JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment and order dated 11th September, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bundi(Raj.) in Sessions Case No.31/2002, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and under Section 341 I.P.C. to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 7 days additional imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24th December, 2001, P.W.14 Suresh Kumar S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, Bundi received an information from General Hospital, Bundi that injured Narpat Singh is admitted in hospital. He, therefore, sent Ram Chandra A.S.I.(P.W.8) to hospital. P.W.8 Ram Chandra A.S.I. reached at hospital and consulted the Medical Officer whether injured is in fit condition to give his statement. Medical Officer certified on Ex. P20 that patient is in fit condition to give his statement at 10:30 A.M. P.W.8 Ram Chandra then recorded Parcha Bayan of Narpat Singh on 24.12.2001 at 10:35 A.M. in hospital at Bundi, wherein it was alleged that he had come to New Dhan Mandi to sale his Garda and was relaxing/resting on the heap of his commodities and all of a sudden Mahaveer S/o Amar Singh and Rameshwar S/o Shanker Singh, both belonging to his village, came there. Mahaveer inflicted a lathi blow on his left thigh, when he tried to run away then Rameshwar stopped him by catching hold of him and thereafter Mahaveer inflicted two lathi blows on his head as a result of which he fell down. Other injuries were further inflicted on his person. Foor Singh and Om Prakash resident of Palka intervened, otherwise they would have inflicted more injuries. 4. On the basis of above Parcha Bayan, a case No.564/2001 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Bundi at 12:30 P.M. under Sections 341, 323 and 34 I.P.C. Thereafter chalked F.I.R. No.564/2001 (Ex.P19) was registered and investigation commenced. 5. It is relevant to mention that looking to the serious condition of Narpat Singh, he was admitted in General Hospital at Bundi at 10:45 A.M. vide Admission Ticket/Bed Head Ticket (Ex.P14). 5. It is relevant to mention that looking to the serious condition of Narpat Singh, he was admitted in General Hospital at Bundi at 10:45 A.M. vide Admission Ticket/Bed Head Ticket (Ex.P14). Since condition of Narpat Singh was critical, therefore, he was advised to go for treatment at Kota and he was admitted in Baheti Hospital and Research Centre at Kota, where he was treated and operated upon by P.W.10 Dr.Mamraj Agarwal. His CT scan was done and since the blood was clotted on his parieto occipital region, therefore, he was operated. However, Narpat Singh succumbed to his injuries on 31st December, 2001 and declared dead at 1:30 A.M. Thereafter, post-mortem of his dead body was conducted. The case was converted into an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Accused Mahaveer was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P41) on 2nd January, 2002. 6. After completion of investigation, police filed a challan against appellant Mahaveer Singh under Section 302, 341 and 34 I.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi and against co-accused Rameshwar in Juvenile Court at Kota under Section 302, 341 and 34 I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi committed the case of appellant Mahaveer Singh for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi, who transferred the case for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bundi. 7. Learned trial court framed charges against appellant under section 341, 302/34 I.P.C. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Bhoor Singh, P.W.2 Kripa Shanker, P.W.3 Ramswaroop, P.W.4 Sohan Lal, P.W.5 Kunj Bihari, P.W.6 Dr.Manoj Kumar Jain, P.W.7 Ram Prasad, P.W.8 Ram Chandra Gurjar, P.W.9 Harish Kumar, P.W.10 Dr. Mamraj Agarwal, P.W.11 Ram Kishan, P.W.12 Prabhu Lal, P.W.13 Jodh Singh, P.W.14 Suresh Kumar, P.W.15 Dr. P.K.Tiwari, P.W.16 Suraj Singh and P.W.17 Ranveer and adduced documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to Ex.P43. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case. No oral evidence was led in defence. However, one document Ex.D1 was exhibited in evidence. 8. Learned trial court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and considering the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 9. No oral evidence was led in defence. However, one document Ex.D1 was exhibited in evidence. 8. Learned trial court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and considering the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. He submitted that as per Parcha Bayan, there were two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Foor Singh and Om Prakash, but in place of Foor Singh, the prosecution examined one Bhoor Singh as P.W.1 as eye-witness in the case. Another so called eye-witness Om Prakash was not examined on behalf of prosecution, learned trial court disbelieved the statement of P.W.1 Bhoor Singh for the reasons mentioned in the judgment, there is no other direct evidence in the case, the entire finding of the learned trial court of conviction of appellant is based on so called dying declaration i.e. Parach Bayan Ex.P18, which in his submission, cannot be treated as dying declaration, the same cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellant as the same is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He read the statement of P.W.8 Ram Chandra A.S.I., who recorded Parcha Bayan of deceased Ex.P18 and pointed out number of contradictions in his statement and submitted that when he reached to hospital, the injured had already been admitted, whereas as per Admission Ticket/Bed Head Ticket of deceased Ex.P14, deceased Narpat Singh was admitted in the hospital at 10:45 A.M., whereas Parcha Bayan was