Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This appeal has been filed by the appellants Shanker Nath, Bhanwar Nath, Kishan Nath and Bhagirath Nath against the judgment dated 5.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No.58/93-State vs. Shanker Nath & Ors. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellants Shanker Nath, Bhanwar Nath, Kishan Nath and Bhagirath Nath were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for default in payment of fine. (3). On 12.06.1993 at 5.30 P.M., statement of Vinod Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal was recorded by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sandawa and, on the basis of that statement, the police registered the First Information Report No.38/93 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In his statement (Ex.P.2), Vinod Kumar stated that he earned living by transporting bricks on his tractor on hire. On 12.06.1993, at about 5 P.M. when he went to his house to take meals, Kishan Nath s/o Ramlal Nath caste Sidh went to him and enquired about the charges for carrying bricks in his tractor. He told him that he carries one trolley of tractor for a sum of Rs.20/-. Kishan Nath offerred to hire his tractor on payment of Rs.17/-per trolley and further told him that he was being called by Bhanwar Nath and Shanker Nath at their house. Vinod Kumar further told that he went to the house of Bhagirath Nath with Kishan Nath. When he reached there he found that Bhanwar Nath, Shanker Nath and their father Bhagirath Nath were sitting under a thatch. On seeing him, Shanker Nath told him that he used to visit his wife but he refuted this charge. Vinod Kumar further added that first of all Bhanwar Nath inflicted a blow with a `jaily on his left leg. Bhanwar Nath inflicted an injury on his left ear with an axe and another injury was inflicted by Bhagirath Nath on his head with `kulhari. Vinod Kumar further added that first of all Bhanwar Nath inflicted a blow with a `jaily on his left leg. Bhanwar Nath inflicted an injury on his left ear with an axe and another injury was inflicted by Bhagirath Nath on his head with `kulhari. According to the statement of Vinod Kumar, all the four accused-persons inflicted injuries on him with a view to kill him and, during the incident, no body reached to protect him. After some time his mother Smt.Shanti, Grand-father Banshi and Gangu reached the spot and took him to his house. It was also stated by Vinod Kumar that accused had stopped beating because they considered him to be dead. From his house the injured Vinod Kumar was taken to the Sandawa Govt. Hospital for treatment. (4). On the basis of the statement (Ex.P.2) of Vinod Kumar recorded by the Station House officer of Police Station, Sandawa, the police registered a case under Sections 307 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation Vinod Kumar died. The post-mortem examination of his dead body was conducted on 13.6.199.3 from 8 A.M. to 10 A.M. Several injuries caused with blunt and sharp weapons were found on his body and, in the opinion of doctor, death of Vinod Kumar had occurred on account of contusion and oedema of brain due to head injury. The case registered by the police was, therefore, converted to case under sections 302 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After usual investigation, the report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh who committed the case to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge Ratangarh. (5). On 4.7.1994, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charges under Secs. 302 and 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal-Code against all the four accused-persons who pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge adjourned the case for recording evidence of the prosecution. (6). On 4.6.97, Shri Kapil Bhargava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, at the stage of writing judgment, deemed it fit to amend the charges. The amended charges were read over and explained to the. accused-persons and they pleaded not guilty to them. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge adjourned the case for recording evidence of the prosecution. (6). On 4.6.97, Shri Kapil Bhargava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, at the stage of writing judgment, deemed it fit to amend the charges. The amended charges were read over and explained to the. accused-persons and they pleaded not guilty to them. By the amendment, in place of framing separate charge under Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the alternative. (7). The prosecution examined Jagdish Saran (PW 1), Kan Das (PW 2), Mst. Shanti (PW 3), Rameshwar Lal (PW 4), Balu Ram (PW 5), Bhaira Ram (PW 6), Bhagwana Ram (PW 7), Dr. Sher Singh (PW 8), Dalu Ram (PW 9), Ganga Ram (PW 10), Vikram Singh (PW 11), Prema Ram (PW 12), Hema Ram (PW 13), Narayan Singh (PW 14), Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15), Hari Ram (PW 16), Banwari Lal (PW 17), Lalit Kumar (PW 18), Bhanwar Lal (PW 19) and Taj Mohammed (PW 20) in support of the prosecution case. All the four accused-persons were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They did not examine any witness in defence. (8). The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, after hearing the argu-ments and considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, convicted all the four accused-persons under Sec. 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/-and further rigorous imprisonment of six months, for default in payment of fine. (9). The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove charge framed against the accused-persons beyond reasonable doubt. He has prayed that the appeal be allowed and all the four accused-persons be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (9). The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove charge framed against the accused-persons beyond reasonable doubt. He has prayed that the appeal be allowed and all the four accused-persons be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, he has submitted that the offence committed by -the accused-persons, does not amount to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as the dominant intention of the accused-persons was not to commit murder but merely to teach a lesson to Vinod Kumar(deceased), against whom there was a suspicion of having illicit relation with the wife of one of the accused. It is, therefore submitted that the accused-persons should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, in case, the prosecution case against them is found to be true and proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused-persons may be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. (10). The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the verdict of conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh. (11). We would first of all consider whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vinod Kumar died on account of injuries which according to the prosecution were inflicted on his body by the accused-persons, in furtherance of their common intention and at the residence of the accused Shanker Nath. The prosecution case is that Vinod Kumar was taken to the Government Hospital in an injured condition and his injuries were medically examined by Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) who prepared the medico legal report Ex.P.17. Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) has stated in court that on 12.6.1993 he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Sandawa. On that day, Vinod Kumar was brought to the hospital at 5.05 P.M. He had seen injuries on his body. Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) has added that he gave information to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Sandawa by letter Ex.P.16 which was signed by him. It is also stated by Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) that he examined the injuries of Vinod Kumar and found following injuries on his body:- 1. Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) has added that he gave information to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Sandawa by letter Ex.P.16 which was signed by him. It is also stated by Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) that he examined the injuries of Vinod Kumar and found following injuries on his body:- 1. Incised wound 2-1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 inch on left parietal region of scalp. 2. Incised wound 1"x 1/2"x 1/2" on parietal region of scalp 2 cm below injury no.1 and parallel to it. 3. Lacerated wound 1"x 1/2" x 1/2" on left eye brow. 4. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on medial aspect of right hand near wrist joint. 5. Lacerated wound 1/2"x1/2"x1/4" on back of left fore-arm near elbow. 6. Lacerated wound 1/2"x1/2"x1/8" on back of left upper arm. 7. Contusion 4" x 4" all around left elbow joint. 8. Cutting of left ear 1-1/2" in length through and through including cartilage. 9. Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on lower 1/3rd of anterior aspect of left leg. 10. Abrasion 1" x 1" on anterior aspect of left leg near knee. 11. Multiple abrasion over right knee. 12. Multiple Bruises all over back of chest. 13. Abrasion 1" x 1/4 cm on nose. 14. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" near medial malleolus of right ankle. 15. Multiple abrasion on tip of 1st, 2nd toe of right foot. 16. Bruise 4" x 1" on left side of chest. 17. Multiple abrasion on left tore-arm 18. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x1/4" on right forearm near elbow joint antero-posterior aspect. (12). Out of 18 injuries, only three injuries,i.e., injuries no.1,2 and 8 were cau-sed with sharp weapons. All other injuries were caused with blunt weapons. Injury no.8 was grievous. The opinion about injuries no. 1,2 and 5 was reserved till x-ray examination. All other injuries were simple in nature. Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) has stated that the pulse of injured Vinod Kumar was feeble as it was 96 per minute. Blood pressure was 90/70 mm of mercury. Pupil was slightly reacting to light. The patient was conscious and slightly irritable. The injury report Ex.P.17 has been proved by Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15). He has further stated that statement of Vinod Kumar had been recorded in his presence and that his state-ment is Ex.P.2. Blood pressure was 90/70 mm of mercury. Pupil was slightly reacting to light. The patient was conscious and slightly irritable. The injury report Ex.P.17 has been proved by Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15). He has further stated that statement of Vinod Kumar had been recorded in his presence and that his state-ment is Ex.P.2. The evidence of Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) about the statement Ex.P.2 which is the dying declaration shall be considered later on. (13). Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) has been produced by the prosecution to prove the post-mortem examination report Ex.P.3. Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) has stated that on 13.6.93 he was posted as Junior Specialist in Surgery at Government Hospital, Sujan-garh. On that day, he conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Vinod Kumar on the request of the Police Station, Sujangarh. The dead body was identified by Bhanwar Lal, father of the deceased and the post-mortem examination was conducted during the period from 8 A.M. to 10 A.M. According to Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8), the deceased was of stout built. Rigor mortis was present but the body was not decomposed. He found following injuries on the body of the deceased Vinod Kumar:- 1.Stitched wound 4 cm on left ear pinna, ear pinna cut through and through including cartilage. 2. Stitched wound 2.5cm long left eye brow bone deep. Sharp margins. 3. Stitched wound 6 cm long and parallel to mid bone in left parietal region sharp margins bone deep. Left parietal bone fractured irregularly. 4. Stitched wound 2.5 cm long left parietal region 2 cm below and parallel to injury no.3 sharp margins and bone deep. 5. Abrasion 2.5 cm x 1/4 cm on nose. 6. Lacerated wound 1.5x1.5x1 cm on back of left forearm near elbow. 7. Lacerated wound 1x1x1/2 cm on back of left upper arm near elbow. 8. Contusion all around left elbow joint, joint and bone intact. 9. Bruise 10 cm x 2.5 cm left side of chest wall. 10. Multiple abrasion on left forearm near wrist. 11. Abrasion 2.5 x 2.5 cm on left knee anterior aspect. 12. Abrasion 2.5 x 1 cm on left leg anterior aspect. 13. Multiple abrasions on tips of right 1st, 2nd and 3rd toes. 14. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on right ankle near medial malleolus. 15. Multiple abrasions on right knee. 16. 11. Abrasion 2.5 x 2.5 cm on left knee anterior aspect. 12. Abrasion 2.5 x 1 cm on left leg anterior aspect. 13. Multiple abrasions on tips of right 1st, 2nd and 3rd toes. 14. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on right ankle near medial malleolus. 15. Multiple abrasions on right knee. 16. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1.5 x 1/2 cm on right forearm in middle antero-posterior aspect. 17. Lacerated wound 2.5 x 1.5 x 1/4 cm on right wrist inner aspect. 