C.A. Rahim, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 19.7.1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, convicting accused Rana Pratap Singh under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and further convicted under Section 452 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for two years. In brief, the fact as stated by the prosecution is, that deceased Ram Chandra Prasad, was Principal of Reoti Inter College, Ballia and he was also appointed as Superintendent of the Examination by an order of the District Inspector of Schools. Teachers from other institutions were also deputed as invigilators. The examination commenced on 5.4.1971 and used to take place in between 7 A.M. to 10 A.M. and 3 P.M. to 6 P.M. The allegation is that one Nasim Ahmad was also appearing in the examination in that year. One constable Ram Asrey Tewari was on duty at that centre. Accused Rana Pratap Singh used to supply chits to that student for copying. On 16.4.1977 there was examination in both the sittings. The first sitting ended at 10 A.M. and all the students and teachers excepting Subhash, Ram Chandra Prasad, Principal, Parmatma Singh and Ravindra Nath verma remained in that centre. Ram Sakal, brother of the deceased, brought food for him and he after taking the meal took rest in a Charpai in the office room which is besides the Principal's room. The western door of the office room was closed but without any bolt from inside or outside. Teachers, namely, Subash Chandra, Ravindra Nath Verma and Parmatma Singh were gossiping on the Verandah of the eastern wing. At 1 P.M. accused Rana Pratap Singh came there and asked the teachers to help Nasir Ahmad in the next session, which Parmatma Singh refused. The accused then searched for the Principal on the plea that he had agreed to help Nasir Ahmad. Parmatma Singh told Rana Pratap Singh that he was taking rest and that he should come at 2.30 P.M. to meet him. Rana Pratap left the place and teachers became drowsy and lied down on the benches at that verandah to have a sleep. Ram Sakal, who brought food for the Principal, also lied down at that time at that place. After the food was served to the Principal, at about 1.30 P.M. they heard the Principal raising an alarm with the words MAAR DALA JAN GAI. All four persons got up and ran. They saw accused Rana Pratap Singh to come out of the door of the office with a blood stained knife in the hand and ran towards the west. Subhash Chandra, Ravindra Nath Verma, Parmatma Singh and Ram Sakal chased the accused but he fled away. The Principal also came out from the office and fell down in front of his room. The Principal was taken to the Hospital, which is in front of the institution. The doctor attended and as his condition was serious, he was advised to take to the District Hospital. The Principal was then taken to the District Hospital, Ballia where he was medically examined but he died at about 11.25 P.M. on the same day. Subhash Chandra wrote the first information report at Reoti and it was handed over to Ram Sakal to sent it to Reoti Chowki and the same was later on sent to the police station where a case was registered. The charge sheet was submitted against the accused Rana Pratap Singh and four others under Sections 302/452/109 Indian Penal Code. During the trial the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, out of them P.W.2 Subhash Chandra, P.W.3 Parmatma Singh and P.W. 13 Ram sakal were the eye witnesses. A dying declaration was recorded during the investigation which was recorded by P.W.18 Gur Sahai Lal in the presence or Dr. K.N. Pandey P.W.19. After completion of the trial, learned II Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 452 Indian Penal Code and acquitted co-accused persons. Mr. A.D. Giri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has attacked the dying declaration and submitted that it was not a true and faithful recording and hence no reliance can be placed on this piece of evidence. He has submitted that there is contradiction with regard to the time of recording. He has referred the evidence of P.W.18, the Magistrate and stated that the Magistrate has deposed that at 4.30 P.M. on 16.4.77 he got the requisition from the Hospital and reached the Hospital at 4.55 P.M. But at the bottom of the dying declaration it was mentioned that was recorded at 4.55 P.M. which he has admitted in the cross examination. He has also submitted that a certificate of the doctor was given after recording the dying declaration and not before. This was a clear departure from the norms of faithful recording since it was to be ascertained prior to the recording that the deceased was fit to make such a statement. He has also submitted that no signature of the deceased was obtained on the dying declaration which discloses that he was not conscious at that time. He has