Judgment 1. S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 30th September, 2002 passed by learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 1998 whereby and whereunder, the appellants, named above, have been convicted u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of prosecution as per F.I.R. dated 10th February, 1998 lodged by the informant, Saraswati Devi (PW-2, wife of the deceased) is that her Nanad, Waris Devi was married with Kartik Mahto (A-7) about 15 years' back. They were blessed with a son aged about ten years. About two months back, Kartik Mahto (A-7) again married with another lady and after about 2-3 days of marriage, he turned out his wife, Waris Devi after assaulting her. Since then Waris Devi was living with the informant and her husband. It was further stated that her Nanad, Waris Devi filed a maintenance case no. 62 of 1997 against Kartik Mahto (A-7) which is pending in the civil court, Khunti. Further case of the prosecution is that on 8th February, 1998, when the informant and her husband, Lal Babu Mahto were not at their house, Kartik Mahto came and forcibly took her Nanad to Jamdih. When they returned, they came to know about this incident. On the following day i.e. 9th February, 1998, her husband proceeded to village-Jamdih in search of his sister. At about 4 A.M. of the day of F.I.R. (10th February, 1998) Prabhu Mahto of village Jamdih came to her house and informed her that in-laws of her sister-in-law (Nanad) has badly assaulted her husband, Lal Babu Mahto and he was lying injured in an un-conscious condition. She along with her father-in-law, Mangal Mahto rushed to the louse of Kartik Mahto in village-Jamdih where they found her husband lying in an unconscious condition on a cot (Khat). when she sprinkled water on the face of her husband, he regained consciousness and told about the incident. She along with her father-in-law, Mangal Mahto rushed to the louse of Kartik Mahto in village-Jamdih where they found her husband lying in an unconscious condition on a cot (Khat). when she sprinkled water on the face of her husband, he regained consciousness and told about the incident. He said that when he asked Kartik Mahto about her sister then Kartik Mahto (A-7), Debu Mahto (A-1) son of Ram Charan Mahto, Vaijy @ Baidhnath Mahto (A-5) son of late Yogaya Mahto, Lakhan Mahto (A-4) son of Kartik Mahto, Chandra Mohan Mahto (A-3) son of Ramcharan Mahto, Chotu Mahto (A-2) son of Ram Charan Mahto all resident of village Jamdih had assaulted and injured him by lathi, Danda and Farsa. He further stated that Kartik Mahto with an intention to kill him attacked with a Farsa which caused injuries on his head and all other appellants gave lathi blow causing injuries on him. After making such statement, her (informant's) husband again became unconscious. She (informant) further stated that as her husband tried to bring back her sister in his house Kartik Mahto having married another woman, all the appellants assaulted her husband with an intention to kill him. On receiving written complaint, the police registered Tamar RS. case No. 7/98 dated 10th February, 1998 u/ss. .147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.RC. and took up the matter for investigation. Lal Babu Mahto, husband of the informant was admitted in R.M.C.H., Ranchi for treatment where he died at about 6 A.M. on 11th February, 1998. After investigation, Lalu Mahto (A-6) was also made an accused. The police submitted chargesheet against all the appellants' u/ss. 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the I.RC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti took cognizance and record was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed u/ss. 149 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. against all the seven appellants. The appellants pleaded 'not guilty' before the trial court. Altogether eight witnesses were produced before the court. PW-1, Dr. Saroj Kumar is the Medical Officer, who conducted Post Mortem on the dead-body of lal Babu Mahto, PW-2, Sarswati Devi, the informant is the wife of the deceased, lal Babu Mahto. P.W. 3, Warish Devi is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant i.e. sister of deceased lal Babu Mahto and wife of appellant no. 7 (Kartik Mahto). She was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3, Warish Devi is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant i.e. sister of deceased lal Babu Mahto and wife of appellant no. 7 (Kartik Mahto). She was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 4, Mangal Mahto is the father of the deceased i.e. father-in-law of the informant. PW-5, Dhudeshwar Mahto is a formal witness of inquest report whereas, PW-6, Karla Devi is the niece of appellant no. 7 (Kartik Mahto) who was also declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-7, Soma Uraon and PW-8, Prabhu Mahto are villagers of Kartik Mahto (A-7), both of them said nothing against the appellants. Earlier, statement of Saraswati Devi (Informant) u/s. 164 of the Cr. P.C. was recorded. The Post-Mortem report was marked as Exhibit-1; F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-2; Signature of informant marked as Exhibits-3/1 and 3/2; signature of Dudeshwar Mahto and Dharam Deo Nath Sahdeo on the inquest report were marked as Exhibits-3/2 & 3/3 respectively. 