18. Multiple bruises all over chest. (14). It is further stated by Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) that there was fracture of left parietal bone in the region of scalp wound irregular 8 cm linear. Membranes was congested.Brain was oedematous and contused more so in cerebral hemisphere and wide spread paticheal haemorrhage present over the cerebral hemisphere. Regarding the contents of abdomen, Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) has stated that stomach was empty. Small intestines contained digested food matter and large intestines contained faecal matters. Regarding the cause of death, Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) opined that the deceased died on account of shock due to head injury causing contusion and oedema of brain. He has proved post-mortem examination report Ex.P.3. Regarding the nature of the injuries, Dr. Sher Singh (PW 8) has stated that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the death had been caused between 12 to 14 hours before the post-mortem examination. It is admitted by Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) that the nature of the injuries has not been mentioned in the post-mortem examination report Ex.P.3. (15). The statements of Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) and Dr. Sher Singh (PW 8) have not been shaken in the cross-examination and, in our opinion, the statements of these witnesses proved beyond reasonable doubt that when the deceased Vinod Kumar was taken to the Government Hospital at Sandawa he was having injuries on his body which were examined by Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) who prepared the medico legal report Ex.P.17. The evidence of Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vinod Kumar died on account of the injuries inflicted on his body and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The evidence of Dr. Sher Singh (PW 8) further shows that direct cause of death was oedema of the brain. The evidence of Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vinod Kumar died on account of the injuries inflicted on his body and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The evidence of Dr. Sher Singh (PW 8) further shows that direct cause of death was oedema of the brain. Oedema of the brain appears to have been cut due to grievous injuries inflicted on the head. Injury no.3 mentioned in the post-mortem examination report Ex.P.3, was grievous, as there was irregular fracture of left parietal bone in the region of scalp wound of 8 cm long. Membranes was congested and brain was oedematous and contused. Thus, injury no. 3 mentioned in the post-mortem examination report Ex.P.3 appears to be the direct cause of death of the deceased Vinod Kumar. We, therefore, hold that Vinod Kumar died an unnatural death on account of injuries found on his body, particularly injury no.3 as mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex. P.3. (16). The prosecution case is that all the injuries which were found on the body of Vinod Kumar had been inflicted by the accused-persons beneath a thatch belonging to accused Shanker Nath and, when the deceased was being assaulted, the eye-witnesses who have been produced by the prosecution saw the accused-persons causing injuries to Vinod Kumar. The prosecution has further tried to prove that when Vinod Kumar was being assaulted, three persons informed the relatives of Vinod Kumar and, in pursuance of the information received by them, the members of the family of Vinod Kumar went to the house of accused Shanker Nath where they found Vinod Kumar in an injured condition. They also saw the accused-persons there and, on being enquired, the accused told them that they had beaten Vinod Kumar because he had illicit relationship with Nani (wife of Shanker Nath ). The prosecution has also produced evidence to show that Vinod Kumar was brought from the house of accused Shanker Nath in an injured condition on a cot and, in consequence, `moonj of the cot became blood stained. The place where injuries were caused to Vinod Kumar, according to the prosecution was the house of accused Shanker Nath. The prosecution has also produced evidence to show that Vinod Kumar was brought from the house of accused Shanker Nath in an injured condition on a cot and, in consequence, `moonj of the cot became blood stained. The place where injuries were caused to Vinod Kumar, according to the prosecution was the house of accused Shanker Nath. The written arguments which had been filed before the learned trial Judge show that the learned counsel for the appellant contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the entire prosecution story is false and, no incident, involving the causing of injuries to Vinod Kumar took place at the residence of accused Shanker Nath. (17). The prosecution has tried to prove that after registering the case when the Investigating Officer visited the spot, he found that blood stained pieces of `lathi were lying there. He recovered them at the time of -conducting site inspection and sealed them so that they may be sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. (18). Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has stated that on reaching the spot, he prepared the site-plan Ex.P.10, inspection memo Ex.P.10A and signed the same. It is also stated by him that he recovered broken pieces of `lathi from the scene of occu-rrence and prepared the recovery memo Ex.P.12 which also bears the impression of the seal. It is also stated by him that,inside the hut, on the walls there were stains of blood and he collected the samples thereof and prepared recovery memo Ex.P. 12. It is further stated by him that he had recovered cot made up of `moonj and it was also stained with blood and prepared Ex.P.11 and sealed the `moonj which was recovered by him. The recovery memos, the site plan Ex.P.10, inspection note Ex.P.10A and the recovery memo Ex.P.12 have been proved by this witness. (19). Prema Ram (PW 12) and Hema Ram (PW 13) who were Motbir witnesses of the recoveries have turned hostile. Prema Ram (PW 12) has stated that police did not recover any `lathi from the scene of occurrence. Hema Ram (PW 13) has also denied that no pieces of `lathi were recovered in his presence but he has admitted that he has affixed his thumb impression on Ex.P.12. Prema Ram (PW 12) has also admitted his thumb impression on Ex.P.12. Prema Ram (PW 12) has stated that police did not recover any `lathi from the scene of occurrence. Hema Ram (PW 13) has also denied that no pieces of `lathi were recovered in his presence but he has admitted that he has affixed his thumb impression on Ex.P.12. Prema Ram (PW 12) has also admitted his thumb impression on Ex.P.12. In view of the admission of these witnesses that they had affixed their thumb impressions on the recovery memo Ex.P.12, we have no doubt in it that while giving statement in court, these witnesses were not stating the truth. In our opinion, statement of Taj Mohammed (PW 20) proves beyond reasonable doubt that he recovered blood `stained pieces of `lathi from the scene of alleged occurrence and sealed the same for the purpose of being sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. (20). Banwari Lal (PW 17) is the police constable, who was working as Malkhana Incharge. He has stated that on 13.6.1993, Taj Mohammed, Station House Officer of the Police Station gave him nine sealed packets for keeping in the Malkh-ana and he kept them, in sealed condition and made entries at S.No.90 in the Malkhana Register Ex.P.23. There is nothing to show that this witness is not speaking the truth. (21). Bhanwar Lal (PW 19) is the police officer who was working as Malkhana Incharge on 5.7.1993. He has stated that on 5.7.93, he handed over nine sealed pac-kets to Hari Ram, Constable for the purpose of taking them to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and, after depositing the same in the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, Hari Ram produced receipt Ex.P.20, a note of which was given Ex.P.23 (Malkhana Register) . Hari Ram (PW 16) has stated that on 5.7.93, he obtained nine sealed packets from Bhanwar Lal, Head Constable and deposited the same at the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on 6.7.1993 in sealed condition and obtained the receipt Ex.P.20 which was handed over to him to the Malkhana Incharge. He has proved his signatures on Ex.P.22 which is an entry in the daily diary of the police station showing his departure from the police station for going to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He has proved his signatures on Ex.P.22 which is an entry in the daily diary of the police station showing his departure from the police station for going to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. The statements of these witnesses clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the articles which had been sealed by the Investigating Officer during the investigation were deposited in the Malkhana in sealed condition and they were sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur without being tampered with. We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that nine sealed packets which had been deposited in the Malkhana of the police station were sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur in the same condition in which they were deposited. (22). The report of the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has been exhibited as Ex. P.15. This report shows that 12 items containing nine sealed pac-kets, were examined. Item marked as `A contained pieces of wood which, in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur,was marked as Ex.1 and they were found to be stained with blood but the blood group could not be ascertained because of disintegration. The evidence produced by the prosecution, proves beyond reasonable doubt that pieces of `lathi which had been recovered from the scene of occurrence were stained with human blood. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the alleged incident did not take place at the residence of the accused Shanker Nath. The recovery of blood stained pieces of `lathi from inside the thatch of Shanker Nath, proves that the alleged incident had taken place inside the hut of Shanker Nath as is alleged by the prosecution. (23). The evidence which connects the appellants with the alleged crime consists of the dying declaration of Vinod Kumar, recorded on Ex.P.2, by the police officer who reached to the Government Hospital, Sandawa on receiving information from the concerned doctor. In this dying declaration Vinod Kumar has narrated the incident, incriminating the accused-persons. (23). The evidence which connects the appellants with the alleged crime consists of the dying declaration of Vinod Kumar, recorded on Ex.P.2, by the police officer who reached to the Government Hospital, Sandawa on receiving information from the concerned doctor. In this dying declaration Vinod Kumar has narrated the incident, incriminating the accused-persons. Ex.P.2 is the basis of the police investigation, as on the basis of this statement, the police registered the case under Section 307 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, later on, converted the case into one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code after injured deponent Vinod Kumar succumbed to his injuries. (24). The prosecution has also produced eye-witnesses of the occurrence who have given account of assault being made on the deceased Vinod Kumar at the residence of accused Shanker Nath. The prosecution has also produced witnesses who reached the spot after they came to know about the assault and they found the injured Vinod Kumar in injured condition. (25). Kan Das (PW 2) is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on the day of the occurrence at about 1 to 1.30 (P.M.), he was bringing she-goats to the village. When he was at a distance of 10 paces from the `dhani of Shanker Nath, he heard the cries `` Maare Re Maare Re. He as well as Vikram Singh went to the house of Shanker Nath and saw that Vinod Kumar was lying on a cot and Shanker Nath, Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Lal and Kishan Nath were beating Vinod Kumar. Bhagirath Nath and Bhanwar Nath had axes in their hands, Shanker Nath had a stick made of `khejari wood and Kishan Nath had a `lathi in his hand. Kan Das (PW 2) has added that Bhagirath Nath said him "stop" and then Vikram Singh started running and he followed Vikram Singh. It is further stated by him that he went to the house of Vinod Kumar and told his mother that Vinod Kumar was being beaten by Shanker Nath, Bhagirath Nath, Kishan Nath and Bhanwar Nath. This witness has identified all the four accused in the court and told that he knows them because they live in his village. Kan-Das (PW 2) has been cross-examined at length. His statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. This witness has identified all the four accused in the court and told that he knows them because they live in his village. Kan-Das (PW 2) has been cross-examined at length. His statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. In his cross-examination he could not tell about the particular injury inflicted by each accused but he has unhesitatedly stayed that the accused-persons were standing around the cot and were beating Vinod Kumar. The witness has denied the suggestion that he is making a false statement at the instance of the members of the Barber community. We have carefully considered the statement of Kan Das (PW2). In our opinion, his statement is quite natural and trustworthy. There is nothing on record to doubt the truthfulness of this witness. It is true that Kan Das (PW 2) is only 13 years old but his whole statement shows that he is speaking the truth and that he had seen with his own eyes that all the four accused were inflicting injuries to Vinod Kumar who was lying on the cot in the house of Shanker Nath. (26). Vikram Singh (PW 11) is the second eye-witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the field with Kan Das with his she-goats and at about 1.30 P.M. he was returning to his village in order to take his meals. At