JAGDISH CHANDRA ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal has beenpreferred by the appellants-convicts Tellu and Uttam againstthe judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on18th of July, 1983 by Shri R. C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge. whereby they were convicted for the offence under section 302indian Penal Code read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced thereunder toundergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE first information in this case was given by Smt. Sudamawife of the deceased Ram Karan and her statement was recordedby Sub Inspector Joginder Singh of police station Nangloi, Delhi;according to which she along with her deceased husband Ramkaran was living in railway quarter No. E-24/c, Nangloi, Delhi,and the deceased was working in railway department at Nangloistation as a gang man whereas her in-laws resided in villagedhanwas, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur. Accusedtellu was a resident of that very village and was known to themand had his lodging and boarding with them for about twomonths in the aforesaid railway quarter 8/9 months prior to theoccurrence and when he went back to his village he took awaysome miscellaneous household goods of Ram Karan deceasedwith him about which even though no report was lodged withthe police by Ram Karan and his wife, they continued demanding the same or compensation in lieu thereof. There was factionalism in the said village and it is alleged that the Brahmans of thatvillage used to harass Ram Karan, and Tellu appellant who wasa member of their own community also started harassing themunder the influence of the Brahmans of the village and he sent314 letters asking them to come back to the village but apprehending trouble they did not go to the village. ( 3 ) THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about11 P. M. in the night intervening 13th and 14/01/1982 inthe house of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about11 P. M. in the night intervening 13th and 14/01/1982 inthe house of the deceased. As per the prosecution case the deceased along with his wife Smt. Sudama and their children weresleeping in the room in their house after taking meals and atabout II P. M. in the night the deceased went to the court-yardof his house for urination when both the appellants Tellu anduttam who were perhaps hiding themselves in the rear portionof his house started beating him and on hearing the alarm (Bachao Bachao) Smt. Sudama immediately came out of theroom and saw that appellant Tellu who had a open knife in hisright hand attacked her husband in the abdomen and appellantuttam who too had a knife in his hand attacked her husbandwith the knife on his left leg and as a result of those injuriesblood started ozing out from the wounds. She also raised analarm to the effect bachao Bachao and pakro Pakro and onhearing the same the neighbours Shiv Ram and Kallu and otherpersons came there and the appellants fled away having openknives in their hands. Smt. Sudama brought her husband to thehospital with the help of Shiv Ram, Kallu and other persons andgot him admitted there. She complained to the police that boththe appellants, with common intention, had attempted to murderher husband on account of old enmity and with the intentionof taking revenge. The aforesaid statement of Smt. Sudama wasrecorded by S. I. Joginder Singh in Northern Railway Centralhospital, New Delhi, where the doctor declared injured Ramkaran unfit for making a statement. The said statement ofsmt. Sudama was forwarded by S. 1. Joginder Singh along withhis own endorsement thereon to police station Nangloi for theregistration of the case under sections 307134 Indian Penal Code. and the casewas accordingly registered against the appellants. ( 4 ) THE statement of Ram Karan deceased was recorded on 15/01/1982 by S. I. Joginder Singh and that statement isalmost identical with the one which his wife Smt. Sudama badmade to S. 1. Joginder Singh a day earlier on 14/01/1982. Ram Karan deceased, however, died on 7/02/1982,25 days after the occurrence. ( 5 ) RAM Karan deceased was admitted in Northern Railwaycentral Hospital, New Delhi, at 3 P. M. on 14/01/1982with the following injuries on his person :- 1. One incised wound 5 cm. Joginder Singh a day earlier on 14/01/1982. Ram Karan deceased, however, died on 7/02/1982,25 days after the occurrence. ( 5 ) RAM Karan deceased was admitted in Northern Railwaycentral Hospital, New Delhi, at 3 P. M. on 14/01/1982with the following injuries on his person :- 1. One incised wound 5 cm. long, lying obliquely overmiddle 1/3rd of right sub costal margins. Omentumwas protruding out; 2. 4 cm. long incised wound over anterior surface ofupper part of middle 1/3rd of left leg; 3. 1. 