3. The case is mainly based on the dying declaration of the deceased given before the informant, Sarswati Devi (PW-2) and Mangal Mahto (PW-4). Dr. Saroj Kumar (PW-1) stated that he conducted Post-Mortem on the dead-body of lal Babu Mahto on 11th February, 1998, found injuries and given his following opinion : Abrasion (i) 2 x 1 cm and 1 x 1 cm on the left side of forehead. Stitched wounds (i) 07 cm long situated antero-posteriorly on right fronto-parietal region of head. (ii) 06 cm long situated carnally on right parietal region of head. Internal There was diffused contusion of right fronto parieto temporal scalp. There was depressed and comminuted fracture of right parietal bone measuring 6 x 2 cm area. There was crack fracture of right temporal bone starting from right margin of said depressed fracture. There was presence of extra-dural blood clot over parieto-temporal region and subdural blood and blood clot over right hemisphere of brain. There was a contusion of soft tissues of left knee front. Opinion-(1) All the injuries were ante-mortem. (2) Abrasions and internal injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and opinion regarding the stitched wounds can be had from the surgeon concerned. (3) Death due to head injury. (4) Time elapsed since death was 6 to 24 hours. xxx xxx xxx The doctor has further opined that due to the present injuries, instantaneous death is not necessary but such injuries may cause-unconsciousness. (3) Death due to head injury. (4) Time elapsed since death was 6 to 24 hours. xxx xxx xxx The doctor has further opined that due to the present injuries, instantaneous death is not necessary but such injuries may cause-unconsciousness. PW-2, the informant reiterated the version as was made in F.I.R. She stated that her sister-in-law (Nanad) was married with Kartik Mahto (A-7) 15 years back and were blessed with a son, Dilip Mahto. Few months back, Kartik Mahto (A-7) married another woman and turned out his first wife, Waris Devi, who, thereafter, started living with them (informant and deceased). She also stated that on 9th February, 1998 while her sister-in-law (Nanad) was collecting cow dung and they were not in the house, Kartik Mahto took her forcibly. They could come .to know of the incident on return, from the wife of Shiv Ram that the husband of her Nanad, Kartik Mahto had taken her. Thereafter her husband and Puran Das went to the house of Kartik Mahto to search his sister. Next day, Prabhu Mahto informed then that her husband was lying injured in the house of Kartik Mahto in unconscious condition. She further stated that tier shas (mother-in-law), Gotani (sister-in-Iaw) and Bari Shas (elder mother-in-law) and others went to the house of Kartik Mahto where they found Lal Babu Mahto lying unconscious on a cot (Khat). The informant (PW-2) further stated that while she sprinkled water on the face of the husband, he regained consciousness and told them. that Kartik Mahto assaulted him on his head by Farsa and Chotu Mahto, Debu Mahto, Chandra Mahto, Lalu Mahto and Baijnath Mahto assaulted him with lathi and danda. After giving such statement, again J her husband became unconscious. Thereafter she along with others carried her husband to the police station, then to the Tamar Hospital and thereafter on the advice of the doctor, he was admitted in the R.M.C.H., Ranchi. On the next day i.e. 11th February, 1998 in the morning at about 6 A.M., her husband died. The informant further stated that she had made the written report in the Tamar Police Station and put her signature, (marked as Exhibit-2). She also identified the signatures (marked as Exhibits-3 & 3 series). The informant also identified the appellants who were present in Dock. The informant further stated that she had made the written report in the Tamar Police Station and put her signature, (marked as Exhibit-2). She also identified the signatures (marked as Exhibits-3 & 3 series). The informant also identified the appellants who were present in Dock. In her searching cross-examination, the informant withstood the same and reiterated the details of occurrence and statement made by the deceased. She also stated that when she visited the house of Kartik Mahto (A-7), he was not present in his house and only Dhotu Mahto was there. Her husband was kept there under lock. PW-3, Waris Devi was declared hostile by the prosecution. 4. PW-4, Mangal Mahto stated that Kartik Mahto had married with another woman and left his first wife, Waris Devi. Waris Devi had filed a case against her husband. He further stated that Kartik Mahto had forcefully taken away Waris Devi. In the evening of Monday, Lal Babu Mahto had gone to the house of Kartik Mahto in search of Waris Devi. On the next day at about 4 A.M., Prabhu Mahto came and informed him that his son was assaulted by Kartik Mahto, Debu Mahto, Chandra Mohan Mahto, Baijnath Mahto, Lakhan Mahto, Chotu Mahto and Lalu Mahto. Thereafter, he along with his daughter-in-law, wife and others went to the house of Kartik Mahto where he found his son lying unconscious, in an injured condition. Prabhu Mahto brought water and the wife of Lal Babu Mahto sprinkled water on the face of her husband. While his son regained consciousness, told that Kartik Mahto and other accused persons (appellants herein) had assaulted him with lathi, tangi, thenga and farsa. Thereafter, his son (deceased) again became unconscious. During the cross-examination, PW-4, he has also stated that during the date of alleged incident, his son had gone to Khunti alone and subsequently he had gone to Aradih along with Ram Das Puran. During the cross-examination, PW-4 clearly stated that on regaining consciousness, the deceased narrated the incident to him, his daughter, Nuni, his wife and the wife of Lal Babu Mahto i.e. the informant. PW-4 further stated during the cross-examination that he made statement before the police that on regaining consciousness, Lal Babu Mahto told him that all the accused persons (appellants herein) had assaulted him. PW-4 