M. C. JAIN, J. The appellant is Km. Nokha who has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by Sri L. S. P. Singh, the then Sessions Judge (Non-Metropolitan Area), Kanpur by judgment dated 25-5-1983 recorded in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 1982. The brief resume of the case as surfacing from the FIR and evidence adduced in the Court is necessary for proper appreciation so as to reach the right conclusion. The occurrence took place on 8-9-1982 at about 11 a. m. near the field of Rampal Singh, in village Rajepur, P. S. Sheorajpur, District Kanpur Dehat. The report was lodged on 8- 9-1982 at 1 p. m. PW 4 Anant Ram, an eye-witness and son of the deceased. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 4-1/2 kms. The victim of offence was Sukhrani. The appellant had allegedly illicit relations with one Kamlesh, resident of Kakupur. The deceased saw the appellant and Kamlesh in compromising position on 8-9-1982 and she scolded them resulting in exchange of abuses between them and deceased Sukhrani. She also threatened to disclose this fact to the parents of the appellant. At about 11 a. m. on the fateful day, the deceased was returning to her house after grazing her goats. When she reached in front of the field of Rampal Singh, Kamlesh armed with a Khurpi (used to scrap grass) and the appellant armed with a Danda started assaulting her. She fell down on the ground and raised alarm. Her son PW 4 Anant Ram and witnesses PW 3 Babu Lal, Hori Lal and Hulla reached the spot and witnessed the incident. Kamlesh and the appellant fled from the scene, but the appellant was apprehended at the spot while Kamlesh managed to escape. Sukhrani, who had sustained multiple injuries on her person, was then taken on a cot to the police station. In the way, PW 1 Ananti Devi, Pradhan of village Bilhan enquired about the cause of the incident from her and she disclosed to her that she had been assaulted by the appellant and Kamlesh. PW 1 Ananti Devi recorded the statement given to her by Sukhrani. She died of her injuries a little before reaching the police station. In the way, PW 1 Ananti Devi, Pradhan of village Bilhan enquired about the cause of the incident from her and she disclosed to her that she had been assaulted by the appellant and Kamlesh. PW 1 Ananti Devi recorded the statement given to her by Sukhrani. She died of her injuries a little before reaching the police station. PW 4 Anant Ram son of the deceased got the report scribed by Mahabir Prasad and lodged the same at the police station. 2. The police took up the investigation which was first made by PW 11 S. I. Ram Sewak Singh Bhadoria and ultimately concluded by PW 8 S. O. Om Prakash Ojha. 3. The post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW 2 Dr. S. K. Upadhyaya on 9-9-1982 at 3. 15 p. m. The deceased was aged about 60 years and about one day had passed since she died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person: (1) Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 1 cm x bone deep on the right side face extending from nose towards right side ear. (2) Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 0. 2 x bone deep right side face 1. 0 cm below right ear. (3) Contusion 9. 0 cm x 5 cm on the right side face extending from nose towards right side ear. (4) Incised wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 3 cm x bone deep on the right bridge of nose right side. (5) Incised wound 4. 0 cm x 2. 0 cm x bone deep on the left side of bridge of nose. (6) Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 1. 0 cm x bone deep on the hind side of the bridge of nose. (7) Incised wound 2. 3 cm x 0. 3 cm x bone deep on the left eye- brow. (8) Incised wound 1. 0 cm x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on left side cheek 2. 0 cm of left eye. (9) Incised wound 3 cm x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on left side of chin. (10) Contusion 11. 0 cm x 9. 0 cm in front of the neck on both sides of neck. (11) Contusion 2. 0 cm x 1. 0 cm on left forearm, 6 cm below left elbow. (12) Incised wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on left side of chin. (10) Contusion 11. 0 cm x 9. 0 cm in front of the neck on both sides of neck. (11) Contusion 2. 0 cm x 1. 0 cm on left forearm, 6 cm below left elbow. (12) Incised wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm on back of left palm, 7. 0 cm above left wrist. (13) Incised wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x muscle deep on the forearm 1. 0 cm below injury No. 2. (14) Incised wound 1. 0 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin deep, 2 cm above left wrist back side. (15) Incised wound 6. 0 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep on the left side scalp at the back, 7. 0 cm away from left ear. (16) Contusion 4. 0 cm x 2. 0 cm on the right side scalp, 3. 