5 cm. long incised wound on posterior aspect oflower part of middle 1/3rd of left leg. ( 6 ) DEATH summary Ex. Public Witness 1/a in respect of the deceasedwas prepared by Dr. S. K. Gupta, Public Witness 1, who was working asassistant Divisional Medical Officer in the said hospital and asper the same cause of death of Ram Karandeceased is recordedas "cardio respiratory failure". As per the death summary thedeceased was operated upon on 14/01/1982, the day hewas admitted, but that operation was not conducted by Dr. S. K. Gupta. Case sheet (Ext. Public Witness 1/b) pertaining to the deceasedand comprising 38 sheets was filed by Dr. S. K. Gupta. Abdominal injury No. 1 set out above was opined by Dr. S. K. Gaptato be sufficient in itself to cause the death of the deceased inthe ordinary course of nature though this opinion was not incorporated in his report Ext. Public Witness 1/a. The deceased was attended by this doctor only on 20/01/1982 and treated by him thereafter. ( 7 ) IT was Dr. (Mrs) S. Chadha (PW2) ADMO Casualty,central Hospital, Northern Railway, New Delhi, who declaredthe deceased dead on 7/02/1982 vide her certificateext. Public Witness 2/a prepared and signed by her at 6. 30 P. M. and whichcertificate mentions the cause of death of the deceased Ramkaran as follows :-Cause of deathprimary (1) Stab injury abdomen. Secondary % (2) (contributory) Cardio respiratory failure. ( 8 ) ON 14/01/1982 Dr. B. M. Banerjee (PW18) anddr. (Mrs.) M. Seewal (PW19) who were working as ADMOs atthe said hospital on that day opined when contacted by S. 1. Joginder Singh that the deceased was unfit to make statement. Their respective opinions on the application made by S. 1. Joginder Singh are Ext. Public Witness 18/a and Ext. PW19/a. Dr. B. M. Banerjee (PW18) anddr. (Mrs.) M. Seewal (PW19) who were working as ADMOs atthe said hospital on that day opined when contacted by S. 1. Joginder Singh that the deceased was unfit to make statement. Their respective opinions on the application made by S. 1. Joginder Singh are Ext. Public Witness 18/a and Ext. PW19/a. Dr. (Mrs.)M. Seewal Public Witness 19 also examined the deceased on thatvery day i. e. 14/01/1982 and found the following injuries on his person vide her report Ext. Public Witness 19/b :- 1. Injury per abdominal-bleeding +, loop of intestineswas coming out, 2. Cut wound in right leg. ( 9 ) DURING the period the deceased remained admitted in thishospital he was treated and attended by Dr. B. M. Banerjee onvarious occasions. ( 10 ) THE post mortem examination on the person of Ramkaran deceased was conducted at 12. 15 P. M. on 8-2-1982 thenext day of his death by Dr. L. T. Ramani Public Witness 24 Medicalofficer, Police Hospital, Delhi, who on that day found thefollowing external injuries on his person :- 1. An infected wound abdominal cavitydeep on the right costal margin : Margins of the woundwere irregular and greenish in colour. There was greenish black pus deposit on the surface of the wound; 2. A healed scar 4" long right paramedial with stitchedmarks on either side of the scare on the upper part offront of abdomen (operational wound); 3. A healed up wound, 2" long with stitch marks on theleft leg middle third on its anterior surface; 4. A healed up wound 1" long with visible stitch markson either side of the wound on the middle of left legmedial aspect. ( 11 ) INTERNAL examination revealed as follows :scalp tissues were pale, skull bones were intact, brain waspale, neck tissues were normal, ribs were intact, lungs showedpatchy consolidation at places, heart was normal, abdominalcavity was full of greenish black offensive smelling pus. Injuryno. 1 was communicating with abdominal cavity. Cut end ofthe costal cartilage was loosely henging. Peritoneum was inflamed, thickened, and there were effusions between two layers ofperitoneum and abdominal organs. Stomach was empty, liver,speen and kidneys were congested. Bladder contained clear urine. Rectum was empty. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to him injuries were ante mortem. Injuriesno. Injuryno. 1 was communicating with abdominal cavity. Cut end ofthe costal cartilage was loosely henging. Peritoneum was inflamed, thickened, and there were effusions between two layers ofperitoneum and abdominal organs. Stomach was empty, liver,speen and kidneys were congested. Bladder contained clear urine. Rectum was empty. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to him injuries were ante mortem. Injuriesno. 1, 3 and 4 were corresponding in position to injuries mentioned in the M. L. C. No opinion could be offered regardingthe weapons causing these injuries as they were either infectedor healed up. Death was due to shock resulting from pertonitis,following abdominal injuries. Time since death was about 18hours. ( 13 ) THEN the following specific question was put to him :-Q. Were the injuries found on the body of Ram Karansufficient to cause death in the ordinary course ofnature ?to this question Dr. Ramani replied as under :-"the injuries were either healed up or were infected andthere was no injury to abdominal organ at the timeof post-mortem examination, though injury No. 1 wascommunicating with abdominal cavity. Under the circumstances injury No. 1 which was communicatingwith abdominal cavity was responsible for causing peritonitis and shock. As such it could be termed sufficientto cause death of injured Ram Karan