K. C. BHANU, J, J. ( 1 ) THE 2nd accused in S. C. No. 999 of 2000 on the file of Special judge for SC/st cases, Warangal preferred the present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the conviction under Section 302 ipc read with 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: ( 3 ) THE police originally filed chargesheet against three accused. A-1 died during the pendency of the case, whereas A-3 was acquitted by the trial Court. Two years prior to the date of death of the deceased, a-1 returned to Ankushapuram and purchased sheep and was eking out his livelihood. The mother of A-1 was mentally retarded. During the Dasara Festival of 1999, the condition of the mother of A-1 became serious. Therefore she was taken by A-1 to Kotancha Temple thinking that she will be cured. During that period, half of the sheep which A-1 was owning died on account of disease. The sheep of others also died on account of disease. A-1 suspected that the sheep died and the condition of his mother became very serious on account of practicing sorcery by the deceased. Therefore A-1 used to threaten the deceased to kill. On the date of incident, the deceased Mothe Narsaiah went to sleep during night time in the cattle shed which is at a distance of 4 to 5 yards opposite to the house of PW-1, who is no other than the son of the deceased. PW-1 and his family members were sleeping inside their house. The deceased was sleeping alone in the cattle shed. At about 11. 45 p. m. on the night of 17. 8. 2000 PW-1 heard the cries of the deceased. Then PW-1, pw-2 who is the wife of the deceased and pw-3 who is the son of PW-1 came out of the house and saw A-1 and A-2 coming out of the shed where the deceased was sleeping. A-1 was holding a knife. The witnesses identified the accused -with the help of electric light which was in front of their house. When they entered the shed, they found the deceased leaning to the wooden pole with bleeding injuries on the body. A-1 was holding a knife. The witnesses identified the accused -with the help of electric light which was in front of their house. When they entered the shed, they found the deceased leaning to the wooden pole with bleeding injuries on the body. When they questioned as to who stabbed him, the deceased informed them that A-1 and A-2 stabbed him. They also found A-3 standing on the road near the hut. On the next day morning at about 10. 00 a. m. PW-1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report. The S. I. of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 60 of 2000 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 ipc on 18. 8. 2000 and sent F. I. Rs. to all the concerned. PW-11 took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence which was located in the cattle shed in front of the house of PW-1. Then he held inquest on the dead body from 11. 30 a. m. to 1. 30 p. m. in the presence of PW-7 and another. During the inquest the bloodstained earth and control earth were seized. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died due to stab injuries. Thereafter the dead body was sent to post-mortem examination. PW-10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body and opined that the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The Inspector of Police also examined the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW-5 and another and seized the incriminating material. He also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and photographed the same through PW-7. PW-9 examined the witnesses. On 21. 8. 2000 the Asst. S. I. of Police arrested the accused at Ankushapuram and produced before PW-11 who interrogated them. A-1 offered to show the knife and the towel used in the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confessional statement of A-1 he led the police and the mediators to his house and produced M. Os. 6 and 7 -knife and towel - used in the commission of offence. The incriminating material was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after receipt of report from the F. S. L. , the Inspector of Police filed chargesheet against the three accused before the judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal. 6 and 7 -knife and towel - used in the commission of offence. The incriminating material was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after receipt of report from the F. S. L. , the Inspector of Police filed chargesheet against the three accused before the judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal. As the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The ease was taken on file as S. C. No. 999 of 2000 and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, a charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against all the accused. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked besides case properties M. Os. l to 9. Basing on the oral dying declaration and the circumstantial evidence the learned Sessions judge found A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. As there was no evidence to show that a-3 participated in the commission of offence along with A-1 and A-2, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Since A-1 died during the pendency of the case, the case against him was abated. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by A-2. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellantaccused no. 2 contended that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is highly interested and discrepant; that they are closely related to the deceased and therefore no reliance can be placed upon their evidence and that there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and those circumstances do not connect the appellant with the crime; that there is no possibility or scope for the prosecution witnesses to identify the accused because the incident is alleged to have been taken place in the darkness; that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was in possession of the deadly weapon and as such no weapon was seized at the instance of A-2; that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was in a talking condition so as to narrate the incident and the names of the assailants. Therefore, the learned Counsel prays to acquit the appellant-accused. Therefore, the learned Counsel prays to acquit the appellant-accused. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned public Prosecutor contended that though pws. 1 to 3 are closely related to the deceased, but their presence at the time of incident is quite natural and convincing. Since the incident took place in front of their house it is possible for them to witness th e incident on hearing the cries of the deceased and that there was every possibility for the deceased to raise cries when he sustained injuries and as such PWs. 1 to 3 rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw a-l and A-2 going and it is natural for them to question the deceased as to the reason why he sustained injuries and therefore the deceased was in a position to tell at that time the names of the assailants and that there was a clear motive for the accused to commit the incident and as such the learned Sessions Judge rightly found the assailant guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded against the appellant. ( 6 ) MOTIVE in a criminal case plays an important role. When there is a clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence. But the absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. The motive for the incident is that the deceased was practicing sorcery. A-1 was suspecting the deceased that because of his doing sorcery, his mother became ill and that his sheep died. For that reason, A-1 used to threaten to kill the deceased. The fact that A-1 was suspecting that the deceased was doing sorcery is not specifically denied in the cross- examination. Ex. P-1 is the earliest report wherein it is clearly stated that A-1 was suspecting that the deceased was doing sorcery for the last one year and as such the sheep of A-1 died and his mother fell sick. Therefore, for that reason it may be possible for A-1 to entertain grouse against the deceased so as to do away with his life. That possibility cannot be ruled out. A-2 and A-3 are the friends of A-1. Therefore, for that reason it may be possible for A-1 to entertain grouse against the deceased so as to do away with his life. That possibility cannot be ruled out. A-2 and A-3 are the friends of A-1. There is no direct eye-witnesses to speak about the incident proper. The entire incident rests on circumstantial evidence and the oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased. PW-1 is the son of the deceased. PW-2 is the wife of the deceased. PW-3 is the grandson of the deceased i. e. , the son of PW-1. PW-4 is the neighbourer and PW-5 is also closely related to the deceased i. e. , the deceased is his senior paternal uncle. A-1 is the son of the junior paternal uncle of pw-5. A-1 is also related to the deceased. A-1 is the son of the brother-in-law of pw-2. Since PWs. 1, 3 and 5 are closely related to the deceased, it becomes the duty of the Court to scrutinize their statements with great care and caution. One cannot ignore the fact that the relatives present at the time of scene of occurrence are the natural available witnesses in case they are actually present at the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is located in the cattle shed in front of the house of PW-1. There is no doubt about the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is in front of the house of PWs. 1 to 3. When a person was attacked with knife, there is every possibility for that person to raise cries. On hearing the cries, there is every scope for PWs. 1 to 3 to come out from the house and witness the incident. As a matter of fact, PWs. 1 to 3 specifically stated that on hearing the cries of the deceased they came out of the house and saw A-1 and A-2 coming out of the shed where the deceased was sleeping. At that time they also saw A-1 armed with a knife. Their evidence is consistent insofar as A-1 and a-2 coming from the cattle shed is concerned. Since A-1 is also closely related to them, it is most unlikely that they implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. At that time they also saw A-1 armed with a knife. Their evidence is consistent insofar as A-1 and a-2 coming from the cattle shed is concerned. Since A-1 is also closely related to them, it is most unlikely that they implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. If they want to perjure themselves, definitely they would have stated that they saw A-1 and A-2 causing injuries to the deceased but they did not speak about the actual attack. So, this in our opinion, PWs. 1 to 3 are speaking truth and whatever they saw on the date of incident and within their knowledge they are testifying in the Court. After lengthy cross-examination nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of PWs. 1 to 3. Some minor omissions have been elicited from the evidence of PW-1 wherein it is not specifically mentioned in Ex. P-1 or in the statement recorded by the police that a-1 and A-2 came opposite to him and that he identified them with the help of light which was burning in front of his house. Some minor omissions have been elicited in the cross-examination of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 also to the effect that they did not state before the police that they saw A-1 and a-2 coming out of the cattle shed opposite to them and that there was no electric light burning at the time of the incident. ( 7 ) PW-4 is an independent witness whose house is located on the back side of the house of PW-1. The said fact is not denied or disputed. He also speaks about a-1 suspecting the deceased for practicing sorcery. On hearing the cries, he came out of the house at about 12. 00 midnight and saw A-1 and A-2 coming out of the shed opposite to the house of PW-1 and A-1 was having a knife in his hand. There is absolutely no reason for this man to speak false against A-1 and A-2. Except suggesting that he did not go to the cattle shed and he did not question the deceased and the deceased did not say anything and there were no lights on the road, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of PW-4. PW-4 is totally an independent witness. Except suggesting that he did not go to the cattle shed and he did not question the deceased and the deceased did not say anything and there were no lights on the road, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of PW-4. PW-4 is totally an independent witness. Therefore, in the absence of any grudge against the accused it may not be possible for this witness to speak something against the accused. PW-5 though related to the deceased, he also speaks about the incident. His house is located at about 22 yards from the house of the deceased. At the time of incident he came out from the house at about 10. 