also submitted that the last four sentences were added after the recording was done. In this connection the evidence of P.W.18 should be read out and discussed to find out the dimension of the criticism made by the learned counsel. P.W.18, Gur Sahai Lal, in his deposition has stated that on 16.4.1977 he was posted as Executive Magistrate at Ballia and on that date at 4.30 P.M. he received a memo from the District Hospital, Ballia, that the dying declaration of Ram Chandra Prasad was to be recorded. he reached the Hospital at 4.55 P.M. and recorded the dying declaration of Ram Chandra Prasad. He was fully fit to make the statement. The said fact was verified by Dr. K.N. Pandey (Tasdik ki). At the time of recording the statement everybody, except the Doctor, was sent out of the room. He recorded the statement of Ram Chandra Prasad as it was told to him in his own hand writing and signature. After recording of the statement L.T.I. of Ram Chandra Prasad was obtained. A certificate was given by the Doctor as to the condition of the patient. He has proved the dying declaration of Ram Chandra Prasad, which was marked as Ext. ka.46. In the cross examination, he has stated that when he reached the Hospital, he saw Ram Chandra Prasad at the general ward, lying on a cot. At that time he was not on the operation table. The doctor was not present there and he was called for. The Principal was surrounded by 2, 3 persons at the Hospital. Prior to the recording of the dying declaration, he inquired to the Doctor and he also found him in a proper condition and in conscious state. The certificate was not obtained prior to the recording as the Doctor told that his statement be recorded and he would give it afterwards. Prior to the recording, he did not put any question to the injured as he did not think it necessary. He only asked the injured how the occurrence took place and then he started giving statement and he started writing to it. He asked the injured some times what happened then. When the injured paused after telling a bit at that time he used to ask what happened next. After completion of the statement the injured was conscious. The injured was suffering due to the injuries received by him and for those injuries when he was taking pause he began to ask him. He did not take signature of the injured but took his L.T.I. in his dying condition. The injured was capable of putting his signature but he did not think it necessary. It is not a fact that the injured was not conscious and was in great difficulty for which his signature was not obtained. The witness thereafter stated MAINE DYING DECLARATION ME LIKHE P.N.SINGH (illegible) KA BAYAN NAHI LIYA AUR NA VOH VAHIN MAUJUD THE. MAI P.N. SINGH KO NAHI JANTA. The witness further stated that he could not remember whether there were other cots near the injured and whether other patients and their attendants were present or not. He did not know the persons whom he turned out from the room. He did not know whether any Doctor of Reoti Hospital was present at the time of writing the dying declaration. MERE SAMJHANE ME KUCHH FERK PARA ISLIYE MAINI DO STHAN PAR CUTTING KIYA." It is not correct to state that the injured became unconscious after stating."....."P.N. Singh will tell" It is also not correct to state that afterwards he wrote that sentence according to the statement of P.N. Singh. It is also not correct to state that the injured became unconscious and for that reason his signature was not obtained. The words MUJHE UNKA NAAM YAAD NAHI HAI was told to him when he made query after the L.T.I. was obtained and he wrote it down. It is incorrect to state that those words were written by him afterwards in a different ink. At the bottom of his signature he noted the time as 4.55 P.M. It was put down after completion of the recording of the statement. He could not remember if he went to record the statement from his bungalow. He could not say whether the court was closed on that day. He could not remember if he attended the court on that day. He also could not remember if he went to the office that day. From the dying declaration (Ext. ka.46) it appears that it was recorded at 4.55 P.M. P.W.18 also has confirmed the same. The arrival time as stated in the cross examination was a mere guess work. He could not even tell whether the court was open on that day or that if he went to the Hospital from his bungalow or not. So lapse of memory after two years of P.W.18 is not unusual and, therefore, does not shake his reliability. It was argued whether the Doctor was near the injured or called for, whether the injured was in the ward or in the Emergency bed or on operation table, but the salient question is whether the Doctor was present at the time of recording the dying declaration and whether the injured was in a state of making the statement. All other discrepancies pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant was minor which tells about the natural slip-shod that makes the evidence more reliable rather than stereo type parrot like statement though without folly, speaks about much home work and tutored. Dr. K.N. Pandey (P.W.15) was Radiologist of District Hospital, Ballia, on 16.4.1977 at 4 P.M. examined Ram Chandra Prasad and found one wound 3.5 cm. x 1 cm. Chest cavity deep on left side, front of chest and one incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. into muscle deep on posterial lateral aspect and left arm. The general condition of the patient was very serious. Pulse was 100 per minute and feeble. The patient was in shock. He has stated that at 4.55 p.m. the Magistrate recorded the dying declaration in his presence. The patient was conscious, wanted to make statement and was fit to make the statement. He appended one certificate in the dying declaration. After it was recorded he has stated that it might be that the assailant was in front of the injured when caused injury No.2 and from that position the said injury could he made possible. P.W. 18, the Magistrate has also stated that the injured was fully fit to make statement and it was verified by Dr. K.N. Pandey. Both the witnesses are independent, not interested towards the prosecution or inimically disposed towards the accused. There is no suggestion even why P.W.15 and P.W.18 would tell lies. Ex. ka.46 dying declaration discloses that it was recorded by P.W.18 in the presence of P.W.15 who endorsed one certificate on the body of the dying declaration. Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the defence has contended that since the certificate was given later on and not before the dying declaration it suffers from infirmity. From the evidence it appears that at first P.W.15 and P.W.18 verified the condition of the patient and then the statement was recorded and thereafter the certificate was written by P.W.18. The Magistrate (P.W.18) has stated in this connection that the Doctor (P.W.15) told him that he would give certificate after recording the dying declaration. We do not consider it as an irregularity which would vitiate the entire process. P.W.15 the Doctor, in his evidence has stated that the condition of the patient was serious. Pulse was 100 per minute, feeble and the patient was under shock. The Magistrate has stated that even after recording of dying declaration the patient was conscious. It is in evidence that Ram Chandra Prasad expired seven hours after the dying declaration was recorded. P.W.18 has stated that the patient was suffering due to the injuries and for that reason he was taking pause after telling a bit. In that situation we do not find anything to disbelieve that the condition of the patient was not well but he was able to a make statement. He has stated that the patient was not only fit but he wanted to make a statement. All these circumstances lead us to believe that the statements of the Doctor and the Magistrate as regards fitness of the patient inspires our confidence and we find that at that time Ram Chandra Prasad was fit to make statement which was recorded by the Magistrate and certified by the Doctor. The learned counsel has stated that the L.T.I. was taken on the statement and it indicates that the patient was not conscious at that time. It has also been suggested that the injured became unconscious after stating "P.N. Singh will tell" and that it was written afterwards on the statement of P.N. Singh. So we find that the stand taken by the defence in this respect were manifold. P.W.18 has stated that the injured was able to put his signature but he did not think it necessary. He denied the suggestion that as the patient was unconscious and was it great difficulty for which the signature was not obtained. We have already discussed the evidence about the condition of the patient. We do not consider that there was any irregularity in taking the L.T.I. of the injured when he was literate and capable of making signature. We also do not consider that the patient was unconscious at that time. The learned counsel has stressed much that the last few lines of the dying declaration were added after recording of the statement. He has stated that in the dying declaration it was recorded" I saw P.N. Singh to chase him (assailant) but he also came back. The man fled away P.N. Singh will tell." He has also stated that the next few lines do not follow the sequence. The patient did not name the assailant so far but after the statement "P.N. Singh will tell", the recording was that "i recognised that Rana son of Rameshwar Singh, who was Manager of the college previously assaulted me." The learned counsel has submitted that prior to that statement there was no indication of the name of the assailant but suddenly he started telling about the