in ordinarycourse of nature. " ( 14 ) ACCORDING to him the possibility of abdominal injury tothe deceased referred to above by means of a dagger Ext. P-5could not be ruled out. Dr. Ramani categorically ruled out thatthe death in this case was due mainly to septecemia and not onaccount of the injuries sustained by the injured. According tohim septecemia is general sapsis of the body while peritonitis isspecific sapsis of abdominal cavity. ( 15 ) THE case of the prosecution against both the appellantsappears to have been established beyond all reasonable doubts : from the statement Ext. Public Witness 22/e dated 15/01/1982 ofram Karan deceased and of Public Witness 3 Smt. Sudama, Public Witness 4 Kalluram and Public Witness 15 Shiv Ram as also taking together the medicalevidence set out above. The occurrence bad taken place at11 P. M. in the night intervening 13 and 14/01/1982,whereafter the injured Ram Karan was removed to the hospitalwhere he remained unfit to make a statement to the police andit was only on the 15th of January 1982 that his statementext. The occurrence bad taken place at11 P. M. in the night intervening 13 and 14/01/1982,whereafter the injured Ram Karan was removed to the hospitalwhere he remained unfit to make a statement to the police andit was only on the 15th of January 1982 that his statementext. Public Witness 22/e could be recorded by the police in the hospital,and even if injured Ram Karan died on 7/02/1982,25 days after the occurrence, this statement became dying declaration of his under section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and it is immaterial that at the time of making this statement injured Ram Karan may not have been under expectationof death. It would be necessary to reproduce this provision oflaw and the same is reproduced below :- "32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by personwho is dead or cannot be found, etc. is relevant-Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts madeby a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, orwho has become incapable of giving evidence, orwhose attendance cannot be procured without anamount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable,are themselves relevant facts in the following cases :- (1) When it relates to cause of death.-When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of hisdeath, or as to any of the circumstances of thetransaction which resulted in his death, in cases inwhich the cause of that person s death comes intoquestion. Such statements are relevant whether the personwho made them was or was not, at the time whenthey were made, under expectation of death, andwhatever may be the nature of the proceeding inwhich the cause of his death comes into question. " ( 16 ) THE Indian Law on the subject to dying declarationdiffers from the English Law in that under the English Law thedeclaration should have been made under the sense of impending death, whereas under the Indian Law it is not nesessary forthe admissibility of a dying declaration that the deceased at thetime of making it should have been under expectation of death. The authorities upon this point are Rajindra Kumar vs. Thestate, AIR 1960 Punjab 310 (1); State vs. Kanchan Singh, AIR1954 Allahabad 153 (2); Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR1979 Supreme Court 1347 (3) (at pages 1349 and 1350) andsharad vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court1622 (4) (at page 1630 ). Thus, in view of the aforesaid provisionof law and the authorities, the view taken by the learned trialjudge in the impugned judgment that such a declaration, in orderto be relevant under section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Actshould have been made when the person making the same wasin actual danger of death and had given up all hope of recoveryat the time when he made the said declaration, is obviouslyerroneous. ( 17 ) IT is true that a dying declaration is not a deposition incourt and it is made neither on oath nor in the presence of theaccused. It is, therefore, not tested by cross-examination by wayof an exception to the general rule against the admissibility ofhearsay evidence on the principle of necessity for the victimbeing generally the only principal eye witness to the crime, theexclusion of his statement might defeat the ends of justice. Theweak points of a dying declaration just mentioned merely serveto put the court on its guard while testing its reliability imposingon it an obligation to closely scrutinise all the relevant attendantcircumstances, [vide Tapinder Singh vs. State of Punjab. (1973) (1) SCJ 751] (5 ). ( 18 ) THE learned trial judge besides rejecting the aforesaidstatement Ext. Public Witness 22/e of injured Ram Karan as a dying declaration, rejected the same otherwise also with the followingobservations: -. . In the case in hand, to my kind statementext. Public Witness 22/e cannot be construed as a dying declaration of deceased Ram Karan, firstly because Ramkaran was not in imminent danger of death, andsecondly, the statement was not recorded by either amagistrate or in