JUDGMENT 1. - Rajesh Kumar Sharma alias Rajendra Gaur has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. Jaipur, by his judgment dated 9th Nov., 90, for offence under section 302, IPC, and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and with a fine of Rs. 500/-. He has come in appeal before this Court. 2. On 12th Aug., 86, Ramesh, son of Kesarlal PW 1 came to PS Sodala, at about 9 15pm.. along with his injured elder-brother Roshan and another brother Jagdish. The SHO, PS Sodala, recorded a Parcha-Bayan (Ex. P. 1) of Ramesh PW 1. It was mentioned by Ramesh that he lived in the locality known as Ashokpura, in Jaipur. At about 8.30 or 9 p.m., while he was at his house, his elder-brother Roshan (deceased) after taking his meals had gone out of the house, to ease himself. Soon thereafter, a cry, 'Ma-Ma' was heard. Ramesh, along with his elder-brother Jagdish and younger-brother Kailash, at once came out of the house rushing towards the road in front of the house, and went near Roshan. Roshan told them that Rajendra Gaur had inflicted injuries on him, with a knife, and that he might be caught hold of. However, Rajendra Gaur, seeing the three brothers, at once ran away. Ramesh and his elder-brother Jagdish chased Rajendra Gaur upto the house of the latter, but, he escaped somewhere in the darkness of night. It was mentioned that the house of Rajendra Gaur was between the houses of Ramesh and his brothers Some money of Kailash, another brother of Ramesh, in respect of Mozdoori. was outstanding against Rajendra Gaur, which he had not paid. About 3-4 months prior to the incident, Roshan had made a demand of the said amount from Rajendra Gaur, whereupon, the latter had given beating to Roshan. Due to this enmity, it was mentioned that Rajendra had inflicted injuries on the body of Roshan. Ramesh and his two brothers, after the incident, looked after Roshan and found that he had received knife-injuries on the Tight side of his abdomen, as a result of which, blood was coming out and the intestines had also come out. A request was made to the SHO, to arrange for medical-treatment for Roshan. Ramesh and his two brothers, after the incident, looked after Roshan and found that he had received knife-injuries on the Tight side of his abdomen, as a result of which, blood was coming out and the intestines had also come out. A request was made to the SHO, to arrange for medical-treatment for Roshan. It was also mentioned that on hearing the noise of the incident, neighbours Omi, Raju, Sitaram and others had also assembled at the place of the incident. 3. On the basis of the above report, a Crime Case No. 160/86, for offence under section 307, IPC, was registered by PS Sodala. Later on, the SHO was informed that Roshan had expired in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, at 4 a.m on 13th Aug , 86. The crime registered was, therefore, altered to that under section 302, IPC. 4. Harish Chandra Sharma PW 12 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, and Incharge, PS Sodala, and he investigated the case. He had got the injured, Roshan, admitted to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. After the death of Roshan, he prepared inquest-report (Ex. P 3) of the deadbody of Roshan. The 'Banyan' (vest), which the deceased was wearing, was seized. Autopsy of deceased Roshan was conducted by Dr. B M. Gupta, Medical Jurist of the Hospital, who gave his report (Ex. P 8) The site was also inspected, and site-plan (Ex. P 2) was prepared When Roshan was admitted to hospital, the injuries on the body had been examined by Dr P.C. Vyas, and he gave his injury-report (Ex. P 7). Rajendra Gaur alias Rajesh Sharma was arrested by the Sub-Inspector, on 16th Aug , 86, under arrest-memo (Ex. P 10). According to the prosecution, while the accused was in custody, he gave information that a knife bad been concealed near the roots of a 'Akra' plant under the NBC-Ground, and that he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of this information, the Sub-Inspector recovered a knife at the instance of the accused. 5. After necessary investigation, the Officer-Incharge of PS Sodale, filed a charge-sheet against the appellant, in the court of ACJM No 2, Jaipur. The ACJM took cognizance of the offence, and committed the appellant for trial, to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, after holding trial for offence under section 302, IPC, convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. The ACJM took cognizance of the offence, and committed the appellant for trial, to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, after holding trial for offence under section 302, IPC, convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. The Sessions Judge held that there was a dispute between Kailash PW 3 and the appellant, regarding some money pertaining to wages, outstanding against the latter. He believed the testimony of the brothers of the deceased that Ramesh PW 1, Jagdish PW 2 and Kailash PW 3 had chased the accused while the latter was running away after committing the crime. The Sessions Judge also believed the prosecution case that Roshan, afier sustaining the injuries, had told Ramesh PW 1, Jagdish PW 2, Kailash PW 3, Omprakash PW 9, Sitaram PW 10 and Rajendrakumar PW 1 that it was the