00 p. m. for answering calls of nature. He saw A-1 to A-3 going towards the house of the deceased. Then at about 11. 00 p. m. he heard the cries of PWs. 1 to 4. When he went there, he found the deceased with stab injuries. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that some unknown persons who are inimical towards the deceased might have caused injuries and under the cover of darkness they have escaped and for the reasons best known to the prosecution the present accused has been implicated falsely and there is no scope or possibility for PWs. 1 to 4 to identify the accused in the darkness. PW-1 categorically stated that with the help of electric light which was in front of his house and in the cattle shed, he identified the accused. PW-2 also stated that the cattle shed was provided with electric bulb and electric fan and there was electric light in front of his house and she identified the accused with the help of the electric light inside the cattle shed and also with the help of the light which was in front of their house. PWs. 3 and 4 also stated the same thing. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the existence of electric light in the shed or in the house has not been stated in the F. I. R. and therefore it is clearly an improvement and this omission is significant in the sense that if it is an improvement there is no scope for the prosecution witnesses to identity the assailants of the deceased. No doubt PW-1 did not say anything with regard to the existence of light in the cattle shed and also in front of the house in ex. P-1, but at the same time the F. I. R. need not contain all the minute details and on that ground the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 cannot be disbelieved. The police observed the scene of occurrence on 18. 8. 2000 at 2 p. m. It is mentioned that the cattle shed is of 26 feet in length and 16 feet in width and was covered with hay. Inside there was current fan and bulb which were in working condition. The existence of bulb and fan has been specifically mentioned in ex. P-10 rough sketch. PW-11 is the investigating Officer who prepared the rough sketch. Therefore, the observation of scene of occurrence by the Investigating officer and the mediator would clearly go to show that the electric bulb was fitted in the shed of the deceased where the dead body was found. Therefore, in the illumination of lights there was every scope or possibility for PWs. 1 to 4 to identify the assailants of the deceased. Therefore, in these circumstances it is not unusual for pws. 1 to 3 to identify A-1 and A-2. ( 9 ) APART from the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution also relied upon the oral dying declaration made to PWs. 1 to 4 by the deceased. The dying declarations are the statements of the persons dead. The statement written or oral of the relevant fact as to the cause of the death and as to the nature and circumstances of the transactions which resulted in the death in cases in which the cause of the death comes into question are admissible under section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. A dying declaration may be oral or it may be reduced in writing by any other person but in either case it must be duly proved. Before a dying declaration can be admitted in evidence, it must be proved that (1) a statement written or verbal is made by a person who is dead as to the cause of his death or to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death and (2) the cause of that person s death is in question. Once the dying declaration is found to be true and voluntary, there is no legal bar for basing a conviction. In a leading decision in Kushal Rao v. State of bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , it is held:"in order to pass the test of reliability a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny keeping in view of the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of accused who had no opportunity of cross-examination. But once the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailant of the victim, there is no question of corroboration". ( 10 ) NOW it has to be seen whether the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 inspires confidence with regard to the oral dying declaration? ( 11 ) ON hearing the cries, PWs. 1 to 4 immediately came out from the house and found the deceased with stab injuries. At that time the deceased was alive. When they questioned as to who stabbed him, the deceased gave the names of A-1 and A-2 as the persons who stabbed him. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 is consistent insofar as the deceased giving oral dying declaration as A-1 and A-2 who attacked him. There is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased was inimical towards A-1 and A-2 for some or the other reason. There is no evidence of whatsoever to show that the deceased was inimical against A-1 and A-2. Under those circumstances, the deceased if he was in a position of giving the names of his assailants, he would not have implicated A-1 and A-2 as his assailants in view of the fact that a-1 is closely related to the deceased. There is no reason for the deceased to implicate a-1 and A-2 falsely leaving the real assailants. Immediately after hearing the cries of the deceased, PWs. 1 to 4 rushed to the scene of occurrence. Though the injuries are on the lower left backside and abdomen there is a possibility for the deceased to survive for sometime because he did not receive any serious injuries to the vital parts of the body. In such view of the matter there is a scope for the deceased to revea the names of the assailants. Though the injuries are on the lower left backside and abdomen there is a possibility for the deceased to survive for sometime because he did not receive any serious injuries to the vital parts of the body. In such view of the matter there is a scope for the deceased to revea the names of the assailants. In view of the fact that PWs. 1 to 4, whose houses are located very close by, have every reason to go to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries and there is every possibility for the deceased to inform the names o! assailants, we are of the opinion that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the names of the assailants and further there is every possibility for the deceased to identify the assailants in view of the fact that the scene of occurrence is located in the shed where an electric fan and electric bulb were fitted and in the illumination of the light the deceased had got every reason to see the assailants A-1 and A-2 and that is the reason why immediately he informed the same to PWs. 1 to 4. The said fact was also stated by PW-1 in the F. I. R. which was lodged on the next day of the incident. The recitals in Ex. P-1 are not shown to be false or incorrect. Once the recitals in Ex. P-1 are found to be correct, they can be used to corroborate the evidence of PW-1. In the earliest opportunity PW-1 has clearly stated in Ex. P-1 about the deceased making oral dying declaration to him and also the other witnesses present. Therefore, there is no other reason to disbelieve the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PWs. 1 to 4. In the absence of any suspicious circumstances, we are of the opinion that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PWs. 1 to 4 is true and trustworthy. ( 12 ) PW-6 stated that on the date of the death of the deceased at about 9. 