presence of a Doctor, nor is it signedby the deceased. There is absolutely nothing on recordto show that the deceased was incapable of signingthe said statment at the relevant time. In these circumstances, no weight can be attached to this pieceof evidence. " ( 19 ) THE aforesaid considerations weighing with the learnedtrial judge are hardly of any significance because the statementext. Public Witness 22 IE was not recorded by S. 1. In these circumstances, no weight can be attached to this pieceof evidence. " ( 19 ) THE aforesaid considerations weighing with the learnedtrial judge are hardly of any significance because the statementext. Public Witness 22 IE was not recorded by S. 1. Joginder Singh as adying declaration but in the ordinary course of investigation ofthe case under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code) as that of any other witness of the crime andunder section 162 of the Code such like statement, on havingbeen reduced to writing is not to be signed by the person makingit and this provision of law specifically bars the maker of astatement from signing it. Relevant portion of section 162 readsas follows:- "162. Statements to police not to be signed : Use of statements in evidence- (1) No statement made by anyperson to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing,be signed by the person making it; nor shall any suchstatement or any record thereof, whether in a policediary or otherwise, or any part of such statement orrecord, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafterprovided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of anyoffence under investigation at the time when suchstatement was made : (2) Nothing in this section, shall be deemed to apply toany statement falling within the provisions of clause (1)of Section 32 of the indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of1872), or to affect the provisions of Section 27 ofthat Act. ( 20 ) SO, the plain reading of this provision of law makes itabundantly clear that such a statement is not be signed by themaker thereof nor such a statement can be used for any purposebut it can be used if it falls within the provision of clause (1)of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as is the position in thecase in hand in respect of statement Ext. PW22/e of Ram Karaninjured who died subsequently. PW22/e of Ram Karaninjured who died subsequently. It is also a matter of wideknowledge that when statements of witnesses are recorded bythe investigating police officer during investigation under section161 of the Code, they are recorded not in the presence of anymagistrate or any Doctor is only under peculiar circumstancesthat Such a statement subsequently gets converted into a dyingdeclaration under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Evidenceact when the maker there of who is the victim of the crime diessubsequently after the making of the statement to the policeofficer who did not recurd it as a dying declaration. For thesereasons, the above quoted observations of the learned trial Judge. from the impugned judgment appear to be of no consequence. ( 21 ) RELIABILITY of the dying declaration Ext. Public Witness 22/eof Ram Karan deceased stands established beyond all reasonabledoubt from the F. I. R. recorded at 4. 15 P. M. on 14/01/1982 recorded on the statement of Smt. Sudama wife of thedeceased recorded on 14/01/1982 soon after the occurrence which had taken place at II P. M. in the night intervening13th and 14/01/1982, as also from the testimony of Smt. Sudama Public Witness 3, Kallu Ram Public Witness 4 and Shiv Ram Public Witness i5 whosenames also appear in the dying declaration Ext. PW22 (E as alsoin the initial statement, of Smt. Sudama on the basis of whichthe F. I. R. was compiled. The dying declaration and the initialstatement Ext. Public Witness 31a of Smt. Sudama are almost identical inregard to contents. There was no reason for the deceased, hiswife Smt. Sudama and the witnesses Kallu Ram Public Witness 4 and Shivram Public Witness I5 to have falsely implicates the appellants as assailants in such a serious crime of murder, and consequently thedying declaration Ext. Public Witness 22/e of Ram Karan deceased appearsto be a truthful version of the circumstances of the transactionwhich resulted in his death (including the names of the assailants ). ( 22 ) WE shall now examine the testimony of the eye witnessesexamined in court. The testimony of Smt. Sudama Public Witness 3 is almostidentical with her initial statement Ext. Public Witness 3/a dated 14th January, 1982 on the basis of which the F. I. R. was recorded andwhich initial statement has already been referred to above forwhich reason her testimony in court need not be reiterated. The testimony of Smt. Sudama Public Witness 3 is almostidentical with her initial statement Ext. Public Witness 3/a dated 14th January, 1982 on the basis of which the F. I. R. was recorded andwhich initial statement has already been referred to above forwhich reason her testimony in court need not be reiterated. However, a few lines from her cross-examination