JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. 1. Nathu Singh, convict-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri O.P.Saxena, the then Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dated 26-8-1977 in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1977-State v. Nathu Singh, convicting and sentencing him under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment. The prosecution case in brief is that Om Prakash Sharma was running a business of cutting bangles in Firozabad. Naturally a few labourers were engaged with him. One of them was Hari Lal. It is further alleged that Nathu Singh, appellant, had lent some money to Hari Lal. It was not being repaid. In that connection on 6-7-1976 at about 6 a. m. the appellant went to the house of the deceased and complained to him that his labourers had taken money from him but were not repaying the same. He, therefore, desired the deceased to realise the money and pay the same to him. Naturally the deceased told the appellant that if money was due to him from any of his labourers, then he should recover the same from them himself. The appellant, however, threatened the deceased that he should recover the money from the said labourers for him otherwise his business would be closed. There was an altercation and an exchange of hot words and abuses on this issue. 2. The same night the deceased Om Prakash Sharma lay on a cot on a Chabutara in front of door of his house. An electric bulb was on. There was sufficient light around the place. At about 11 in the night, the appellant came there and stabbed the deceased in his abdomen. The deceased raised alarm which attracted his brother Narendra Kumar, PW 1 and Aran Kumar, PW 7. Immediately on the arrival of these two persons, the deceased told them that Nathu Singh, appellant, had run away after stabbing him with a knife in his abdomen. Narendra Kumar PW 1, arranged for a tractor and took his injured brother Om Prakash Sharma to S.N.M. Hospital, Firozabad. Dr. L. K. Agarwal, PW 4, the medical officer of the said hospital examined the injury of the deceased at 5.30 a. m. and recorded a stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep, at left side abdomen, umblical region 3 cm lateral from umblicus. Wound was transversely placed. It was tailing medially towards the umblicus. Dr. L. K. Agarwal, PW 4, the medical officer of the said hospital examined the injury of the deceased at 5.30 a. m. and recorded a stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep, at left side abdomen, umblical region 3 cm lateral from umblicus. Wound was transversely placed. It was tailing medially towards the umblicus. A part of intestine was coming out from the wound. Margins of wound were regular and sharply cut. Clotted blood was present around the wound. The injury was kept under observation and in the opinion of the doctor, the wound was caused by a sharp edged cutting weapon. The duration of the injuries was fresh. The injured was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Doctor directed that the police as well as the Magistrate be informed for recording his dying declaration. 3. The injured was admitted in the hospital as an in-door patient, the same day, i. e.7-7-1976 at 6.20 a. m. His bed-head ticket indicated that life saving drugs were given to him and pressure bandage was applied. 4. The same day, i.e. 7-7-1976 between 10.15 and 10.20 a.m. Sri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Naib Tehsildar/Magistrate, Firozabad recorded the dying declaration of Om Prakash Sharma, injured. The said dying declaration is Ext. Ka-5. It bears the certificate of Dr. S. N.Dutta PW 5, Medical Officer-in-Charge, S. N. M. Hospital, Firozabad regarding the mental fitness of the injured for giving his statement (dying declaration). The same day i.e. 7-7-1976 Narendra Kumar, PW 1 got written report of the incident scribed from Arun Kumar, PW 7 and sent the same through chowkidar, Nasiruddin to police station Khairgarh, 4 miles away, where it was received and on the basis thereof an FIR (chik report) was prepared at 6.15 p. m. Om Prakash Sharma injured died in the hospital the same day, i.e. 7-7-1976 at 5.30 p. m. 5. His post-mortem examination was conducted on 8-7-1976 at 11.30 a. m. by Dr. S. N.Dutta, Medical Officer-in-Charge, S. N. M. Hospital, Firozabad. The external examination revealed ante-mortem injury, namely stitched wound 17 cm long on the left side abdomen close to the umblicus lying horizontally 1 cm. left to umblicus. The internal examination revealed that the mesentary of small bowels was torn at 5 places and stitched. The stomach contained semi-digested food material. Loop of small intestine was stitched at three places. The external examination revealed ante-mortem injury, namely stitched wound 17 cm long on the left side abdomen close to the umblicus lying horizontally 1 cm. left to umblicus. The internal examination revealed that the mesentary of small bowels was torn at 5 places and stitched. The stomach contained semi-digested food material. Loop of small intestine was stitched at three places. On cutting the stitches, there was a punctured wound with sharp margins measuring about 2 cm x 0.5 cm x luman deep. According to the doctor, death was caused due to the shock as a result of the said injury. The said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses. In the nature of things there was no eye-witness. In defence the appellant denied his guilt and pleaded false implication at the instance of the witnesses, especially Arun Kumar PW 7 and one Virendra, son of Nawab Singh who were prosecuted in a murder case and he had given evidence against them. The appellant, however, did nor lead any evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after assessing the evidence on record relied upon the dying declaration which he treated to be a voluntary one, free from any tutoring or influence. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 7. The dying declaration is the primary piece of evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to base the conviction of the appellant Accordingly the attempt of the learned counsel for the appellant has been to shake its veracity. Learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has translated in English the dying declaration in question which was recorded in Hindi It would be in the fitness of things to felicitate the appreciation of the issue involved to reproduce the said translation rendered by the learned Session Judge :- "A knife was struck in my abdomen. I was lying awake on the chabutara of my house. Yesterday on 6-7-1976, at about 10.30 p. m. I wa stabbed with a knife. Ram Singh son of Chet Ram Jatav was lying on ai adjoining cot near me. Only one person named Nathu Singh son of Gajadha Singh, r/o Shekhupur, Thakur by caste, stabbed me with a knife and ran aware after stabbing me with a knife in the abdomen. On my alarm, that boy Ram Singh woke up. Ram Singh son of Chet Ram Jatav was lying on ai adjoining cot near me. Only one person named Nathu Singh son of Gajadha Singh, r/o Shekhupur, Thakur by caste, stabbed me with a knife and ran aware after stabbing me with a knife in the abdomen. On my alarm, that boy Ram Singh woke up. The members of my family were sleeping inside. No body chased the accused. There is electricity on my door. I identified the accused in the light of the electricity. There was enmity between me and the accused since prior to the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant has characterised it as not a voluntary declaration but the consequence of tutoring by his brother Narendra Kumar PW 1 and more so, by Arun Kumar, PW 7. There is no doubt that the evidence on record indicates, that Arun Kumar, PW 7 had arrived at the spot after the occurrence and he bad accompanied Narendra Kumar, PW 1, when he took his injured brother to the hospital. These two persons had stayed at the hospital till the injured expired and his Panchayatnama was prepared, i.e. on 8-7-1976 by 11 a. m. It is pointed out that both Narendra Kumar PW 1 and Arun Kumar PW 7 have admitted in their cross-examination that the appellant was a witness against Arun Kumar, PW 7 in a murder case. It is therefore argued that Arun Kumar had every reason to bear grudge against the appellant. It is therefore stressed that as Arun Kumar had ample opportunity to be with the deceased, so he could have influenced and prompted and tutored the deceased to name the appellant in his dying declaration. However, it is in the evidence that Narendra Kumar, PW 1, the brother of the deceased, was also with Arun Kumar right from the time they took the injured to the hospital and till he expired in the hospital. If the said tutoring was there, it could not be beyond the knowledge of Narendra Kumar. However, we find that said dying declaration had come into existence on 7-7-1976 between 10.15 and 10.20 a. m. while the written report of the incident was dictated by Narendra Kumar, PW 1 to Arun Kumar, PW 7 between 2 and 2.30 p. m. of 7-7-1976 as stated by Narendra Kumar, PW 1 in his examination-in-chief. However, we find that said dying declaration had come into existence on 7-7-1976 between 10.15 and 10.20 a. m. while the written report of the incident was dictated by Narendra Kumar, PW 1 to Arun Kumar, PW 7 between 2 and 2.30 p. m. of 7-7-1976 as stated by Narendra Kumar, PW 1 in his examination-in-chief. He has also stated therein that the operation of the injured was conducted between 11 and 12 a. m. Under these circumstances, the tutoring, if any, could have been done prior to the dictation of the written report by Narendra Kumar. In such circumstances, if the tutoring was done before-hand and the written report was dictated afterwards, then in all probability the tutored version of the incident would have found place in the written report (FIR). In the dying declaration it is mentioned that the deceased was lying awake and one Ram Singh son of Chet Ram Jatav was lying therein on an adjoining cot. The members of his family were sleeping inside (house). But in the FIR it was stated that both the injured and Narendra Kumar (the maker of the FIR) were sleeping on the chabutara. The FIR does not mention a single word about Ram Singh, son of Chet Ram Jatav being there. Again, in the FIR it is mentioned that when the appellant arrived there, he threw out a challenge ('Aa Kar Lalkara'). It was then that Narendra Kumar was awakened and had attracted the other witnesses, namely, Nawab Singh, Lakhan Singh, Jai Bir Singh, Arun Kumar and Sambhar Singh. The FIR, however, narrates that it was in the view of all these persons that the appellant gave a knife blow in the abdomen of the deceased. The mere fact that the FIR version differs materially from the statement made by the deceased in the said dying declaration is a sufficient pointer that no tutoring was done. 8. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that there was nothing on record which could throw a challenge to the character of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that he was a person adapted to make false statements or falsely implicate others. Therefore, no blemish can be attached to its veracity. Again, the narrative of the incident as put forward by the prosecution shows that the deceased had ample opportunity to name his assailants. There is nothing on record to show that he was a person adapted to make false statements or falsely implicate others. Therefore, no blemish can be attached to its veracity. Again, the narrative of the incident as put forward by the prosecution shows that the deceased had ample opportunity to name his assailants. Narendra Kumar, PW 1 has in a way not deposed in line with the facts alleged in the FIR. Rather he maintained that on the relevant night he was sleeping inside the house, while the deceased was sleeping on the chabutara outside the house and they were so placed that none could see each other lying or sleeping. He was awakened by the shouts of his brother (deceased) that "Nathu stabbed him and was running away." Thereafter he rushed to the scene of occurrence on hearing the said alarm. By the time he or other incoming witnesses arrived at the spot the assailant had made good his