JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Distt. Kota in Sessions Case No. 279/1998 whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Sunderlal for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and accused appellant Laxmi Narain for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the appellants have been sentenced for the above offences for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellants to further undergo two years simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.8.1998 a Parcha Bayan (Ex. P20) of injured Heeralal was recorded by the SHO, Police Station Chechat, Distt. Kota, wherein it was stated that accused appellant Sunderlal told him as to why he has been abused. He told him that the should remove the stones. On this, he came in the night at about 2.00 - 2.15 a.m. when he was sleeping at his house and at that time, Sunderlal inflicted a blow on his head by 'Gandasi' with the intention to kill him and also inflicted injuries on his hand. He also stated that Laxmi Narain also inflicted injuries on his legs. When he cried, Chaturbhuj, Deva, Rameshwar came but both the accused appellants ran away. On the basis of this 'Parcha Bayan' police registered a case for offences under Sections 448, 307, 323 and 34 IPC. Subsequently, FIR No. 125/1998 (Ex. P.22) was registered on 22.8.1998 itself. The injured was examined in the night itself, at about 3.00 a.m. at Primary Health Center, Chechat by P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chand. The injured succumbed to the injuries at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning. His post - mortem was conducted on 22.8.1998 itself, by P. W.22 Dr. Ashok Mundara. The I.O. prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused persons were arrested and on their information, the weapons gandasi and lathi were recovered. After death of Heera Lal the case was converted for offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a challan against both the accused appellants. The accused persons were arrested and on their information, the weapons gandasi and lathi were recovered. After death of Heera Lal the case was converted for offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a challan against both the accused appellants. The case was committed and the trial court framed the charge against the accused appellant Sundar Lal for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and appellant Laxmi Narain for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined P. W.1 to P.W.22. Thereafter the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused examined only D.W. 1 Satya Narain. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 7.1.1998 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned judgment of conviction is based on parcha bayan of the deceased (Ex.P - 20) so called written dying declaration of the decease Heeralal. He submits that due to injuries sustained by the deceased, he became unconscious and he was not in a position to give any dying declaration. He further submits that there is only thumb impression of the deceased on dying declaration (Ex.P.20) and there is no endorsement of any Doctor about the consciousness of the deceased on it. His argument is that Ex.P20 is not in accordance with the provisions of law and should not be believed and in case, it goes then the judgment of conviction also goes automatically. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that in the alternate the conviction of the accused appellants cannot be sustained under Section 302 Indian Penal Code looking to the number and nature of injuries. He submits that even if the case is found to be proved against them then the offence against the appellants cannot travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part II or 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 7. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 7. We have examined the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as the record of the lower court. 8. So far as acceptance of dying declaration (Ex.P20) is concerned, a bare perusal of its shows that it has been recorded immediately. The SHO has made an endorsement on it that it was read over to the injured Heeralal and he accepted it to be true and correct. It is relevant to mention that the injured was examined by P.W. Girish Chand who proved the injury report of deceased Heeralal which was marked as (Ex.P1). In the injury report of Heeralal in the last column, P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chandra has specifically mentioned that the patient is conscious. He also took the blood pressure of the injured and mentioned the same as B.P. 130/90. P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chand examined the inured at about 3.30 a.m. on 22.8.1998 on police requisition. The endorsement of the Medical Officer shows that the deceased was conscious upto 3.30 a.m. when he was medically examined. Therefore, we are of the view, that the deceased was conscious and there is no illegality in relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased. It is also relevant to mention here that at the time of recording the dying declaration (Ex.P20). P.W. 11 Chaturbhuj was also present and he also signed on it. The statement of P.W.11 Chaturbhuj was recorded by the trial Court and he stated that Parcha Bayan of Heeralal (Ex.P.20) was written by the police in his presence. P.W.20 Ram Kumar was also examined in the instant case, who has stated that when he received the information about the incident he immediately reached to Chechat. He recorded the statement of injured Heeralal. He also proved the signature and thumb impression of injured Heeralal. He has also stated that P.W.11 Chaturbhuj was also present when he recorded the statement and it bears the signature of P.W.11 Chaturbhuj' also. Therefore, in view of the statements made by P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chand, P. W.11 Chaturbhuj and P.W.20 Ramkumar, we find that (Ex.P.20) the dying declaration is a valid and genuine document and the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in relying upon it. Therefore, in view of the statements made by P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chand, P. W.11 Chaturbhuj and P.W.20 Ramkumar, we find that (Ex.P.20) the dying declaration is a valid and genuine document and the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in relying upon it. We are also of the view that at the time of recording the dying declaration (Ex.P.20), the patient was conscious. There is little difference of time in between the recording of the dying declaration and the preparation of injury report of deceased Heeralal. The endorsement of P.W 1 Dr. Gisirh Chanel about the consciousness of the patient is sufficient. 