appellant who had inflicted injuries on him, with a knife. Thus, the oral dying-declaration made by Roshan (deceased) was also accepted by the Sessions Judge. The recovery of the knife in pursuance of the information and at the instance of the appellant, from the place mentioned in the information, was accepted. The 'Banyan' of the deceased, which was seized by the police and the knife had been sent for chemical & serological examination, and on both of them, human blood of "O" Group was found On the basis of these findings, the Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the appellant for offence under section 302, IPC. 7. Mr. S R. Bajwa, counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in relying upon the evidence of Ramesh, Jagdish, Sitaram and others, who had, in fact, no occasion to grasp the identity of the assailants in the course of his running away. He has also contended that the alleged oral dying declaration is also very doubtful. It was also pointed out that in the dying-declaration, Roshan is said to have named one Rajendra Gaur as his assailant, but, the name of the appellant is Rajesh Kumar Sharma. He has also contended that the alleged oral dying declaration is also very doubtful. It was also pointed out that in the dying-declaration, Roshan is said to have named one Rajendra Gaur as his assailant, but, the name of the appellant is Rajesh Kumar Sharma. According to the learned counsel, there was no reliable evidence to hold that the appellant was also known as Rajendra Gaur Reliance has been placed by him upon the Secondary School Certificate, Higher Secondary Examination Certificate; and on the ration-card (Exs D 7, D 8 & D 9), wherein, the name of the appellant is mentioned as Rajesh Kumar Sharma and not Rajendra Gaur On this basis it was urged that the appellant is known only by the name, 'Rajesh Kumar Sharma" and not by "Rajendra Gaur". It was also argued that from the injuries sustained by the deceased, it could not be said that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, and therefore, the appellant could not have been held guilty of offence under section 302, IPC Lastly, it was contended that the recovery-witnesses to the knife (Article-2) have become hostile, and it has not been established that the knife (Article 2) was the weapon of offence. 8. We have given our earnest consideration to the various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Investigating Officer prepared Ex. P/2 as the site plan of the place of the incident. In Ex. P/2, it has been shown that the house of the deceased and his brothers Ramesh, Jagdish and Kailash, stands on Plot No 28 in Ashokpura, at Street No. 4, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. The place where the incident had taken place, has been shown by mark 'X', and it is just on the southeastern corner of the house of the deceased. The house of the appellant has been shown on Plot No 164, towards the north-east of the house of the deceased, on its back side. In his examination under section 313, Cr. PC , the appellant a caste, but this expression always denotes 'a Brahmin'. Probably, Brahmins originated from Gaur Pradesh of old days. So, the correct position is that in his locality, the appellant is known, called and addressed as Rajendra Gaur, although, his real name is Rajesh Kumar Sharma. In his examination under section 313, Cr. PC , the appellant a caste, but this expression always denotes 'a Brahmin'. Probably, Brahmins originated from Gaur Pradesh of old days. So, the correct position is that in his locality, the appellant is known, called and addressed as Rajendra Gaur, although, his real name is Rajesh Kumar Sharma. We are not ready to believe that there has been any mistaken identity relating to the appellant. 9. It was contended that the witnesses examined by the prosecution, had not seen the incident themselves, and they had arrived at the scene of occurrence only after the incident was over, and therefore, they had no occasion to identify the appellant, while he is said to be running away from the place of incident. The incident took place just outside the house of the deceased and his three brothers. Ramesh, Jagdish & Kailash. The houses of Omprakash PW 9 & Sitaram PW 10 are situated just in front of the house of the deceased. Naturally, when Roshan (deceased) was stabbed with a knife, he must have raised a cry, "Ma-Ma", & his three brothers and other neighbours were bound to come out of their houses to see as to what had happened. The assailant, after stabbing Roshan, had run away, There is a small lane between the house of the deceased and of Maganji & Ram Sahai, and there is also Street No. 4 infront of the house of the deceased and new Sanganer and Ajmer Roads towards the east. There were several ways open to the assailant to make his escape, after stabbing Roshan. Assuming that the brothers of the deceased and the other three witnesses had reached the place of incident, at a point of time when the appellant had already made his escape, and could not, therefore, be chased after and caught hold of. there does not appear to us any reason to doubt that Roshan had told his brothers and other neighbours, who had arrived at the spot, that it was the appellant who bad stabbed him. That was quite natural for the