JUDGMENT Surya Kumar Tiwari, J. : This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Crl. Appeal No. 348 of 1990. 2. These two appeals arise out of the conviction and sentences recorded by Shri. S. Pratihar, 2nd. Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1989. 3. The appellant Shyamal Das at the relevant time was an employee of Barhampur Girl's College. The deceased Subhash Mitra was a peon in the office of S.D.O., Lalbagh. Subhash occupied the tenanted premises belonging to P.W.1. Priya Ranjan Debnath. Deceased had been transferred to Damkol for a short period. During his absence, the appellant Shyamal used to spend his night in the house of the deceased. During one such night the appellant had questioned the co-appellant Swapna as to how long would it go on 7 Swapna replied, "finish off Subhash Mitra." During the absence of the deceased from his house, the appellant Swapna used to carry meals for the appellant Shyamal during working hours. 4. On the date of incident i.e. 13.05.85 police had seized a wrist watch and clothes (a pair of trousers and a shirt) dipped in water in a bucket from the residence of the appellant Shyamal. 5. All the facts stated in paras 3 and 4 above are not in dispute so far as criminal appeal No. 486 of 1990 is concerned. 6. In Crl. Appeal No. 348 of 1990 filed by co-accused Swapna, the following facts are not disputed : Deceased Subhash Mitra was the husband of appellant. The said Subhash Mitra is dead and his death was homicidal. P.Ws. 9 and 10 Sagar and Manashi are son and daughter (respectively) of the appellant. The appellant along with members of her family were residing in the house of PW1 Priya Ranjan Dabnath prior to death of her husband. 7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant Shyamal had illicit relationship with co-appellant Swapna. During the absence of deceased and his children he used to visit Swapna's house and enjoy her company after closing doors and windows of the room. When the deceased used to go out of station for day or two, the appellant Shyamal used to sleep with the co-appellant on the same bed. Both of them conspired to kill the deceased. 8. On 12th May, 1985, the appellant Swapna compelled the deceased to visit Berhampur to see his ailing brother. When the deceased used to go out of station for day or two, the appellant Shyamal used to sleep with the co-appellant on the same bed. Both of them conspired to kill the deceased. 8. On 12th May, 1985, the appellant Swapna compelled the deceased to visit Berhampur to see his ailing brother. The deceased wanted to travel by train or bus but accused Swapna prevailed upon him to travel by a bicycle. She herself borrowed a bicycle from P.W.24 Alok Kumar Das. She directed the deceased to go via Natungram and return early. The deceased obeyed his wife's (i.e. accused Swapna) dictates. 9. While returning home in the evening, the deceased was stopped by assailants near Shyam Bhattacharjee's brick Kiln. It was an isolated place. The assailants including accused Shyamal had brought two bottles of liquor which they consumed with the deceased and soon thereafter the appellant Shyamal and his unknown companions started inflicting injuries on the deceased with sharp edged weapons. They inflicted several incised injuries on the person of the deceased. He was rushed to Hospital in a cycle rickshaw, pulled by P.W.13 Basiruddin Sheikh. P.W.3 Babloo Khan saw nearly four persons inflicting injuries on the deceased and that he was lying in a pool of blood. The assailants fled the place of occurrence before he arrived on the spot. P.W.13 Basuruddin also collected the bicycle and two empty bottles lying near the body of the deceased. P.W.20 Manindra Nath Sinha, station Officer, Murshidabad, recorded the FIR (Exhibit-1/2) at 9 P.M. on 12.05.85 FIR was lodged by PW 3 Babloo Khan. He also seized the bicycle and two empty bottles produced by Babloo Khan. 10. Deceased was alive and conscious when he was brought to the Lalbagh Sub-Divisional Hospital. P.W.23 Dr. Pradip Kumar Mitra found him in a precarious condition. The deceased was questioned by the doctor about the incident. Since the patient had sustained injuries on his throat, he was unable to speak. The patient, by gestures, required a piece of paper and pen to put down the answers to his questions. The doctor provided a piece of paper and pen. In response to the first question about the name of assailant, the patient wrote the name of appellant 'Shyamal'. In reply to second question about the address of Shyamal, the deceased wrote 'Berhampur Girl's College'. He was then asked to write his own name. The doctor provided a piece of paper and pen. In response to the first question about the name of assailant, the patient wrote the name of appellant 'Shyamal'. In reply to second question about the address of Shyamal, the deceased wrote 'Berhampur Girl's College'. He was then asked to write his own name. The patient wrote 'Subhash Mitra'. Exhibit 3 is the said paper written by Subhash which also bears blood like signs. 