Judgment B.K.Jha, J. 1. The present Jail Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed on 15/16.12.2000 in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1997 by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Vaishali at Hajipur. 2. The sole appellant, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, has been convicted under Ss. 302, 309 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, for six months and for three years respectively. The awarded substantive sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The incident occurred on 25.07.1996 at 4 P.M. in Village and P.S. Goraul, District-Vaishali at Hajipur. The accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, known to the informant, Baldeo Singh, P.W. 9. from before the occurrence came to his house at 9 P.M. on 23.07.1996. At the alleged time while the accused was teaching the informants daughter, Amarjit Kaur, the informant heard the cries. He went in that room and found his daughter, Amarjit Kaur drenched in blood with injuries on her chest and abdomen. The accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurmel Singh, was also found injured. On query, Amarjit Kaur, disclosed to the informant that the accused tried to persuade her for sensual enjoyment and on refusal he assaulted on her chest and abdomen with sword. The accused also injured himself in his abdomen and groin with sword uttering that neither she nor he would remain alive. This occurrence was witnessed by Ramadhar Singh, P.W. 3 and many others. The injured, Amarjit Kaur, was taken to Garoul State Dispensary and from there to the Patna Medical College Hospital for treatment. 4. On 25.7.1996 at 17.45 hours, P.W. 10, Surendra Prasad Singh, the A.S.I. of Goraul Police Station recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 2) of the informant, Baldeo Singh, in the State Dispensary, Goraul. On the basis of his fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. (Ext. No. 5) was drawn up and a case was registered under Ss. 376/511/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh. The injured, Amarjit Kaur, died in course of treatment in P.M.C.H., Patna and thereafter Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in this case. After investigation the accused was tried and convicted in the aforesaid manner. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. His plea was one of complete denial. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 6. After investigation the accused was tried and convicted in the aforesaid manner. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. His plea was one of complete denial. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 6. In course of trial the prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them P.W. 2, Lakshaman Sah, P.W. 8, Satnam Kaur, the mother and P.W. 9, Baldeo Singh, the informant, are the material witnesses in this case. P. W. 1, Hari Narain Sah, P. W. 3, Ramadhar Singh, P.W. 4, Yogendra Sah, P.W. 5, Dhodhai Ram, P.W. 6, Shiv Bachan Singh and P. W. 7, Rameshwar Sah, have stated before the Court that on hulla when they went at the house of the informant, Baldeo Singh, they found both Amarjit Kaur and the accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, injured. They also saw a blood stained sword there. They learnt about the occurrence from the informant, P.W. 9, Baldeo Singh. P.W. 12 is Dr. C.K. Singh. He examined the injured accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh on 25.7.1996 at 5.30 P.M. and found two sharp cutting injuries on his person. He proved the injury report (Ext. No. 8) P.W. 13, Rajeshwar Singh, is a formal witness and he produced the material exhibit, the sword (Material Ext. No. 1) in the court. P.W. 14, Bishundeo Bhagat Kushawaha, is also a formal witness and has proved the inquest report which was prepared and signed by the A.S.I., Ramesh Prasad Singh (Ext. No. 1). P.W. 10, Surendra Prasad Singh, is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W. 11 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Amarjit Kaur. 7. Now, I advert to the evidence of the material witnesses in this case. The eye witnesses to the occurrence in this case are P.W. 2, Lakshman Sah and P.W. 8, Satnam Kaur, the mother of the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 8, Satnam Kaur, is that at the relevant time while she was cooking meal inside the house, she heard the outcry of her daughter, Amarjit Kaur. She rushed in the room in which the accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, was teaching her daughter. She noticed that the accused was piercing a sword in the chest and abdomen of her daughter. The accused also injured himself by assaulting with sword. She rushed in the room in which the accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, was teaching her daughter. She noticed that the accused was piercing a sword in the chest and abdomen of her daughter. The accused also injured himself by assaulting with sword. She has further stated that on query her daughter disclosed that the accused tried to persuade her for sensual enjoyment and on refusal he assaulted her with sword. Her further evidence is that she was soon removed to Goraul Hospital and was treated there. She was referred to P.M.C.H. for better treatment where she died on 26.7.1996. The police came in the hospital, prepared the inquest report and was signed by her (Ext. No. ½). Satpal Singh also put his signature on the inquest report (Ext. No. 1/3). P.W. 2, Lakshman Sah, has stated that on hulla when he went at the house of the informant, Baldeo Singh, P.W. 9, he found the accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, with sword quarrelling with Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter the accused assaulted Amarjit Kaur with sword and also injured himself. He has further stated that police came and seized the sword and prepared a seizure list. He put his signature on the seizure list (Ext. No. 1). In cross-examination at para 5 his evidence is that he learnt from Amarjit Kaur that the accused wanted to establish sexual relationship with her and on refusal he committed the offence. P.W. 9, Baldeo Singh, is the informant. His evidence is that at the alleged time while he was in the bathroom, he heard the cries of his daughter, Amarjit Kaur and went in the room. He found both his daughter and the accused injured there. On query she narrated about the story to him. He has further stated that thereafter the injured, Amarjit Kaur, was taken to the hospital where police came and recorded his fardbeyan. He put his signature on the statement (Ext. No. 2). In cross-examination he has stated that before he reached the place, his wife, Satnam Kaur, P.W. 8 and Lakshman Sah, P.W. 2, had already arrived. 