further stated during the cross-examination that he made statement before the police that on regaining consciousness, Lal Babu Mahto told him that all the accused persons (appellants herein) had assaulted him. PW-4 also stated that they carried Lal Babu Mahto to Tamar police station on a bullock cart arranged by the villagers, who assembled there. This witness (PW-4) during his long cross-examination remained. firm and defence failed to make out any vital contradiction in favour of appellants. PW-5, a formal witness stated that he had gone to R.M.C.H. along with Lal Babu Mahto where Lal Babu Mahto died. He put his signature on the inquest report, marked as Exhibit-3/2 and the signature marked as Exhib.it-3 series. PW-6, Karla Devi is the niece of the appellant, Kartik Mahto (A-7). She was declared hostile by the prosecution, but accepted that her uncle Kartik Mahto was married with Waris Devi. PW-7, Soma Uraon has stated that some quarrel had taken place with Kartik Mahto but made no statement with regard to incident. He stated that Kartik Mahto had only one wife, Waris Devi and he does not know Lal Babu Mahto, nor knows whether Lal Babu Mahto is dead or alive. However, in the last part of his examination-in-chief, he stated that Lal Babu Mahto is dead. PW-8, Prabhu Mahto made no specific statement regarding the incident. He only stated that on the alleged date of incident he was not in his house and on return, he came to know that Lal Babu Mahto died in the hospital. 5. It is a settled law that a Court is required to apply the strictest scrutiny of a dying declaration. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramchandra Reddy and another VS. The Public Prosecutor', re-ported in 1976 CRI.L.J. 1548, held as follows: " ............... The dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and not being a statement on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the Courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closest circumspection to the statement before acting upon it. The dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and not being a statement on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the Courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closest circumspection to the statement before acting upon it. While great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to' concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person yet the Court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination. The Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after the deceased had a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancour. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can be sufficient to found the conviction even without any further corroboration " In the present case, PW-1, the doctor, stated that it is not necessary that spot death will cause due to such injuries. Such injuries may also cause unconsciousness. The death was due to head injury caused by hard blunt substance. If the statement of P.W-2, Sarswati Devi and PW-4, Mangal Mahto is read along with the post-mortem report and the statement of the PW-1, the doctor, the sanctity of the statement of lying man cannot be ignored. It cannot be 3.ccepted that the deceased, who was on he verge of the death was telling lies, nor here is any suggestion made by the defence to accept that PW-1 and PW-4 were telling lies or concocted a case to implicate he appellants. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Banka Naiko and others vs. State of Orissa', reported in 1976 CRI. L.J. 1556 is not applicable- in the present case. In the said case, although the witnesses to the alleged dying declaration had stated that the deceased told them that two appellants "Pierced" him and the third appellant had assaulted on the head with a "Kati" the Doctor, who performed the post mortem examination nowhere stated that he found any such injury. In the said case, although the witnesses to the alleged dying declaration had stated that the deceased told them that two appellants "Pierced" him and the third appellant had assaulted on the head with a "Kati" the Doctor, who performed the post mortem examination nowhere stated that he found any such injury. As pointed out, in the present case, the witnesses to the alleged dying declaration (PWs-2 & 4) have stated that the deceased, Lal Babu Mahto told them that the accused (appellants herein) had assaulted him with Lathi, Danda and Farsa. Kartik Mahto gave a Farsa blow on the head of the deceased and Chotu Mahto, Debu Mahto, Chandra Mohan Mahto, Lalu Mahto and Baijnath Mahto gave lathi and danda blow. Such lacerated injuries caused by hard blunt substance have been found by the doctor on the head and body of the deceased. 6. The argument of the counsel for the appellants that the doctor had not found any sharp cutting injury as may be caused by a farsa cannot be accepted as a farsa can be used from its both sharp and blunt sides and may cause either a sharp cutting injury or lacerated injury. There being no contradiction between the dying declaration as narrated by the witnesses, PWs-2 & 4, it can not be stated to be concocted case and it will not make the dying declaration as incorrect. 8. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed. If the appellants, namely, (1) Debu Mahto, (2) Chotu Mahto, (3) Chandra Mohan Mahto, (4) Lakhan Mahto, (5) Bhaji @ Baijnath Matho and (6) Lalu Mahto are on bail, they are directed to surrender their bail bounds in the court below forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed on them, failing which the court below shall take all steps for their apprehension. Lakshman Uraon, J. -I agree.