11. The police swung into action and arrested accused Shyamal from his residence. His premises was searched and one anglo swiss watch stained with blood along with a terrycot shirt, one ganji and a pair of trousers soaked in water were seized vide exhibit 2/2. These articles were sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. The expert reported (vide Exhibit-15) that the wrist watch, shirt and trousers were blood stained. For determination of group and origin of blood the clothes and swab of wrist watch were sent to Serologist. The Serologist reported that the blood had disintegrated. Hence their group and origin could not be determined. The report of Serologist is an annexure to the F.S.L. report but unfortunately it has been tagged in the file of the committal court, (see page 53). The same be taken out and annexed with exhibit-5. 12. The accused was produced before the ld. S.D.J.M., Lalbagh on the following day i.e. 14.5.85, the forwarding report also contained a prayer for recording confessional statement of Shyamal. The ld. S.D.J.M. forwarded accused Shyamal to Shri S. Bhattacharjee, J.N.F.C. on the same day. He was warned and cautioned by the ld. Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody with a direction to produce him on the next day i.e. 15.5.85 at 1-30 P.M. The ld. Magistrate recorded in his order-sheet 'meanwhile he be kept in segregated state for reflections'. 13. On 15.5.85, the accused Shyamal was produced from Lalbagh sub-jail. He was warned again but he volunteered to confess. His confessional statement was accordingly recorded (Exhibit-2). Subhash died during the same night. 14. P.W.26 Shib Kumar Banerjee, Sub-Inspector of Police, prepared inquest report on 13.5.85 at 11-15 A.M. His dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 15. On 13.5.85, P.W.22 Dr. Indra Nath Chatterjee, performed autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries:–– 1. His confessional statement was accordingly recorded (Exhibit-2). Subhash died during the same night. 14. P.W.26 Shib Kumar Banerjee, Sub-Inspector of Police, prepared inquest report on 13.5.85 at 11-15 A.M. His dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 15. On 13.5.85, P.W.22 Dr. Indra Nath Chatterjee, performed autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries:–– 1. A cut throat wound over right side of the larynx esophagus, carotid and jugular vein had also been cut; 2. Lacerated injury 4" X 2" X 1" over the right side of the face at two places; 3. One lacerated wound on the left middle finger with fracture of bone; 4. One lacerated injury over the scalp 4" X 2" X 1/2"; 5. One laceration 1" X 1/2" and 2" X 1/2" over right thigh; 6. Lacerated injuries 3" X 2" X 1" and 1" X 1/2" respectively over right side of the chest; 7. One penetrating injury over the right side of the abdomen 4" X 2" X 2". The doctor opined that the injuries (except Nos. 5 and 6) could be caused by sharp edged weapon like dagger and were ante-mortem. In his opinion, injuries No.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 16. Accused Swapna was also arrested on 12.5.85 between 10-30 and 11 A.M. the investigating officer visited the spot and prepared a sketch map (Exhibit-4). Blood stained and plain earth was seized from the spot. 17. Upon commitment, the ld. Judge of Sessions Court framed charge under s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC against accused Swapna, Shyamal and Jalal (since acquitted). After the prosecution case was closed and the accused persons were examined under s. 313 Cr.PC, the ld. Judge of the trial court thought it fit to add one more charge. Accordingly, charge under s. 120-B IPC was framed against the two appellants. They pleaded not guilty. The ld. Judge convicted accused Shyamal under s. 302/34 and 120-B IPC and accused Swapna under s. 120-B IPC. He awarded the sentence of life imprisonment to both the appellants. However, no separate sentence was passed against appellant Shyamal for the offence punishable under s. 120B IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence these two appeals came to be filed. 18. The ld. counsel for the appellants Shri Ashim Roy has urged that the ld. He awarded the sentence of life imprisonment to both the appellants. However, no separate sentence was passed against appellant Shyamal for the offence punishable under s. 120B IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence these two appeals came to be filed. 18. The ld. counsel for the appellants Shri Ashim Roy has urged that the ld. trial court, after framing charge under s. 120-B IPC, did afford opportunity for further cross-examination of PWs but failed to examine the accused persons afresh after the further cross-examination was over. I find no force in this contention. Further examination under s.313 Cr.PC would have become necessary only when the cross-examination had revealed any new fact or circumstance against the accused. The ld. counsel for the appellants Shri Ashim Roy has cited the case of Karan Singh Uttam Singh vs. State of Maharashtra [ 1976(1) SCC 882 ] which has no application to the circumstances of the present case. In the said case the trial court had convicted the accused under s. 411 IFC without framing any charge and without putting specific questions with regard to the said offence. Hence the conviction was held to be improper. 19. The ld. counsel has then placed reliance on the observations of the apex court made in case of Shibappa vs. State of Karnataka 1995(2) sec 76 and Devendra Pd. Tiwari vs. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1542 and has contended that the confession of the appellant Shyamal recorded by the ld. Magistrate under s. 164 Cr.PC cannot be relied upon because the prosecution has not proceed any contemporaneous document to show as to whether the appellant was produced from jail custody or police custody and that he was not told that in case he refuses to make confession he would not be remanded to police custody again. As regards contemporaneous document, the committal court's record is before this court which discloses that the appellant was produced before the ld. S.D.J.M. on 14.5.85 from police custody. The investigating officer had made a prayer for recording his confessional statement. The ld. S.D.J.M. forwarded the appellant to Shri S. Bhattacharjee on the same day. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Bhattacharjee recorded in the order-sheet that he warned and cautioned the appellant and remanded him in judicial custody till 15.5.85. The appellant was directed to be produced at 1-15 P.M. on that day. The ld. S.D.J.M. forwarded the appellant to Shri S. Bhattacharjee on the same day. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Bhattacharjee recorded in the order-sheet that he warned and cautioned the appellant and remanded him in judicial custody till 15.5.85. The appellant was directed to be produced at 1-15 P.M. on that day. The order-sheet also reveals that the appellant Shyamal was directed to be kept in segregated state for reflection. The order-sheet dated 15.5.85 reveals that the appellant Shyamal was produced from judicial custody and that he was again warned and cautioned. The confessional statement recorded by the ld. Magistrate discloses that the ld. Magistrate told the appellant that he was not a police officer but a Magistrate. He also asked him whether he had been beaten up by the police or was any pressure exerted on him to make confession or was he confessing out of fear? The accused replied in negative. In the third question, the ld. Magistrate informed the appellant that whatsoever he would say might be used as evidence against him during the trial and he may even be sentenced to death. Whether he still desire to make any confession? The appellant awarded in the negative. The ld. Magistrate has also appended a certificate in terms of provisions of s. 164(4) Cr.PC below the confessional statement. 20. In Shibappa's case (supra), the apex court has laid down that before proceeding to record the confessional statement, searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that he has no scope for doubt of any sort of exigencies or influence proceeding from a source insisted in the prosecution still lurking in the mind of the accused. The ld. Magistrate had himself remanded the accused to judicial custody. Hence the question of making further enquiry in this regard did not arise. The ld. Magistrate did ask him whether any coercive method was applied for extracting confessional, sufficient time was also given for reflection so that he may be completely out of police influence. The apex court also laid down that an accused should be asked the reason why he wanted to make statement which would surely go against him. Though the ld. Magistrate substantially complied with the requirements in the opening questions. 21. The apex court also laid down that an accused should be asked the reason why he wanted to make statement which would surely go against him. Though the ld. Magistrate substantially complied with the requirements in the opening questions. 21. It was further laid down in Shibappa's case (supra) that the Magistrate must lend assurance to the appellant that he would not be sent back to police custody even if he refuses to make confessional statement. It is no doubt true, that the ld. Magistrate failed to tell the accused that he would not be sent to police custody again. But failure to do so would not render the confession inadmissible (see Dagdu vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1579 ). If a confessional statement does not violate anyone of the conditions operative under Ss. 25 to 28 of the Evidence Act, it will be admissible in evidence. 22. Both the appellants have been convicted under s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence I shall examine the conspiracy point first. 23. The first point for consideration is whether the two appellants entered into an agreement to kill the deceased Subhash? In order to prove conspiracy the evidence may be direct or circumstantial. If the conditions laid down in s. 10 of the Evidence Act are satisfied, an act done or statement made by one is admissible against other co-conspirators (see Bhagwan Swaroop's case AIR 1965 SC 682 ). 24. The conspiracy is entirely a matter of inference deducted from certain criminal acts of the parties done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. In such cases when there is no direct evidence, inference of guilt may be drawn only when the circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable interpretation. 