8. P.W. 11 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh. He put his signature on the statement (Ext. No. 2). In cross-examination he has stated that before he reached the place, his wife, Satnam Kaur, P.W. 8 and Lakshman Sah, P.W. 2, had already arrived. 8. P.W. 11 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh. He held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Amarjit Kaur at about 11.05 A.M. on 26.7.1996 and found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person: (i) One penetrating wound of 3/4" x ½" x cavity deep size on right side of chest, verticle in position 4½" above and medial from right nipple 2" right from middle line and ½" below clavicle. (ii) One penetrating 3/4" x 1" x cavity deep size on left side of chest 2½" medial from left nipple and 2" left from midline and 4" below left clavicle. (iii) One penetrating wound of 1" x ½" x Cavity deep on right side of abdomen. 1" right from midline, 2½" above and right from umbilical and 6" above and medial from right anterior superior iliac spine. (iv) One incised wound of 1/3" x 1/1" x muscle deep on right of back of abdomen. 3 1/2" right from mid line and 6" above from right iliac crest and 5 1/2" below from left inferior angle of scapula. In his opinion the time elapsed since death and post-mortem examination held was within 6 to 24 hours. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs caused by piercing or stabbing instrument, sharp pointed and cutting instrument such as Talwar. Further, in his opinion the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 7). 9. P.W. 10, Surendra Prasad Singh, is the Investigating Officer of this case. His evidence is that on 25.7.1996 he was posted as A.S.I. at Goraul Police Station on the same day at 5.30 P.M. he received the O.D.slip from the Goraul State Dispensary. He made Station Diary Entry No. 582 dated 25.7.1996 and went to the Hospital. He recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant, Baldeo Singh which is in his pen and signature (Ext. No. 2). Thereafter he examined the injured, Amarjit Kaur. He found bleeding injuries on her chest and abdomen. He made Station Diary Entry No. 582 dated 25.7.1996 and went to the Hospital. He recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant, Baldeo Singh which is in his pen and signature (Ext. No. 2). Thereafter he examined the injured, Amarjit Kaur. He found bleeding injuries on her chest and abdomen. He also examined the accused, Mangi Ram alias Gurumel Singh and found two sharp cutting injuries, one on his abdomen and other on his groin. He prepared the injury report and has proved it (Ext. No. 3). He has further stated that the injured Amarjit Kaur, was referred to P.M.C.H., Patna and he returned back to the Police Station alongwith the fardbeyan of the informant. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and he was entrusted with the investigation of this case. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which is in the pen of Munshi Ashok Singh and bears the signature of the Officer Incharge, Satish Chandra Prasad (Ext. No. 5). He has further stated that the injured accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, was sent to Hajipur Hospital for treatment. He visited the P.O., seized one blood stained sword and prepared the seizure list. He has proved the seizure list which is in his pen signature (Ext. No. 6). He has further stated that the accused, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, was also referred to P.M.C.H., Patna for better treatment. The injured, Amarjit Kaur, died in course of treatment and thereafter he made a prayer for the addition of Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code in this case. He obtained the postmortem report, recorded statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet. In cross-examination he proved the sword seized by him in course of investigation (Material Ext. No.1). 10. Thus, I find that the direct evidence is available in the depositions of P.W. 2, Lakshman Sah and P.W. 8, Satnam Kaur, the mother of the deceased. A bare perusal of their evidence convinces me that they are not vacillating throughout their evidence rather their evidence is quite consistent to each other in their testimony. No.1). 10. Thus, I find that the direct evidence is available in the depositions of P.W. 2, Lakshman Sah and P.W. 8, Satnam Kaur, the mother of the deceased. A bare perusal of their evidence convinces me that they are not vacillating throughout their evidence rather their evidence is quite consistent to each other in their testimony. The other material evidence relied by the prosecution is the dying declaration All the material witnesses, P.W. 2, Lakshman Sah, P.W. 8, Satnam Kaur and P.W. 9, Baldeo Singh, the informant, have stated that when they appeared on the scene just after the occurrence, the injured, Amarjit Kaur, disclosed the entire story to them which finds corroboration from the objective findings of the Investigating Officer, Surendra Prasad Singh, P.W. 10. On inspection of the P.O. he seized blood stained sword, the alleged weapon used by the appellant for the commission of the offence. The medical evidence is also in consonance with the prosecution that Doctor found all the injuries caused by sharp cutting (pointed and penetrating) instruments like sword which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 11. Thus, I find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. I find no wrong in the order of conviction recorded by the learned court below against him. 12. In the result there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant, Mangi Ram @ Gurumel Singh, are hereby confirmed. The appellant is already in custody. 13. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, appointed as Amicus Curiae sincerely assisted the Court in hearing the appeal. He will get the fixed fee from the Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice. Aftab Alam, J. 14 I agree.