escape. They were not in a position to identify or recognise him. Nevertheless, Narendra Kumar, PW 1, maintains that immediately his injured brother had shouted that it was Nathu Singh who had run away after giving the knife blow to him. They also found that the deceased had been stabbed in his abdomen. To the same effect is the statement of Arun Kumar, PW 7. Thus the deceased had named the appellant as his assailant soon after the occurrence. There is no reason to doubt the statements of Narendra Kumar and Arun Kumar, PW 1 and PW 7, respectively, on this point. This evidence is relevant piece of evidence under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Intrinsically also the said dying declaration seems to be a coherent statement. Although it is not recorded in the form of question-answer yet its perusal itself indicates that the deceased had given answers to the questions put by the doctor to him and thus the entire statement came to be recorded step by step. The reading of the whole dying declaration leaves no doubt that the ' deceased was very certain about the occurrence and his assailant. Of course, for others, when a person goes to bed at 10.30 p. m. he would be taken to have gone to sleep and that is why in the FIR it is mentioned that the deceased was sleeping at that time. Of course, for others, when a person goes to bed at 10.30 p. m. he would be taken to have gone to sleep and that is why in the FIR it is mentioned that the deceased was sleeping at that time. There is no doubt, in our mind, regarding the existence of light. The electric bulb was on. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the Investigating Officer had not made any enquiry from the electricity department as to whether on that particular night the electric current was being supplied to the locality in question or not. That is true, but then we have no reason to doubt the statements of Narendra Kumar, PW 1 and Arun Kumar, PW 7 that at the time of occurrence the electric bulb was on and the whole place was sufficiently lit. The same fact is also mentioned in the dying declaration itself. 9. It is true that no independent corroboration is coming forth to corroborate that in fact this stab injury was caused by the appellant. But there is no legal requirement that dying declaration can be believed only when it receives corroboration from independent quarters. It is only by way of abundant caution that the courts have in peculiar circumstances of a particular case have insisted for independent corroboration. Each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment had quoted the case of Khausal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 in which it was held that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. Every case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made. 10. Some stress was laid on the fact that Naib-Tehsildar/Magistrate had recorded this declaration in question at 10.20 a. m. whereas the doctor had given the certificate at the bottom of the dying declaration at 10.15 a. m. The argument is that in the fitness of things this certificate should have found place at the top before the writing of the dying declaration was started. But, to our mind, this sequence would be immaterial. The relevant point would be whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to give the dying declaration or not. But, to our mind, this sequence would be immaterial. The relevant point would be whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to give the dying declaration or not. The doctor's certificate whether it appears at the top or at the bottom of the dying declaration makes no difference so far as it certifies the mental condition of the patient at the time of making of the dying declaration. Moreover, the doctor was in the witness box. His attention was not drawn in particular to this fact and he was not given any opportunity to explain the same. We do not think that any capital can be made out of this circumstance by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has then pointed out that the said doctor, Sri S. N.Dutta, PW 5, has stated in his examination-in-chief that when the Naib-Tehsildar approached him in the hospital in the out-door ward and informed him that he had come to record a dying declaration, the doctor had asked him to proceed on and he would be reaching there immediately. He, however, took two to four minutes to reach there. He deposed that by then the Naib Tehsildar had already commenced the writing of the dying declaration. However, he could there and then note that the patient, i.e. the deceased, was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration. However, he admitted that when the statement was completed, then he medically checked up the patient and gave this certificate of fitness on the dying declaration. The point on which this court needed to be satisfied is as to whether the deceased when he made the dying declaration was in a fit mental condition or not. After assessing the evidence of the doctor on the point as well as taking into account the certificate appended by the doctor on the dying declaration, we feel satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to give out his dying declaration. 11. As a result of the above discussion, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the dying declaration in question is a reliable document, voluntary made in a fit mental condition and could be relied upon without any independent corroboration from any other quarter. 11. As a result of the above discussion, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the dying declaration in question is a reliable document, voluntary made in a fit mental condition and could be relied upon without any independent corroboration from any other quarter. Of course, in the present case, as already discussed above, there is an evidence under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act to corroborate it. 12. The appeal has no force and fails. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out his sentence. He shall be taken into custody forthwith. Appeal dismissed.