25. In the present case there are sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence on record. PW 9 Sagar is the son of appellant Swapna. He has deposed that the deceased as well as appellant Swapna and her three children were residing in the house of Priya Ranjan Debnath (PW 1). Accused Shyamal used to visit their house regularly during the absence of his father. Whenever the appellant Shyamal visited his house during the absence of his father, appellant Swapna used to send the children away from the house. Accused Shyamal used to visit their house regularly during the absence of his father. Whenever the appellant Shyamal visited his house during the absence of his father, appellant Swapna used to send the children away from the house. On some occasions when he returned home from School during recess, he found the door of the room bolted from inside. Even after knocking the door, the appellant Swapna used to open the door after a considerable lapse of time. He always found the appellant Shyamal lying in her bed. The witness further stated that whenever his father used to go out of station, appellant Shyamal slept in the same room during nights. During one such night he heard accused Shyamal asking his mother 'as to how long such state of affairs would continue'? His mother (appellant Swapna) replied, "finish it off". It is no doubt true, that this part of the story was not narrated to the police by the witness when his statement under s. 161 Cr.PC was recorded. But it is a common knowledge that the police does not record the entire story which a witness narrates. Investigating officer only puts questions and requires precise answers. The witness was a minor when his father was done to death. The mother was under arrest. There was no adult member in the family. His eldest sister admittedly is deaf and dumb. The other sister PW 10 Manashi was hardly aged I.O. The mental state of the witness when he was examined under s. 161 Cr.PC can be very well judged. Accused Shyamal has admitted in his statement under s. 313 Cr.PC that Swapna had asked him to finish off Subhash. Hence PW 9 Sagar cannot be disbelieved simply because the story was not narrated to police in the statement recorded under s.161 Cr.PC. 26. P.W.1 Priya Ranjan Debnath is the landlord. He has also stated that when the deceased used to go to office and the children went to school, both the appellants used to remain together for long hours after bolting the shutters of the door and window. This continued for four to five months. P.W.1 Priya Ranjan Debnath has been corroborated by his wife P.W.2 Sadhana. 27. The questionable relationship between the appellants has also been corroborated by the daughter of deceased P.W.10 Manashi Mitra. This continued for four to five months. P.W.1 Priya Ranjan Debnath has been corroborated by his wife P.W.2 Sadhana. 27. The questionable relationship between the appellants has also been corroborated by the daughter of deceased P.W.10 Manashi Mitra. She has stated that the accused Shyamal used to visit their house during the absence of her father and used to behave in a nasty manner with her mother. 28. P.W.9 Sagar has deposed that on the date of incident, the appellant Swapna insisted that the deceased should go to Berhampur to see his ailing brother. The deceased was not inclined to go and expressed his inability owing to his ill-health. But the accused Sawapna prevailed upon him. The deceased then wanted to go to Berhampur by train but his mother compelled him to go on a bicycle. His mother borrowed a bicycle from a neighbour Aloke Das and directed the deceased to go to Berhampur via Natungram and return home soon via Natungram. This fact find corroboration in the statement of P.W.10 Manashi. P.W.24 Aloke Kumar Das has also stated that accused Swapna had borrowed his bicycle. He lent the bicycle between 2 and 2.30 P.M. on the date of incident. The bicycle is jointly owned by him and his brother Gaur Chandra Das. On the handle of the bicycle the names of Aloke and Gaur Chandra Das are engraved. P.W.13 Basiruddin Sheikh, the rickshaw puller, who found the deceased in an injured condition found a bicycle lying by his side. He carried the bicycle and handed it over to the police along with other two empty bottles. P.W.20 Manindra Nath Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, Murshidabad, seized bicycle and two empty bottles He has also stated that the names of Aloke and Gaur were engraved on the handle of the bicycle (Material Exhibit-I). From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the appellant Swapna compelled the deceased to go to Berhampur on a bicycle. 29. The dying declaration recorded in Hospital which I shall advert to later, discloses that the deceased had written the name of accused 'Shyamal' when questioned by the attending physician to name of assailant he wrote, the name of appellant Shyamal, therefore, follows that accused Shyamal was one of the assailants who inflicted injuries on the person of deceased. 29(A). 29. The dying declaration recorded in Hospital which I shall advert to later, discloses that the deceased had written the name of accused 'Shyamal' when questioned by the attending physician to name of assailant he wrote, the name of appellant Shyamal, therefore, follows that accused Shyamal was one of the assailants who inflicted injuries on the person of deceased. 29(A). Section 10 of the Evidence Act reads :–– "Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by anyone of such person in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by anyone of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it". It would, therefore, be inferred that the appellant Shyamal caused the death of the deceased in pursuance, to the said conspiracy. Under such circumstances even if the confessional statement is excluded, the conspiracy stands established. 30. Now I shall examine the confessional statement. Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that where more than one person are being jointly tried for the same offence and a confession is made by one such person affecting himself and some other of such persons the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person and the person who makes such confession. It is no doubt true that a confession of the co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence in the ordinary sense of the term (see Kashmira Singh vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159 ). Court can turn to confession of the co-accused only to lend assurance to the verdict of guilt arrived on the basis of independent evidence. 31. The accused Shyamal stated in his confessional statement that about 3 months prior to the date of incident, Swapna asked him to remove her husband from the scene because she never got peace of minds in living with him. Her husband could never give her any love or peace of mind during 16 to 17 years of matrimonial life. She also said that she wanted to live with him. Her husband could never give her any love or peace of mind during 16 to 17 years of matrimonial life. She also said that she wanted to live with him. She repeated her request to kill her husband quite often. Swapna one day said that if the accused Shyamal was unable to kill Subhas, he might hire killers and they would be paid their remuneration out of the ex-gratia sum of Rs. 12,000/- that she would be receiving after the death of her husband. On the date of incident, Swapna told him that she was sending her husband to Berhampur on a bicycle and that he should see to it that Subhas is done to death in the way. This statement certainly lends sufficient assurance. I, therefore, hold that the charge of conspiracy is amply proved. 32. The next point for consideration is whether Subhas died a homicidal death? P.W.3 Babloo Khan is the rickshaw puller who found deceased Subhash Mitra lying at the place of occurrence with bleeding injuries. P.W.13 Basiruddin Sheikh also found the deceased with profusely bleeding injuries and got him admitted into the Hospital. P.W.23 Dr. Pradip Kumar Mitra admitted him and found that he had received multiple injuries and was unable to speak. P.W.22 Dr. Indra Nath Chatterjee has deposed that on 13.5.85 the dead body of Subhash Mitra was brought to him for postmortem examination. He performed the post-mortem examination and found that the injuries on his person were anti-mortem in nature and that he died a homicidal death. I, therefore, decided the point in affirmative. 33. The next point for consideration is whether the deceased died as a result of injuries inflicted by appellant Shyamal and other unknown persons? P.W.3 Babloo Khan, P.W.12 Gopal Chandra Das and P.W.13 Basiruddin found the deceased Subhas in a seriously injured condition. The deceased was shifted to Hospital. P.W.23 Dr. Pradip Kumar Mitra found that the patient was very seriously injured and was profusely bleeding. Hence he asked the deceased as to who inflicted the injuries. The deceased could not speak because of the injuries on his throat. The deceased gesticulated and wanted the doctor to give him a piece of paper and pen. The doctor handed over a piece of paper and pen. Exhibit 3/1 is the paper given to the deceased which is stained with blood. Exhibit 3 contains the questions put by the doctor. The deceased gesticulated and wanted the doctor to give him a piece of paper and pen. The doctor handed over a piece of paper and pen. Exhibit 3/1 is the paper given to the deceased which is stained with blood. Exhibit 3 contains the questions put by the doctor. The first question was as to who inflicted injuries? The deceased wrote the name of appellant "Shyamal Das". The next question was where does he (Shyamal) live? The deceased wrote 'Berhampur Girl's College'. The deceased was then asked as to what was his name? The deceased wrote 'Subhas Mitra'. Thereafter the condition of the deceased started deteriorating and he was unable to write any further. It has been laid down by the apex court in case of Abdul Majid vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1976 SC 1872), that the doctor should record dying declaration if he finds that the life is ebbing fast so much so that there is no time for calling of Magistrate. Such recording is permissible. 34. A Division Bench of this High Court in case of Dilip Kumar Roy vs. State of W.B. [1988 (3) Crimes 53] has laid down that an oral dying declaration free from any embellishment or decoration found to be wholly reliable can form the basis of conviction in murder cases even without any corroboration. 35. I find nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.3 Dr. Pradip Kumar Mitra which can cast any shadow of doubt on his veracity. 