Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The two appellants stand convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34, 452 and 324 of the Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, seven years, three years and three years respectively under those sections. The trial Court directed the sentence to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the statement made by one Shrikant Mahto (PW 7) on 14.7.1996 at 6 in the morning at Pothia hospital before the Assistant Sub-Inspector from Pothia Out- Posts of Falka P.S.The statement was recorded as fardbeyan and on its basis a formal FIR was drawn up on the same day at 1 p.m., giving rise to Falka (Pothia) P.S. Case No. 114 of 1996 under Sections 307/ 326/448/323/34 of the Penal Code. 3. In the fardbeyan Shrikant Mahto stated that, after having his meal in the night of 13.7.1996 he had gone to sleep at his darwaza (open space in front of house) and his bhabhi (sister-in-law) Parmila Devi was sleeping inside the house with her son Sonu Mahto. At about 2.30 in the night he woke up on the cries of his bhabhi and rushed inside. By the time he went inside the house she too had come out in the aangan. She had fallen down and was tossing about on the ground. He picked her up and saw that her entire body and clothes were burnt and blisters and rashes were erupting all over her body. She was writhing in pain. She told him that the two appellants had entered into the house carrying a vessel and had thrown its contents over her as a result of which her whole body and clothes were burnt. A little of the corrosive fluid had also fallen, on her child causing blisters on the sole of his right foot. At that time she also told him that when she used to go out for work or for going to the bazar, the two appellants tried to stop her on the way and asked for sexual favour. She turned down their advances and for that reason they had thrown acid over her to burn her body with the intent to kill her. The informant further said that on bulla being raised some villagers assembled there and went out to look for the two appellants. She turned down their advances and for that reason they had thrown acid over her to burn her body with the intent to kill her. The informant further said that on bulla being raised some villagers assembled there and went out to look for the two appellants. They saw the two appellants fleeing towards the east through Chaumas. The victim, Parmila Devi, was then brought to the hospital with the help of the villagers where she was being treated. At the hospital too she stated that acid was thrown over her by the two appellants. The informant further said that she was not fully in position to give her statement. 4. The recorded statement was read over to him and finding it correctly written, he put his signature at its bottom. The fardbeyan was also signed by three villagers, namely, Ramesh Kumar Mandal, Ganesh Lal Mandal and Maheshwar Mahto. 5. From Pothia hospital the victim was referred to the district hospital at Purnea. After treatment there for few days. She was sent back to her home where she finally died on 10.8.1996 : consequently Section 302 of the Penal Code was also added in the case. 6. After investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants who were put on trial on the charge of committing murder of Parmila Devi and some other ancilliary charges. Before the trial Court the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case and also produced some documents as exhibits, in- cluding the dying declaration of the victim recorded by the doctor. PW 11 in presence of the I.O., PW 10. 7. PWs 1 and 6 are co-villagers, they were witnesses to the recording of the fardbeyan and had put their signatures on it. PW 2 is the daughter of the victim. PW 3 is the wife of the informant; the victim was her sister-in-law (wife of husbands younger brother). PW 7 is the informant. PW 8 is the doctor who held post-mortem on the body of the deceased. PW 9 is the mother- in-law of the victim. PW 10 is the I.O. and PW 11 is the doctor who had first treated the victim at Pothia Primary Health Centre and who had recorded her statement. 8. PW 7 is the informant. PW 8 is the doctor who held post-mortem on the body of the deceased. PW 9 is the mother- in-law of the victim. PW 10 is the I.O. and PW 11 is the doctor who had first treated the victim at Pothia Primary Health Centre and who had recorded her statement. 8. Unfortunately all the PWs apart from the official witnesses, (the two doctors and the I.O.) disowned the prosecution case (some completely and some to the extent of the identification of the accused). Among the hostile witnesses one finds not only the co-villagers but also the daughter of the victim (PW 2), her brother-in-law (the informant, PW 7), her sister-in-law (PW 3) and her mother-in-law (PW 9). The prosecution case was thus able to survive on the evidence of the three official witnesses. 9. PWs 1, 4 and 5 denied to have any knowledge of the occurrence. PW 6 another co-villager stated that on hearing hulla he went to the house of Shrikant and there in the aangan he saw Parmila lying injured and in an unconscious state. There were no clothes on her body that people took her to hospital for treatment. He further said that Parmila did not say as to what had happened to her. He then identified his signature on the fardbeyan stating the he had put his signature on the informants statement. He also said that many blisters had erupted on the body of Parmila Devi. He was declared hostile and on being cross- examined by the prosecution he denied having said before the Police that at the hospital Parmila had said that carrying acid in a vessal Mahendra Mahto came (to her house) along with Begai Mandal and poured acid over her causing injuries to her person. 10. PWs 2, 3, 7 and 9 (close relatives of the victim and living with her in the same house) though supporting the prosecution case in so far as acid was thrown over the victim while she was sleeping in her house in the night between July 13 and 14, 1996 tried to shield the appellants. According to their depositions in Court, neither any of them had seen the offender(s) nor the victim had named the offender(s) before them. According to their depositions in Court, neither any of them had seen the offender(s) nor the victim had named the offender(s) before them. Their evidence, however, establishes beyond doubt that while the victim was sleeping in her house in the night on July 13 and 14, 1996, acid was thrown over her body and the injuries thus caused family led to her death. 11. We turn now to the medical evidence and find that Pramila Devi on being taken to Pothia Primary Health Centre in the morning of 14.7.1996 was first examined and treated by Dr. Kali Shankar Mishra, PW 11 who was posted there at that time. In his deposition before the Court Dr. Mishra stated that on 14.7.1996 at 7 in the morning he examined Parmila and found the following injuries on the her person : "About 60% burn of skin covering both eyes, nose, left ear, lips, face, both arms, chest, eye abdomen and private parts." 12. The doctor found the injuries grievous and in his opinion those were caused by some corrosive poison. He identified the injury report of Parmila Devi which was marked as Ext. 7. 13. He also stated before the Court about examining Mainu Kumari (PW 2, the daughter of the victim) and Sonu, the son of the deceased and described the injuries on their person (quite minor in relation to those of Parmila Devi). 14. The injury reports of Manju Kumari and Sonu were marked as Exts. 7/1 and 7/2 respectively. 15. He further stated before the Court that he also recorded the statement of the victim Parmila but to that I shall turn presently. 16. PW 8, Dr. Dinanath Poddar held post-mortem on the body of Parmila Devi on 11.8.1996. He stated before the Court that he found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person : "External.Heeling wounds with black spots over all of face, chest, upper part of abdomen, both upper limbs and lower limbs, both eyes were sloughed out. Motleys catheter introduced..." 17. He also gave his opinion that death was caused due to septicaemia coupled with the shock resulting from the burns. 18. Motleys catheter introduced..." 17. He also gave his opinion that death was caused due to septicaemia coupled with the shock resulting from the burns. 18. Thus, the evidence of PWs 2, 3, and 9 and the medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that extensive burn injuries were caused to Parmila when acid was thrown over her while she was sleeping in her house in the night between 13 and 14 July, 1996. The injuries led to septicaemia, finally causing her death on 10.8.1996. 19. For the identity of the offenders we once again turn to the deposition of PW 11, the doctor who treated her first at Pothia Primary Health Centre. He told the Court that he took the statement of Parmila Devi and recorded it in his own hand-writing. He identified her statement recorded him and his own signature and the right thumb impression of Parmila at its bottom. They dying declaration was marked as Ext. 5. 20. The statement of Parmila was recorded by PW 11 in the following manner. At the top the document bears the title in English : "Dying declaration statement of Parmila Devi. W/o Late Miro Mahto, Village Sabda. P.S.Falka (Pothia). District Katihar recorded by Dr. Kali Shankar Mishra, M.O. Pothia. District Katihar on 14.7.1996 at 7.30 a.m. at Pothia Hospital." 21. Below the heading is the brief statement of Parmila Devi recorded in Hindi, which roughly translated into English reads as follows : "My names is Parmila Devi : the name of the husband is Late Bhiro Mahto, (My) home is at village Sabda. In the previous night of Saturday, date 13/14.7.1996 I woke up on the goat getting loose. I tied up the loose goat and went back to sleep inside the house leaving the door open under the misapprehension that morning had dawned. A little later Mahendra Mahto and Begai Mandal of Village Sabda entered into the house and Mahendra Mahto poured (over me) a watery substance from the pot, he carried in his hand. As a result my body and clothes and those of the children were burnt. Seeing (me) alone they used to ask (me) to have illicit bodily relations with them. On not consenting they burnt (me) by pouring acid." 22. Below the statement the doctor put his signature in English and also took the right-thumb impression of Parmila Devi. 23. As a result my body and clothes and those of the children were burnt. Seeing (me) alone they used to ask (me) to have illicit bodily relations with them. On not consenting they burnt (me) by pouring acid." 22. Below the statement the doctor put his signature in English and also took the right-thumb impression of Parmila Devi. 23. He further stated that he knew Mahendra Mahto from before and he had treated him also : that Mahendra Mahto was mentally disturbed when he treated him. 24. PW 10 in his deposition before the Court stated that on 14.7.1996 he was posted as A.S.I, at Pothia Out-Post of Falka P.S. On that date at 5 in the morning, he received and O.D. slip from Pothia hospital informing that a female was brought there in an injured condition. He went to the hospital and recorded there the statement (the fardheyan) of Srikant Mahto, brother- in-law of the victim. He took the subsequent statement of the informant and thereafter took the statement of the victim herself. In para 7 of his deposition he stated that the victims dying declaration was recorded by Dr. Kali Shankar Mishra in his presence. He, identified the statement on its being shown to him and it was then marked as Ext. 5. In cross-examination (para 18) he reiterated that Dr. Kali Shankar Mishra had recorded the statement of Parmila in his presence. He stated that he examined the place of occurrence and found that the informant and the victim lived in a house constructed with tatties and bamboos and adjacent south to it was the house of the appellant Mahendra Mahto. On the bed on which Parmila was sleeping, he found the mattress and pillow burnt and blackened. 25. One the basis of the dying declaration (Ext. 5) and the evidence of PWs 10 and 11. I have no hesitation in holding that Parmila was able to identify the two appellants as the offenders and she had named them not only before the informant and others but also before the doctor and the I.O. and her statement was correctly recorded by the doctor. PW 11 in presence of the I.O., PW 10. 