recognition of the assailant, which does not seem to be usual. He has stated that the injured was in deep sleep when he received the first blow and thereafter when he changed his side he received the second blow and the assailant fled away with the knife. When he came out from the room he saw P.N. Singh and others were chasing. So there was a little scope for the injured to see the face of the assailant. He has stated that P.N. Singh also accompanied the injured to the Hospital. So it was possible that the later part of the dying declaration was recorded as per the information supplied by P.N. Singh. It is necessary to examine whether the injured had the scope of seeing the assailant. It is true that at the time when the first blow was given, according to the dying declaration, the injured was in deep sleep. After receiving the blow he changed his side. According to the cross examination of P.W.15, the Doctor, the second injury was caused from the front side. The Doctor has also stated that from that position i.e. when standing in front of the injured, the second injury could be made possible. So at the time of giving second blow the injured had the scope of seeing the face of the assailant. The accused is son of ex manager of the School. He was also named in the dying declaration and was known to each of the witnesses from before. It has not been disputed that the accused was not known to the injured from before. So it is not a case that an unknown person stabbed him and he could see his face for once and for all. Being a known man he could be recognised by the injured, though seen for a moment. It is in evidence and it is also in the dying declaration that the injured came out of the office room and fell down on the verandah of the institution. The accused was fleeing at that time towards the west. So it was possible that the injured could see the assailant from behind by gait and the posture by which also a known man can be identified. Moreover, there are decisions that a dying man does not tell lies. The consistency which is expected from a normal human being cannot be expected from a man who is on the verge of the death and actually died after seven hours. It is true that the Magistrate has admitted that the last sentence was written as per his query after the dying declaration was signed but it affected no body. When the injured has made the statement that ISME TIWARI CONSTABLE REOTI POLICE3 KA BHI HAATH HAI. USNE HI MARVAYA HAI it might have led the Magistrate to ask to get the identify of the constable and in reply to which the injured stated MUJHE UNKA NAAM YAD NAHI HAI. The Magistrate has admitted in the cross examination that he added last sentence and denied that he made any change of the earlier statements. Had the entire statement or a part of it was recorded on the statement of P.N. Singh and not the injured we could have got a fool proof statement without any inconsistency. It is true that prior to the last five sentences that injured did not disclose the name of the assailant and at one time told VOH AADMI BHAG GAYA, P.N. SINGH BATAYENGE. Thereafter he disclosed the name of the assailant. Prior to that he did not name the assailant. This inconsistency would not have appeared if it was recorded on the statement of P.N. Singh. This inconsistency proves the natural course of events that happened at the time of the recording. The evidence is that the injured was taking pause sometimes and the Magistrate had to ask him what next. It would have been better if the dying declaration was recorded in the form of question and answer. So Magistrate was not prohibited to put question to the injured to get clarification or to make further statement and if such question was put to him to get identity of the assailant we do not consider that the Magistrate was out of jurisdiction and for that reason the dying declaration should not be held to be reliable. Had there been any interpolation or subsequent addition or change of statement, as suggested by the defence, name of the constable, who was also arrested in connection with this case, would have been inserted and the absence of his identity, even though such a question was put to the injured, speaks about the truthful recording of the dying declaration. So we do not consider that the Magistrate added the name of the assailant in the dying declaration as per the statement of P.N. Singh. We also consider that the dying declaration is true, fit in with the prosecution case and hence was place reliance on it. The prosecution has examined P.W.2 Subhash Chandra, complainant, P.W.3 Parmatma Singh and P.W.13 Ram Sakal who have stated in details about the incident that happened on 16.4.1977 at 1.30 P.M. P.W.3 Subhash Chandra was the teacher of Husainabad High School. He was on invigilation duty at Reoti Inter College on the date of the incident. he has