JUDGMENT Y. K. SABHARWAL, J. — The father, his two sons and a brother-in-law, the respondents herein, were charged for causing grievous injuries to the deceased on 7.6.1984 at 8.00 p.m. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at a hospital at Rohtak on 10.6.1984 at 6.30 a.m. 2. All the four accused were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sessions Judge, Rohtak acquitted all the four accused for the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC. They were, however, found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 326/34, IPC. All were sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sections 326/34, IPC and five years for offence under Sections 325/34, IPC. 3. The aforesaid conviction and sentence was challenged by the prosecution as well as the respondents by filing appeals in the High Court - the State contending that the respondents were liable to be convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, IPC and the respondents contending that they were wrongly convicted for the offences as aforesaid and deserved to be acquitted. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal of the re¬spondents, acquitted them altogether and resultantly the State appeal was dismissed. 4. The State has filed this appeal on grant of leave. 5. According to the prosecution, on the date of occurrence, Mange Ram, who at that time was about 58 years of age attacked the deceased by giving a lathi-blow on his left calf, his son Krishan gave a pharsa-blow on his right foot and the other son Joginder Singh hit him with ballam on the right calf and Kaptan Singh, brother-in-law of Mange Ram, gave him a lathi-blow on the left wrist. Joginder also gave ballam-blow on the left elbow of the deceased felling him on the ground whereafter all the four accused inflicted more injuries on the deceased while he was lying on the ground. After inflicting these injuries, they ran away from the place of occurrence which was witnessed by PW 5 Bhim Singh and one Sant Ram, in front of whose house the deceased was smoking hukka. Information regarding the occurrence was given by PW 5 to Sube Singh (PW 8), father of the deceased. PW 8 came to the spot. The deceased was removed to Civil Hospital, Bahar¬durgarh and was medically examined by PW 4 Dr. Information regarding the occurrence was given by PW 5 to Sube Singh (PW 8), father of the deceased. PW 8 came to the spot. The deceased was removed to Civil Hospital, Bahar¬durgarh and was medically examined by PW 4 Dr. D.S. Rana who discovered the following injuries on his person : 1. A swelling covering whole upper two-third left leg, crepitus present. Movements were restricted and tenderness was present. Advised x-ray of the left leg, upper two-third AP and lateral view. 2. A stab incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscles cut on anterior aspect of right leg, 7 cm below right knee joint, blood clots were removed from the wound. Bleeding was present with a swelling around the wound, X-ray was also advised. 3. Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x muscle-deep. Bleeding was present on the lateral aspect of the right ankle and foot. Wound was curved in shape. 4. Contusion 12 cm x 2.5 cm reddish in colour, on lower lateral aspect of right side of chest. 5. A lacerated wound 1.2 cm x 0.5 cm x skin-deep on lateral aspect of right arm, 6 cm above right elbow joint. Bleeding was present. Advised x-ray of right arm, lower one-third AP and lateral view. 6. An abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on posterior lateral aspect right thigh, 3 cm above midpoint. 7. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.75 cm on lateral side of left elbow joint. Bleeding was present. Advised x-ray. 8. A swelling 5 cm x 3 on medial and lower aspect of left fore¬arm. Advised x-ray. 9. A contusion 10 cm x 2.5 cm reddish, on posterior aspect of right side of the chest, scapular region. 10. A contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm reddish in colour, on posterior aspect of right side of chest at right angle to Injury 9. 6. Injuries 1, 2 and 8 were declared grievous. After the medical examination, the deceased, on the advice of the doctor, was removed from Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. As already noticed, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 10.6.1984. The autopsy of the dead body was performed by PW3 (Dr Veena Bansal). PW 3 also noticed the aforesaid in¬juries. On opening of the chest, PW 3 found that the ribs of the deceased had been fractured from both sides and the liver was ruptured. As already noticed, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 10.6.1984. The autopsy of the dead body was performed by PW3 (Dr Veena Bansal). PW 3 also noticed the aforesaid in¬juries. On opening of the chest, PW 3 found that the ribs of the deceased had been fractured from both sides and the liver was ruptured. In the opinion of PW 3, rupture of liver was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 7. While in hospital, the statement of the deceased was recorded by Head Constable Dharamvir (PW 9) at 10.30 a.m. on 8.6.1984, on the basis whereof, formal first information was recorded