three brothers and neighbours to have asked and for the victim to have replied to it. It was the dying declaration of the deceased, and the declaration only mentioned that it was the appellant, who was called as Rajendra Gaur as well, had stabbed. That was quite natural for the three brothers and neighbours to have asked and for the victim to have replied to it. It was the dying declaration of the deceased, and the declaration only mentioned that it was the appellant, who was called as Rajendra Gaur as well, had stabbed. Conviction can be based solely on the basis of dying-declaration, if the evidence in that regard is truthful & credible. Arriving at the spot, soon after the incident was quite natural for the three brothers of the deceased and the neighbours, and the naming of the assailant by the victim was also quite natural, immediately after he was stabbed. There was no occasion for the victim to ponder over and implicate a wrong person. We accept the dying declaration made by deceased Roshan. 10. It may next be mentioned that Harish Chandra Sharma PW 14 had seized ihe blood stained 'Banyan' of the deceased under the seizure-memo (Ex P/4). On the information given by the appellant (Ex. P/1), the Sub Inspector recovered the knife (Article 2) from the place pointed out by the appellant. The recovery witnesses, Kailash Chandra PW 4 and Suraj Bhan Singh PW 5 might have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution, but, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the Investigating Officer simply on the ground that he was a police officer. Govindram PW 8 was the constable at P.S. Sodala, and he had taken the throe jars from the 'Malkhana' to Forensic Science Laboratory handed over the articles at the Laboratory in a sealed condition; and obtained a receipt (Ex. P/9) The serologist gave his report (Ex. P/13), and he found that both the 'Banyan' of the deceased and the knife recovered on the information and at the instance of the appellant, were stained with human blood of the same group i.e.,'O' Group blood. That also connects the appellant with the crime, and establishes that the knife (Article 2) was the weapon of offence, used by the appellant in stabbing Roshan Thus, the dying-declaration coupled with this corroborative evidence, was ample enough to bold the appellant guilty. 11. The only question then remains as to what offence was committed by the appellant Dr. That also connects the appellant with the crime, and establishes that the knife (Article 2) was the weapon of offence, used by the appellant in stabbing Roshan Thus, the dying-declaration coupled with this corroborative evidence, was ample enough to bold the appellant guilty. 11. The only question then remains as to what offence was committed by the appellant Dr. P C Vyas examined injured Roshan, in Emergency of the hospital, on 12th Aug , 86' at 10 p m. He found two injuries on the body of Roshan The first injury was a punctured wound 2 cms. in diameter, abdominal cavity deep just 1 cms right to the umbilicus. Part of colon & omentum protrudry was out through the wound. The margins of wound were clean-cut & regular. The second injury was a linear incisions 5 cms. in length, radish in colour, on left side front chest lower ⅓rd portion. Both these injuries were by a sharp-edged weapon with a pointed object. The injuries were fresh, and the patient was conscious, when the injuries were examined. It appears that opinion about injury No. 1 was kept reserved until the receiving of the operation note. The patient died at the hospital, at 4 a.m. on 13th Aug., 86. Dr. B M. Gupta PW 7 conducted the post mortem examination, at 10.30 a.m. He found 8 cms. long stitched wound (5 stitches) placed on right umbilical region abdomen, just lateral & connecting stitched wound No. 5. Oozing out of blood was present On opening the stitches, margins of wound were found to be clean cut, well defined & regular. The wound was abdominal cavity deep. Four gurge packs were coming out through this wound. There was also linear mission 2% cms. in length on front of left side chest lower ⅓rd part. The stomach was full of blood The cause of death was shock and hemorrhages as a result of injuries mentioned in the report. Dr B.M Gupta opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature, and that injury No 6 and its internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature It is also clear that the appellant was not content with inflicting only one injury with knife, but, he had repeated the injury. Dr B.M Gupta opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature, and that injury No 6 and its internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature It is also clear that the appellant was not content with inflicting only one injury with knife, but, he had repeated the injury. Injuries were caused on the vital part of the body, and they were sufficient in the ordinary J course of nature to cause death. 12. The case thus falls within clause "thirdly" of S. 300, IP Z. The appellant was rightly held guilty of offence under section 302, IPC, and was rightly punished with imprisonment for life and with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. 13. We do not find any force in this appeal and hereby dismiss the same.Appeal dismissed. *******