stated that on that day there was examination in two sittings. One Nasir Ahamd appeared in that examination and Ram Asrey Tewari was in checking duty. He has also stated that accused Rana Pratap Singh used to sent chits through constable Ram Asrey Tiwari. The first sitting ended at 10 A.M. and the examinees and other teachers went away. Principal Ram Chandra Prasad, deceased P.N. Singh, Ravindra nath Verma and Ram Sakal, brother of the Principal; were in the office room. Ram Sakal brought food for the Principal in tiffin career. After taking food the Principal lied on the cot in the office room situated to the East of the Principal's room. The eastern door of the office was closed from outside and the western door of the office room has not locked. He and others were gossipping in the verandah in between the Library and room No. 14. Ram Sakal was also there. At 1 P.M. accused Rana Pratap came at that place and asked the teachers to help Nasir Ahmad in the examination but P.N. Singh refused to do so. Rana Pratap told that the Principal had promised him and so he inquired about the whereabout of the Principal as he wanted to see him. P.N. Singh asked him to come at 2.30 P.M. as the Principal was sleeping in the office room. The accused thereafter went away and the teachers, including Ram Sakal, became drowsy and slept. At about 1.30 P.M. they heard voice from the office MAAR DALA JAN GAI. That voice was of the Principal. Allof them got up and ran 1, 2 steps and saw accused Rana Pratap to come out of the door of the office with a blood stained knife in his hand and he ran towards the field. He was chased by Ram Sakal, P.N. Singh, Ravindra Nath Verma and himself. The Principal also came out in the Verandah from the office room and fell down in front of the Principal's room. Rana Pratap fled away and when they returned they saw that the Principal received knife injuries. He was taken to the Hospital. The Doctor, after giving first aid, advised him to take to Ballia as his condition was serious. Ram Sakal lodged the first information report (Ex. ka.2) at Reoti Chowki and all of them brought the Principal to Ballia Hospital where he died at 11.25 P.M. on the same day. The evidence was challenged on the ground that he concealed his relationship with the Principal, who was his Sarhu as his wife and the wife of the witness were real sister. D.W.4 Sita Ram Gupta proved that after the death of the Principal the Insurance claim was paid to his wife Smt. Ram Dulari Devi who was daughter of Jangi Thakur. He has also stated that Girja Devi, wife of P.W. Subhash, was also daughter of Jangi Thakur. P.W.13 Ram Sakal, brother of the Principal has admitted in cross examination that the second marriage of the Principal was done at Anand Nagar Mohalla with the daughter of Jangi Thakur but according to the P.W.2 the name of the father in law of the said witness was Kailash and not Jangi Thakur. He denied that he married the daughter of Jangi Thakur though the name of his wife was Girja Devi. The defence has proved certain documents, including Ext. kha 13 which is copy of the proposal form of Life Insurance Corporation of India, where it appears that Girja Devi was daughter of Jangi Thakur. This proposal form was dated 4.1.1972 i.e. long before the date of occurrence. So it has been proved that P.W.2 was the real Sarhu of the deceased Principal, which he did not agree. The learned counsel has submitted that this witness should not be believed as he tried to conceal the relationship with the Principal and posed himself as an independent witness. The learned trial court did not disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 on that ground stating that as his name appeared in the injury report as one of the persons who took the injured to Ballia Hospital, his presence cannot be denied. Moreover, we find that he is the author of the First Information Report which was lodged at 2.30 P.M. on the same day i.e. after about one hour of the occurrence and in that First Information Report he narrated the incident in details. The evidence of P.W.2 before the trial court was not a departure of the prosecution story depicted at the earliest hour. The learned defence counsel has also challenged that the first information report was ante dated and it was lodged in the next morning and such a scope was their as no case was lodged in between 2.35 P.M. on 16.4.1977 till 8.30 A.M. on the next day. His statement was that after the purported dying declaration was made there was necessity of changing the first information report because prior to the instant first information (Ext. ka.5) two reports were made earlier and there was subsequent change which was necessitated due to a different story depicted in the dying declaration. It is stated that one of those statement were recorded by P.N.Singh at Ballia Hospital (Ext. Kha.1) and