Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, chhatarpur in S. T. No. 20/925 decided on 5. 2. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 19. 12. 91 about three oclock in the noon, deceased Ghansu (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had gone to Isanagar police Station to lodge a report against appellant Dayaram, who had beaten his son Chengdu. When Ghansu and his son Charts were returning back to their village Pahargaon and reached near the culvert, appellant Dayaram and Parsu armed with lathi emerged there, intercepted the deceased and said both the appellants then started assaulting the deceased by lathi. Both the appellants gave repeated lathi blows on his scalp and leg; as a result Ghansu fell down and got unconscious. Thinking him dead, appellants threw him in the nearby canal and fled away. Deceased, however, regained consciousness in water and shouted for help. A few villagers then came there, took him out of water and carried him to the Police Station on a cot. ( 4. ) THE FIR of the incident was lodged by the deceased himself, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. Deceased was sent for medical examination to the Primary Health Centre, isanagar. His dying declaration was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate. However, his condition being precarious, deceased was referred to District hospital, Chhatarpur, where he succumbed to his injuries. The intimation of his death was given to Police from the Hospital. Merg intimation was then recorded and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased Ghansu was sent for postmortem examination. During investigation, lathi used in the commission of the offence was seized at the instance of appellants. Blood stained earth and plain earth were seized from the spot and the spot map was prepared. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 302/34 of IPC and were put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANTS abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 6. Blood stained earth and plain earth were seized from the spot and the spot map was prepared. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 302/34 of IPC and were put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANTS abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 6. ) AFTER trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Ghansu, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 7. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. ( 8. ) IT was no longer disputed that deceased Ghansu met a homicidal death. It is also reflected from the testimony of Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14), who had medically examined the deceased on 19. 12. 91 at about 5 oclock iri the evening, that multiple lacerated wounds and other injuries were found on his person. Dr. Hari Agrawal (P. W-17), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased ghansu, also found the following antemortem injuries on his body :- (i) One wound on right forearm of 54" x 54" size, underlying bone is broken in pieces. (ii) One wound of 54" x 54" size on left forearm with contusion on medial border forearm lower 1/3. Underlying bone broken in pieces. (iii) One deep wound on right III webspace of 2" x 1" x 1" size. Underlying bone. p. p. of II and IV finger and Vth metacarpal broken. (iv) One deep lacerated wound on the scalp of 2" x 54" size underlying parietal bone is broken and haematoma collection, subdural and epidural. (v) Lacerated wound of 54" x 54" size on right leg. (vi) Parietal bone broken. ( 9. ) IN the opinion of Dr. Hari Agrawal (P. W-17) cause of death of the deceased was shock due to head injury and other injuries. The detailed postmortem report (Ex. P-22) is also placed on record. It was thus, clearly evident that deceased met a homicidal death. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that learned trial judge erred in convicting the appellants by placing implicit reliance on the dying declaration (Ex. The detailed postmortem report (Ex. P-22) is also placed on record. It was thus, clearly evident that deceased met a homicidal death. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that learned trial judge erred in convicting the appellants by placing implicit reliance on the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased, though it was not signed by the deceased and also suffered from interpolation and other infirmities. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the trial court also erred in relying upon the FIR (Ex. P-20) as the dying declaration of the deceased, though it was doubtful that the deceased was conscious and able to lodge the FIR. ( 11. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/state, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellants and submitted that the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased was wholly reliable and consistent with the FIR (Ex. P-20) lodged by the deceased. ( 12. ) THE dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased was recorded by Naib tahsildar and Executive Magistrate Satish Awasthy (P. W-19) on 19. 12. 91 at about 4. 55 A. M. at Isanagar Government Hospital. Naib Tahsildar Satish Awasthy (P. W- (19) categorically deposed in his evidence that he had recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased as per statement given by him and he had also read it over to the deceased after reducing it into the writing. Naib Tahsildar Satish awasthy (P. W-19) further deposed that when he recorded his statement, deceased was conscious, though he was sighing with pain. According to P. W-19 Satish awasthy, as both the hands of the deceased were fractured, he could not take his signatures or thumb impression on the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) and he also appended a note to this effect in the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) and got it signed by the two witnesses. P. W-19 Satish Awasthy further stated that Govt. Doctor was also present at the time of recording of dying declaration and he had certified on the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) that Ghansu remained conscious at the time of his statement. Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14) also testified that dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased was recorded in his presence and he had certified thereon that the declarant remained fully conscious during the statement. ( 13. P-19) that Ghansu remained conscious at the time of his statement. Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14) also testified that dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased was recorded in his presence and he had certified thereon that the declarant remained fully conscious during the statement. ( 13. ) THE first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants has been that the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) had no authenticity, as it did not bear the signature or thumb impression of the deceased. However, Naib Tahsildar Satish Awasthy (P. W-19) clearly explained in his evidence that the signatures or thumb impression of declarant could not be taken due to fracture in his both the hands. This fact is also mentioned in the dying declaration (Ex. P-19 ). The fact, that the deceased-had fractures in his both hands, is also fortified by the medical evidence of Dr. Hari Agrawal (P. W-17), who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Ghansu and found lacerated wounds in both of his hands with multiple fractures. More so, there is nothing on record to suspect that Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) would himself manipulate the dying declaration (Ex. P-19), as he had no animus or ill-will towards the appellants. In view of the aforesaid facts, dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased could not be discarded on the score that it did not bear the signatures or thumb impression of the deceased. ( 14. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants next submitted that before recording of the dying declaration Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) admittedly did not obtain any certificate from the doctor that the declarant was fully conscious and fit to give the statement. However, Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) explained in his evidence that as declarant Ghansu was fully conscious, he did not consider it necessary to obtain a prior certificate from the doctor about his consciousness, particularly when the doctor himself was present at the time of recording the dying declaration. Besides, dying declaration (Ex. P-19) also contains the certification by the doctor at the foot to the effect that the declarant remained fully conscious during his statement, which stood duly proved by the testimony of Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) as well as by Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14) himself. There are no reasons to disbelieve the version of Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) as well as Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14) himself. There are no reasons to disbelieve the version of Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) as well as Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14)that the declarant Ghansu was fully conscious before recording of his dying declaration (Ex. P-19 ). The constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court page 2973 has held that in absence of certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of declarant, it cannot be said that the dying declaration cannot be accepted. It would be profitable to reproduce the following observations made by the Apex court in the case of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra):- "what is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise. " ( 15. ) AS already said, in the instant case, it was clearly proved from the evidence of Naib Tahsildar Satish Awashty (P. W-19) and Dr. Ramakant Chaturvedi (P. W-14)that the declarant was fully conscious before recording of his dying declaration (Ex. P-19 ). There was also a certification by the doctor appended at the foot of the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) that the declarant remained fully conscious during his statement. Thus, there are no reasons to doubt that the declarant was not conscious or fit to give the statement. There was also nothing on record to indicate that the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) made by the deceased was the result of any tutoring or prompting or product of imagination. In fact, there are no reasons to suspect that the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) is not the true or voluntary statement made by the deceased. ( 16. ) THERE was also no inconsistency in the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) and the fir (Ex. P-19) made by the deceased was the result of any tutoring or prompting or product of imagination. In fact, there are no reasons to suspect that the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) is not the true or voluntary statement made by the deceased. ( 16. ) THERE was also no inconsistency in the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) and the fir (Ex. P-20) lodged by the deceased and recorded by A. S. I. N. D. Mishra (P. W-16), which was to be treated as dying declaration after his death. As per evidence of A. S. I. N. D. Mishra (P. W-16) the FIR (Ex. P-20) was lodged by Ghansu Yadav (deceased), at Police Station Isanagar on 19. 12. 91 at 16. 20 P. M. and it also contained his thumb impression. According to N. D. Mishra (P. W-16), he had recorded the FIR (Ex. P-20) verbatim as per information given by the deceased. There are also no reasons to disbelieve the version of P. W-16 N. D. Mishra that he had recorded the FIR (Ex. P-20) as per information given by the deceased. ( 17. ) THE substratum of both the declarations (Ex. P-19 and Ex. P-20) remained the same that both the appellants had assaulted the deceased by lathi when he was coming back from Isanagar Police Station where he had gone to lodge the report against appellant Dayaram, who had beaten his son Chandu. The dying declaration (Ex. P-19) recorded by Naib Tahsildar (P. W-19) also clearly spells out that both the appellants had mercilessly beaten the deceased by lathi. The dying declaration (Ex. P-19) coupled with the medical evidence thus establishes that appellants had mercilessly beaten the deceased causing multiple fractures in his both the hands and parietal bones and thereby intentionally caused his death. Needless to emphasize, as also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Muttu kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu reported in air 2005 SCI 473 that the dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction, if it is found to be true and voluntary. ( 18. ) IN the wake of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court did not err in relying upon the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased and the FIR (Ex. P-20) as the basis for conviction of the appellants for committing murder of Ghansu Yadav. ( 18. ) IN the wake of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court did not err in relying upon the dying declaration (Ex. P-19) of the deceased and the FIR (Ex. P-20) as the basis for conviction of the appellants for committing murder of Ghansu Yadav. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court under Section 302 of IPC and life imprisonment awarded to him do not warrant any interference in this appeal. ( 19. ) THUS, we find no merit and substance in the appeal. We uphold the conviction of the appellants and sentence passed on them under Section 302 of IPC. ( 20. ) APPEAL fails and is dismissed. Appellants are on bail. They shall forthwith surrender to their bails bonds to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. Appeal dismissed.