need to bere erred to wherein she stated that she had gone to the courtyard immediately on hearing noise of her husband and that herhusband was already bleeding from his wounds and even hisintestines had come out when she reached the court-yard. Shefurther stated that the accused started running on seeing herand that she had seen the faces of both the accused persons (present in the trial court) in electric light before they had fledfrom the spot and that the electric bulb was lighting near thecourt-yard as it was generally left lighting during the night andthat the accused had fled from the door of the court-yard afterthe occurrence. From this cross-examination it is made out thatwhen she reached the court-yard of her house which is the placeof occurrence, the injuries had already been caused to the deceased Ram Karan who was seen already bleeding from his woundsby her. So. even though she was an eye witness to the actualgiving of injuries by the appellants on the person of the deceased,she had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence on hearingthe noise of her husband and she saw fully the faces of both theassailants who started running on seeing her. Further, eventhough her testimony-in-chief as Public Witness 3 to the effect that in herpresence and sight appellant Tellu stabbed her husband Ramkaran in his abdomen while appellant Uttam stabbed him on hisleft leg, is not correct on account of her aforesaid statement inher cross-examination, the identity of the assailants stands estab-lished from her testimony-in-chief and cross-examination whenshe deposed in her examination-in-chief regarding the alarmraised by the deceased saying "bachao bachao Tellu Uttam Hamemar Rahe Hain" on hearing which she went to the court-yardand saw both the appellants having a knife each in their handsand also because, as stated above in her cross-examination, theappellants started running on seeing her from the court-yard afterthe occurrence. The aforesaid noise indicating the appellantstellu and Uttam as beating Ram Karan deceased also findsmention in the initial statement Ext. Public Witness 3/a dated 14/01/1982 of Smt. Sudama. The aforesaid noise indicating the appellantstellu and Uttam as beating Ram Karan deceased also findsmention in the initial statement Ext. Public Witness 3/a dated 14/01/1982 of Smt. Sudama. ( 23 ) KALLU Ram Public Witness 4 and Shiv Ram Public Witness 15 are close neighbours of the deceased and both of them have deposed that onhearing the cries of Smt. Sudama they came out of their housesand they saw both the appellants coming out of the rear side ofram Karan deceased and that they had one knife each in theirhands at that time whereupon they went inside the quarter ofram Karan deceased whom they found lying injured in his courtyard and they removed him to the hospital. Shiv Ram Public Witness 15specifically stated that when he ran inside the quarter of thedeceased, the deceased was bleeding from his abdomen and leftleg. He had also specifically stated that the cries of Smt. Sudamaon hearing which he and Kallu ran to the spot were to theeffect that the appellants Uttam and Tellu were beating herhusband Ram Karan. ( 24 ) THERE could be no difficulty for injured Ram Karan andsmt. Sudama in identifying the appellants as the assailantsbecause Tellu appellant had been living With them for quite sometime in their quarter and hailed from the same village fromwhich Ram Karan hailed and while the other assailant Uttamwas a cousin of Tellu and was a resident of village Baraharawhich was near to the village of Ram Karan. ( 25 ) MOREOVER, Kallu Rain Public Witness 4 stated that he knew boththe appellants as appellant Tellu used to live for some time withram Karan deceased while the other appellant Uttam also usedto visit him. Shiv Ram Public Witness 15 also stated that appellant Telluhad stayed with Ram Karan deceased for some time prior tothe occurrence while appellant Uttam used to visit Ram Karanat times. He further stated in his cross-examination that Telluappellant had stayed at the house of Ram Karan deceased for3/3 months, about 4-5 months prior to the occurrence, and hemay have seen Uttam visiting Tellu 5-6 times during that tenure. Even though he had no talk with them at any time he howeverknew their names as told to him by Ram Karan deceased. Even though he had no talk with them at any time he howeverknew their names as told to him by Ram Karan deceased. Healso stated in his cross-examination that his quarter is situatedthree quarters away from the quarter of Ram Karan deceasedand one of those three quarters is occupied by Kallu Public Witness 4. Boththese witnesses live in the Railway Quarters in the neighbourhood of the quarter where the deceased along with his wife and family members was living. Smt. Sudama Public Witness 3 stated in hercross-examination that houses of these two witnesses Shiv Ramand Kallu Ram are two or four houses away from her house. She also stated that appellant Uttam used to visit them (she and her husband) in Delhi also besides having met them when theystayed in the village. She