JUDGMENT : DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, J. 1. This Criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/10/2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 33/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Prosecution story in brief, is that on 11/01/2005 at 5:30 PM, the complainant Brahm Dutt Soni (PW-1) submitted a written report to SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur, District Sikar stating therein that today on 11/01/2005 at about 5:00 PM, he was on his bike No. RJ-23/2M-1939 from school to market. When he was passing through Char Batti, Suresh Chotiya stopped him and asked him to drop him at Sikariya Choraha. He allowed him (Suresh Chotiya) to sit on his bike. When he reached near Dhanuka Mandir, he drove the bike fastly on the request of Suresh Chotiya as two persons sitting on a bike chased his bike and started inflicting injuries on Suresh Chotiya by sharp edged weapon, due to which he and Suresh Chotiya fell down from the bike. He saw that Pankaj Dhaniya and Vikas Matoliya were together. Pankaj Dhaniya inflicted injuries on the hands and legs of Suresh with weapon, which covered him with blood. The neighbours and other persons assembled there who saw the incident. He further stated that because of fear he ran away from the spot. Upon this report, Ramji Lal (PW-18) Sub-inspector posted in Police Station, Kotwali, Fatehpur made his endorsement and an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered on the above report being FIR No. 10/2005 for commission of offence under Section 341, 323, 307/34 of IPC. 3. During the course of investigation, injured Suresh Chotiya expired, hence Section 302 of IPC was added and after usual investigation, offence under Section 302/34 of IPC was found prima facie proved against the accused-appellant Vikas Matoliya and Pankaj @ Dhaniya @ Dhanraj. 3. During the course of investigation, injured Suresh Chotiya expired, hence Section 302 of IPC was added and after usual investigation, offence under Section 302/34 of IPC was found prima facie proved against the accused-appellant Vikas Matoliya and Pankaj @ Dhaniya @ Dhanraj. Because of non arrest of the accused persons, charge-sheet was filed in their absence under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, co-accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya was arrested therefore, supplementary charge-sheet against accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and against Aditya Dokwal for offence under Section 212 of IPC was filed and were tried in the court of Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Sikar. After conclusion of trial, accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya was convicted and sentenced for the above offence and Aditya Dokwal was acquitted. Subsequently, after arrest of the appellant, a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against him for the trial of offence under Section 302/34 of IPC in the Court of ACJM Fatehpur Shekhawati, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar. 4. Learned trial court framed the charge of Section 302 of IPC, in alternate Section 302/34 of IPC against the accused-appellant brought before it for trial. Charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 5. In order to support it’s case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. 6. Thereafter, learned trial court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused-appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated by police officers under a conspiracy with Vijay Kumar contractor due to rivalry. Accused-appellant examined three witnesses in his defence and exhibited 13 documents. 7. After completion of trial, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the accused-appellant, he preferred the present appeal before this court against the judgment of trial court dated 31/10/2015. 9. After conviction of co-accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya on 09/11/2010, he has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 884/2010 titled as Pankaj @ Dhaniya @ Dhanraj Vs. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the accused-appellant, he preferred the present appeal before this court against the judgment of trial court dated 31/10/2015. 9. After conviction of co-accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya on 09/11/2010, he has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 884/2010 titled as Pankaj @ Dhaniya @ Dhanraj Vs. State of Rajasthan against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Arguments in both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of today itself by separate judgments. 10. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the learned trial court has seriously erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of Parcha Bayan of Suresh Kumar (Ex.P-14) by treating it as dying declaration. The dying declaration can be recorded by the Judicial Magistrate only and no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why the Magistrate was not called for recording the statement of injured Suresh Chotiya. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there was no motive of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased Suresh Chotiya, but the learned trial court has not taken this material fact into consideration. The judgment of conviction is based on the statements of the complainant Brahm Dutt Soni (PW-1). The conduct of this witness is suspicious and doubtful as he has not sustained any injury on his body, whereas he also fell down from the bike. Therefore, the conviction on the basis of statement of PW-1 Brahm Dutt cannot be sustained. He also submitted that the conduct of this witness is highly unnatural as he neither reported the matter to police immediately after the incident nor he informed the family members of the injured Suresh Chotiya immediately after the incident. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that witness Ashok Kumar (PW-15) and Rajesh (PW-20) are simply chance witnesses and their presence on the spot appears to be doubtful because their names are not there in the FIR. According to these witnesses, they were present on the spot and after incident, they took the injured Suresh Chotiya to hospital but no blood was found on their clothes, therefore their presence is unnatural and doubtful. 13. According to these witnesses, they were present on the spot and after incident, they took the injured Suresh Chotiya to hospital but no blood was found on their clothes, therefore their presence is unnatural and doubtful. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that according to entry No. 665 in Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.P-15A) a telephonic information was received in police station Kotwali, Fatehpur on 11-01- 2005 at about 4:45 PM that a person is lying in wounded condition in the street of rear portion of Laxmi Nath Katla who appears to be Suresh Chotiya therefore, it is proved that the occurrence took place prior to 4:45 PM. Hence the time of occurrence mentioned in written report (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2) stands incorrect which creates suspicion on testimony of so called eye witness PW-1, PW-15 and PW- 20. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that according to prosecution, the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) was recorded at 7:15 PM, whereas PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq states that injured Suresh was examined by him in S.K. Hospital, Sikar at 6:30 PM and his general condition was poor. He examined injuries of Suresh Chotiya and prepared injury report Ex.P-6. The witness further stated that the injured was referred to S.M.S. Jaipur. DW-2 Dr. Narottam Dadhich exhibited Bed Head Ticket (Ex.D-11) of injured Suresh. According to Ex.D-11, blood pressure and pulse of the patient were not recordable and he was unconscious. Therefore, Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) stands unbelievable and it cannot be made basis of the conviction. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is not acquainted to Brahm Dutt (PW-1), which is evident from his statement also, therefore, mention of appellant's name in FIR as assailant creates doubt on the genuineness of written report Ex.P-1 also. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The ocular evidence produced by the prosecution is not corroborated by medical evidence. Site plan does not corroborate the allegations levelled against the appellant and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to accept the appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the appellant from the charges levelled against him. 17. On the other hand, Mrs. 17. On the other hand, Mrs. Sonia Shandilya learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence and proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that conduct of PW-1 Brahm Dutt is very natural. When he saw commission of the crime in a gruesome, cruel and unusual manner, fleeing away from the place of occurrence was his natural conduct because he was frightened. The testimony of this witness is also corroborated by other eye witnesses and dying declaration Ex.P-14 of the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve on the parcha bayan/dying declaration Ex.P-14 of the deceased. PW-8 Shyam Singh who recorded parcha bayan has categorically stated that before recording parcha bayan, he asked from the doctor about the condition of the injured Suresh and Ex.P-14 carries the note of the doctor that the deceased is fit for statement. PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma has also stated that he gave his opinion regarding fit condition of the deceased. PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma categorically stated that before recording statement of injured Suresh, he examined the physical condition of the injured at 7:05 PM and found him fit to give statement. PW-8 Shyam Singh recorded the parcha bayan Ex.P-14 after taking all possible and practical care for recording dying declaration and obtained certificate from doctor also. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that PW-15 Ashok and PW-20 Rajesh are not chance witnesses because there is corroboration as to the manner in which the crime was committed and their testimony corroborates further with the medical evidence. There is no material contradiction in the statements of PW-1 Brahm Dutt in relation to FIR and his testimony cannot be discarded on the basis of minor contradictions. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that motive is not relevant in the case in hand, as this is the case of direct evidence. Learned trial court has discussed the evidence elaborately and reached to the logical and just conclusion which does not call for any interference in appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits. 21. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the appellant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 21. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the appellant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellant also adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Anoop Dhand, counsel for the appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No. 884/2010 Pankaj @ Dhaniya @ Dhanraj Vs. State of Rajasthan. 22. First of all, we have to see that whether Suresh Chotiya (the deceased) was murdered in the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the fact of murder of Suresh Chotiya but his argument is that he was not murdered by the accused-appellant Vikas Matoliya. 23. In this respect prosecution has examined PW-1 Brahm Dutt on whose written report (Ex.P-1), the police registered FIR (Ex.P-2) and commenced investigation. According to the statement of PW-1 Brahm Dutt, on 11-01-2005 at about 5:00 PM, he was going on his bike bearing No. RJ 23/1939 from temple to vegetable market. When he reached near Char Batti, where Suresh Chotiya stopped him and asked the witness to drop him in market. Thereafter, he sat with him on his bike. When he reached near Laxmi Nath Temple, he and Suresh fell down from bike due to jerking from back side. He stood and saw that Pankaj @ Dhaniya and Vikas were inflicting injuries on Suresh by weapon. He never saw Vikas ever before. Thereafter, he went to his house. Suresh was covered with blood because of assault on him by weapons. Thereafter, he went to Police Station and submitted report Ex.P-1 written by him. Police prepared site plan Ex.P-3 in his presence. The witness proved his signatures on written report Ex.P-1, FIR Ex.P-2 and site plan Ex.P-3. 24. According to the statement of PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq, on 11-01- 2005, he was posted as Medical Jurist in S.K. Hospital, Sikar. On that day at about 6:30 PM, he examined the injuries on the body of Suresh Chotiya in operation theatre. He found 5 injuries on the body of Suresh Chotiya, which were caused by sharp edged weapon within 24 hours of examination. General condition of the injured was poor and he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He also mentioned in the injury report that if any injury missed due to seriousness, it will be mentioned later on. Injury report Ex.P-6 is prepared by him. General condition of the injured was poor and he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He also mentioned in the injury report that if any injury missed due to seriousness, it will be mentioned later on. Injury report Ex.P-6 is prepared by him. The witness proved injury report Ex.P-6, his signatures and E to F endorsement made by him on injury report Ex.P-6. 25. According to the statement of PW-5 Dr. R.K. Poonia, on 12-01- 2005, he was Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine Department of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. On that day, he performed autopsy of deceased Suresh Chotiya S/o Nand Lal after producing Panchayatnama by Maliram Head-Constable. Dead body was identified by his uncle Girdhari. According to Panchayatnama, the death took place due to assault injuries. He found 19 injuries on his body which were antemortem in nature and fresh. Post-mortem report is Ex.P-12, which is prepared and signed by him. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to upper limbs and lower limbs as mentioned in post mortem report. Cumulative effect of all injuries was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 26. According to the statement of PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma, on 11-01- 2005, he was posted as Medical Jurist in S.K. Hospital, Sikar. On that day, he received a call from operation theatre with regard to an emergency case. On that day, Shyam Singh ASI, Chouki Incharge, S.K. Hospital, Sikar, in order to record Parcha Bayan of injured Suresh Kumar, obtained opinion of the witness regarding condition of injured Suresh Kumar to give statement. Before recording statement at 7:05 PM, he examined the physical condition of the injured and found him fit to give statement. The witness proved his signatures K to L on Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14. The witness also stated that after recording Parcha Bayan, Shyam Singh ASI sought his opinion regarding his fitness to sign on Parcha Bayan due to serious injuries and amputation. At 7:15 PM, he gave his opinion on Ex.P14 which is I to J. According to his opinion, he (injured Suresh Kumar) cannot sign or put his thumb impression due to serious injuries on his lower and upper limb. The witness also stated that he remained present during recording of Parcha Bayan of injured Suresh, by Shyam Singh ASI. 27. At 7:15 PM, he gave his opinion on Ex.P14 which is I to J. According to his opinion, he (injured Suresh Kumar) cannot sign or put his thumb impression due to serious injuries on his lower and upper limb. The witness also stated that he remained present during recording of Parcha Bayan of injured Suresh, by Shyam Singh ASI. 27. PW-15 Ashok Kumar was examined by the prosecution as eye witness of the incident. According to the statement of PW-15, on 11-01-2005 at about 5:00 PM, he and his cousin Rajesh were coming out of Laxmi Nath Katla. They saw that Suresh Chotiya was sitting on bike driven by Brahm Dutt. They were chased by another bike, on which Pankaj @ Dhaniya was sitting and it was driven by Vikas Matoliya. When they came near bike of Suresh Chotiya, Pankaj @ Dhaniya inflicted injury on Suresh Chotiya with an iron made weapon, whicih was like Dantli. Thereafter, Vikas Matoliya and Pankaj @ Dhaniya inflicted injuries on hands, legs and head of Suresh Chotiya, with an iron made weapon, which was like Dantli (a sharp edged curved weapon used for agriculture purposes). Suresh was covered with blood due to injuries. After assault, both Vikas Matoliya and Pankaj @ Dhaniya fled towards Char Batti on bike. Thereafter, he and Rajesh took Suresh to Dhanuka Hospital in a three wheeler. Looking to the condition, the doctor's asked to took the injured to Sikar or Jaipur. Thereafter, they took Suresh to Sikar. Doctors of Sikar also referred him to Jaipur, then they took him to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he died during treatment at about 4:30 in morning. He knows Vikas Matoliya, who is present in the court. 28. Prosecution examined PW-20 Rajesh also as eye witness. According to PW-20 Rajesh, on 11-01-2005 at about 4:30 - 5:00 PM, he and his cousin Ashok were coming out from Laxmi Nath Katla after purchasing cloths. They saw Suresh Chotiya sitting on a bike which was driven by Brahm Dutt. One more bike came after them driven by Vikas Matoliya and Dhaniya sitting thereon. After reaching near the bike of Suresh Chotiya, Dhaniya inflicted injuriy on Suresh Chotiya, therefore, Brahm Dutt and Suresh Chotiya fell down from bike. Thereafter, Vikas Matoliya and Dhaniya inflicted injuries on Suresh Chotiya. Vikas Matoliya was having sharp edged weapon. Thereafter, both fled away from there. After reaching near the bike of Suresh Chotiya, Dhaniya inflicted injuriy on Suresh Chotiya, therefore, Brahm Dutt and Suresh Chotiya fell down from bike. Thereafter, Vikas Matoliya and Dhaniya inflicted injuries on Suresh Chotiya. Vikas Matoliya was having sharp edged weapon. Thereafter, both fled away from there. Thereafter, he and Ashok took Suresh Chotiya to Dhanuka Hospital in a three wheeler. After ½ – ¾ hour, he was referred to Sikar by Dhanuka Hospital. Suresh was kept in Sikar Hospital for about 1 – 1½ hour. Statement of Suresh Chotiya were recorded by Police and doctor. Thereafter, he was referred to Jaipur, where he died at about 4:30-5:00 AM in morning. He knows Vikas Matoliya, present in court. 