0 cm backwards to right ear. 4. On internal examination, fracture of right frontal bone corresponding to Injury No. 3 was found. There was also fracture of occipital bone on right side corresponding to Injury No. 15. As per the opinion of the doctor, the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased. 5. The defence of the appellant was of denial. According to her, she had been falsely implicated as she had refused to oblige the informant Anant Ram who wanted her to work in his field and also to establish illicit liaison with her. 6. The prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses at the trial including Investigating Officers, Doctor who conducted the post- mortem on the dead body of the deceased and formal witnesses. PW 1 Ananti Devi was the Pradhan of the village and had been produced to prove the dying declaration made before her by the deceased. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence were PW 3 Babu Lal and PW 4 Anant Ram (informant) who also happened to be the son of the deceased. 7. We have heard Sri B. N. Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned A. G. A. in opposition from the side of State. The record of the case has also been examined by us. 8. 7. We have heard Sri B. N. Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned A. G. A. in opposition from the side of State. The record of the case has also been examined by us. 8. It may first be observed that the report of this incident was promptly lodged by an eye-witness PW 4 Anant Ram (son of the deceased ). The incident had taken place at 11 a. m. and the report was lodged that day at about 1 p. m. The lodging of the FIR within the shortest time of the occurrence furnishes valuable corroboration to the prosecution version as established by the trustworthy evidence adduced at the trial. 9. Moreover, besides the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, there is dying declaration too of the deceased made by her to PW 1 Ananti Devi Pradhan. After the incident, she was being taken to the police station in injured condition on a cot. The house of PW 1 Ananti Devi, Pradhan fell in way. She availed of the opportunity to enquire about the incident from the deceased who disclosed to her that the present appellant and Kamlesh were her assailants. She prepared memorandum in this behalf (Ext. Ka-1 ). Undoubtedly, it has to be treated as the dying declaration of the deceased. The fact that it was not signed by the deceased would not detract from authenticity of the same and would not render it inadmissible. PW 1 Ananti Devi was not a legal expert and the memorandum of the dying declaration of the deceased prepared by her cannot be flawed on the ground that she did not obtain her signature/thumb impression thereon. The injured died a little later before reaching the police station. It itself indicates that she was in precarious condition. It was rather wise on the part of PW 1 Ananti Devi not to detain her while preparing the memorandum of her dying declaration as she was in great pain and was struggling between life and death. The eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, PW 3 Babu Lal and PW 4 Anant Ram have also spoken about the factum of dying declaration made by the deceased to PW 1 Ananti Devi. PW 1 Ananti Devi is an independent witness and there is no reason for her to depose falsely against the appellant. 10. The eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, PW 3 Babu Lal and PW 4 Anant Ram have also spoken about the factum of dying declaration made by the deceased to PW 1 Ananti Devi. PW 1 Ananti Devi is an independent witness and there is no reason for her to depose falsely against the appellant. 10. The eye-witnesses PW 3 Babu Lal and PW 4 Anant Ram have given plausible reasons for their presence at the spot and we find their testimony trustworthy. PW 3 Babu Lal was scrapping grass and was also looking after the crop in the fields of Ram Pal at the relevant time. PW 4 Anant Ram, who is the son of deceased, was bringing a load of grass which was left in the way near the field of Rampal. Both of them saw the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased with a Danda. Both the witnesses were cross- examined at length but nothing could emerge out to cast cloud on their veracity. PW 3 Babu Lal does not have any enmity against the appellant. He is an independent witness and so is PW 4 Anant Ram also who too did not have any motive for her false implication. The appellant was apprehended at the spot itself with the Danda used by her in striking the victim. She sustained as many as four injuries of blunt weapon. Contusion corresponding to Injury No. 3 (caused by blunt object) was of such gravity that fracture of right frontal bone was found. She was hand in glove with her paramour Kamlesh and obviously shared his common intention in assaulting the victim. The Danda in question was found stained with blood as per the report of chemical examiner and the same was human blood as per the report of serologist. 