also talked of the stay of appellanttellu having accompanied them from the village to Delhi andalso having stayed at their house for about ten days. There is,thus, no doubt that Ram Karan deceased and his wifesmt. Sudama intimately knew both the appellants and for themthere could be no manner of doubt in identifying both of themat the time of occurrence and immediately thereafter when theyfled away with one knife each in their hands from the rear portion of their quarter where the occurrence took place. Shiv Ram and Kallu could also be said to identify both the appellants while coming out from the rear side of the house of Ram Karan deceased with one knife each in their hands and then fleeingaway. When these two witnesses saw the appellants coming outof the rear portion of the quarter of the deceased, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that theycould not see the faces of the appellants as according to Kalluram Public Witness 4, in his cross-examination, both the appellants werefleeing in the same direction in which they were going to thehouse of Ram Karan, is without merit. Similarly, the furtherstatement of Kallu Ram in his cross-examination that the backof the appellants was towards him when the appellants wererunning after coming out of the house of Ram Karan, can be ofno avail to the appellants. Similarly, the furtherstatement of Kallu Ram in his cross-examination that the backof the appellants was towards him when the appellants wererunning after coming out of the house of Ram Karan, can be ofno avail to the appellants. The same is the position with regard to Shiv Ram Public Witness 15, and he made the position further clearunmistakably in reply to the court question wherein he statedthat he had also seen the appellants faces at the time whenthey came out of the back portion of the quarter of Ram Karan and saw their back when they were fleeing towards the oppositedirection. He further clarified in his cross-examination that in fact he had seen both the appellants present in the back courtyard of the quarter of Ram Karan and on seeing him they ranout of the quarter. In the dying declaration Ext. Public Witness 22/e dated 15/01/1982 of the deceased Ram Karan and the initialstatement Ext. Public Witness 3/a dated 14/01/1982 of Smt. Sudamathere is mention of appellant Tellu being their co-villager andhaving been known to them and having had lodging and boarding with them for about two months in their aforesaid railwayquarter. Though in these two statements there is no mention ofthe visits of the other appellant Uttam to their railway quarter,there is sufficient evidence on the records of the case to implicate him also in this case as an assailant along with appellanttellu, with a common intention to murder Ram Karan deceased. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also contendedthat Shiv Ram Public Witness 15 had wrongly deposed that they had alsoinformed Station Master, Nangloi, that the appellants Tellu anduttam had stabbed Ram Karan when persons of the localityincluding him went to the said Station Master after the occurrence, as Gopal Krishan Public Witness 11 Assistant Station Master,railway Station Nangloi stated in his cross-examination that noneof the Gang Men or wife of Ram Karan deceased disclosed thename of assailant of Ram Karan. This discrepancy does notappear to be of any appreciable significance. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also contendedthat there was hardly any motive with the appellants to havecaused the murder of the deceased Ram Karan. The motive findsmention in the dying declaration Ext. Public Witness 22/e dated 15/01/1982 of Ram Karan deceased and also in the initial statement Ext. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also contendedthat there was hardly any motive with the appellants to havecaused the murder of the deceased Ram Karan. The motive findsmention in the dying declaration Ext. Public Witness 22/e dated 15/01/1982 of Ram Karan deceased and also in the initial statement Ext. PW3/a dated 14-1-1982 of Smt. Sudama, as also inthe testimony of hers as Public Witness 3 and the motive revealed from thesame has been set out in the second para of this judgment andthe same need not be repeated. That is a motive only againstappellant Tellu. The other appellant namelyUttam is only acousin of Tellu. Even though the motive against appellant Tellunot very strong in the case of murder and Uttam is only hiscousin, these factors do not appear to undermine the case ofthe prosecution which appears to have been established beyondall reasonable doubts from the testimony of the ocular witnessesof the occurrence who, as already pointed out above, cannot bedisbelieved especially when the initial statement Ext. Public Witness 3/a ofsmt. Surama wife of the deceased was made by her to the policewith hardly any loss of time, and the statement of Ram Karandeceased was also recorded by the police as soon as he wascertified by the doctors to be fit to make a statement in the hospital, and they had hardly any leisure at their disposal to implicate falsely the