the next one was recorded by on S.I. Brij Mohan Pathak (Ext. Kha.11). So according to him First Information Report (Ext. ka.5) which was actually recorded on the next day morning though time of the recording has been mentioned as 2.30 P.M. on 16.4.1977. The contention of the learned counsel is mis-conceived on the ground that it might be that no case was ledged in between 2.30 P.M. on 16.4.1977 to 8.30 A.M. on 17.4.1977 but G.D. of police station does not record only lodging of the case but also it records movement of the officers, in coming and out going of accused persons to courts and back, recording of non cognizable cases etc. But no suggestion has been put that in between that period there was no entry in the G.D. and all remained blank. The learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution did not produce the G.D. to disprove the contention of the defence but we do not find that the said duty was cast on the prosecution. Rather we find that if the defence wanted to prove that particular fact they should have called for the G.D. to prove that there was also no entry in the G.D. in between the said period. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the G.D. of a police station contains the entry of each and every movement of the officers, accused persons and so on, we also do not find that any suggestion was given to that effect. It might be that no cognizable case was started in between the period, which if agreed does not prove the defence version. So we find that P.W.2 Subhash Chandra lodged the first information report at 2.30 P.M. on 16.4.1977 and accompanied the injured person to Ballia Hospital as his name appears in the injury report (Ext. ka.27). P.W.3 Parmatma Singh was a teacher of Reoti Inter College and was also deputed as Deputy Invigilator in the examination held in that institution. He has stated that he was on duty in both the sitting. After the first sitting he went to take meal at Bhagat Bhandar Hotel. he returned at 12.30 P.M. and sat on the Verandah in front of the Library. At that time Subhash, P.W. 2 and Ravindra Nath Verma were also sitting there. Ram Sakal, P.W.13 was lying on the floor towards a bit south. The Principal was also lying in the office room. At about 1 P.M. Rana Pratap Singh came there and requested to help Nasir to adopt unfair means in the examination which he declined. The accused thereafter searched for the Principal on the plea that he had promised him to do so. The witness stated to him to come at 12.30 P.M. to meet the Principal and thereby the accused left the place. Thereafter all of them became drowsy and lied down on the bench. About half an hour later he heard an alarm raised by the principal saying MAAR DALA JAN GAI and he saw Rana Pratap Singh to come out with a blood stained knife in his hand from the office room and began to run away towards the west. The chased him. Rana Partap threatened him and he could not be apprehended. After returning to the place he saw that the Principal came out of the office room and fell down in front of his room. He found knife injury on the person of the Principal where from blood was coming out. The Principal was taken to the Ballia Hospital, where he died. In cross examination he has stated that he did not submit any report in connection with this case. A written paper, which was shown to him, was written by him. It also contained his signature (Ext. kha.1). This report was written by him at the Ballia Hospital as Ram Naresh Singh Daroga repeatedly insisted to write it down (DAROGA JI NE BAR BAR UTTEJIT KARNE PAR MAINI LIKHI). That Daroga came to him and stated that filing of the report was very much necessary. The said Daroga repeatedly insisted him for writing the same and he wrote it down as the deceased had not written it, Daroga, Ram Naresh, wrote down one report and gave it to him from which he copies. In cross examination he has further stated that he wrote the said report after death of the Principal. Subhash Chandra was with him from the time of the incident till the Principal died in the Hospital. The Principal's room was under lock and key. There was no Chaprasi or Clerk in the Principal's room or in the office room at that time. The eastern door of the office room was closed. The western door was closed but was not bolted. All of them were sleeping in that verandah where Rana Pratap came. On hearing an alarm raised by the Principal they woke up. The evidence of this witness has been assailed by the learned counsel on the ground that he made a different story in Ext. kha.1 which should have been considered as the first information report and that story is quite contrary to the evidence given by P.W.3 P.N. Singh, and the dying declaration. The accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code where he stated that P.N. Singh, teacher, was involved in a murder