recoded at 10:35 A.M. He further submitted that the Medical Officer has not certified on Ex.P18 that injured was in fit condition to give his statement, therefore, the same is liable to be discarded. He referred to the statement of P.W.8 Ram Chandra, who admitted in his cross examination that he does not know the name of doctor, who was consulted by him. He also submitted that incident took place on 24th December, 2001 and deceased died on 31st December, 2001, but statement of deceased was not got recorded by any Magistrate. He also submitted that Investigating Agency did not comply with the provisions of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules relating to recording of dying declaration. He also submitted that incident took place on 24th December, 2001 and deceased died on 31st December, 2001, but statement of deceased was not got recorded by any Magistrate. He also submitted that Investigating Agency did not comply with the provisions of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules relating to recording of dying declaration. He submitted that P.W.8 Ram Chandra is not a truthful witness and if his testimony is discarded then Ex.P18 dying declaration is not proved in the case, if dying declaration (Ex.P18) is not believed or it is discarded then there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. He further submitted that there was no enmity of the accused with the deceased. Therefore, there is no motive proved in the case and he has falsely been implicated in the case. In support of his submissions, he relied upon AIR 1999 SC 3883 (Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh) , AIR 2010 SC 2768 (C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka) and 1994 Cri.L.J.2526 (Bashir Shah and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan). 10. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and submitted that learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant on the basis of Parcha Bayan i.e. dying declaration(Ex.P18), which is fully proved from the statements of P.W.8 Ram Chandra A.S.I., P.W.6 Dr.Manoj Kumar Jain, the provisions of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules are not mandatory in nature as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 12 SCC 571 (State of Rajasthan v. Champa Lal). The presence of appellant on the spot and beating by him by lathi blows on the person of deceased is proved from all reasonable doubts, Dr.Manoj Kumar Jain(P.W.6) has certified before recording dying declaration that injured is in fit condition to give statement on the requisition given by investigating agency i.e. Ex.P20, the dying declaration does not suffer from any infirmity and it cannot be doubted in any manner whatsoever, therefore, learned trial court was justified in relying upon the dying declaration (Ex.P18) in the present case. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment passed by the trial court minutely with the help of record of the trial court. The incident in the present case, as per Parcha Bayan (Ex.P18) took place at 9:00 A.M. on 24th December, 2001. Deceased Narpat Singh went to the General Hospital at Bundi. P.W.14 Suresh Kumar S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Bundi received an information from hospital that injured is admitted in hospital. He directed P.W.8 Ram Chandra A.S.I. to go to hospital. P.W.8 Ram Chandra went at hospital and after seeing the critical position of the injured, consulted the Medical Officer P.W.6 Dr.Manoj Kumar Jain and got his certificate whether injured is in a position to give his statement. P.W.6 Dr.Manoj Kumar on the requisition of police Ex.P20 certified at 10:30 A.M. that patient is in a condition to give his statement. Thereafter, P.W.8 Ram Chandra recorded Parcha Bayan/statement of deceased Narpat Singh in hospital at Bundi at 10:35 A.M. It bears the signature of doctor at the bottom and thumb impression of deceased. Although certificate by Medical Officer is not there on the dying declaration but that certificate is there in Ex.P20, which was given before recording the statement of the deceased. Deceased was conscious up to 10:45 A.M. on 24.12.2001, which is also clear from Admission Ticket/Bed Head Ticket (Ex.P14). 12. P.W.6 Dr.Manoj Kumar stated that he examined Narpat Singh on 24th December, 2001 and prepared his injury report i.e. Ex.P10, wherein he mentioned the following five injuries:- "1. Lacerated wound of 1½ "X ½"X ¼" on right occipital perietal region blood clots wet on removal bleeding. 2. Lacerated wound of 1"X ¾"X ½" on right parietal region blood clots red wet. 3. Swelling irregular in size and shape with bruise 10"X1½ on left thigh anterior aspect red colour. 4. Bruise of 4"X1" on back chest middle region oblique red 5. Bruise of 2½ "X1" on right and left back chest red colour." 13. Looking to the critical condition of the deceased, he was shifted from Bundi to Kota on 25th December, 2001. Swelling irregular in size and shape with bruise 10"X1½ on left thigh anterior aspect red colour. 4. Bruise of 4"X1" on back chest middle region oblique red 5. Bruise of 2½ "X1" on right and left back chest red colour." 