29. PW-4 Girdhari is uncle of the deceased Suresh Chotiya. He stated that Suresh was murdered. Before about 6-7 years, he was at home, he received telephonic information that Suresh was assaulted and he is in Dhanuka Hospital, then, he went there. Condition of Suresh was serious, he was covered with blood. Thereafter, he was referred to Sikar by Dhanuka Hospital. Then they took him to Sikar Hospital, where doctors gave him treatment and transfused blood. Police came there and recorded statement of Suresh. Thereafter, he was referred to Jaipur by Sikar Hospital. Suresh told the names of assailants to be Dhaniya, he does not remember the name of other assailant. Thereafter, he died during treatment in night in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Police handed over his dead body to the witness vide Ex.P-9. Police obtained blood stained coat, pant, underwear, shirt and one inner of Suresh Chotiya from their house vide Ex.P-11. Witness also proved his signatures on Panchayatnama of dead body Ex.P-10. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that after the said incident, PW-1 Brahm Dutt fled from the spot, no injuries were inflicted on his person, he did not receive any injury, whereas, he also fell down from the bike. This witness neither brought the injured to hospital nor went to police station immediately and did not inform to relatives of the deceased or informed anybody about the incident. Therefore, conduct of this witness is unnatural and cannot be relied upon. This witness neither brought the injured to hospital nor went to police station immediately and did not inform to relatives of the deceased or informed anybody about the incident. Therefore, conduct of this witness is unnatural and cannot be relied upon. It is also argued that FIR has been lodged by this witness but he did not mention the name of PW-15 Ashok Kumar and PW-20 Rajesh in the FIR, who are said to be eye witness of the incident. From statement of PW-1 Brahm Dutt, it reveals that when he saw the commission of crime in a very cruel and unusual manner, he went away from the place of occurrence, was his natural conduct because he was frightened. It has come in the evidence that he was simply pushed from back on his bike, therefore, it is not necessary that he must have received injuries on felling down by such type of hitting. To our mind, his testimony cannot be discarded as it is corroborated with evidence of other eye witnesses and dying declaration (Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14) of the deceased. In this way the conduct of PW-1 Brahm Dutt cannot be said to be unnatural. 31. It is also argued that there is no evidence on record that bike of PW-1 Brahm Dutt was damaged and was not seized by the police during investigation. The fact that the bike of Brahm Dutt was not damaged in the incident and was not seized by the Investigation Officer, would not shatter the prosecution case because his bike was not used in commission of the crime. 32. Statements of PW-1 Brahm Dutt are corroborated by injury report Ex.P-6, post mortem report Ex.P-12, statement of PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq and PW-5 Dr. R.K. Poonia. The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined by the accused-appellant but nothing has come out which create any doubt on the testimony of the witness. This is not the case of the appellant that this witness has any enmity with him or any interest in the victim. Therefore, PW-1 Brahm Dutt is an independent witness and evidence given by him cannot be disbelieved. 33. This is not the case of the appellant that this witness has any enmity with him or any interest in the victim. Therefore, PW-1 Brahm Dutt is an independent witness and evidence given by him cannot be disbelieved. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to prosecution, the said incident was occurred at about 5:00 PM, whereas, from Ex.P-23 Rapat Roznamcha, it appears that on 11-01- 2005 at about 4:45 PM, telephonic information was received in police station that Suresh Chotiya was lying in wounded condition behind Laxmi Nath Katla in gali (Street) in Fatehpur Shekhawati. It is also argued that Ex.P-10 is inquest report prepared by police on 12-01- 2005, in which it is mentioned that Suresh received injuries in domestic quarrel and he was got admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur by Ashok Kumar Mishra, therefore, allegation of murder against the appellant is not sustainable. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained in the light of Ex.P-23 Rapat Roznamcha, which says that the deceased was lying in the wounded condition in the street (gali) behind Laxmi Nath Katla, Fatehpur, Shekhawati. Further, the testimony of eye witnesses PW-1 Brahm Dutt, PW-15 Ashok Kumar, PW-20 Rajesh leaves no room of doubt to believe that the incident took place in street (gali) behind Laxmi Nath Katla. PW-9 Surendra Singh, Investigation Officer has categorically stated that the telephonic information about the incident was received in police station at about 5:05 PM. No question was put to the witness in cross-examination about the time of making entry No. 665 on 11-01-2205 in Roznamcha Register (Ex.P-23) of Kolwali, Fatehpur. It is pertinent to note that in cross-examination during trial against co-accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya @ Dhanraj, the witness clarified that time of receipt of telephonic message 5:05 PM is mentioned in Rapat Roznamcha, but while preparing copy thereof, 4:45 PM was mistakenly written. During examination of the witness in court, he produced original Roznamcha Register (General Diary), which was perused by the court and a note to this effect was made by the court on page No. 5 of the statement of the witness that time 5:05 PM is mentioned on Rapat No. 665. 34. During examination of the witness in court, he produced original Roznamcha Register (General Diary), which was perused by the court and a note to this effect was made by the court on page No. 5 of the statement of the witness that time 5:05 PM is mentioned on Rapat No. 665. 34. As far as narration of receiving injuries in domestic quarrel, in inquest report Ex.P-10 is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is mistakenly written and argued that purpose of inquest report is limited to ascertainment of cause of death only, therefore, Ex.P-10 cannot be given much weightage for disposal of this case. Learned Public Prosecutor in support of her argument, placed reliance on: AIR 1997 SC 2512 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Abdul & Others and AIR 2006 SC 951 Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Sahib & Others Vs. State of U.P. 35. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Abdul & Others (supra), it was held that the details of assault is foreign to scope of proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and set aside the acquittal of accused ordered by High Court on this ground. In Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb Vs. State of U.P. (supra), it was held that Section 174 Cr.P.C. is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is for this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case are summoned and examined under Section 175 Cr.P.C. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The questions regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 174. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, narration of domestic quarrel in inquest report Ex.P-10 has no significance in this case and argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, cannot be accepted. 36. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, narration of domestic quarrel in inquest report Ex.P-10 has no significance in this case and argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, cannot be accepted. 36. It is also argued by counsel for the appellant that Ex.P-23 Rapat Roznamcha drawn on receiving telephonic information about the incident is First Information Report, which does not disclose the name of accused and it is the information of cognizable offence, therefore, subsequent report Ex.P-1 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and is not admissible in evidence. It is also argued that written report Ex.P-1 is concocted document which reveals from the statement of PW-1 Brahm Dutt also. In cross-examination, PW-1 Brahm Dutt deposed that he does not remember, whether he himself wrote the name of Vikas in Ex.P-1 or police got it written. He admitted the suggestion that he never saw Vikas after that day. He did not see him ever before and he does not know, who is Vikas. It is also argued that FIR does not disclose the name of eye witnesses and name of weapon used in commission of offence and improvements have been made afterwards. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments placed reliance on: 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 390 Pooran & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan. 37. In Pooran & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), telephonic message was clear and unambiguous that a cognizable offence was committed in as much as a woman had died by a gun shot injuries. Indisputably this information about the incident was first in time. Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the telephonic message was a First Information Report within the meaning of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and report Ex.P-1 which was made by Bhuri Singh to the sub-inspector at village Jetpura was not first in time about the incident, therefore, report Ex.P-10 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In present case, the information received on telephone by the police and recorded in Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.P-23) does not disclose that a cognizable offence was committed. Due to change in facts and circumstances of the case, the above case law cited by counsel for the appellant is not of much help to the appellant. In this respect learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on AIR 2008 SC 1603 Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Others Vs. Due to change in facts and circumstances of the case, the above case law cited by counsel for the appellant is not of much help to the appellant. In this respect learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on AIR 2008 SC 1603 Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In this case the accused persons assaulted the deceased and his son at about 10:30 PM while travelling in a bus. The conductor of the bus sent an information to the Depo Manager of Transport Corporation and the Investigation Officer was also informed. A report to that effect was noted in the general diary. On receiving information by Officer In-charge of police station, he reached to the place of occurrence. First Information Report was recorded at about 3 O’clock in the night. It was held that it cannot be said that the information received by the Investigating Officer on the telephone was of such a nature and contained such details which would amount to a First Information Report so as to attract the provisions of Section 162 of the Code. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, information received in police station and recorded in Roznamcha Register (Ex.P-23) cannot be treated as FIR and the judgment in Pooran Vs. State (supra) cited by the appellant is not of much help to him. 38. It is also argued for the appellant that the FIR (ExP-2) was dispatched to the court with delay, which creates doubt on the prosecution case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on 1995 (2) RCD 605 (Raj.) Kulvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. It was held in this case that the delay in dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate concerned cannot be a reason for rejecting the prosecution case in its entirety but it is a factor to be taken into consideration to appreciate whether the investigation was fair or not. In present case, the FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged in police station on 11-01-2005 at 5:30 PM and it received in the court on next day i.e., 12-01-2005 at about 11:50 AM. Thus, it appears that the FIR was lodged on 11-01-2005 after court hours and it was sent on next day, soon after commencement of working hours of the court. In these circumstances the law laid down by Coordinate Bench in Kulvendra Singh Vs. Thus, it appears that the FIR was lodged on 11-01-2005 after court hours and it was sent on next day, soon after commencement of working hours of the court. In these circumstances the law laid down by Coordinate Bench in Kulvendra Singh Vs. State (supra) is not of much help to the appellant. 39. It is also argued that in injury report (Ex.P-6), only 5 injuries have been mentioned, whereas in post mortem report (Ex.P-12), 19 injuries have been mentioned, therefore, the post mortem report (Ex.P-12) is a false document. Learned counsel also submitted that according to Ex.P-6, X-ray of injuries was advised but no X-ray was done, thus, it can be said that no fracture occurred in any of the injuries and all the injuries are simple and on non vital parts of the body. According to the prosecution, the injured Suresh was brought to Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur but no injury report was prepared there and no Bed Head Ticket of Dhanuka Hospital Fatehpur, S.K. Hospital Sikar and S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur were produced in court and treating doctors were not produced, therefore, post mortem report Ex.P-12 cannot be relied upon. 40. The injury report (Ex.P-6) was prepared by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq. Conjoint reading of statement of PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq and injury report (Ex.P-6) reveals that injured Suresh (the deceased) sustained incised wound on right ankle almost amputated foot by sharp edged weapon, left hand amputated near wrist joint by incised wound caused by sharp edged weapon, incised wound near lower 1/3 of right leg near ankle joint almost amputated, incised wound near right wrist muscle with bone cut, in addition to other injuries. As right ankle was almost amputated, left hand was amputated near wrist joint, right leg near ankle joint was almost amputated and bone cut injuries on right wrist were received by injured Suresh which are itself serious in nature. 41. From the statements of PW-15, PW-4 and PW-20, it is proved that they were present in Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur where the injured Suresh was first brought for treatment but as the injured was covered with blood and looking to the serious nature of injuries, doctor of Dhanuka Hospital asked them to took the injured to Sikar, therefore, no injury report was prepared in Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur. It is pertinent to mention that injury report (Ex.P-6) was prepared by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. It is pertinent to mention that injury report (Ex.P-6) was prepared by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq, who has categorically stated that general condition of the injured was poor and he mentioned in injury report that if any injury is missed due to seriousness, it will be mentioned later on. It is also proved that at the time of preparation of injury report, the injured Suresh was covered with blood. After preparation of injury report, the injured was treated in S.K. Hospital, Sikar for some time and thereafter, he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur, where he died during treatment in the next morning. In these circumstances variation in number of injuries mentioned in injury report and post mortem report does not create any suspicion on prosecution story. Conjoint reading of post mortem report (Ex.P-12) and statement of Dr. R.K. Poonia (PW-5) reveals that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to upper limbs and lower limbs as mentioned in PMR report. Cumulative effect of all injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In these circumstances argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, cannot be accepted. 42. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) alleged to have been recorded at 7:15 PM, whereas, according to Dr. Mohd. Farooq (PW-3), the injured was examined by him at 6:30 PM in operation theatre and prepared injury report Ex.P-6. Thereafter, he was referred to S.M.S. Jaipur as his general condition was poor. Therefore, no question arises of recording his Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14). It is also argued that Dr. Narottam Dadhich (DW-2) deposed that due to injuries, BP (blood pressure) and pulse were not recordable and he was unconscious. The witness proved Bed Head Ticket of the injured Suresh as Ex.D-11, in which condition of injured is also mentioned. Learned counsel also contended that Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) was not recorded in presence of treating doctor and no certificate of fitness was obtained from treating doctor. The dying declaration (Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14) is not recorded by Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer and in presence of two or more reliable witnesses or police officer and it does not carry signature or thumb impression of person making statement. The dying declaration (Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14) is not recorded by Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer and in presence of two or more reliable witnesses or police officer and it does not carry signature or thumb impression of person making statement. It is also contended that dying declaration was not recorded by doctor on duty, no Parcha Bayan was recorded by police or the doctor at Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur or by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq, when he prepared his injury report (Ex.P-6). The above circumstances show that the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) is a forged document and was prepared later on by PW-8 Shyam Singh at the instance of Matadin, the then Kotwal, who was the relative of the deceased and came in hospital at Sikar. Learned counsel also contended that PW-8 Shyam Singh is not a reliable witness because he did not comply with police rules. The tehrir (letter) by which he was called, is not submitted in court by him and he was subordinate to Matadin Kotwal, so, under his pressure, he prepared false Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14). PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma is also not a reliable witness because his call letter was not produced and it is not explained as to why he was called when Medical Jurist PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq was present in hospital and treating doctor was present in operation theatre. Statement of PW-4 Girdhari is of no weight, because he is silent regarding the name of person who recorded the statement of injured Suresh. According to prosecution, Parcha Bayan was recorded in operation theatre, where PW-4 Girdhari or any private person is not allowed. 43. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and contended that there is no reason to disbelieve on Parcha Bayan/Dying Declaration (Ex.P-14) of the deceased. He also contended that PW-8 Shyam Singh and PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma are independent witnesses, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve on their evidence. The presence of PW-4 Girdhari in S.K. Hospital, Fatehpur is natural who clearly stated that police recorded the statement of Suresh in Sikar Hospital and no suggestion was given to him that he was not present in Hospital at Sikar at that time. Nothing has come out in cross-examination of PW-4 Girdhari which may create any doubt on his deposition in this regard. Nothing has come out in cross-examination of PW-4 Girdhari which may create any doubt on his deposition in this regard. In support of her contentions, learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on: (2013) 12 SCC 121 Rafique @ Rauf & Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 767 Mukesh Vs. State. 44. According to the prosecution, Parcha Bayan of injured Suresh Kumar (deceased) was recorded by PW-8 Shyam Singh at 7:15 PM on 11-01-2005 after obtaining certificate of fitness of the injured to give statement from PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma, Medical Jurist, S.K. Hospital Sikar. Certificate of fitness was given by PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma at 7:05 PM and thereafter, the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) was recorded. After recording Parcha Bayan, PW-8 Shyam Singh sought opinion from PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma as to whether the injured can put his signature on the Parcha Bayan due to amputation of his hand and leg. Thereafter, PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma gave his opinion on Ex.P-14 that the injured cannot sign or put his thumb impression, due to serious injuries and amputation of both upper and lower limbs. PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma also certified that statement is taken in his presence. From the statement of PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq and injury report (Ex.P-6), it reveals that injured Suresh (the deceased) was got admitted in Male Surgical Ward in S.K. Hospital, Sikar and his injury report (Ex.P-6) was prepared on 11-01-2005 at about 6:30 PM in operation theatre by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq and the injured was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. From perusal of the statement of DW-2 Dr. Narottam Dadhich and Bed Head Ticket (Ex.D-11), it appears that injured Suresh was admitted in S.K. Hospital, Sikar on 11- 01-2005 at about 6:15 PM and at that time BP (blood pressure) and Pulse of the injured was not recordable and he was unconscious. It also appears that the injured Suresh was given treatment in S.K. Hospital, Sikar and thereafter, he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on the same day. 45. PW-8 Shyam Singh has categorically stated that on 11-01-2005, he was Incharge of Police Chowki, S.K. Hospital and went to operation theatre on letter of hospital, to record Parcha Bayan of injured Suresh Kumar and he recorded his statement Ex.P-14. 45. PW-8 Shyam Singh has categorically stated that on 11-01-2005, he was Incharge of Police Chowki, S.K. Hospital and went to operation theatre on letter of hospital, to record Parcha Bayan of injured Suresh Kumar and he recorded his statement Ex.P-14. Before recording his statement, he asked the doctor about the condition of the injured to give statement, then, doctor certified on Ex.P-14 that the injured is fit for statement. The witness also stated that Dr. S.S. Sharma (PW-21) was present, when he recorded Parcha Bayan (Ex.P- 14). At that time injured Suresh was fully conscious. In cross-examination, he stated that when he went to record Parcha Bayan in operation theatre, then C.I. Matadin who is relative of injured Suresh, was coming. The witness admitted that S.K. Hospital Police Chouki was in subordination of Kotwali. The witness denied the suggestion that he wrote the Parcha Bayan as stated by Matadin Sharma, the then SHO in Kotwali. The witness also stated that he does not remember, if Matadin was Incharge of Kotwali or not, at that time. 46. Statement of PW-8 Shyam Singh is also supported by statement of PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma, who categorically stated that he examined the physical condition of the injured Suresh at 7:05 PM before recording his Parcha Bayan by Shyam Singh (PW-8) and gave his opinion on Ex.P-14. The witness also stated that, during recording of statement of injured Suresh in operation theatre, he remained present there. After recording the statement, Shyam Singh (PW-8) at about 7:15 PM, again sought his opinion to obtain signature of injured Suresh and he gave his opinion on Ex.P-14. The reason of not containing signature or thumb impression of injured Suresh on Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14, is amputation of his upper and lower limbs in the incident, which is proved by injury report (Ex.P-6) also. 47. From the analysis of evidence brought on record, there is no reason to discard the testimony of PW-8 Shyam Singh. He is a reliable police witness and performed his duty very diligently. He took all possible and practical care for recording dying declaration (Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14) and obtained doctor's certificate. Non recording of Parcha Bayan by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq, who prepared injury report (Ex.P-6) is not significant. He is a reliable police witness and performed his duty very diligently. He took all possible and practical care for recording dying declaration (Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14) and obtained doctor's certificate. Non recording of Parcha Bayan by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq, who prepared injury report (Ex.P-6) is not significant. As lower and upper limbs of the injured Suresh (deceased) were amputated, PW-8 Shyam Singh could not obtain signature or thumb impression of the person making statement, therefore, absence of thumb impression or signature on Ex.P-14 is not fatal to the prosecution. Further, testimony of PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma who gave the certificate of fitness, cannot be doubted as he is not a relative of the deceased. The testimony of experienced and qualified doctors cannot be disbelieved merely on surmises and conjectures. 48. Statements of PW-8 Shyam Singh and PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma get corroboration from the statement of PW-4 Girdhari also, who is uncle of the deceased Suresh and who came to Sikar from Fatehpur with injured Suresh. His presence in the S.K. Hospital at that time, is natural. This witness has categorically stated that they took the injured to Sikar Hospital on suggestion of doctors of Fatehpur. The doctors gave treatment to Suresh. The doctors transfused blood to Suresh. Police came there and recorded statement of Suresh. Suresh told that he was assaulted by Dhaniya and one more person. He does not remember the name of other person. In this way, statement of this witness also corroborates the testimony of PW-8 Shyam Singh and PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma that Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14 of injured Suresh (deceased) was recorded on 11-01-2005 at about 7:15 PM and at that time Suresh was fully conscious. It is pertinent to mention that in cross-examination, Dr. Narottam Dadhich has stated that treatment was given to the injured soon after his admission in hospital. The witness admitted the suggestion that condition may improve, if blood is transfused to injured and proper medicines are given for BP (blood pressure) and Pulse. PW-4 Girdhari has clearly stated that doctors transfused blood to injured Suresh in Hospital at Sikar. From Bed Head Ticket of injured, it also appears that he was given several injections with fluid. 