under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC. 8. Relying upon the prosecution evidence, in particular, the statement of PW 5 and PW 9 and the statement of the deceased recorded by PW 9 which, after the death, was treated as dying declaration, the Sessions judge convicted all the four accused in the manner aforestated. The dying declaration is Exhibit PQ. 9. The motive of the crime, as established by the prosecution according to the judgment of the Sessions Judge, is that the deceased who was a police constable in Delhi Police was helping the parents of the wife of accused Krishan who was being tried for the offence of his wife’s murder. That finding has not been disturbed by the High Court in the judgment under appeal. The trial Court, as also the High Court did not rely upon the testimony of PW 8. His presence at the scene of occurrence was considered doubt¬ful. We would also keep out of consideration the testimony of PW 8. 10. The High Court discarded the testimony of eyewitness PW 5 as also the dying declaration (Exhibit PQ) and consequently the conviction and sentence of the respondents was set aside. We have gone through the evidence on record, in particular, the testimony of the doctors, that of Bhim Singh and the head constable (PW 5 and PW 9) and the dying declaration (Exhibit PQ). In our opinion, the view of the High Court is not a reasonable view of the evi¬dence and the reasons for discarding PW 5 and the dying declara¬tion (Exhibit PQ) are wholly untenable. 11. In our opinion, the view of the High Court is not a reasonable view of the evi¬dence and the reasons for discarding PW 5 and the dying declara¬tion (Exhibit PQ) are wholly untenable. 11. The main reason for discarding Exhibit PQ is that when the statement was recorded by the police, the deceased was not under the shadow of death and the injuries received by him were not even considered dangerous to his life. The other reason given is delay in recording Exhibit PQ with the result that there was ample intervening time for deliberation and false implication of the accused on account of previous enmity as also the non-exami¬nation of Sant Ram by the prosecution and introduction of PW 5 as a false witness in the dying declaration. The basic infirmity committed by the High Court is in assuming that for a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, it is necessary that the maker of the statement, at the time of making the statement, should be under the shadow of death. That is not what Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act says. That is not the law in India. Under the Indian law, for dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, it is not necessary that the maker of the statement at the time of making the statement should be under the shadow of death and should entertain the belief that his death was immi¬nent. The expectation of imminent death is not the requirement of law. The further infirmity committed by the High Court in revers¬ing a well-considered judgment of the Sessions Court is in assum¬ing that there was any delay in recording of Exhibit PQ. The High Court has rightly recorded that the deceased was not under the shadow of death when Exhibit PQ was recorded. Evidently, there was not a great emergency, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to record the statement. Be that as it may, it was fully established that there was no delay at all. Firstly, the High Court committed an error in holding that the statement was re¬corded at 12.30 p.m. on 8.6.1984. It can neither be disputed nor has been disputed that the statement, in fact, was recorded at 10.30 a.m. on 8th June. The incident had taken place at 8.00 p.m on 7th June. Firstly, the High Court committed an error in holding that the statement was re¬corded at 12.30 p.m. on 8.6.1984. It can neither be disputed nor has been disputed that the statement, in fact, was recorded at 10.30 a.m. on 8th June. The incident had taken place at 8.00 p.m on 7th June. The injured reached Bahadurgarh Hospital at 11.50 p.m. He was examined by PW 4 (Dr D.S. Rana). The injuries were consid¬ered serious. He was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. PW 9 received rukka (Exhibit PE) along with copy of medico-legal report of the deceased from Civil Hospital, Bahadur¬garh at about 2.00 a.m on 8th June. He went to the hospital but found that the injured had been removed to a hospital at Rohtak. He returned to the police station and went to the hospital at Rohtak next day morning at about 9-9.30 a.m., presented an appli¬cation (Exhibit PN) to the doctor to find out if the deceased was fit to make statement. The doctor (PW 7) gave opinion (Exhibit PN/1) to the effect that the injured was fit to make a statement. After receipt of the opinion, PW 9 recorded the statement of the injured which was completed at 10.30 a.m. Under these circum¬stances, it is not reasonable to conclude that there was any delay in recording of the statement and drawing inference there¬from that the intervening time was utilized for deliberation and false implication on account of the previous enmity. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of any deliberation and false implication would not arise. Undisputedly, the injured was fully conscious. He watched the accused giving injuries on his person. It would be too much to imagine that despite seeing these injuries inflicted on him, he would, while making state¬ment, implicate the respondents on account of previous enmity leaving the real person who had inflicted injuries altogether free. The injured in his statement had given a detailed account of the injuries as also the manner in which PW 5 Bhim Singh wit¬nessed the occurrence and tried to intervene in the matter and rescue and save him. There was no plausible reason whatsoever to discard Exhibit PQ and testimony of PW 9. The prosecution had given up Sant Ram as he had business dealing with the accused and, according to the prosecution, had been won over. There was no plausible reason whatsoever to discard Exhibit PQ and testimony of PW 9. The prosecution had given up Sant Ram as he had business dealing with the accused and, according to the prosecution, had been won over. The state¬ment Exhibit PQ inspires confidence and was rightly relied upon by the Sessions Court. The High Court committed serious illegali¬ty in concluding that Exhibit PQ was inadequate to connect the accused with crime. 12. The reasons for not believing PW 5 are also wholly unsus¬tainable. The main reason for disbelieving him was that he was a chance witness. The High Court lost sight of the fact that PW 5 was a resident of the same village as the accused and the deceased. The fact that PW 8 in his police statement failed to mention about the presence of PW 5 at the place of occurrence, in the facts of the case, was an irrelevant circumstance for disbelieving PW 5. PW 5 had given details of all the injuries inflicted by the accused. Nothing worthwhile could be extracted in his cross-examination. He was a natural witness. He tried to intervene and save the deceased. He went to the house of the deceased to inform his family members about the incident. PW 5 was an independent witness. Despite the fact that he did not go to the hospital but independently the injured in his statement Exhibit PQ stated about the presence of PW 5 at the time of occurrence and his efforts to save the deceased. We are of the view that PW 5 is a natural, truthful and creditable witness and his testimony was rightly relied upon by the Sessions Judge in convicting the respondents. On irrelevant considerations, his testimony was discarded by the High Court. 13. The next question is the nature of offence the respondents had committed. As already noticed, the Sessions Court acquitted them of charge under Sections 302/34, IPC. The High Court did not go into the nature of offence in view of acquittal of the re¬spondents. The Sessions Judge, for coming to the conclusion that the respondents could not be convicted for offence under Section 302, had relied upon the medical evidence of PW 4. PW 4 was the first doctor who had examined the deceased in Bahadurgarh Hospi¬tal. The Sessions Judge, for coming to the conclusion that the respondents could not be convicted for offence under Section 302, had relied upon the medical evidence of PW 4. PW 4 was the first doctor who had examined the deceased in Bahadurgarh Hospi¬tal. He had deposed in the cross-examination that none of the injuries, either individually or collectively, appeared to be dangerous to life. The injured was last attended by Dr A.N. Gupta (PW 7) in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. According to him, the injured was initially given blood of Group A but subsequently blood of that group went out of stock and, therefore, he was given blood of Group O+. The witness further deposed that he could not say if the patient died because of blood reaction or because of injuries suffered by him but he did depose that there was fear in his mind about blood reaction and, therefore, he gave medicines to prevent it. Under these circumstances, the Sessions Judge concluded that the possibility of the injured having died because of blood reaction cannot be ruled out though the doctor conducting post mortem had deposed the cause of death as rupture of liver on account of injuries. The view taken by the Sessions Judge is a plausible view and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the respondents deserved to be convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, IPC. In our view, they were rightly convicted for offence under Sections 325 and 326 read with Section 34, IPC by the Ses¬sions Judge, Rohtak. 14. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the conviction, as directed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak is re¬stored. 15. The sentence of awarded by the Sessions Judge on the respond¬ents have been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment. Having regard to the facts of the case, in our view, the ends of justice would be met if each of the respondents is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years instead of seven years and five years as directed by the Sessions Court. We order accordingly. 16. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. The respondents shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Appeal allowed.