case of Basantpur and he was convicted in that case. One relation of the accused appeared as a witness against P.N. Singh in that case and the accused was asked by him not go allow his relative to give evidence against him but the accused did not agree and hence P.N. Singh gave evidence against the accused. Nothing has been brought on the record to prove the statement of accused or to show that it was a probable defence. The learned counsel has stressed much on the piece of paper written by P.W.3 (Ext. kha.1) and submitted that it has smashed not only the evidence of P.W.3. but also of the entire prosecution case. It is true that P.W.3 has admitted that Ext. kha 1 was written by him. It that paper it was written that the witnesses were inside the office room when Rana Pratap Singh accused entered and he had an altercation with the Principal and thereby stabbed him with a knife. The learned counsel has submitted that this story was not palatable to the prosecution and hence it was required to be changed and hence Ext. kha 1 was not sent to the police station for recording it as first information report. There are some infirmities in the contention of the learned counsel for the defence. Firstly, that according to P.W.3 Ext. kha 1 was written after the death of the Principal (Paragraph 9 of his statement and page 43 of the paper book). Admittedly, the dying declaration was recorded at 4.55 P.M. and the Principal expired at 11.25 P.M. on 16.4.1977. If this document was prepared after the death of the principal, i.e. 11.25 P.M. in the night it cannot be said that it was first in point of time. Moreover, Ext. ka.5, first information report, was lodged at P.S. Sahatwar, District Ballia, at 2.35 P.M. which is at a distance of 35-40 kms. from the Hospital. P.W.6 H.C. Suresh Ram, has stated that on that day by G.D. entry No.29 a wireless message was sent to the all concerned. So it has been proved that there was an entry in the G.D. in between 2.35 P.M. to 8 A.M. for which there was no possibility to put ante date in the first information report as alleged by the defence. P.W.2, Subhash Chandra, has stated that after writing the first information report at the spot he sent it through P.W.13 Ram Sakal to the police station and the same was registered at the police station at 2.35 P.M. There is no inconsistency in lodging the first information report at the police station which is situated at a distance of 1/2 km. from the place of the occurrence. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel and the same is not accepted. P.W.3 has stated that the said statement Ext. kha 1 was written by him as Daroga Ram Naresh Singh repeatedly urged him to write it on the place that it was necessary to do it at that time, the said Daroga was not in charge of the investigation of the case. It is not known why the said Daroga happened to be at the Hospital on that day and took up solemn duty of insisting P.W.3 to write the statement following a draft prepared by him or anybody else. From the cross examination it appears that it was written after the death of the Principal. Daroga Babu on the strength of his position and power must have known contents of the dying declaration at that time. So he tried to explore a parallel story to exonerate constable Tewari. It is also not known who took custody of the said paper after it was written and how it went to the possession of the accused who also kept it in secret and not disclosed the same during investigation and brought it to light at the time of cross examination of P.W.3. It appears that there was a collusion in between Daroga Ram Naresh Singh and some of the accused persons to obtain a statement from a person who has been figured as a witness in the dying declaration and that too at the very initial stage. The learned defence counsel has stated that Ext. kha 1 is an admission of P.W.3 and where a document is admitted, the source need not be disclosed. The circumstance is that one Daroga Babu, not connected with the investigation of the case forced P.W.3 to write down the statement which was not used for the purposes of investigation. P.W.3 has stated that he was purportedly instigating and agitating to write Ext. kha 1 who was not authorised to obtain the statement in this case. It was done by him taking advantage of his official position which he knew that he was not entitled. This abuse of the official status should not be looked into so lightly as it was connected with not only an attempt to discredit P.W.3 but also an attempt to destroy the evidence of an important witness of a murder case in which the Principal of an institution was stabbed to death in an atmosphere where unfair means was adopted openly and a constable took part in it. We, therefore, do not consider that Ext. Kha 1 should touch the credibility of P.W.3 who not only stood well in cross