13. Looking to the critical condition of the deceased, he was shifted from Bundi to Kota on 25th December, 2001. During investigation, the investigating officer sought opinion from the Medical Officer as to whether injury No.1 inflicted on the head of deceased is dangerous to life or not, Medical Officer P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Kumar opined on 28th December, 2001 that injury No.1 is grievous and dangerous to life because of the compound fracture of skull. The Investigating Officer added Section 307 I.P.C. on that basis. Thereafter, deceased died on 31st December, 2001 at 1.30 A.M. and case was converted into an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. As per post-mortem report Ex.P43, 7 injuries were found on the person of deceased, which are reproduced as under:- "1. Stitched wound over right parietal region 2 cm. 2. Stitched wound over right parieto occipital region region 3 cm. 3. Stitched wound over left occipital region 3 cm 3 cm left to mid line. 4. Stitched wound over occipital region 5 cm long adjacent to neck. 5. Lacerated wound over right parieto occipital region 1X.5 cm. 6. Stitched wound over left hand 2X0.5 cm. 7. Nine scratches above right anterior aspect of thigh size 1.5 to 2.5 cm x 0.4 cm antemortem in nature with dry scratch." Medical Officer P.W.15 Dr. P.K. Tiwari opined that cause of death was "Coma as a result of ante mortem head injury". 14. So far as allegation of inflicting injuries on the person of deceased by accused is concerned, the same is clear from the dying declaration (Ex.P18), wherein it is specifically stated that accused Mahaveer Singh initially gave a lathi blow on left thigh of the person of deceased, when he tried to run away co-accused Rameshwar caught hold of him and thereafter two injuries were inflicted by accused Mahaveer on the head of deceased, thereafter he fell down and other injuries were further inflicted on his person. The Medical Jurist P.W.15 Dr. P.K. Tiwari, who conducted the post-mortem opined that cause of death is coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. The Medical Jurist P.W.15 Dr. P.K. Tiwari, who conducted the post-mortem opined that cause of death is coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. Therefore, from the analysis of the prosecution evidence, it is proved that death of deceased Narpat Singh took place because of coma which was due to ante mortem head injury on the person of deceased. 15. As per dying declaration, two witnesses namely Foor Singh and Om Prakash intervened, therefore, they were eye-witnesses. However, P.W.1 Bhoor Singh,was disbelieved by the trial court and another witness Om Prakash was not examined by the prosecution in the case, therefore, there is no direct evidence in the case. In these circumstances, the entire prosecution case is now to be examined on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P18). 16. Sole question in the present case is whether dying declaration of deceased (Ex.P18) inspires confidence of this Court or not. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no certificate of medical officer on dying declaration (Ex.P18) that injured is in a fit condition to give his statement, therefore, it is suspicious and should not be believed. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that so far as certificate of medical officer on Parcha Bayan is concerned, it is correct that the said certificate is not there on Parcha Bayan, but it bears the signature of doctor. However, the said certificate is also there on the requisition of police itself i.e. Ex.P20 and the said certificate was given at 10:30 A.M. itself on 24.12.2001, whereas dying declaration was recorded at 10:35 A.M. From Ex.P14, it is clear that injured was conscious at/upto 10:45 A.M. The F.I.R. in the present case was recorded on the basis of Parcha Bayan and the said F.I.R. reached in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day at 5:00 P.M. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain contradictions in the statement of P.W.8 Ram Chandra. But after considering his whole statement and other documentary evidence including medical evidence, the said contradictions appear to be minor and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case or only on that basis the dying declaration cannot be thrown in the facts and circumstances of present case. 18. But after considering his whole statement and other documentary evidence including medical evidence, the said contradictions appear to be minor and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case or only on that basis the dying declaration cannot be thrown in the facts and circumstances of present case. 18. It is a settled law that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, if it inspires the full confidence of the court. The court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not a result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. From Ex.P20, it is clear that deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement. There is no evidence to show or prove that statement of deceased was as a result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Corroborative evidence is necessarily to be proved that dying declaration is suspicious. Whether dying declaration in the present case is suspicious or not has been discussed by us in detail and we are satisfied that it is not suspicious and can be relied upon and made basis for conviction of the appellant. The required certificate from doctor about fitness of mind of deceased was given on 24.12.2001 at 10:30 A.M. His statement was recorded at 10:35 A.M. The case was registered at 12:30 P.M. and chalked F.I.R. reached in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi at 5:00 P.M. itself on 24.12.2001. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said dying declaration is a fabricated document or was prepared subsequently. From the analysis of the prosecution evidence, genuineness of dying declaration (Ex.P18) cannot be doubted and it does inspire confidence of the court. 