that time, he heard the cries ``Maare Re Maare Re coming from the `dhani of Shanker Nath and he went to the `dhani with Kan Das and saw that Bhanwar Nath, Shanker Nath, Bhagirath Nath and Kishan Nath were beating Vinod. According to this witness, Kishan Nath was armed with `lathi. Shanker Nath was armed with a wooden stick. Bhagirath Nath and Bhanwar Nath were armed with axes. It is further stated by him that he went to the house of Vinod and told his mo-ther about the incident. At that time, Balu Dada, Gangu Dada, Jetha Dada and Banshi Dada were in the outer room of the house and he had told them that Vinod was being beaten in the `dhani of Shanker Nath. Vikram Singh is also 13 years old. He was cross-examined at length but his statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. At that time, Balu Dada, Gangu Dada, Jetha Dada and Banshi Dada were in the outer room of the house and he had told them that Vinod was being beaten in the `dhani of Shanker Nath. Vikram Singh is also 13 years old. He was cross-examined at length but his statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Bhanwar Nath had inflicted one axe injury on the ear of Vinod. It is further stated by him that accused Bhagirath Nath had chased and, therefore, he ran away from the scene of occurrence. We have carefully considered the statement of Vikram Singh and we find no reason to doubt his testimony. (27). Jagdish Saran (PW 1) is not an eye-witness of the occurrence but he was produced by the prosecution to prove that he had also heard cries coming from the house of Shanker Lal but he has denied this fact and stated that on the date of occurrence at about 12 noon he was inside his house. He was examined but declared hostile and confronted with portions A to B and C to D of his police state-ment Ex.P.l. He has admitted that he made the statement contained in portions A to B and C to D. In view of the fact -that this witness had admitted the portions A to B and C to D of his police statement Ex.P.1, it must be inferred that this witness is not speaking the truth. We, therefore, deem it fit to discard the statement made by this witness in the court. (28). The prosecution has examined Smt. Shanti (PW 3) who is mother of Vinod Kumar (deceased). She has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 12 noon Vinod had returned to the house to take his meals. At that time Kishan Nath (accused) came and asked Vinod Kumar about the charges for one trolley. Kishan Nath offerred to give Rs.17/-per trolley and further said that his father Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath and Shanker Nath are calling him. Before going with Kishan Nath, Vinod Kumar sought permission from his father Balu Ram who was sleeping in the room. Balu Ram asked him not to go outside and to take some rest as it was noon in the day. Vinod Kumar did not stay and went away with Kishan Nath. Before going with Kishan Nath, Vinod Kumar sought permission from his father Balu Ram who was sleeping in the room. Balu Ram asked him not to go outside and to take some rest as it was noon in the day. Vinod Kumar did not stay and went away with Kishan Nath. Smt.Shanti (PW 3) has added that at about 1.30 P.M., Vikram Singh came rushing to her house. Kan Das also reached. They were accompanied by Jagdish and they told that Vinod was being beaten at the house of Shanker Nath. She asked, them to give information to her father-in-law (Balu Ram). Smt. Shanti (PW 3) has added that, she along with Banshi Lal and Ganga Ram, rushed towards the house of Shanker Nath and, on reaching there, saw that Vinod Kumar was lying on a cot be-neath the thatch of Shanker Naths house. He had been badly beaten and blood was coming out of his wounds. Vinod asked her to take him to the house. At that time accused-persons were present there. Bhanwar Nath and Bhagirath Nath had `gandasis in their hands and the other two accused had `lathi and `jaily. They were standing near Vinod Kumar after inflicting injuries on him. It is also stated by Smt. Shanti (PW 3) that pieces of `lathi were lying there and when she started collecting them, Bhagirath Nath and Bhanwar Nath stopped her and threatened to beat her. When she enquired from Bhagirath Nath why Vinod had been beaten, Bhagirath Nath told her that it was their desire to beat him. It is also added by Smt. Shanti (PW 3) that Bhagirath Nath further told her that Vinod had been beaten because he used to visit Shanker Naths wife. At that time Shanker Naths wife was inside the hut and when she asked her, she replied that she treated Vinod Kumar as her brother and that she does not know why Vinod Kumar had been beaten. Smt.Shanti (PW 3) has added that Vinod was brought to her house on the cot which belonged to Shanker Nath and Vinod Kumar told her that he had been injured by Babuji (Bha-girath Nath) and it was also told by Vinod Kumar that Bhagirath Nath and Bhanwar Nath had beaten him with `gandasi and Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath had beaten him with `lathi and `jaily. Smt. Shanti (PW 3) has added that Rameshwar s/o Banshi Lal was sent to Kalyansar for the purpose of bringing a Jonga. After some time, a jonga was brought and, in the jonga, Vinod was taken to the hospital. She as well as Balu Ram, Jetha Ram, Ganga Ram and Narayan Singh went to the hospital with Vinod Kumar. It is stated by her that Vinod Kumar was admitted in the hospital at Sandawa and his statement was taken by the doctor and the `thanedar was standing near him. She has admitted her signature on Ex.P.2 and proved the signature of Vinod Kumar on Ex.P.2 by stating that Vinod Kumar has put his signa-ture in her presence. It is also stated by her that at Sandawa Hospital, she was advised to take Vinod Kumar to Sujangarh and Vinod Kumar was taken to Sujangarh where he died. The statement of Smt. Shanti (PW 3), if found to be reliable, proves several important facts. Smt. Shanti (PW 3) has tried to prove that Kishan Nath had come to her house and, at his instance, Vinod Kumar accompanied Kishan Nath to the house of Shanker Nath. She has also given evidence to the effect that Vikram Singh (PW 11) and Kan Das (PW 2) had came running to her house at about 1.30 P.M. and told her that Vinod Kumar was being beaten by the accused-persons. She has also given statement to the effect that on receiving information from Kan Das (PW 2) and Vikram Singh (PW 11) , she went to the house of accused with Banshi Lal and Ganga Ram and found that Vinod Kumar was lying on a cot in an injured condition and all the four accused-persons were standing there duly armed with `gandasis, `lathis and `jailly. She has also given statement to the effect that the accused had admitted that they had beaten Vinod Kumar because, he used to visit Shanker Naths wife. It is also stated by her that Vinod Kumar was brought to her house on the cot in an injured condition and he had given statement to the effect that he had been beaten by Bhagirath Nath and Bhanwar Nath with `gandasis and Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath with `lathi and `jailly. It is also stated by her that Vinod Kumar was brought to her house on the cot in an injured condition and he had given statement to the effect that he had been beaten by Bhagirath Nath and Bhanwar Nath with `gandasis and Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath with `lathi and `jailly. It is also stated by her that Vinod Kumar was taken to the Government Hospital at Sandawa where he made a statement in presence of the doctor and the officer-in-charge of the police station and, on the advise of the doctor, he was taken to the hospital of Sujangarh where he died. Smt.Shanti (PW 3) has been cross-examined at length but there is nothing in her cross-examination to show that her statement is false or open to doubt. The only ground on which her statement has been criticised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when Vinod Kumar was being brought to her house in the injured condition, no body met her on the way. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was quite unnatural not to find even a single person on the way when Vinod Kumar was being brought to her house. In our opinion, the criticism is baseless. The month in which the incident was occurred was June and the time when Vinod Kumar was brought from the house of accused was about 1.30 P.M. In the month of June at 1.30 P.M., people generally stay inside their homes because of excessive heat in the desert of Rajasthan. Therefore, if Smt. Shanti (PW 3) did not meet any person on the way when Vinod Kumar was being brought from the house of accused, there was nothing abnormal in it. (29). Balu Ram (PW 5) has supported the prosecution story by giving statement similar to the statement made by Smt.Shanti (PW 3). He has given evidence to the effect that on the date of occurrence Vinod sought his permission to go with Kishan Nath as Kishan Nath had told him that he was being summoned by Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath and Shanker Nath. He has given evidence to the effect that on the date of occurrence Vinod sought his permission to go with Kishan Nath as Kishan Nath had told him that he was being summoned by Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath and Shanker Nath. Balu Ram (PW 5) has added that he advised Vinod not to go with Kishan Nath at that time and take rest but Vinod went away with Kishan Nath and, about an hour after the departure of Vinod Kumar, three persons Kan Das, Vikram Singh and Jagdish, came and they informed that Vinod Kumar was being beaten at the house of Shanker Nath by Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath, Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath. Balu Ram (PW 5) has added that since he was not in a position to go to the house of Shanker Nath, his brothers Banshi Lal, Ganga Ram and Smt.Shanti mother of Vinod went to the house of Shanker Nath and brought Vinod within an hour on a cot. At that time, there were many injuries on the body of Vinod and his ear was cut. His condition was serious. It is also stated by him that jonga was brought from Kalyansar by Rameshwar and in the jonga Vi-nod was taken to the hospital. Balu Ram (PW 5) has further stated that when he enquired from Vinod Kumar, Vinod told him that Kishan Nath, by deceiving him, taken him to the house of the accused and Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath, Kishan Nath and Shanker Nath beat him with axes and `lathis. It is also stated by this witness that Vinod was taken to Sandawa Hospital. According to this witness, he as well as Ganga Ram, Jetha Ram and Narayan Singh accompanied Vinod to Sandawa Hospital. The doctor examined Vinod and called the officer-in-charge of the police station and the officer-in-charge of the police station recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar. After that the doctor advised to take him to Sujangarh as his condition was serious and Vinod was taken to Sujangarh and the doctor also accompanied him. At Sujangarh Government Hospital, Vinod was admitted but he died at about 9.30 P.M. Balu Ram (PW 5) has been examined at length but his statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. (30). At Sujangarh Government Hospital, Vinod was admitted but he died at about 9.30 P.M. Balu Ram (PW 5) has been examined at length but his statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. (30). Bhera Ram (PW 6) has been examined by the prosecution to prove that he had seen Kishan Nath going to the house of Balu Ram Barber and, after some time, Kishan Nath and Vinod Kumar were seen by him going on the path leading to Untalad and about half an hour afterwards, he heard that Vinod Kumar had been beaten by Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath,, Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath. The statement of the witness could not be shaken in the cross-examination. (31). Rameshwar Lal (PW 4) has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 12 to 1 P.M. he was at the house of Hazari Maharaj. There he heard that Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath, Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath had beaten Vinod. He reached to the house and saw that Vinod Kumar was lying in an injured condition. It is also stated by him that his father Banshi Lal asked him to bring jonga from Kalyansar. Therefore, he went to Kalyansar on his tractor and brought jonga of Bhagwana Ram Jat and, in the jonga, Vinod was taken to the hospital. (32). Bhagwana Ram (PW 7) has supported the prosecution story by saying that on 12.6.93 at about 3 to 3.30 P.M., Rameshwar came to him at village Kalyansar and told him that his nephew Vinod had been beaten by Siddhas (a sect of Nathas). He asked him to take him to the hospital in his vehicle. Bhagwana Ram (PW 7) has added that he has a jonga jeep RSF 9181. He went to the house of Balu Ram with his jonga jeep and in the jonga Vinod was taken to the Sandawa Hospital. He was accompanied by Balu Ram, Jetha Ram, Narayan Singh and the mother of Vinod. It is also stated by him that at Sandawa Hospital, doctor gave him treatment. Later on, he was taken to Sujangarh on the advise of the doctor and at Sujangarh Hospital Vinod was admitted but he expired on the same day, about 1 to 1-1/2 hour after admission in the hospital. (33). The statement of these witnesses could not be shaken in the cross-examination. Later on, he was taken to Sujangarh on the advise of the doctor and at Sujangarh Hospital Vinod was admitted but he expired on the same day, about 1 to 1-1/2 hour after admission in the hospital. (33). The statement of these witnesses could not be shaken in the cross-examination. We, therefore, hold that the prosecution has proved that on the date of occurrence, Kishan Nath went to the house of Vinod Kumar on the pretext that he was being summoned by Bhagirath Nath, Bhanwar Nath and Shanker Nath who wanted to hire his tractor trolley, took Vinod Kumar to the house of the accused Shanker Nath. As soon as Vinod reached there, he was assaulted by all the four accused-persons and several injuries which were found during his examination at Government Hospital, Sandawa and during post-mortem examination at Government Hospital, Sujangarh, were inflicted on him. The evidence further shows that two accused-persons were armed with axes, one was armed with a `lathi and one was armed with `Khejari wood. (34). The prosecution has also placed reliance on the statement of Ex.P.2 of Vinod Kumar which was recorded by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sandawa, at Government Hospital, Sandawa on 12.6.93 at 5.35 P.M. This statement amounts to a dying declaration of the deceased Vinod Kumar because on the same day, after a few hours, Vinod Kumar expired at the Government Hospital, Sujangarh on account of the injuries inflicted on his body. (35). Taj Mohammed (PW 20) is the police officer who recorded the statement Rx.P.2 of Vinod Kumar. He has stated that on 12.6.93 when he was posted as Station House Officer of the Police Station Sandawa, he received a letter Ex.P.16 sent by the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Sandawa. It was mentioned in the letter that Vinod Kumar s/o Bhanwar Lal caste Barber resident of Jyak had been ad-mitted at the Hospital on account of injuries. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has added that on receiving EX.P.16, he started from the police station for Government Hospital and an entry was made at S.No.338 in the daily diary of the police station. On reaching the hospital he recorded statement of Vinod Kumar on Ex.P.2 and Vinod Kumar put his signature at place C to D of this statement. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has added that on receiving EX.P.16, he started from the police station for Government Hospital and an entry was made at S.No.338 in the daily diary of the police station. On reaching the hospital he recorded statement of Vinod Kumar on Ex.P.2 and Vinod Kumar put his signature at place C to D of this statement. It is also stated by this witness that before recording the statement of Vinod Kumar, he enquired from the medical officer whether Vinod Kumar was in a position to make his statement and the medical officer answered that he was in a position to make his statement. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has proved the carbon copy of the requisition given by him to the medical officer with a view to ascertain whether Vinod Kumar was in a fit state to make his statement. This carbon copy has been marked as Ex.P.25. The learned trial Judge has admitted this document in evidence on the ground that it is a carbon copy of the original requisition. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has added that after recording statement on Ex.P.2 he returned to the police station at 7 P.M. and made an entry at S.No.340 (Ex.P.26) and signed the same. It is also stated by him that he registered the case and prepared First Information Report Ex.P.27 on the basis of statement Ex.P.2 and made an endorsement to this effect on Ex.P.2. It is also stated by him that during the investigation, condition of Vinod Kumar became serious and he was referred by the doctor to Sujangarh Hospital. Therefore, he sent one constable with Vinod Kumar to Sujangarh and, on the same day at about 11.30 P.M. he received information that Vinod Kumar had expired. Her therefore, converted the case under investigation into a case of murder under Sec.302 of the I.P.C. (36). The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the dying declaration made by the deceased Vinod Kumar to Taj Mohammed (PW20), Station House Officer of the Police Station is not reliable. The first ground on which the dying declaration has been criticised is that it has not been proved that Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind to give a correct account of transaction in which he received the injuries. The first ground on which the dying declaration has been criticised is that it has not been proved that Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind to give a correct account of transaction in which he received the injuries. The second ground of criticism by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the statement Ex.P.2 should have been recorded by the doctor who was present in the hospital and the Station House Officer should not have recorded the statement himself. It is also submitted by him that according to one prosecution witness, the statement of Vinod Kumar was, in fact, recorded by the doctor and not by Taj Mohammed (PW 20). The third ground on which dying declaration has been criticised is that no steps were taken by Taj Mohammed (PW 20) to get dying declaration by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate because it was necessary for the removal of doubt that he requested a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate to record a second dying declaration before Vinod Kumar died. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the criticism is not justified and the statement Ex.P.2, as recorded by Taj Moh-ammed (PW 20), does not suffer from any infirmity and is, therefore, reliable. (37). We would first of all consider whether the prosecution has proved that Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind to give an account of transaction in which he received injuries. Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) is the medical expert who examined the injuries of Vinod Kumar at 5.05 P.M. at Government Primary Health Centre, Sandawa. He has stated on oath that on the examination of the patient Vinod Kumar, he found that the pulse was 96 per minute, B.P.was 90/70 mm of mercury, pupil was slightly reacting to light and patient was conscious and slightly irritable. It is also stated by him that, in his presence, statement of Vinod Kumar has been recorded on Ex.P.2 and Vinod Kumar was in fit state to make a statement. He has further added that Vinod Kumar had put his signatures on Ex.P.2. This witness has proved his own signatures on Ex.P.2. In cross-examination, Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) has stated that patient was giving replies to the questions put to him and, therefore, he considered the patient to be conscious. He has further added that Vinod Kumar had put his signatures on Ex.P.2. This witness has proved his own signatures on Ex.P.2. In cross-examination, Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) has stated that patient was giving replies to the questions put to him and, therefore, he considered the patient to be conscious. He has further stated in his cross-examination that he has given certificate to the effect that the patient was fit to make a statement. During cross-examination a copy of the certificate was shown to the witness and he admitted that he had issued the certificate. It is also stated by him that he issued the certificate at 5.30 P.M. A suggestion was made to this witness that he has put his signatures on the dying declaration Ex.P.2 at the instance of the Station House Officer of the Police Station. The witness categorically denied this suggestion. During the statement of Taj Mohammed (PW 20), the carbon copy of the requisition given by the Station House Officer of the Police Station to the Medical Officer-in-charge of the Primary Health Centre, Sandawa was produced and the same was admitted by the learned trial Judge. This document was marked as Ex.P.25. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has proved his signatures at portion A to B. It is also stated by Taj Mohammed (PW 20) that the opinion of the doctor is given in portion C to D and below the opinion, the doctor has put his signature. A perusal of Ex.P.25 shows that endorsement by the doctor about the condition of Vinod Kumar is duly signed by the doctor. As pointed out earlier, during cross-examination of Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid( PW 15), a copy of the certificate issued by him was shown to him and he admitted that he had issued the certificate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proper to infer that Ex.P.25 is a document which had been shown to Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) and was admitted by him. (38). In this case there is no allegation at all that Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) was bearing any grudge or enmity against the accused-appellants nor there is anything to show that Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) was prompted by any motive to give a false statement about the condition of Vinod Kumar. (38). In this case there is no allegation at all that Dr.Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) was bearing any grudge or enmity against the accused-appellants nor there is anything to show that Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) was prompted by any motive to give a false statement about the condition of Vinod Kumar. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to doubt the testimony of Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15). In our opinion, his evidence is reliable and sufficient to prove that Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind to make the statement at 5.05 P.M., when Taj Mohammed (PW 20) reached the hospital and started recording his statement. The evidence of Taj Mohammed (PW 20) also does not suffer from any defect or infirmity. There is no reason to suspect that he was interested in preparing incorrect record of the statement of Vinod Kumar. There is nothing to justify the conclusion that Taj Mohammed (PW 20) wanted to incriminate the accused-persons falsely. In the absence of anything to justify an adverse inference, we deem it proper to rely on the statement of Taj Mohammed (PW 20) because, in our opinion, he appears to be the reliable witness. (39). It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.P.2 purports to have been recorded at 5.35 P.M. as the time mentioned on this documents is 5.30 P.M. and the time mentioned on the document Ex.P.25 is also 5.30 P.M. and, in cross-examination, Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has stated that he started recording the statement of Vinod Kumar at 5.35 P.M. The statements of Dr. Satya Narayan Jangid (PW 15) and Taj Mohammed (PW 20) and the time given on the dying declaration Ex.P.2 and the requisition containing the certificate about fitness of the doctor clearly show that the statement of Vinod Kumar was recorded by Taj Mohammed after his reaching the Primary Health Centre. The recording was commenced at 5.30 P.M. or 5.35 P.M. and was completed within 15 minutes. It is also on record that Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) and Taj Mohammed (PW 20) were present at the time of recording statement Ex.P.2. Our attention has been drawn to the cross-examination of Smt. Shanti (PW 3) where she has stated that the statement of Vinod Kumar was taken by the doctor and `thanedar was present. It is also on record that Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) and Taj Mohammed (PW 20) were present at the time of recording statement Ex.P.2. Our attention has been drawn to the cross-examination of Smt. Shanti (PW 3) where she has stated that the statement of Vinod Kumar was taken by the doctor and `thanedar was present. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that statement of Smt.Shanti su-ggests that dying declaration of Vinod Kumar was recorded by Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) and not by Taj Mohammed. (PW 20). We do not find force in this submission. There is a distinction between ``taking a statement and ``recording a statement. Smt.Shanti(PW 3) has merely stated that his statement was taken by the doctor. She has nowhere stated that his statement was recorded by the doctor. It is, therefore, not proper to infer that the statement had been recorded by Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15). So far as ordinary meaning of expression ``taking the statement is concerned, it simply means putting questions to the person whose statement is to be obtained. The answer is always to be given by the person to whom the question is, addressed. Therefore, all that may be said is that when the statement of Vinod Kumar was being recorded, the doctor,also, might have put questions to him. Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) has stated that he had put questions to Vinod Kumar and from the answers given by him he concluded that he was in a fit state of mind to make a statement. The statement made by Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) clearly shows that he had also put questions to Vinod Kumar to find out whether he was in a fit state of mind to make a statement and, to this act, Smt. Shanti has referred in her cross-examination. We, therefore, do not find force in the submission that Smt. Shanti wanted to say that the statement of Vinod Kumar had been recorded by Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) and not by Taj Mohammed (PW 20). It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that Vinod Kumar made his statement in local `Marwari language but the statement Ex.P.2 appears to be in Hindi and, therefore, it should be infer that the statement of Vinod Kumar has not been recorded in the words used by him. Apart from the testimony of Dr. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that Vinod Kumar made his statement in local `Marwari language but the statement Ex.P.2 appears to be in Hindi and, therefore, it should be infer that the statement of Vinod Kumar has not been recorded in the words used by him. Apart from the testimony of Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) and Taj Mohammed (PW 20), we find that, in her cross-examination, Smt. Shanti (PW 3) has clearly stated that Ex.P.2 was recorded in the same manner as the statement was made by Vinod Kumar. We therefore, find no force in this contention that the statement Ex.P..2 was not correctly recorded. So far as admissibility of Ex.P.25 which is a carbon copy of the requisition given by Taj Mohammed(PW 20) to Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) is concerned, this document is not the primary evidence of the opinion given by Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) about the condition of Vinod Kumar. The primary evidence is in form of oral statements made by Taj Mohammed (PW 20) and Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) in the court. Ex.P.25 has been used only for the purpose of corroborating the statements of these witnesses. In these circumstances, even if, Ex.P.25 is discarded, the statements of Taj Mohammed (PW 20) and Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) would be sufficient to pro-ve that Vinod Kumar was fit to make a statement on 12.6.93 at 5.30 P.M. The document Ex.P.25 is a carbon copy of the requisition and the learned trial Judge has admitted this document for the purpose of corroboration. The reasons given by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be unsound. We, therefore, hold that the opinion given by Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) to Ex.P.25 can be legally used as corroborating piece of evidence showing the state of mind of Vinod Kumar at the time of making the statement. (40). The second ground on which the criticism of dying declaration Ex.P.2 is based is that the dying declaration was recorded not by Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) but was recorded by Taj Mohammed (PW 20). (40). The second ground on which the criticism of dying declaration Ex.P.2 is based is that the dying declaration was recorded not by Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) but was recorded by Taj Mohammed (PW 20). Before appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, we deem it fit to point out that no such rule or provision has been brought to our notice which may be said to prohibit a police officer from recording the statement of the injured or of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) had reached the hospital on receiving the information that Vinod Kumar was admi-tted in the hospital in injured condition. He was Station House Officer of the Police Station and it was his duty to find out whether any offence had been committed against Vinod Kumar. He, therefore, proceeded to the Primary Health Centre, Sandawa where Vinod Kumar was admitted. He made enquiry from Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) whether Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind to make a state-ment and,for this purpose, he served the original requisition of which a copy Ex.P.25 has been produced in evidence. Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 15) certified that Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind. What is important to note is that neither Taj Mohammed (PW 20) nor Dr. Satya Narayan (PW 20) had any idea about the statement to be made by Vinod Kumar. Therefore, Taj Mohammed (PW 20) could not know what kind of statement would be made by Vinod Kumar at that time. In order to find out whether any cognizable offence has been committed within the meaning of Sections 156 and 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it was Taj Mohammed (PW 20) who had to record the statement of Vinod Kumar. It was none of the duties of the doctor to record statement of the injured person for the purpose of Sections 156 and 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show that a cognizable offence had been committed. We, therefore do not find any force in the criticism that Taj Mohammed (PW 20) should not have recorded the statement Ex.P.2 in his own pen but should have entrusted the duty of recording the same to Dr. Satya Na-rayan (PW 15). We, therefore do not find any force in the criticism that Taj Mohammed (PW 20) should not have recorded the statement Ex.P.2 in his own pen but should have entrusted the duty of recording the same to Dr. Satya Na-rayan (PW 15). Cases in which it may be suggested that the police officer should, as far as possible, request the doctor to record the statement in place of himself recording the same, or generally those cases in which the First Information Report has already been lodged and the investigation has already commenced and it could be legitimately anticipated that the injured is likely to make statement raising an accusing finger against one or more persons involving them in commission of cognizable offence. In cases where the Station House Officer, himself, proceeds to the hospital, on being informed about the admission of an injured person in the hospital, with a view to find out whether any cognizable offence has been committed for the purpose of Sections 156 and 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not only desirable but it is the duty of the police officer to himself question the injured person to find out whether any cognizable offence has been committed and a case should be registered. The duty cannot be entrusted to any other person. (41). The cases in which the police officer, may be required to record the dying declaration of a person, may be broadly classified into two classes, (1) where a dy-ing declaration is made before a police officer, who at the time and place, where the statement is made to him, is acting as a police officer and (2) cases in which dying declaration is made to a police officer because he happened to be present at the time and the place where the dying declaration is made, without any consideration of being police officer. In the first category of cases only, guidelines may be laid down for calling any person other than a police officer for recording the dying declaration, if it is just, proper and reasonable. In the first category of cases only, guidelines may be laid down for calling any person other than a police officer for recording the dying declaration, if it is just, proper and reasonable. In the cases falling in the second category, if the police officer records the dying declaration, he cannot be blamed or criticised because the dying declaration was made to him not because that he was acting at the time and place, as a police officer but because he happen-ed to be present at the place where the dying declaration was made by the person anticipating his death or approaching his death. (42). In cases falling in first category, in which dying declaration is made before a police officer, may be further divided into two sub-classes, (a) cases in which investigation is already in progress on the basis of a First Information Report already recorded at the police station and (b) cases in which no investigation is in progress and, at the time of hearing and recording the dying declaration, the police officer is required by law to find out whether there is reasonable ground to suspect that a cognizable offence, in respect of which investigation should be made under Sections 156 and 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code,has been committed. (43). In cases falling in category (a),viz, cases in which investigation has already been commenced by recording a First Information Report at, the Police Station, the police officer conducting investigation, may be advised in appropriate cases, to call some other responsible person, viz., a person not belonging to the police department, to record the dying declaration. Such person may be a doctor, a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate or any person, holding a responsible post and known for his fairness, integrity and capability. Such person may be a doctor, a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate or any person, holding a responsible post and known for his fairness, integrity and capability. The advise to the police officer in such cases to call another person to record the dying declaration, is justifiable not because the law presumes the police officer to be incapable or unfair to the complainant or the accused-party but because, having been interested with the in-vestigation, he is presumed to have collected some evidence to enable him to form an opinion, about the alleged commission of offence or the involvement of a certain person in the commission of offence and, such opinion may, imperceptibly, make the police officer to put leading questions while recording the dying declaration and, such leading questions, may, in place of eliciting the truth, imperceptibly make the person making statement to deviate from truth. But this apprehension does not and cannot arise in all cases and, therefore, the advise cannot be given to the police officer conducting investigation in all cases without taking into consideration other relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the criticism that the poli-ce officer has himself recorded the statement of the dying person, during an investigation, would have to be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and the criticism cannot be made in a mechanical way. Another reason for advising the Investigating Officer, to request the Magistrate to record the dying declaration, is that by the very nature of the official functions, the Magistrates are well-worsed with the procedure of recording the evidence and they are also aware of the dangers arising from leading questions and improper questions and, therefore, it is expected that while recording the dying declaration, they will take all necessary precautions to record the statement correctly avoiding such leading questions and improper questions,but, it does not mean that the police officers are not capable of recording the dying declaration correctly. In any cases, the police officer may be criticised for himself recording the dying declaration are only in those cases where he is recording the statement during an investigation. If the investigation has not been commenced at the time of recording the dying declaration, the police officer cannot be advised or ordered to call some other person to record the dying decla-ration. The reasons are given below. (44). If the investigation has not been commenced at the time of recording the dying declaration, the police officer cannot be advised or ordered to call some other person to record the dying decla-ration. The reasons are given below. (44). In cases falling in category (b),viz, cases in which no investigation has been commenced under Section 156/157 of the Criminal Procedure Code because no First Information Report has been recorded at the police station about any cognizable offence, the police officer records the dying declaration not because that he is investigating the case but because he has to form an opinion whether there is a case for commencing investigation under Section 156/157 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the statement discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the statement is to be treated as a First Information Report under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It would be proper to re-produce the provi-sions of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 154 reads: ``154. Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such, information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of a police station in relation to that offence. (45). (45). A bare perusal of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code shows that every information given to the Station House Officer of a police station relating to commission of cognizable offence, (other than under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code), is to be treated as a First Information Report about the offence and the police officer to whom the information is given, is bound to record that information himself, or to get the information recorded under his direction and signatures of the deponent are to be obtained by the Station House Officer of the police officer. In view of the provisions contained under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the contention that the Station House officer of the police station should not record the information himself but requests the doctor or a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate to record the same for him, is without any substance. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, does not contemplate that the police officer to whom the First Information Report is made about a cognizable case, shall omit to record the information himself as mandated by Section 154(1) and much less, this section empowers the Station House Officer of the police station to request any doctor or Magistrate to record the First Information Report, made before him in the form of a dying declaration. (46). The distinction between the statement which is to be treated as First In-formation Report about an offence and the subsequent statement is well established. The former statement is known as the First Information Report about the cognizable offence and it is covered by Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the provisions contained under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to such statements. On the other hand, subsequent statements made to the Investigating Officer regarding a case which is under investigation, do not amount to First Information Report under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They are covered by Sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, subsequent statements made to the Investigating Officer regarding a case which is under investigation, do not amount to First Information Report under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They are covered by Sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We, therefore, hold that where the dying declaration is made to the Station House Officer of the police station, as the first information about the cognizable offence, such statement is to be recorded by the police officer in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and there is nothing in law to suggest that the Station House Officer of the police station or any other police officer authorised in this regard can delegate his duty to a doctor, Magistrate or any other person. (47). In the instant case, the dying declaration recorded on Ex.P.2 was the first statement about the cognizable offence,viz., offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the provisions of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code were applicable to it and Taj Mohammed (PW 20) who is the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sandawa, did not commit any illegality or irregularity by recording the dying declaration Ex.P.2 himself. (48). The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, after commencing the investigation, it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to get the second dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate as there was enough time for doing so. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in this submission. The offence which, was disclosed by the statement of Vinod Kumar was only an offence under Sections 307, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of recording the statement,Vinod Kumar was conscious and fit to make the statement. The evidence shows that he continued to remain conscious even he was admitted at the Govern-ment Hospital, Sujangarh. Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) has stated that he was irritable. The circumstances do not show that there was any apprehension of the death of Vinod Kumar. In these circumstances, if Taj Mohammed (PW 20) did not deem it fit to get his statement recorded by a Magistrate, it cannot be said that he did not act in a proper manner. Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) has stated that he was irritable. The circumstances do not show that there was any apprehension of the death of Vinod Kumar. In these circumstances, if Taj Mohammed (PW 20) did not deem it fit to get his statement recorded by a Magistrate, it cannot be said that he did not act in a proper manner. If there is no apprehension of imminent death, the Investi-gating Officer may take his own time for investigation. There is another circumstance which shows that Taj Mohammed (PW 20) was not in a position to request any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer to record the second dying declaration of Vinod Kumar. The evidence produced by the prosecution shows that after recording the dying declaration on Ex.P.2, the doctor advised that he should be taken to the Government Hospital, Sujangarh because he was irritable. Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) has further stated that it had taken about one hour for recording the statement. This shows that approximately at about 7.30 P.M., Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) advised that Vinod Kumar be taken to Government Hospital,Sujangarh. Dr.Satya Narayan (PW 15) has further added that he accompanied Vinod Kumar to Sujangarh because he belongs to Sujangarh and he has some personal work at his house. Taj Mohammed (PW 20) has given statement that he had sent constable Pep Singh with Vinod Kumar to Sujangarh and, at about 11.30 P.M. on the same day, he received information that Vinod Kumar had expired at Sujangarh. In these circum-stances, it cannot be said that there was sufficient time for getting recorded the second dying declaration of Vinod Kumar by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate. We, therefore, do not find force in the submission that the Investigating Officer Taj Mohammed (PW 20), neglected to get the second dying declaration of Vinod Kumar recorded by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. (49). For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the dying declaration Ex.P.2, was properly recorded by Taj Mohammed (PW 20) who was the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sandawa on 12.6.1993 and that this statement amounts to First Information Report under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and we further hold that Vinod Kumar was in a fit state of mind and body to make the statement Ex.P.2. Consequently, in our opinion, the statement Ex.P.2 is relevant and admissible under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and this statement, is by itself sufficient for arriving at the conclusion that Vinod Kumar had been assaulted by the accused-appellants at the time, place and in the manner indicated in Ex.P.2. In addition, there is circumstantial evidence as well as the dire-ct evidence of the eye-witnesses and, therefore, it must be held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants, assaulted Vinod Kumar at the residence of Shanker Nath after calling him there. (50). Regarding the nature of offence, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that offence committed by the accused-persons does not amount to murder as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by him that the accused-appellants cannot be convicted under Section 302, with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code because the circumstances of the case do not show that all the four accused-appellants shared the common intention to cause the death of Vinod Kumar. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the object behind the incident was to teach a lesson to Vinod Kumar, because he had tried to commit rape on Smt.Nani. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants towards Ex.D.6 which is the First Information Report lodged by Smt.Nani and Ex.D.10 which is the copy of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on the Final Report submitted after investigation of First Information Report No.39/1993 of Police Station, Sandawa. The certified copies of these documents show that Smt.Nani reported at the Police Station on 13.6.1993 that, on the previous day at about 1 P.M. when her husband has gone to village, Vinod Kumar went to her house when she was sleeping on a cot and attempted to commit rape on her and, on hearing her cries, her husband, husbands younger brother, husbands elder brother and father-in-law rushed to the scene of occurrence. Ex.D.6 shows that police registered a case under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the First Information Report given by Smt.Nani. Ex.D.10 shows that the police submitted a Final Report and the Final Report was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate because Vinod Kumar had expired. Ex.D.6 shows that police registered a case under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the First Information Report given by Smt.Nani. Ex.D.10 shows that the police submitted a Final Report and the Final Report was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate because Vinod Kumar had expired. Smt.Nani has not appeared as defence witness in this case and, therefore, the contents of Ex.D.6 cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law. In the absence of any proof of the allegation made in Ex.D.6, the allegation contained in Ex.D.6 cannot be held to be proved. No defence version can, therefore, be founded on the contents of Ex.D.6. (51). In the instant case, the prosecution evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Kishan Nath, went to the house of Vinod Kumar and brought him to the house of Shanker Nath on the pretext that the accused-appellant wanted to carry their bricks in his tractor trolley and, for this purpose, they wanted to take to him. The evidence further shows that as soon as Vinod Kumar reached the house of Shanker Nath, all the four accused-persons started inflicting injuries on his body. Accused Bhanwar Nath and Bhagirath Nath were armed with sharp weapons and the other two accused-persons were armed with a lathi and a stick made of wood. Vinod Kumar does not appear to have possess any weapon nor he was in a position to offer any resistance. The number of injuries found on his body was more than 18. Four injuries had been caused with sharp weapons and the remaining were caused by blunt weapons. In the medico legal report, Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8) has described injury No.10 as multiple abrasion on left forearm. Injuries No. 13,15 and 18 have also been described as multiple in number. This shows that the number of injuries inflicted on the body of Vinod Kumar was more than 18. In the circumstan-ces, we have no doubt in it that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused-appellants shared common intention to jointly cause injuries to Vinod Kumar with axes, `lathis and stick of wood. (52). This shows that the number of injuries inflicted on the body of Vinod Kumar was more than 18. In the circumstan-ces, we have no doubt in it that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused-appellants shared common intention to jointly cause injuries to Vinod Kumar with axes, `lathis and stick of wood. (52). The crucial question is whether the accused-persons intended to cause death of Vinod Kumar or intended to cause such injury as is mentioned in Section 300, secondly and thirdly of the Indian Penal Code or the act of inflicting blows by the accused-appellants on Vinod Kumar, with axes `lathi and stick made of wood, was so imminently dangerous as to bring the offence within the purview of Section 300, fourthly of the Indian Penal Code. (53). Mens rea is an essential ingredient of criminal offence and, therefore, in the criminal trial, the court is required to conduct an enquiry and arrive at a finding regarding mens rea with which act complained of was committed by the accused. Some times the Legislature, may itself draw presumption about the existence or non-existence of mens rea in a conclusive manner and leave no room for the court to conduct any enquiry and give a finding about the existence or non-existence of mens rea. In such cases, the Legislature altogether avoids the mention of mens rea in the definition clause, either expressly or by necessary implication. If in definition clause mens rea is altogether absent, it does not mean that mens rea is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, the proper inference would be that the Legislature has conclusively presumed the existence of the mens rea in such cases if the cir-cumstances mentioned in the definition clause are proved to exist and has omitted to include mens rea as an ingredient of the offence because the Legislature has itself presumed the existence of mens rea conclusively and no judicial enquiry into the existence of mens rea is considered necessary. This conclusion In inevitable in view of the provisions contained in Sections 76 to 85 and some other sections as contained in the Indian Penal Code. Section 82 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. This conclusion In inevitable in view of the provisions contained in Sections 76 to 85 and some other sections as contained in the Indian Penal Code. Section 82 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. This section shows that in the cases of persons under seven years of age, the Legislature has conclusively presumed that such persons do not act with any mens rea and, therefore, the act done by them are not regarded as culpable. Sections 83 and 84 are important. (54). Sections 83 and 84 read: ``83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.-Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. 84. Act of a person of unsound mind.-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. (55). Both these sections clearly indicate that, in order the act of a person, above the age of 7 years may be held to be culpable, it must be shown that the person has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct. The phraseology used in sections is slightly different. Section 83 uses the words ``sufficient maturity of understanding to Judge of the na-ture and consequences of his conduct. These words clearly indicate that human being above the age of seven years is supposed to judge of the nature of his conduct, by using faculty of his understanding. In the case of child who is more than seven but under 12 years of age, the prosecution is required to show that the child has sufficient maturity of understanding referred in Section 83. In the case of person above 12 years of age, subject to just exceptions, the Legislature presumes the persons,above the age of 12 years, have developed a mature understanding referred in Section 83. In the case of person above 12 years of age, subject to just exceptions, the Legislature presumes the persons,above the age of 12 years, have developed a mature understanding referred in Section 83. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code uses the words "is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing, what is either wrong or contrary to law. Section 84, by express words, emphasises on the persons of knowledge of the nature and consequences of the act. It would be noticed that Section 83 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code deliberately avoid the use of the expression "intention" or mens rea. The maturity of understanding referred in Sections 83 is relevant for determining culpability because the maturity of understanding enables the persons doing the act, to develop the awareness of the nature and consequences of his conduct in the given set of circumstances (on that occasion). In the case of woman child above seven but below 12 years of age, the degree of maturity of understanding may vary and knowledge of the nature and consequences of ones conduct does not occur unless the maturity of understanding is of sufficient degree, therefore, in Section 83, the Legislature does not use the word ``knowledge but, by necessary implication, the Legislature has indicated that if the child has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct, the act of such child may be liable to be held culpable. In Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the Legislature has used the words "incapable of knowing the nature of the act". It is obvious that by referring to the word knowledge by using expression "knowing", the Legislature, in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates the cases of persons who would have acquired the knowledge about the nature and consequences of their conduct in the given set of circumstances, if unsoundness of mind had not occurred. Sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code, without any reservation indicate that before an act of any man, may be held culpable, it must be shown that he has acquired sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on the occasion so as to enable him in knowing the nature of the act. Why emphasis is on knowledge of the nature and consequence of the conduct/act is not difficult to infer. Every one to whom the law applies, is expected to abide by the prohibitions imposed by the law and to avoid indulging in such conduct or performing such act as is prohibited and made punishable by law. If without any justification, a person, indulges in such conduct or commits such act as is prohibited and made punishable by law, it is reasonable to infer that he intended to violate the law because he has committed the violation of the provisions of law by inten-tionally indulging in the conduct or intentionally doing the act prohibited by law. (56). Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code further indicates that knowledge about the nature and consequences of any conduct/act, is the result of sufficient maturity of understanding by a man of all the relevant facts and circumstances and their relationships which occur or are likely to occur and that knowledge is the pro-duct of judgment based on sufficient maturity of understanding of all the relevant matters. Such knowledge is obtained by the individual, by indulging in exercise of judging the nature and consequences of his conduct in the given set of circumstances. It shows that knowledge about the nature and consequences of the act is capable of being obtained by applying the faculty of sufficient mature under-stand-ing to the relevant facts and circumstances. In other words, knowledge about the nature and consequences of a conduct or an act, may be obtained by objective assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances. The Legislature has, therefore, deliberately avoided the expression ``intention in Sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code and laid emphasis on the process by which knowledge is obtained about the nature and consequence of act (on the occasion). (57). Intention to indulge in a conduct or to do an act, is indicative of the decision taken by a person. Once a decision is taken by him, such decision produces a state of mind which is a fact according to the definition of ``fact given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Such intention of the man may or may not be ex-pressed or manifested by words or by conduct of the person. Once a decision is taken by him, such decision produces a state of mind which is a fact according to the definition of ``fact given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Such intention of the man may or may not be ex-pressed or manifested by words or by conduct of the person. If the intention is neither expressed nor manifested by words or conduct of the person, such intention cannot be known by any other person. Men and women are, therefore, found to be concealing their intentions so successfully that no one can know about them, provided they can avoid expressing or manifesting their intentions by their words or conduct. On the other hand, if the intention is expressed or manifested by words or conduct, such intention can be ascertained by other persons, taking into consideration the words or the conduct as the case may be. There is thus a clear distinction between knowledge of nature of conduct and act, referred in Sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the intention which has been included as an ingredient of the offence in several sections including Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The distinction is this. Intention of a person can be known to others only if it is expressed or manifested by words or conduct but the knowledge of the nature of the consequence of the act can be ascertained by other persons objectively if they know about all relevant facts and circumstances. It is possible that the person may not acquire the knowledge about the nature and consequence of certain conduct or act if he does not pay attention to the material facts and circumstances. In such cases, knowledge of the nature and consequences of his conduct/act may not be attributed to him provided, he has conducted himself in accordance with the other provisions of law including Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code which expressly requires that the act must have been done with proper care and caution. Ordinarily, it may be presumed that every human being, doing an act, takes proper care and caution so as to avoid any harm to himself and others. (58). The foregoing discussion further shows that knowledge about nature and consequences of the act, is not a product of intention to do the act or abstain from doing the act. Ordinarily, it may be presumed that every human being, doing an act, takes proper care and caution so as to avoid any harm to himself and others. (58). The foregoing discussion further shows that knowledge about nature and consequences of the act, is not a product of intention to do the act or abstain from doing the act. Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, indicates that knowledge about nature and consequences of ones conduct is the product not of intention but of the act of judging with the help of sufficiently mature understanding of all the relevant facts and circumstances but the converse is not true. Intention may be ga-thered from the knowledge of the nature and consequences of conduct/act. In other words, there can be no presumption that a man who intends to obtain a certain result, knows the nature and consequences of his conduct or act. But, in view of the duty of every human being to act with proper care and caution, as indicated by Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, it is expected of every one to ac-quire sufficient mature understanding and to use the same for knowing the nature and consequences of his conduct and a presumption may be drawn that a person who had the knowledge about the nature and consequences of the conduct has acted with the intention to do the act in question,or,to achieve the result actually produced by his conduct or act. (59). To sum up, it is possible to ascertain the knowledge of the accused by taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances objectively because knowledge depends on the judgment arrived at by use of a sufficiently mature understanding of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Knowledge may be used for drawing an inference about the intention to commit a certain conduct/ act or obtain a certain result. In addition, the intention may also be gathered from the words act/or conduct of the accused if he has uttered any words or indulged in conduct expressive of his intention. (60). Knowledge may be used for drawing an inference about the intention to commit a certain conduct/ act or obtain a certain result. In addition, the intention may also be gathered from the words act/or conduct of the accused if he has uttered any words or indulged in conduct expressive of his intention. (60). Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, classify homicide into two categories, (a) cases in which enquiry about the intention to cause injury and knowledge of the nature and probable consequences of the injury is not needed and (b) cases in which intention to cause the injury (which resulted in death) and the knowledge on the part of the accused as to the nature and consequences of the injury, is considered necessary. Homicide can be committed by doing acts of a large variety. Some homicidal acts, cause death without causing any bodily injury. Others cause death by causing bodily injuries which are likely to cause death with different degree of probability of the occurrence of death. Section 300, firstly and fourthly of the Indian Penal Code deal with those cases where enquiry about the intention to cause the injury or about the knowledge of the nature and consequences of the injury or about the degree of probability of occurrence of death on account of the injury is considered not necessary. All that is necessary to bring the act of homicide within the purview of Section 300, firstly is to prove that the accused committed an act which amounts to homicide and that he acted with an intention to cause death. In such cases, the prosecution is required to prove the intention to cause death by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may be in the nature of words spoken or written by the accused to indicate his own state of mind indicative of intention to cause death. The circumstantial evidence of intention to cause death may be in the nature of words or conduct of the accused which expresses or manifests the intention to cause death. If there is no direct evidence of intention to cause death and the intention to cause death is concealed successfully without expressing or manifesting it in any manner, the court would have no means to infer the intention to cause the death. If there is no direct evidence of intention to cause death and the intention to cause death is concealed successfully without expressing or manifesting it in any manner, the court would have no means to infer the intention to cause the death. In such cases, the second best alternative is to find out if the act falls within purview of the definition given in Section 300, fourthly, Section 300, does not require the intention to cause death but it requires that the homicidal act done by the accused must be so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death and the accused should have knowledge of such nature and consequences of his act. The actual nature and consequences of the act and the highest degree of probability of death occurring from the doing of such act, as well as the knowledge of the accused-appellant and nature and consequences of his act are facts which can be ascertained objectively by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, even if the intention to cause death has been concealed by the accused by omitting to express it or manifest it by his conduct, the court can find out by taking into consideration the circumstantial evidence, what was the nature and/the probable consequences of the act committed by him. If the circumstantial evidence is insu-fficient to prove the ingredients of the offence given in Section 300, fourthly, the court may proceed to conduct further enquiry if the homicidal act has resulted in causing of any injuries and death has occurred on account of the injuries. Injuries in such cases are intervening factors and the Legislature has considered them relevant for the purpose of determining the culpability of the accused. Section 300, secondly and thirdly contain alternative definitions of murder. In these definitions, emphasis is on the injuries which intervened between the homicidal act of the accused and the death of the deceased. (61). It may be pointed out that Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code do not prescribe any punishment for ``infliction of injury of any kind. Causing of injuries to human being is dealt with in other provisions viz., Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 and 335 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be pointed out that Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code do not prescribe any punishment for ``infliction of injury of any kind. Causing of injuries to human being is dealt with in other provisions viz., Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 and 335 of the Indian Penal Code. In Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence made punishable is the offence of culpable homicide as distinguished from the offence of causing injuries. It is, therefore, proper to infer that injuries, caused to the victim have been referred in Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, as relevant facts for the purpose of ascertaining whether the offence of culpable homicide (including murder) has been made out. In other words, injuries, in Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code have been referred as material pieces of evidence rather than as offence in their own right. The injuries in these sections are both, (a) the consequences of the act performed by the accused and (b) the cause of death which is homicidal. For the purpose of these sections also, it is evident that intention to cause injury, being a personal decision of the accused, is capable of being effectively concealed by the accused-person if he successfully omits to express