innocent persons in this crime of a very seriousnature, whereas the two independent neighbours of the deceasedkallu and Shiv Ram Public Witness s had hardly any reason to implicatethe appellants falsely in this case. In the face of such unimpeachable evidence the question of motive becomes more or lessacademic. The contention that the appellants motive was toofilmsy is no reply to the unshaken testimony of credible andnatural eye witnesses who had no motive whatsoever to implicatethe appellants falsely. It has been held in Molu and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 S. C. 2499 (6) as follows :-"it is well settled that where the direct evidence regardingthe assault is worthy of credence and can be believed,the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved;sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded is mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved;sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded is mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is credit-worthyand is believed by the Court which has placed implicitreliance on them the question whether there is anymotive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. " ( 28 ) EVEN if the genesis of the motive of the appellants maynot be proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to theoccurrence could not be discarded only on that account, ifotherwise it was reliable. The mere fact that one of the appellantswas not connected with the dispute is not sufficient to hold thathe could not have formed a common intention with the otherwhen he went with the other armed (vide Kartar Singh vs. Stateof Punjab, AIR 1961 S. C. 1787) (7 ). The court may not consider the question of motive when the court is satisfied that theaccused is the assailant (Vide Narain Nathu Naik vs. The Stateof Maharashtra, AIR 1971 S. C. 1656) (8 ). Thus, appellant Uttambeing a cousin of Tellu appellant could not be said to have nocommon intention with Tellu appellant when he went armedalong with Tellu appellant to the house of the deceased Ramkaran and both the appellants hid themselves in the night inthe rear portion of the house, even though Uttam had noapparent motive for the crime. Thus, the contention of thelearned counsel for the appellants on the question of motivecannot be accepted. ( 29 ) IN the medical evidence, as already pointed out above,the abdominal injury caused by appellant Tellu on the abdomenof Ram Karan deceased has been opined to be sufficient in itselfto cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course ofnature by Dr. S. K. Gupta Public Witness 1, Dr. (Mrs.) S. Chadha Public Witness 2 (vide her certificate Ext. Public Witness 2 (A) as also by Dr. L. T. Ramani,medical Officer, Police Hospital, Delhi, who conducted the postmortem examination on the person of the deceased. It may beagain pointed out that Dr. Ramani categorically ruled out thatdeath in this case was mainly due to seprecmia and not oneaccount of the injuries sustained by the injured. Although in thedeath summary Ext. Public Witness 1/a in respect of the deceased preparedby Dr. It may beagain pointed out that Dr. Ramani categorically ruled out thatdeath in this case was mainly due to seprecmia and not oneaccount of the injuries sustained by the injured. Although in thedeath summary Ext. Public Witness 1/a in respect of the deceased preparedby Dr. S. K. Gupta Public Witness 1 cause of death of Ram Karan deceasedis recorded as "cardio respiratory failure", he was of the categorical opinion that the abdominal injury was sufficient in itselfto cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course ofnature, though this opinion was not incorporated in his aforesaid report Ext. Public Witness 1/a. The abdominal stab injury has beenmentioned as the primary cause of death in the certificate Ext. PW2/a prepared by Dr. (Mrs.) S. Chadha Public Witness 2 whereas "cardiorespiratory failure" has been described only as the secondary (contributory) cause of death. Both Dr. S. K. Gupta anddr. (Mrs) S. Chadha were working as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers in Central Hospital, Northern Railway, New Delhi,where the deceased Ram Karan was got admitted by his wifeand where he ultimately died. Thus, there is left no manner ofdoubt that the abdominal injury caused by appellant Tellu onthe abdomen of the deceased was sufficient in itself to cause thedeath of the deceased Ram Karan in the ordinary course ofnature, and, as already pointed out above, the other appellantuttam who was also carrying a knife with him and accompaniedappellant Tellu and had hid himself along with Tellu in the rearportion of the house of the deceased at night and caused injuryon the left leg of the deceased, was having common intentionwith appellant Tellu to cause the murder of the deceased. ( 30 ) NO other point was urged by the learned counsel forthe appellants at the Bar and consequently in view of what hasbeen stated above, the conviction under sections 302/34 Indianpenal Code and order of sentence against both the appellantsunder appeal are maintained