11. On cumulative consideration, we endorse the view taken by the trial Court that the appellant is one of the culprits who cut short the life of the deceased. However, we are of the opinion that instead of Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC she should be convicted under Section 304 IPC Part I. We shall state brief reasons in this regard. However, we are of the opinion that instead of Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC she should be convicted under Section 304 IPC Part I. We shall state brief reasons in this regard. The version of PW 4 Anant Ram is that a little before the incident he had heard his mother abusing the appellant and her paramour Kamlesh as she had seen both of them in compromising position at the Dera of the latter. It appears that the deceased, an aged lady, demurred the conduct of the appellant and of her paramour vociferously and cursed their amorous union. It turned the head of the appellant and she was deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation. Without any premeditation she and her paramour were overtaken by the impulse to silence her wagging tongue, spreading scandal relating to their illicit connection. She apprehended to be ridiculed and derived at with her future in jeopardy if the deceased was to be left alive. The matter has to be judged in such right perspective. So considered, we find the case to be covered by exception No. 1 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction should, therefore, be altered from 302 IPC to Part I of Section 34 IPC. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was a child as per U. P. Children Act, 1951, being under the age of 16 years at the time of incident and as such she cannot be sent to Jail even on conviction. We find sufficient force in this argument. The incident took place on 8-9-1982 and the statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 27-4-1983. Therein she gave her age as 16 years. There is no observation/remark of the learned trial Judge with regard to her age. It, however, appears from the judgment of the learned trial Court that he took the age of appellant to be 18 years on the basis of some medical evidence and found her to be more than 17 years of age at the time of occurrence. The trial Judge, therefore, held that she could not be deemed to fall within the category child and benefit of U. P. Children Act could not be afforded to her. On carefully examining the entire record, we do not find any medical examination report of the appellant. The trial Judge, therefore, held that she could not be deemed to fall within the category child and benefit of U. P. Children Act could not be afforded to her. On carefully examining the entire record, we do not find any medical examination report of the appellant. However, there is an order dated 11-11-1982 passed by the then In-charge Sessions Judge on the bail application of appellant wherein it is recorded that the doctor had reported her age to be 18 years. The medical examination of the appellant must have been conducted subsequent to this incident which took place on 8- 9-1982. 13. We should observe that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Jaimala v. Home Secretary, 1982 Crl Appeal Reporter page 341, that the margin of error in calculation of age on the basis of clinical analysis is two years. Judged in this light, the appellant could be under 16 years of age at the time of the incident. 14. U. P. Children Act, 1951 would be applicable for an incident taking place in 1982. Section 2 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 (U. P. Act 1 of 1952) defines a child to mean a person under the age of 16 years. Section 27 of the aforesaid Act says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, no Court shall sentence a child to imprisonment for life or to any term of imprisonment. Section 29 provides, insofar as it is material, that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, the Court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years. The Apex Court has held in the case of Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, 1998 (1) JIC 234 (SC) : (1997) SCC page 720, that the benefit of Children Act should not be refused on technical grounds. In the instant case also, the benefit of Children Act should be afforded to the appellant. Though she was under 16 years of age at the time of incident, but must be about 36 years of age presently. Therefore, there can be no question of sending her to an approved school now. In the instant case also, the benefit of Children Act should be afforded to the appellant. Though she was under 16 years of age at the time of incident, but must be about 36 years of age presently. Therefore, there can be no question of sending her to an approved school now. We note from the record that intermittently she had been in Jail for brief spells of little over a year in total. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant should be converted to Part-I of Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC but no sentence can be passed against her as she is entitled to be the benefit of Children Act. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, we partly allow this appeal. The conviction of appellant is converted from Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to Part-I of Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. As she was a child as per the U. P. Children Act at the time of incident, the sentence passed against her is quashed. She is on bail. She need not surrender. Her personal bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the case be immediately sent to Court below for needful action and necessary entries in the relevant register under intimation to this Court within one month. Appeal partly allowed. .