his intention or manifest it by his conduct but the nature of the injuries as well as knowledge of the accused as to the nature of the injuries and the probable consequences of such injuries is capable of being objectively ascertained by taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances constituting circumstantial evidence. Therefore, if intention cannot be directly inferred from the occurrence or the conduct of the accused, it is possible to draw an inference about the intention from the knowledge about probable consequences of his conduct/act. The knowledge of the accused about the nature and consequences of the injuries inflicted by him can always be inferred from circumstantial evidence if it is sufficient. (62). In the instant case, the facts proved by the prosecution are few and without any ambiguity. The knowledge of the accused about the nature and consequences of the injuries inflicted by him can always be inferred from circumstantial evidence if it is sufficient. (62). In the instant case, the facts proved by the prosecution are few and without any ambiguity. On 12.6.93, Vinod Kumar was approached by the accused-appellant Kishan Nath and Vinod Kumar was persuaded to accompany accused Kishan Nath to the residence of Shanker Nath on the false pretext that Shanker Nath and other accused wanted to hire the tractor trolley for carrying bricks. When Vinod Kumar reached the residence of Shanker Nath, in the company of Kishan Nath, the accused started inflicting injuries on him. Out of the four accused-persons, two were armed with axes, the third was armed with a `lathi and the fourth was armed with a stick made of wood. When Vinod Kumar asked why he was being beaten, Shanker Nath made an allegation that Vinod Kumar was having illicit relation with Shanker Naths wife. The first blow was inflicted on the legs of Vinod Kumar by Bhanwar Nath with a `jailly. The second blow was inflicted on the head of Vinod Kumar by Bhanwar Nath with an axe. Vinod Kumar was thrown on the ground and then Shanker Nath and Kishan Nath inflicted injuries with `lathis. Bhagirath Nath inflicted an injury on left ear of Vinod Kumar with an axe resulting in amputation of ear and then all the four accused inflicted many injuries and stopped inflicting injuries when they considered Vinod Kumar to be dead. Only three injuries were inflicted with sharp weapons. The first injury on the head, according to the dying declaration Ex.P.2 had been caused by Bhanwar Nath with an axe. The grievous injury resulting in amputation of ear was caused by Bhanwar Nath with an axe after Vinod Kumar has fallen on the ground. The third incised wound found on the head, appears to have been caused either by Bhanwar Nath or by Bhagirth Nath. There was no previous enmity except the suspicion that the deceased Vinod Kumar was having illicit relation with the wife of Shanker Nath. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that all the four accused-persons shared the common intention to cause the death of Vinod Kumar. There was no previous enmity except the suspicion that the deceased Vinod Kumar was having illicit relation with the wife of Shanker Nath. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that all the four accused-persons shared the common intention to cause the death of Vinod Kumar. It is possible that the intention of the accused-persons was to deter the deceased from visiting the wife of Shanker Nath, and to teach him a lesson for having developed the alleged illicit relationship with the wife of Shanker Nath. There is scope for giving benefit to the accused-persons so far as the ``intention to cause the death is concerned. We. therefore, deem it fit to hold that the case of the accused-appellants does not attract Section 300, firstly because the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-per-sons intended to cause death of Vinod Kumar. (63). As pointed out earlier, Section 300 firstly and fourthly are similar to each other in asmuch as an enquiry about the intention to cause injury, degree of proba-bility of occurrence of from injuries and knowledge about such conseuences is dispensed with in both. The conduct of the accused-persons leaves no room for doubt that Vinod Kumar had been taken to the residence of Shanker Nath with an object of giving him beating and teaching a lesson by the accused and, as soon as Vinod Kumar reached he house of Shanker Nath, Bhanwar Nath inflicted an injury on his legs with `jailly, obviously with the object of disabling him to stand on his legs and inflicted the injury on his head with an axe. Meanwhile, Vinod Kumar fell on the ground. All the accused-persons thereafter hurled blows with axes, `lathi and stick as described in the dying declaration Ex.P.2. The act of the accused persons was obviously so imminently dangerous that in all probability, it must have caused simple and grievous injuries to Vinod Kumar. So far as causing of death is concerned, it is difficult to hold that the act of the accused-persons was so immi-nently dangerous that it must, in all probability, have caused death. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in it that the act of the accused-persons, was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, have caused simple and grievous injuries to the deceased Vinod Kumar. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in it that the act of the accused-persons, was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, have caused simple and grievous injuries to the deceased Vinod Kumar. When four persons, two of whom were armed with axes, in furtherance of the common intention, attac-ked on unarmed man without giving him any warning and inflicted injuries on his head and other parts of the body, without taking any steps to prevent infliction of injuries on the vital parts of the body, such act is obviously so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause simple and grievous injuries with sharp and blunt weapons. We, therefore, hold that the act of all the four accu-sed-persons were so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, have caused simple and grievous injuries which were found on the body of the deceased Vinod Kumar. So far as the nature of injuries is concerned, according to statement of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, therefore, the requirement of Sec. 300, fourthly, that the injury should be likely to cause death, is fulfilled. (64). So far as the knowledge of the accused, as required by Sec.300, fourthly, is concerned, we have already pointed out earlier that Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, contemplates that every person above the age of 12 years possesses sufficiently mature understanding, so as to Judge, of the nature and consequences of his conduct and in view of Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, every person who wants to escape punishment for an offence committed by him has to show,besides other things, that he has acted with due care and caution to avoid commission of the offence. Ordinarily, every adult person is supposed to know with due diligen-ce by application of the faculty of mature understanding referred in Section 83, the nature and consequences of his conduct. Ordinarily, every adult person is supposed to know with due diligen-ce by application of the faculty of mature understanding referred in Section 83, the nature and consequences of his conduct. In the instant case, in our opinion, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the knowledge of the nature and probable consequences of their act viz, inflicting injuries jointly with axes, lathi and stick on the deceased who was unarmed and had been summoned to the scene of occurrence, in pursuance of a design and intention to cause injuries to him. We, therefore, hold that the act of the accused-persons amounts to murder under Section 300 fourthly of the Indian Penal Code. (65). We now deem it fit to consider whether the act of the accused-persons is also covered by Sec. 300, secondly and thirdly. The first ingredient for attracting Sec. 300, secondly and thirdly is that the injuries which resulted in death must have been intentionally caused by the accused. In the instant case, we have no doubt in it that all the injuries which were found on the body of Vinod Kumar had been inten-tionally caused by the accused-persons. None of these injuries appeared to be accidental or unintentional. We, therefore, hold that the injuries found on the body of Vinod Kumar were intentional for the purpose of Sec.300, secondly and thirdly. (66). Two additional ingredients of the offence described in Section 300, secondly are, (1) that the injury must be likely to cause death and (2) that the accused must be shown to have the knowledge that the injury was so likely to cause the death. In the instant case, according to the statement of Dr.Sher Singh (PW 8), there was fracture of left frontal bone in the region of scalp. Wound was irregular 8 cm long and linear. Membranes were congested. Brain was oedematous and contused, more so in left cerebral hemisphere, there was wide spread haemorrhage present over the cerebral hemisphere. The deceased Vinod Kumar died of shock due to head injury causing contusion and oedema of brain. The injuries found on the body of Vinod Kumar were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. An injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is obviously one which is likely to cause death for the purpose of Sec. 300, secondly. The injuries found on the body of Vinod Kumar were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. An injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is obviously one which is likely to cause death for the purpose of Sec. 300, secondly. So far as knowledge of the accused about above-mentioned consequences of the injuries, is concerned, it may be said without any hesitation that if the test of mature understanding, with a view to judge of the nature and consequences of the act, is applied, it will have to be said that the accused-persons must be presumed to have the knowledge that the injuries which were caused to Vinod Kumar on his head with axes, were likely to cause his death. We, therefore, hold that the provisions of Sec. 300, secondly of the Indian Penal Code are also attracted to the act of the accused. (67). The act of the accused also attracts the provisions of Section 300, thirdly because the prosecution has proved that the injuries found on the body of Vinod Kumar were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Sec. 300, thirdly of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, also applicable to the present case. (68). For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that in this case offence of culpable homicide, amounts to murder under Sec.300, secondly, thirdly and fourthly of the IPC. We further hold that the prosecution evidence proves that all the four accused-appellants shared the common intention of inflicting injuries to Vinod Kumar with axes, `lathis and in furtherance of common intention, all the four accu-sed-appellants jointly inflicted injuries on the deceased Vinod Kumar. (69). So far as the individual role of the accused-appellants are concerned, Bhanwar Nath and Bhagirath Nath were armed with axes. The first injury on the head of Vinod Kumar was caused by Bhanwar Nath. Bhanwar Nath had also caused an injury on the legs of Vinod Kumar with `jailly. The second injury with axe had been caused by Bhagirath Nath. The injury found on the ear of Vinod Kumar had also been caused by Bhagirath Nath. Bhanwar Nath was, thus, responsible for inflicting the first injury on the head of Vinod Kumar with an axe. The second injury with axe had been caused by Bhagirath Nath. The injury found on the ear of Vinod Kumar had also been caused by Bhagirath Nath. Bhanwar Nath was, thus, responsible for inflicting the first injury on the head of Vinod Kumar with an axe. Bhagirath Nath is proved to have inflicted two injuries, one on the head and the second on the ear resulting in amputation of the ear. The injury found on the head of Vinod Kumar was proved fatal because it resulted in fracture of the skull bone, damage to membranes and produced oedema of the brain. The accused Bhanwar Nath is, therefore, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is also guilty of inflicting simple injuries and he is also liable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offences committed by the accused-appellants in furtherance of their common intention. Bhagirath Nath, has caused two injuries to Vinod Kumar with sharp weapons, one of them is obviously grievous as the ear had been totally severed from the body. Bhagirath Nath is, therefore, responsible for the injuries caused by him and he is also responsible under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offences committed by other accused-appellants. Remaining two appellants, inflicted injuries with `lathi and wooden stick and both of them are responsible for the injuries inflicted by them and they are also liable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offences committed by accused Bhanwar Nath and Bhagirath Nath. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge has not framed separate charges under Secs. 323, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, do not deem it fit to convict the appellants under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (70). Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not create any separate offence. In the instant case, the learned Sessions. Judge has convicted and sentenced all the four accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We find no infirmity in the conviction as well as sentence. (71). For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.