36. It has been laid down by the apex court in case of Jayaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1976 SC 1519 ) that when deponent was in severe bodily pain and words were scarce, his natural in pass would to tell the Magistrate without wasting his breath on the details, as to who had stabbed him. The very brevity of the dying declaration is an index of it's being true. 36(a). The relevant portions of confession recorded in Bengali language rendered in english by the office reads thus:- "After that, on the morning of the incident, I had kept Jalal informed. Then Subhas met me at Berhampur at 5.30 P.M. on the day of the incident. At that time Jalal was with me. Subhas asked for the cycle from me. But I say that I cannot. Then while I, Subhas and Jalal were coming back by Khagra to Lalbagh, Jalal took Rs. Then Subhas met me at Berhampur at 5.30 P.M. on the day of the incident. At that time Jalal was with me. Subhas asked for the cycle from me. But I say that I cannot. Then while I, Subhas and Jalal were coming back by Khagra to Lalbagh, Jalal took Rs. 25/- from me and bought a bottle of liquor. Then the three of us came to Natungram and saw the two men appointed by Jalal, (I do not know their names, I shall recognize them if I see them, Jalal knows their name because the men belong to his locality, standing there. Then all of us went to the brick kiln near Nathugram and drank. Thereafter we started coming with three cycles, from Natungram to Lalbagh, by walking, thereafter going someway. Jalal asked me to stop and Jalal took Subhas and those two men forwarded a little, murdered Subhas. They had a knife with them. I heard the sound of one bullet. They had a small pistol with them, thrust inside the stomach. Thereafter murdering, they came to me and holding my right hand said go home. Because of that blood got into my hand, I went home, I feel asleep. At night the police came and arrested me". The recovery of two empty bottles from the spot and the recovery of blood stained clothes and wrist watch from the house of appellant Shyamal lead us to the only conclusion that be was one of the assailants and that his confessional statement is voluntary and substantially true. This point is, therefore, decided in affirmative. 37. The last point for consideration is whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death? P.W.22 Dr. Indra Nath Chatterjee, who performed autopsy, has stated that the deceased sustained as many as seven injuries on his person, barring injuries No.4 and 5 all the other injuries were individually sufficient to cause death. 38. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned trial Judge has placed implicit faith on the testimony of the two doctors observing that doctors are always witnesses of truth which was not a correct approach. Their evidence can be appreciated like that of any other witnesses. It is true that medical evidence can be relied upon only if it is trust-worthy, after careful scrutiny and no implicit faith can be put blindly. 39. Their evidence can be appreciated like that of any other witnesses. It is true that medical evidence can be relied upon only if it is trust-worthy, after careful scrutiny and no implicit faith can be put blindly. 39. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the observation of the apex court in case of Shankarlal vs. State of Maharashtra, [ 1981 (2) SCC 35 ], and urged us to go through para 33 of the judgment which applies to the circumstances of the present case with all force. We refused to rely on these observations because no case be a guide of facts (see Kashmira's case AIR 1952 SC 159 ). 40. The learned counsel has also submitted that the post-mortem report of the deceased has not been exhibited. If the doctor has deposed on the basis of post-mortem report and the same has been reproduced in the statement of the doctor, when no question was put by the defence in his cross-examination as to correctness of his statement, I find that this objection is of no consequence. I, therefore, decide this point in affirmative. 41. I therefore, find that both two appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 42. The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant Shyamal to life imprisonment under Ss. 302/34 IPC but refrained from passing any sentence under s. 120B IPC. The apex court in case of Md. Hossain vs. Dilip Singh [1970 (1) SCJ 149] has laid down thus:- "A criminal conspiracy is a separate offence, punishable separately from the main offence. The sentences passed by the court below cannot be said to be illegal." 43. It has also been laid down by the apex court in case of Jayram vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1965 SC 146) that the law does not envisage a person being convicted for an offence without a sentence being imposed. Therefore, the award of sentence by the High Court is only consequential or incidental to the affirmation of the conviction and it is just and proper order to be passed under the law within the meaning of s. 423(1)(d) Cr.P.C. (old) (which corresponds to s. 386(e) of the New Code): 44. It has been further laid down that such a sentence does not amount to an enhancement simply because it was awarded for the first time in appeal, without issuing any notice of enhancement. 45. It has been further laid down that such a sentence does not amount to an enhancement simply because it was awarded for the first time in appeal, without issuing any notice of enhancement. 45. It is hereby ordered that appellant Shyamal is also sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under s. 120B IPC, in addition to one passed against him under s. 302/34 IPC. Both the sentence shall run concurrently. The sentence imposed by the trial court on appellant Swapna is affirmed. S. N. Mallick, J. : I agree. Appeals dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed. Appellant Syamal further sentenced to imprisonment for life under s. 120B IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently.