JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellants herein have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, have been further ordered to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. They have been further convicted under Section 452, IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for a period of one month. In addition, they have also been convicted under Section 323, [PC and sentenced for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment, have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five days. The conviction and sentences have been passed against the appellant', by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk after they were found guilty under the aforesaid sections on their trial in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1993. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on the `parcha-bayan' Ex.P. 15, which was given out on 21.11.1991 by the deceased Deokaran himself as on that, he was only injured, but later succumbed to his injuries on 23.11.1991. The parcha-bayan of Deokaran was recorded in the hospital, Todaraisingh by the ASI, Naval Kishore wherein it was stated that on 21.11.1991, at about 3 p.m. the injured Dcokaran (since deceased) was irrigating his Nalapawal field along with Banna Pujari. While he was doing so, the accused- appellants herein Gopal and Kana reached there and told Deokaran to stop watering the field and thereafter also stopped others from watering. Deokaran asked the accused persons not to stop from irrigating. But on this, it is alleged, both the accustom persons started beating. Dcokaran with fists and kicks, as a result of which he fell down. The accused persons then took a `kulhadi' due to which Deokaran got terribly scared and ran away to his house and sat there. His wife Ajon was already the from before. Deokaran was further chased by Kana and Gopal who came to is house using abusive words and immediately on reaching there Kana and Gopal started beating Deokaran with lathi which hit him at three or four places on his head and again they assaulted him on his left hand and also on his legs. Deokaran was further chased by Kana and Gopal who came to is house using abusive words and immediately on reaching there Kana and Gopal started beating Deokaran with lathi which hit him at three or four places on his head and again they assaulted him on his left hand and also on his legs. His wife Ajon in order to save him fell on her husband Deokaran, but still the accused persons did not stop and hit his wife too. His wife Ajon also got hurt on her right leg. Banna and Bhagirath then reached there who saved him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid Parcha bayan, the offence under sections 397. 452, 342, 323 read with Section 34, IPC was initially registered. Thereafter the injury report of Deokaran and his wife Ajon was prepared by the Doctor who examined them, but as the condition of Deokaran was deteriorating, the Medical Officer referred him for further treatment to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he died on 23.11.1991. Consequently, the case against the accused was converted under Section 302, IPC. 4. At the time of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and also sealed blood stained dhoti and on the information of Gopal and Kana, the lathi was also seized from Gopal and Kana. The blood-stained earth and the clothes were sent to Jaipur for chemical examination. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants under the sections and after the usual formalities of commitment, the trial of the accused persons commenced. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses out of which Ajon PW 1, Bannalal PW 2 and PW 4 Bhagirath have been examined as eye-witness. Certain documents were also exhibited in support of which witnesses have been summoned on the point of seizure in front of them. The accused were also examined under Section 313, Cr.PC and in defence they produced Ex.D. 2 injury report of Kana along with some documents. The Doctor who examined Deokaran found four injuries on his person of which three were on his head. 6. The learned Addl. The accused were also examined under Section 313, Cr.PC and in defence they produced Ex.D. 2 injury report of Kana along with some documents. The Doctor who examined Deokaran found four injuries on his person of which three were on his head. 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge relying on the parcha bayan of the deceased Deokaran which was treated as dying declaration as also on the basis of the evidence of the eye-witness namely Ajon, wife of the deceased and other eye-witnesses and the evidence of the Doctor was pleased to uphold the charge against the accused appellants under Section 302 along with Sees. 452 and 323, IPC and convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove against which they preferred this appeal. 7. The judgment and order of the trial Court has essentially been challenged on the ground that Ex.P. 18, Parcha-bayan which had been treated as the dying declaration of the deceased ought not to have been believed as an authentic document as it was recorded by PW 9 Naval Kishorc on 21.11.1991 although the deceased was not in a conscious and fit state of mind. According to the defence case, the deceased even according to the prosecution case had become unconscious on the spot itself and he was also carried to the hospital in an unconscious state, after which he never regained consciousness. It has, therefore, been submitted that the dying declaration on which the conviction is based is extremely doubtful and the said document ought not to have been relied upon as it was a fictitious document. The said dying declaration has further been assailed on the ground that it was recorded by a police officer without following the procedure laid down under the police rules and no reliance should have been placed on a document which was not in compliance with the relevant rules. 8. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has further contended that the dying declaration which is said to have been recorded by Dr. J.P. Gupta PW 7 has not stated in detail as to what treatment was administered to Deokaran who was injured at that time and never regained his consciousness. 8. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has further contended that the dying declaration which is said to have been recorded by Dr. J.P. Gupta PW 7 has not stated in detail as to what treatment was administered to Deokaran who was injured at that time and never regained his consciousness. The foundation of the prosecution case which is a dying declaration has still further been attacked by contending that although PW 9 Naval Kishore has stated before the Court that he obtained a certificate from the Doctor regarding the condition of the injured Deokaran which is Ex.P. 18, should not have been relied upon by the court below as the said document is in English which was not understood by 1.0. Naval Kishore. 9. The prosecution case has further been challenged on the ground that the accused-appellant Kana also received lacerated wound on his hand, which cannot be said to be self inflicted injury and since the prosecution has failed to explain it, the benefit of it should be given to the defence as the injury inflicted on the deceased was as a result of exercise of the right of private defence by the accused persons. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, however, does not stand the test of scrutiny when examined in the light of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and in this context the evidence of PW 7 Dr..lagdish Prasaet Gupta is most important. On a perusal of the same, it transpires that on 21.1.1991, he had examined the deceased Deokaran and he found three lacerated wound-on his head and one on the left shoulder. He also specifically stated that, although, the blood pressure of the deceased was falling, but he was perfectly conscious and was in a state to give his statement. He has further stated that the statement of Deokaran was recorded in his presence and he had certified in writing that he could give his statement. The condition of Deokaran however, was deteriorating due to which he was referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur where ultimately he died. Dr. He has further stated that the statement of Deokaran was recorded in his presence and he had certified in writing that he could give his statement. The condition of Deokaran however, was deteriorating due to which he was referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur where ultimately he died. Dr. Gupta PW 7 has also deposed that he had treated the wife of deceased Ajon and the age of injuries of both the deceased and the injured witness Ajon was within 6 to 12 hours and the further important fact which he has stated is that he had also examined accused-appellant Kana (injury report Ex.D. 2). where he found one injury on his head and elbow and also abrasions on the knee of the accused Kana, which appears to have been inflicted by some ordinary blunt weapon. 11. PW 8, Bajarang Lai, Police Station Incharge has also supported the prosecution case and has admitted his signature on the parcha-bayan. PW 9 Naval Kishore Sharma on oath has also deposed that on 21.11.1991 when he was posted at Police Station, Todaraisingh as ASI, then the statement of deceased Deokaran was recorded in presence of Dr. J.P. Gupta, on which the Doctor put his signature and the thumb impression of the deceased had also been taken after it was certified by the Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state to get his statement recorded. The statement, however, could not be recorded in presence of a Magistrate as he was living at distance of 35 Kms. 12. We have also gone through the evidence of the most important eye-witness Smt. Ajon who was injured and supported the prosecution version and after going through the same, we find no infirmity whatsoever in her evidence so as to doubt the prosecution case. Hence, her testimony, in our opinion, cannot be doubted merely because she is the wife of the deceased as her presence at the place of occurrence is a most natural circumstance. Hence, her testimony, in our opinion, cannot be doubted merely because she is the wife of the deceased as her presence at the place of occurrence is a most natural circumstance. We have also considered the plea of the defence regarding exercise of the right of private defence, but the same is wholly unsustainable for the reason that the deceased Dcokaran was first of all beaten by fists and kicks by the accused persons in order to prevent him from watering his field, after which a kulhadi was taken out by the accused and the deceased having panicked fled to his house, who was on further chased by the accused persons and was then severely beaten by them in his house where not only Dcokaran lost his life but his wile also was injured. The fact that the wife of the deceased Ajon was also hit is a clear proof of the prosecution story about the manner in which the occurrence took place, which means that it took place in the house of the deceased where his wife naturally was present from before. The blood stained earth and the site plan of the place of occurrence also proves the prosecution case that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution in the house of the deceased and if that is so, there can be no question of the exercise of right of private defence by the accused persons. The fact that the accused was chased from the field to his house could not have given any occasion for the accused to take up the plea of exercise of right of private defence. Thus, it is not open for the defence to raise such plea which cannot be sustained even remotely by the testimony of the witnesses. The injure sustained by accused Kana was simple in nature and it is not hard to comprehend that some scuffle may have taken place between the accused and the deceased wherein he sustained the injury which was simple in nature. However, the witness having not been cross examined on this point, the benefit of it cannot be given to the accused. 13. However, the witness having not been cross examined on this point, the benefit of it cannot be given to the accused. 13. Thus, on a scrutiny of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as also the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC and on consideration of the defence case in the light of the medical evidence, the post-mortem report and the injury report, we see no infirmity in the prosecution case and, in our opinion, the same has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. Consequently, this appeal fails. The appellants shall he taken into custody to serve out their sentences, if they are on bail.Appeal Dismissed. *******