9. In addition to the above evidence of dying declaration of the deceased, there is a statement of P.W.2 Sugna, who is the eye-witness of the incident. She has stated that she was sleeping in the house of her father P. W.11 Chaturbhuj and when she heard some noise, she told her father that the uncle Heeralal is crying. There was a light and she stated that she saw accused Sundarlal and one another person who was brother of Sundarlal. She has also stated that accused appellant Sunderlal gave a gandasi blow on the person of his uncle Heeralal and the another person was having a lathi in his hand. She identified the accused persons who were present in the Court during her statement. Further P.W.11 Chaturbhuj has also stated that when he came out from his house, he heard the voice of Heeralal who was telling that accused appellant Sunderlal has beaten him. The other prosecution witnesses have also stated that after hearing hue and cry, they went at the place of occurrence and they were told by deceased Heeralal that accused persons gave beating to him by Gandasi and lathi. Therefore, from the statement of P.W.2 Sugna and other witnesses also it is clearly proved that it was the accused persons who inflicted the injuries on the person of deceased Heeralal. 10. So far the alternative submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence against the accused appellants does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part H or at the most 304 Part I Indian Penal Code concerned, it is relevant to mention here that P.W.1 Dr. 10. So far the alternative submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence against the accused appellants does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part H or at the most 304 Part I Indian Penal Code concerned, it is relevant to mention here that P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chand, who examined the deceased soon after the incident, has stated that there were total 17 injuries on the person of the injured, who subsequently died. He has also stated that the injuries Nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries report (Ex.P.1) shows that the deceased Heeralal sustained the following injuries on his person : 1. Lacerated wound 4 x 12 cm. scalp deep over lat. aspect (oblique direction) of left Eye Brow, Blunt. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm. scalp deep over rt. 1/2 of occipital simple blunt. 3. Swelling and tenderness over post aspect of Rt. elbow. Blunt. 4. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm. skin deep over swelling area of inj. No.3. Simple sharp. 5. Swelling and tenderness over post aspect of it, elbow, Blunt. 6. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm. facial deep over swelling area of injury No.5 Simple sharp. 7. Incised wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm. skin deep just above injury No.6, simple sharp. 8. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm. facial deep over middle of Lt. Arm Post. Simple sharp. 9. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm. skin deep over 3 cm. lower to injury No.8. Simple Sharp. 10. Swelling and tenderness over Lt. Knee, Simple blunt. 11. Incised wound 1 x 1/2cm. facial deep over swelling area of injury No. 10. simple sharp. 12. Swelling and tenderness over upper ⅔" of It. leg. Blunt. 13. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/2 cm. skin deep over swelling area of injury No. 12. simple blunt. 14. Multiple abrasion within 4 x 2 (illegible) (bright red in colour) over injury ⅓ of It. leg. simple blunt. 15. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm, bright red in colour just below medial mallius of It. leg. Simple blunt. 16. Swelling and tenderness over Rt. knee. Blunt, and 17. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm. skin deep over swelling area of injury No.16. Simple sharp. 11. The injuries Nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary Course of nature. leg. Simple blunt. 16. Swelling and tenderness over Rt. knee. Blunt, and 17. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm. skin deep over swelling area of injury No.16. Simple sharp. 11. The injuries Nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary Course of nature. Therefore, looking to the number and nature of injuries and particularly, the statement of P.W.1, Dr. Girish Chand, we are of the opinion, that no case is made out for offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II Indian Penal Code, P.W.22 Dr. Ashok Mundara, who conducted the post - mortem report of the deceased also stated on oath that there were 10 injuries which were ante - mortem in nature. He also opined that the death of the deceased has been due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, in view of dying declaration (Ex.P.1) the injury report (Ex.P4) the post-mortem report (Ex.P4) and the statements of P.W.1 Dr. Girish Chandra and P.W.22 Dr. Ashok Mundara, the alternative submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted and in our opinion, the accused appellant Sunderlal has rightly been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and accused appellant Laxmi Narain for offence 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.In view of the above, we are, of the opinion, that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the accused appellants Sunder Lal and Laxmi Narain.Appeal dismissed. *******