JUDGMENT The three appellants herein, who are father and two sons, were accused of having caused the death of their co-villager Shangara Singh deceased, respectively by means of a Gandasa, Takua and Kirpan. There were as many as 17 injuries on the deceased. Those were in the nature of stab wounds, incised wounds and contused wounds suggesting that three kinds of weapons had been used. The prosecution alleges that there was previous enmity between the parties. Some of the people on the accused side had sometimes back been accused of a crime in which the deceased had appeared as an eye-witness. But despite that the accused in that case had been acquitted. Thus, the present accused bore ill-will against the deceased for having come forward to depose against them. The prosecution case further is that in order to avenge themselves, the deceased was caught hold of while passing on the fateful day through the village street and inflicted injuries. Even a day earlier to that, there had been some verbal altercation between the parties with regard to the digging of earth from one of the plots in possession of the deceased. 2. The prosecution, to prove its case, relied on two dying declarations made by the deceased as also on the evidence of two eyewitnesses- PWs Hand 15. One dying declaration had been made to Doctor G. S. Dhindsa, PW-2, at the hospital where the deceased in an injured condition had immediately been moved to. The other one was to the Police on its being requisitioned and on their arrival at the hospital. The dying declaration to the doctor was in the form of a questionnaire which would be worth reproduction : "Q. Who caused you injuries? Ans. Sarwan and his sons. Q. Who is Sarwan and his sons? Ans. Sarwan Jat son of Deva Singh. His sons are Kashmira and two younger ones. They are residents of village Bora. His sons are Krishna and Joga and the name of the third son is not known to him. He will tell him name also if he survives. Q. Why did they give you injuries ? Ans. Old enmity of 5/6 years standing. Q. Where were you given injuries and with what weapon? Ans. He was lifted from the front of his house and given Gandasi blows. Sarwan was armed with Gandasi. He will tell him name also if he survives. Q. Why did they give you injuries ? Ans. Old enmity of 5/6 years standing. Q. Where were you given injuries and with what weapon? Ans. He was lifted from the front of his house and given Gandasi blows. Sarwan was armed with Gandasi. Joga was armed with Kirpan and Kashmira was armed with Takua. 3. The doctor was driven to record the dying declaration after waiting for the Police for some time, sensing the condition of the deceased getting worsened. The Police recorded the statement nearly an hour thereafter. That is a narration which supplies some more details. All the same, the substratum of the case remained the same inasmuch the appellants were specifically named as the assailants, armed with the respective weapons. The details supplied in the dying declaration made to the Police pertain mainly to the motive and the details of the occurrence. 4. The trial Court believed the prosecution case as set up in the dying declaration and for the ocular account given by PWs 14 and 15. However, on appeal, the High Court acquitted the fourth accused - Balbir Singh - because no role stood assigned to him during the occurrence and besides he was a young lad of 13 years of age. The High Court also considered the presence of PWs 14 and 15, the alleged eyewitnesses, at the scene to be doubtful. It maintained the conviction of the appellants, as also the sentence, on the basis of the two dying declarations aforementioned. Thus, the only question which crops up for consideration in this appeal is whether the dying declarations have rightly been relied upon by the High Court or not. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the dying declaration made to the Police is fairly elaborate and that it is apparently an exercise to make improvements in the prosecution case. According to him, the 2nd dying declaration is a concoction. Likewise, it is submitted by the learned counsel that an unusual step was taken by the attending doctor in recording the statement of the deceased in a questionnaire form. According to learned counsel the deceased was unable to speak after sustaining so many injuries and the evidence of the doctor was incredible. 6. The arguments of learned counsel have, regrettably, no foundation. According to learned counsel the deceased was unable to speak after sustaining so many injuries and the evidence of the doctor was incredible. 6. The arguments of learned counsel have, regrettably, no foundation. Insofar as the first dying declaration is concerned, the need to record it arose because according to PW 2, the Police, though sent for, had not arrived and the condition of the victim was fast deteriorating. He, thus, took the step to record the statement of the deceased. No material has been brought on record from which it could be inferred that the deceased was unable to make any statement purported to have been made to the doctor. PW 2, rather, was emphatic that the deceased was in a position to speak and had disclosed to him the names of the accused persons as also the weapons in their hands which were employed to inflict fatal injuries on him. There is no reason to disbelieve him. On this statement alone, the conviction of the appellants can be maintained; let apart the dying declaration recorded by the Police. The later dying declaration, as said before, contains details pertaining to the motive and the manner of the ghastly occurrence, these cannot be termed to be improvements in the statement from what the statement was before the doctor, material base of the prosecution case remaining the same. Thus, in these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was perfectly justified in maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences charged and their sentence. 7. There is thus no scope in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. For Citation: 1995 AIR SCW 3088