49. It is also argued that there was no any grievous injury on vital part of the deceased Suresh. PW-4 Girdhari has clearly stated that doctors transfused blood to injured Suresh in Hospital at Sikar. From Bed Head Ticket of injured, it also appears that he was given several injections with fluid. 49. It is also argued that there was no any grievous injury on vital part of the deceased Suresh. According to injury report (Ex.P-6), only injury No. 1 was on forehead and other injuries were on limbs of the injured. As there was no grievous injury on vital part of the body of injured, it reveals that either he was conscious until Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) was recorded or he gained consciousness after giving him treatment and he was fully conscious at the time of recording of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14). 50. In view of discussions made above, we are satisfied that injured Suresh (deceased) was in a fit state of mind at the time of making statement (Ex.P-14) and it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination and the declaration made by him is true and voluntary. After careful scrutiny of the evidence, we are satisfied that the declaration made by the deceased Suresh in Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) is true and free from any effort to induce him to make a false statement and is coherent. 51. Not producing Tehrir (letter) of hospital sent to PW-8 Shyam Singh, not obtaining certificate of fitness to give statement from treating doctor, not recording of statement by gazetted police officer in presence of two or more reliable witnesses or police officers, not obtaining signatures of other doctor and compounders on Parcha Bayan, not recording Parcha Bayan at Fatehpur or by PW-3 Dr. Mohd. Farooq at Sikar, are of no consquence. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14 is a forged document. 52. In Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14, injured Suresh Kumar (the deceased) has categorically stated that after taking meal on 11-01-2005, he came out from his house at about 5:00 PM to go to market, then teacher Brahm Dutt going on bike, met him near Char Batti. He stopped him and asked him to drop him at Sikariya Choraha and sat with him on his bike. He stopped him and asked him to drop him at Sikariya Choraha and sat with him on his bike. When they were going through gali (street) of rear portion of Laxmi Nath Katla, Pankaj @ Dhaniya and Vikas Matoliya came on a bike chasing them and inflicted injuries by daav (a name of sharp edged weapon) due to which he fell down from the bike. Then both of them scared Brahm Dutt Soni to run away. Both of them cut his hands and legs inflicting injuries by daavs. They also inflicted injuries on my head and body with intention to kill me. Some persons came there hearing his cry, then they (culprits) fled away on their bike. Ashok Jat and Rajesh Chhabarwal were present there, who took him to Dhanuka Hospital in a three wheeler and thereafter to Sikar Hospital from there. Pankaj @ Dhaniya and Vikas Matoliya keeps enmity with him due to property business. Above facts reveal that written report (Ex.P-1) submitted by PW-1 Brahm Dutt gets corroboration from Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-14) of the deceased Suresh. 53. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atbir Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 107, laid down the following principles to be kept in view while dealing with a case of dying declaration:- “(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court. (ii) The Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. (iii) Where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. (iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. (ix) When the eye witness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail. (x) If after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.” 54. Almost the same principle was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafique @ Rauf & Others Vs. State of U.P. (supra). 55. Relying on Atbir Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (supra), Coordinate Bench of this court in Mukesh Vs. State (supra), held that absence of certificate of doctors as to fit state of mind of the deceased cannot make dying declaration unreliable. It was also held that fact of dying declaration was not corroborated is insignificant. 56. In view of above, absence of certificate of doctor as to fitness of mind of declarant would not render the dying declaration not acceptable. Essential requirement is that person who records must be satisfied that deceased was in fit state of mind to give statement, if the voluntary and trustful nature of declaration, can be otherwise established, it can be relied. To record the dying declaration, certification of doctor is rule of caution only. 57. It is settled law that considering the dying declaration in a case, the Court has to consider all the attending circumstances to form an independent opinion whether the dying declaration is properly recorded and whether it is voluntary and truthful. If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and it is coherent and consistent, there should be no legal impediment to make it a basis of conviction even there is no corroboration. 58. If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and it is coherent and consistent, there should be no legal impediment to make it a basis of conviction even there is no corroboration. 58. In the case in hand, there is substantial corroborating evidence to support the case of prosecution and even independently proved what has been stated by the deceased in dying declaration. 59. It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellant that it is not mentioned in the site plan as to where the witnesses were standing when the incident took place and from which place they have seen incident taking place. This is serious infirmity and creates doubt on the presence of witness PW-15 and PW-20 at the place of occurrence. In support of this argument learned counsel placed reliance on 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 70 Bhabhuti & Another Vs. State. In this case, Coordinate Bench acquitted the accused holding that mother of the deceased who was also present at the time of occurrence, has not been examined by the prosecution. No document produced to prove the possession of the land where the deceased fell. FIR or record not proved by the prosecution witness. In the site plan, places not shown where the eye witnesses were standing. Witnesses have tried to hide the presence of other persons at the spot. There are so many infirmities in the case that correctness and genuineness of the prosecution story is suspicious. Therefore, due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in this case, is not of much help to the appellant. 60. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that PW-15 Ashok has been examined by the prosecution to be an eye witness of the incident but his name does not find place in FIR. PW-15 Ashok neither reported the incident to police station nor narrated the incident to police in Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur or in S.K. Hospital. PW-15 Ashok stated that he took the injured to hospital but no blood was found on his clothes, therefore, he is unnatural witness and his conduct of not reporting the matter is abnormal. PW-15 Ashok neither reported the incident to police station nor narrated the incident to police in Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur or in S.K. Hospital. PW-15 Ashok stated that he took the injured to hospital but no blood was found on his clothes, therefore, he is unnatural witness and his conduct of not reporting the matter is abnormal. It is also contended that PW-15 Ashok is interested witness in success of the prosecution's case and he was not examined by the police on the same day, therefore, he is a chance witness only. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. From perusal of the statement of PW-15 Ashok and other attending circumstances, it reveals that he and his cousin (PW-20 Rajesh) went to Laxmi Nath Katla to purchase cloths and came out from the Katla after purchasing cloths. They saw the incident and after the incident, he and Rajesh (PW-20) took the injured Suresh to Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur in a three wheeler. After giving treatment for some time, doctors of Fatehpur hospital referred the injured to Sikar for treatment. Thereafter, PW-15 Ashok, PW-4 Girdhari, PW-20 Rajesh took him to S.K. Hospital, Sikar. The injured got treatment in Sikar Hospital for some time and thereafter, the doctor of Sikar Hospital referred him to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. PW-15 Ashok, PW-4 Girdhari, PW-20 Rajesh took the injured Suresh to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. From the statements given by these witnesses, it is proved that after the incident, PW-15 Ashok remained busy regarding treatment of injured Suresh. There is nothing on record which creates any doubt on his conduct. This witness was examined by the police on next day of the incident which is not fatal to the prosecution in above circumstances. It is pertinent to mention that name of PW-15 Ashok and PW-20 Rajesh does not find place in FIR is of no consequence because FIR is need not to be encyclopaedic as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2008 SC 1603 Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (supra). 