00 or 9. 30 p. m. A-1 came to his shop and purchased two small cheap liquor bottles and beedi packets and a matchbox, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. 1 to 4 is true and trustworthy. ( 12 ) PW-6 stated that on the date of the death of the deceased at about 9. 00 or 9. 30 p. m. A-1 came to his shop and purchased two small cheap liquor bottles and beedi packets and a matchbox, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-7 is inquest mediator for the inquest and he was also mediator for the scene of occurrence panchanama. The inquest mediators opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him. Ex. P-4 panchanama is not in dispute. ( 13 ) A-1 was arrested by the Asst. S. I. of Police. When he was produced before pw-11, he interrogated him. A-1 offered to show the place where he had concealed knife and towel used in commission of the offence. In pursuance of the said confessional statement, A-1 led the police and the mediators to his house at Ankushapuram and produced a knife and a towel. The same were seized under Ex. P-6 panchanama. The seizure of knife at the instance of A-1 is incriminating because it contained human blood. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW-8 to discredit his testimony. Except giving a suggestion that A-1 did not confess anything before them and nothing was seized at his instance, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. PW-9 is the photographer who took the photographs of the dead body at the scene of occurrence. PW-10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy and found the following ante-mortem stab injuries: 1. On the left lower back side 3/4 x 3 inches 2. Left ear 1/2 inch x 1 inch. 3. Left glutal region upper thigh 3/4 x 1 inch 4. Left lower abdomen (side) region 3/4 x 1 inch. The doctor opined that the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries about 15 to 18 hours prior to P. M. examination. He also categorically stated that the said injuries are possible by stabbing with a knife like m. O. 6. The cause of the death and the possibility of causing those injuries with m. O-6 have not been specifically denied or disputed in the cross-examination. Practically, the evidence of PW-10 and the recitals in ex. P-8 remain unchallenged. He also categorically stated that the said injuries are possible by stabbing with a knife like m. O. 6. The cause of the death and the possibility of causing those injuries with m. O-6 have not been specifically denied or disputed in the cross-examination. Practically, the evidence of PW-10 and the recitals in ex. P-8 remain unchallenged. From the medical evidence it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased met with an homicidal death as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and those multiple injuries can be possible by stabbing with a knife like M. O-6 which is recovered at the instance of a-1, especially in view of the fact that it contained human blood when analysed by serologist. ( 14 ) THE presence of A-3 was spoken to by PW-1 at the time of incident. According to PW-1, A-3 was standing on the road near the hut where the deceased was killed. PW-5 also stated that he saw a-1 to A-3 going towards the house of the deceased at about 10. 00 p. m. on the date of the incident. There is no other evidence to show that A-3 shared the common intention along with A-1 to do away with the life of the deceased. So also, the deceased in his oral dying declaration did not speak about the presence of A-3 as one of his assailants. As a matter of fact the name of A-3 has not been stated in the f. I. R. Therefore all these circumstances indicate that A-3 was not present at the time of incident. ( 15 ) IT is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since a-2 was not found in possession of any sort of weapon and as no weapon was seized at the instance of A-2- appellant convicting him under Section 302 read with 34 IPC cannot be sustainable. We are not able to accept the same because Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is t6 be found in the existence of common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. We are not able to accept the same because Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is t6 be found in the existence of common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. Since the oral dying declaration is found to be true and trustworthy, it is clear that A-1 and A-2 are the assailants of the deceased and further a-1 and A-2 were seen running away from the scene of occurrence by PWs. 1 to 4. Simply because the witnesses did not state that the appellant - A-2 was in possession of any weapon while running away from the scene of occurrence and no weapon of offence was seized at his instance, that does not lead to an irresistible conclusion that he has not participated in the commission of the offence. Since the oral dying declaration is clear and convincing that it is both the accused 1 and 2 who caused injuries, the common intention can be inferred from the circumstances in view of the fact that the incident took place at the house of the deceased and there is no other reason for A-2 going to the house of the deceased at an odd hour. ( 16 ) CONSIDERING all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge rightly found A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the said findings cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. ( 17 ) WE do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-A-2 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.