19. P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Kumar and P.W.8 Ram Chandra, both have proved the dying declaration fully. P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Kumar in his cross examination stated as under;- " ;g ckr lgh gS fd ftl le; ujir flag dks esjs ikl yk;k x;k ,oa eSaus mldks ns[kk tc mldh fLFkfr lkekU; Fkh] ch0ih0 lkekU; Fkk] fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vlkekU; ckr ugha FkhA " P.W. 6 Dr. P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Kumar in his cross examination stated as under;- " ;g ckr lgh gS fd ftl le; ujir flag dks esjs ikl yk;k x;k ,oa eSaus mldks ns[kk tc mldh fLFkfr lkekU; Fkh] ch0ih0 lkekU; Fkk] fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vlkekU; ckr ugha FkhA " P.W. 6 Dr. Manoj Kumar certified on Ex.P20 about fitness of condition of deceased as under:- " ejht c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa gSaA " P.W.8 Ram Chandra in his examination in Chief stated as under:- " eSaus et:c dh c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr dh fjiksVZ izkIr dh Fkh tks izn'kZ ih 20 gSA " 20. So far as over writing on Ex.P18 from "PM" to "AM" is concerned, the same does not create any doubt for the reason that in Ex.P20 the time has been mentioned by the doctor as 10:30 A.M. The case was registered on the basis of Parcha Bayan in Noon i.e. at 12:30 P.M. The chalked F.I.R. reached in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at 5:00 P.M. Therefore, time mentioned in the Parcha Bayan was 10:30 AM only. Therefore, we are of the view that learned trial court was fully justified in convicting the accused and no interference in its finding is called for by this Court. 21. So far as Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules is concerned, the same were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Champa Lal (supra) and it was held that the same at the most can be said to be procedural guide-lines. Therefore, these Rules cannot be said to be mandatory in nature. Hon'ble Apex Court held that these rules cannot take away effect of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Even otherwise Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules has been substantially complied with in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon Sukhar v. State of U.P. (supra), wherein one Nakkal appeared at the police station on the date of offence and narrated the incident as to how he was injured by the accused. The police then treated the said statement as First Information Report. The trial court believed it. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon Sukhar v. State of U.P. (supra), wherein one Nakkal appeared at the police station on the date of offence and narrated the incident as to how he was injured by the accused. The police then treated the said statement as First Information Report. The trial court believed it. The High Court came to the conclusion that F.I.R. as well as statement given by injured to the Investigating Officer is not admissible as dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in the present case also the F.I.R. Was registered on the basis of statement of injured, which should be treated as inadmissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act and it should not be treated as dying declaration. The submission cannot be accepted as in the present case S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali Bundi P.W.14 Suresh Kumar received an information that injured is admitted in hospital and he sent P.W.8 Ram Chandra A.S.I., who went at hospital and after seeing the critical position of the injured, consulted the doctor and after certifying by the doctor that injured is in fit condition to give statement, recorded the statement of the injured. The certificate of doctor is available on Ex.P20, which is proved from statement of P.W.8 Ram Chandra also. In these circumstances, the ratio of Sukhar's case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 23. In C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 36 considered the facts that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the hospital by the Investigating Officer without obtaining certificate of doctor first. The certificate of doctor was obtained after recording the statement. The facts of the present case are altogether different. The doctor, in present case, certified about fitness of injured to give statement at 10:30 A.M. on 24.12.2001 and his statement was recorded at 10:35 A.M. and the same has been proved by the statement of P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Kumar and P.W.8 Ram Chandra. Therefore, the said case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. In Bashir Shah and Ors. Manoj Kumar and P.W.8 Ram Chandra. Therefore, the said case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. In Bashir Shah and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 relating to recording of dying declaration by police officials. The Division Bench observed that the practice of recording the dying declaration by the police officials is against the mandatory provisions as contemplated in Rule 6.22 of Chapter VI of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in State of Rajasthan v. Champa Lal (supra) considered the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1964 and held, "It is to be noted that the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1964 on which the High Court has placed reliance is at the most a set of procedural guidelines. That cannot take away the effect of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872." The Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that provisions of Rajasthan Police Rules are at the most, a set of procedural guidelines. 25. In view of above discussion, we are satisfied that Ex. P18 dying declaration of deceased, in the present case, does not suffer from any infirmity and is fully proved by prosecution evidence and it inspires confidence of the court. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused appellant. Thus, we find no force in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 26. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******