61. It is also argued that PW-20 Rajesh is also examined as an eye witness, whereas his name also does not find place in FIR. He is resident of village Balod Bhakara. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (supra). 61. It is also argued that PW-20 Rajesh is also examined as an eye witness, whereas his name also does not find place in FIR. He is resident of village Balod Bhakara. He has not produced bill of cloths purchased and he did not report the incident to police station or to police in Dhanuka Hospital or S.K. Hospital, Sikar or to the family members of the deceased, therefore, this witness is unnatural. He did not saw the incident, he is interested witness and not examined by the police on the same day, therefore, he is a chance witness and cannot be relied upon. 62. As discussed above, PW-20 Rajesh and PW-15 Ashok went to purchase cloths in Laxmi Nath Katla. Thereafter, the incident of assault on the deceased (Suresh Chotiya) took place and both are eye witness of the incident. After fleeing of the accused persons from the place of occurrence, PW-15 and PW-20 both took the injured to Dhanuka Hospital, Fatehpur in a three wheeler. Till then PW-4 Girdhari also reached there. This witness was with the injured from Fatehpur to Sikar Hospital and thereafter to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. This witness has been thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused-appellant but the witness did not give any such statement which creates doubt on his testimony, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, cannot be accepted. 63. In AIR 1976 SC 2488 State of Orissa Vs. Brahmananda Nanda relied upon by counsel for the appellant, the entire prosecution case depended on the evidence of one witness claimed to be eye witness and this witness did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and half, after the incident and the explanation offered for nondisclosure was unbelievable. It was held that such nondisclosure was a serious infirmity which destroys the credibility of the evidence of the witness and dismissed the appeal of State. But the present case is not depend on the evidence of one witness. The FIR was lodged by PW-1 Brahm Dutt within half an hour of the incident, who was with the deceased at the time of incident, mentioning the names of assailants in the written report. Instead of this, the case is also depend upon dying declaration of the deceased Suresh. The FIR was lodged by PW-1 Brahm Dutt within half an hour of the incident, who was with the deceased at the time of incident, mentioning the names of assailants in the written report. Instead of this, the case is also depend upon dying declaration of the deceased Suresh. Therefore, due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case is not of much help to the appellant. 64. In 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 53 Bachhu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan relied upon by counsel for the appellant, incident took place at about 1:00 PM with the witness and his statement was recorded at 6:45 PM. During this period he met several persons and had ample opportunity to tell as to who were his assailant but he did not do so. In present case, the informant PW-1 Brahm Dutt named both the assailants in his written report Ex.P-1 and the deceased Suresh has also named both the assailants in his Parcha Bayan Ex.P-14 soon after the incident, therefore, law laid down by Coordinate Bench in above case, does not apply in this case. 65. In 1990 RCC 191 State of Rajasthan Vs. Mool Chand relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, the name of eye witness PW-3 of the incident was not mentioned in the FIR in whose presence it was written. Whereas, in present case, FIR was lodged by PW-1 Brahm Dutt and eye witness PW-15 and PW-20 were not with him at the time of lodging FIR, thus, law laid down by Coordinate Bench in above case, does not apply in this case. 66. In 1986 RCR 573 Babu Maulana & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, there were material contradictions about fact as to who had lodged FIR, contents of FIR were not proved by informant, statement of eye witness Ismile was recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. after 10 to 12 days, deceased was beaten mercilessly and was in serious condition, brought at police station not by his relative who were said to be present at the spot but by stranger. Hon’ble Coordinate Bench opined that contents of FIR are not proved, investigation was unfair and creates doubt. Hon’ble Coordinate Bench opined that contents of FIR are not proved, investigation was unfair and creates doubt. In present case, the incident occurred in evening on 11- 01-2005, eye witnesses PW-15 and PW-20 took the injured Suresh to hospital and after treatment for some time, the injured was sent to Sikar and thereafter referred to Jaipur. FIR was lodged by PW-1 Brahm Dutt, PW-15 and PW-20 remained with injured Suresh from place of incident to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded by police on next day of the incident. Therefore, the law laid down by Coordinate Bench in this case is not of much help to the appellant. 67. In 2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 379 Mohd. Ishaq Vs. State of Rajasthan relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, prosecution could not explain as to why similarly situated co-accused were not charge-sheeted and why only appellant and his wife were picked up by IO. Evidence of chance witnesses not found reliable and their presence was slightly doubtful. In present case, presence of eye witnesses PW-15 and PW-20 at the place of occurrence is not unnatural, rather it is proved by dying declaration (Ex.P-14) of the deceased Suresh. 68. In 2001 Cr.L.J. 1176 (SC) State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Singh & Others, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, there was no corroboration of evidence of interested eye witnesses. One eye witness was a very old person having problems with his eyes which makes it difficult to believe that he was really in a position to identify the accused persons. Evidence of second eye witness was recorded after 5 days of the crime though he was available in village and the delay was not explained. Third eye witness stated that he had lifted the body of the deceased which was bleeding and his clothes had become blood stained but IO did not recover the said clothes. Instead of this Sarpanch of the village stated that none of these eye witness mentioned the name of the accused persons to him, when he was told about the incident. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Court was justified in not placing any reliance on the evidence of these 3 eye witnesses without any independent corroboration and acquittal of the accused was proper. 69. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Court was justified in not placing any reliance on the evidence of these 3 eye witnesses without any independent corroboration and acquittal of the accused was proper. 69. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on (1978) 3 SCC 86 Ramanathan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. In this case, eye witness to the incident did not know the accused. Deceased knowing his assailant but did not mention name though death took place after four days but he was in dazed condition and unable to speak. Death was caused by shooting, firearm recovered was of six chambers and eight shots heard, accused absconded after incident. Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court against the appellant and dismissed the appeal. The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case is not of much help to the appellant. 70. In (2007) 14 SCC 550 State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration without any corroboration, the same should not be suffering from any infirmity i.e., it should be found to be true and voluntary. Court has to ensure that the statement was not the result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of the imagination and that deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, had clear capacity of observe and identify the assailant and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancour. The same view was expressed in 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 107 Atbir Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (supra), which we have discussed earlier. 71. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on (2011) 9 SCC 115 State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh & Others, (2011) 10 SCC 173 Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1954 SC 51 Habib Mohd. Vs. State of Hyderabad, 2002 RCC (SC) 699 Harizana Tripola & Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, AIR 2005 SC 2010 Hem Raj & Others Vs. State of Haryana, 1979 RCC 399 Keshav Das & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.LR (Raj.) 185 Dolia & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan. We have gone through all the cited judgments. Vs. State of Hyderabad, 2002 RCC (SC) 699 Harizana Tripola & Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, AIR 2005 SC 2010 Hem Raj & Others Vs. State of Haryana, 1979 RCC 399 Keshav Das & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.LR (Raj.) 185 Dolia & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan. We have gone through all the cited judgments. Due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio given in these cases are not of much help to the appellant. 72. PW-6 Kishore Kumar has been examined by the prosecution regarding motive of the incident. According to the statement of PW-6 Kishore Kumar, at about 10:00 AM on the day of incident, he went to Fatehpur jail to meet prisoner Shiv Bhagwan. Pankaj @ Dhaniya was also there who came to meet his father Om Prakash @ Baba. Om Prakash @ Baba told his son Pankaj @ Dhaniya that Suresh Chotiya betrayed him in case of Ganja, of which you have to take revenge. Baba told that Suresh Chotiya has to be killed by cutting his hands and legs and this good news must reach to him till evening. Thereafter, Pankaj went out from the jail and after some time the witness also came out. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused appellant but it is pertinent to note that this witness gave no incriminating evidence against the appellant. PW-4 Girdhari is uncle of the deceased but he did not speak about motive of the incident. Other witnesses also did not speak about motive of the incident. 73. PW-2 Bajrang Lal is witness of site plan Ex.P-3, seizure memo of blood smeared soil Ex.P-4 and seizure memo of a pair of chappal of the deceased from the scene of occurrence Ex.P-5. PW-7 Jai Prakash Head Constable stated that police Inspector Tejpal Singh arrested accused Vikas Matoliya in Crime No. 10/05 vide memo Ex.P-13, who was already under custody in a case of Arms Act. 74. PW-9 Surendra Singh, the then SHO Kotwali Fatehpur has stated that he received information of the incident on 11-01-2005 at about 5:05 PM, then he reached to the spot. Injured Suresh Chotiya was taken to the hospital before he reached to the spot. Blood and one pair of black chappal was lying on the spot. 74. PW-9 Surendra Singh, the then SHO Kotwali Fatehpur has stated that he received information of the incident on 11-01-2005 at about 5:05 PM, then he reached to the spot. Injured Suresh Chotiya was taken to the hospital before he reached to the spot. Blood and one pair of black chappal was lying on the spot. He left one constable there, for security of spot and reached to Dhanuka Hospital, where treatment of Suresh Chotiya was going on in Emergency Ward and the doctors have referred him to Sikar. Narendra Kumar constable brought written report Ex.P-1 to him in Dhanuka Hospital. Thereafter, he commenced investigation. The witness gave a detailed account of investigation conducted by him. 75. PW-10 Sunil Kumar is a witness of providing shelter to the accused by co-accused Aditya Dokwal, therefore, statement of this witness is not relevant for disposal of this appeal. 76. PW-11 Bhanwar Singh gave an account of seizure of bike under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act vide Ex.P-19. 77. PW-12 Ramdhan, the then ASI in PS Kotwali, Fatehpur gave evidence regarding seizure of bike bearing No. RJ 23 M 7280 from Manoj Sharma on 26-05-2005 under Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act. 78. PW-13 Mohan Lal, ASI gave evidence regarding seizure of bike bearing No. RJ 23 N 7280 under Section 207 of MV Act and also proved seizure of the motorcycle in crime No. 10/05 PS Kotwali vide Ex.P-20. 79. PW-14 Gauri Shankar and PW-16 Vinod Kumar gave evidence regarding verification of the place of occurrence by accused Vikas Matoliya vide site plan Ex.P-25. 80. PW-17 Tejpal Singh the then SHO, Kotwali, Fatehpur proved arrest memo of accused Vikas Matoliya Ex.P-13, information given by accused Vikas Matoliya Ex.P-26 and verification memo of place of occurrence by accused Vikas Matoliya vide Ex.P-25 and his signatures thereon. 81. PW-18 Ramji Lal, the then Sub-Inspector in PS Kotwali, Fatehpur has stated that on 11-01-2005 at about 5:30 PM, Brahm Dutt Soni submitted a written report Ex.P-1 before him, whereupon he made his endorsement and FIR (Ex.P-2) was prepared and investigation was handed over to Surendra Singh, SHO. 82. PW-19 Bhanwar Lal has stated that on 16-08-2007, he was posted in SP Office, Sikar. On that day, Sub-Inspector Anand Yadav handed over accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya to him under directions of Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he requisitioned the file and investigated the matter. 82. PW-19 Bhanwar Lal has stated that on 16-08-2007, he was posted in SP Office, Sikar. On that day, Sub-Inspector Anand Yadav handed over accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya to him under directions of Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he requisitioned the file and investigated the matter. The witness gave a detailed account of recovery of daav in consequence of information given by the accused Pankaj @ Dhaniya under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of bike used by the accused in commission of the crime and about further investigation conducted by him. This witness gave no evidence against the appellant Vikas Matoliya. 83. DW-1 Jairam Joshi gave evidence that on 06-10-2004, he filed a complaint of Vikas Matoliya in Court as his advocate, for alleged beating with him. Court ordered for medical examination of Vikas on his application. Vikas also sent complaint to Human Rights Commission. From the evidence given by this witness, it cannot be presumed that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials under political influence and conspiracy against him. 84. DW-3 Dr. S.K. Sharma, PMO in S.K. Hospital, Sikar has stated that record of calling Dr. S.S. Sharma on 11-01-2005 at the time of recording statement of Suresh Kumar Chotiya, and record of calling ASI Shyam Singh to record Parcha Bayan are not available. According to attendance register of the hospital, Dr. S.S. Sharma went for evidence in Sikar Court on 11-01-2005 and there is no entry in log book to call Dr. S.S. Sharma on that day. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that doctors return on duty in hospital after recording their evidence in local Court. Entry in log book is made only when the vehicle brings the doctor from his house or from the place out side the hospital. Entries are not made in the log book, if the concerned doctor is available in hospital. The witness also admitted that entries are not made when Medical Jurist informs to Police Chouki by telephone or by sending peon. The statements of this witness do not create any doubt on the evidence given by PW-8 Shyam Singh and PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma and Parcha Bayan/dying declaration (Ex.P-14) of Suresh Chotiya (the deceased). Therefore, statement of DW-3 Dr. S.K. Sharma is not of much help to the appellant. 85. The statements of this witness do not create any doubt on the evidence given by PW-8 Shyam Singh and PW-21 Dr. S.S. Sharma and Parcha Bayan/dying declaration (Ex.P-14) of Suresh Chotiya (the deceased). Therefore, statement of DW-3 Dr. S.K. Sharma is not of much help to the appellant. 85. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that prosecution could not prove the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased Suresh Chotiya. To our mind, this case is of direct evidence. FIR was lodged by eye witness PW-1 Brahm Dutt and his statements are corroborated by other eye witness PW-15 Ashok and PW-20 Rajesh also, therefore, motive is not relevant in this case. 86. In view of the discussions made above, each of the circumstances when joined together firmly and fully rule out the possibility of any such hypothesis, which may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. All the circumstances unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. The evidence produced by the prosecution is cogent and reliable and the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of Section 302/34 of IPC against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has looked into every material aspect of the matter and was fully justified in convicting the appellant. There is no scope to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 87. For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment to call for our interference. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.