mohan Singh died soon afterwards, leads us to no other conclusion but to hold that cumulatively the injuries were necessarily sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence would be under Section 304 (1) of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab1, in our opinion, will not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case, although there were number of incised wounds inflicted, there was only one muscle deep incised injury over the left ear which had not caused any damage. It has already been seen that there are number of injuries caused on the head region of the deceased Mohan Singh, apart from the other injuries causing excessive haemorrhage leading to the death of Mohan Singh. ( 12 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. .