26. Mr. I have no hesitation in holding that Parmila was able to identify the two appellants as the offenders and she had named them not only before the informant and others but also before the doctor and the I.O. and her statement was correctly recorded by the doctor. PW 11 in presence of the I.O., PW 10. 26. Mr. Nawal Kishore Agarwal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Bengal Mandal, the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2000 tried to assail the dying declaration submitting that it was not recorded in presence of a Magistrate and it was not recorded in the question and answer form. I am unimpressed by the submission. Thought the statement is not recorded in the question and answer form, it faithfully presents the statement made by the victim in her own words. It is to be noted that the statement is recorded in the words of the victim herself and the doctor recording the statement has not tried to use his own words and expression in order to convey her meaning. 27. As regards the absence of the Magistrate Pothia seems to be a. small place. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sits at Katihar at a distance of about 40-50 Kms. The doctor and the I.O. might have thought (and quite rightly) that the time that was likely to be taken for the Magistrate to come would be too much and the victim may not be able to survive till then or that she should not be kept waiting for the Magistrate at Pothia where it was not possible to give her proper medical treatment. In those circumstances, if the doctor recorded the victims statement in his own hand and in presence of the I.O., I find nothing objectionable in it and I see no reason not to take the dying acclaration into evidence and to accord it the weight it deserves. 28. On the basis of the discussion made above I have no hesitation in holding that Mahendra Mahto and Bengai Mandal entered into the house of the victim in the dead of night; Mahendra Mahto was carrying a pot containing some strong acid or a highly corrosive fluid. He poured the contents of the pot over Parmila Devi while she was sleeping, causing extensive burn injuries all over her body as a result of which she developed septicaemia and died on 10.8.1996. 29. He poured the contents of the pot over Parmila Devi while she was sleeping, causing extensive burn injuries all over her body as a result of which she developed septicaemia and died on 10.8.1996. 29. Faced with this situation. Mr. Agrawal submitted that the appellant Mahendra Mahto or for that matter the other appellant Bengai Mandal could not be convicted of murder caused the victim Parmila had died after 26 days of the occurrence and the cause of death was septicaemia and not the burn injuries caused by acid. I am unable to accept this submission. It is true that the victim died after 26 days of the occurrence (though it must have been a very painful death). But septicaemia was the direct result of the burn injuries caused by the appellants by pouring acid over her body. In Jagtar Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 75 , the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 under similar circumstances. 30. Mr. Agrawal then contended that in pouring acid over the body of the victim the intention of appellant Mahendra Mahto could not possibly have been to kill her. He, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant be modified and brought under Section 304, Part II of the Penal Code and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergo by him. 31. A homicide, in order to qualify not as murder but simply as culpable homicide, must fall within any one of the five exceptions under Section 300 of the Penal Code. This case clearly does not fall under any of the five exceptions and it, therefore, cannot qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 32. Mr. Agrawal next tried to build up another argument on the same premise that in pouring acid over the body of the victim the appellant did not have the intention to kill her. Mr. Agarwal pointed out that as a result of the acid being thrown over her the victim died after 26 days and that too on developing septicaemia. He sub-mitted that in case the intention was to kill her the appellant would have employed simpler and surerer means. According to him, therefore, the offence committed by Mahendra Mahto would only be causing grievous hurt and he could only be convicted and sentenced under Section 326 of the Penal Code. 33. He sub-mitted that in case the intention was to kill her the appellant would have employed simpler and surerer means. According to him, therefore, the offence committed by Mahendra Mahto would only be causing grievous hurt and he could only be convicted and sentenced under Section 326 of the Penal Code. 33. I am unable to accept the contention. It is next to impossible to peer into ones mind and ascertain the precise intent behind ones action and it is equally impossible to predict what means one would adopt for killing someone else. Simply because the appellant did not strangulate Lalmuni Devi or hacked her with an axe but doused her with concentrated acid. I am unable to hold and find that the appellant had no intention of killing her. Moreover, the action of the appellant Mahendra Mahto in pouring a pot full of concentrated acid over the body of Pramila Devi drenching her from head to the middle of the body (including the private parts) and causing extensive burn injuries to her would plainly attract more than one clauses (clauses 3 and 4 in particular) of Section 300 and would, therefore, clearly come within the definition of murder. 34. In the light of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the two appellants was rightly arrived at and the conviction and sentences passed against them by the trial Court do not warrant any interference in appeal. I find no merit in the two appeals and these are accordingly dismissed. 35. The bail bonds of appellant Bengai Mandal @ Begai Mandal is cancelled. He is directed to surrender within one month from today failing which the trial Court must take all steps to secure his arrest so as to make him undergo the rest of his sentence. B.K.Jha, J. 36 I agree.