examination and gave consistent version all along corroborating the first information report and the dying declaration. Another attempt was made to destroy credibility of the first information report by filing a document (Ext. kha 11). It has been proved by D.W.2 Shyam Bihari Lal. Learned counsel for the defence has argued that this document was prepared prior to the purported first information report (Ext. ka 5) and accordingly Ext.ka 5 should not be treated as first information report of this case. Shyam Bihari Lal is D.W.2 in this case. He has stated that he was working as a compounder in veterinary Hospital, which is situated near police chowki. Brij Mohan Pathak was attached to that police chowki as Sub Inspector for some time. He used to go the police chowki off and on and he saw Birj Mohan Pathak to write down on some occasions. As the instant paper was written by him in his presence and thereafter he tore it of and threw it. Many villagers were assembled there. The paper might have been collected by some of them and made it over to Rameshwar Singh. It was written at Ballia Cold Storage, which is near the Morgue. At that time the dead body of Ram Chandra Prasad was lodged at the Morgue and hearing it he went to that place. In cross examination the witness has stated that he was not a member of the managing committee of Reoti Inter College. section 1 Ram Naresh Singh was not at that time. On the day of murder he was at Reoti. About 15, 20 villagers assembled at the Cold Storage at about 9 or 9.30 A.M. On the next day of murder be reached the Morgue at about 8.30 A.M. S.I. Brij Mohan Pathak was already there when the dead body was at the Morgue. Parmatma Nand Singh was there. Ext. kha 11 was written at 9 or 9.30 A.M. Towards the evening he came back to his house. He met Rameshwar Singh after 5, 6 days and told him about that paper prior to that time. It is not known who collected the piece of paper. It is also not known where from he hailed. It is incorrect to state that he was member of the Managing Committee and belonged to the group of Rameshwar Singh. After perusal of Ext. kha 11 it appears that it is unsigned paper. Some pieces of paper were pasted to give a shape of a statement but it is not known who was the author of the paper and why S.I. Brij Mohan Pathak wrote it sitting in front of a Cold Storage in the midst of some villagers. It is also not known who authorised him to write down the said pieces of paper. The reason for writing the said paper is also not known and why it was torn and threw it in a convenient place so that it can reach the accused persons. S.I. Brij Mohan Pathak was not in-charge investigator of this case. D.W.2 who has proved this document does not say who was the author of the statement which was being recorded by the said S.I. He also cannot say who collected it and how it went to the possession of Rameshwar Singh, father of accused Rana Pratap Singh. Entire circumstance is suspicious. According to D.W.2 Shyam Bihari Lal he was acquainted with the writing of S.I. Brij Mohan Pathak. There is no signature of Brij Mohan on Ext. Kha 11 but he has stated that he saw Brij Mohan Pathak to write it down in his presence but he did not state if it was a statement of any witness or was written by Pathak himself. The said paper was not produced during the investigation and first came to light during the cross examination of D.W.2. According to D.W.2 it was written when the dead body of the Principal was lodged at the Morgue and he has stated that it was written at 9 or 9.30 A.M. on the next day of the occurrence. So it is not a statement of any of the witnesses recorded prior to lodging of the first information report. It is not a statement of any witness. Brij Mohan Pathak has not been examined in this case. So we do not attach any importance to this chit and from the circumstances we find that it was prepared in collusion of the said Daroga for the benefit of the accused person during the trial. Ext. kha 1 and kha 11 are the two documents prepared to destroy the prosecution case in both the cases the police personnel's intervention has been proved. P.W.3 P.N. Singh has categorically stated that Ext. kha 1 was written at the instance of S.I. Ram Naresh Singh. D.W.2 Shyam Bihari Lal has stated that Ext. kha 11 was prepared by S.I. Brij Mohan Pathak. The result of these statements are obvious that the constable Ram Asrey Tewari was arrested in connection with this case but was found not guilty during the trial. So the purpose of these endeavours became successful. We are of the opinion that the police authorities of the State shall take cognizance of these two incidents and take proper recourse against those two police officials who were on tooth and nail from the beginning to destroy the evidence of a murder case. It is true that there is lapse of time but that would be no ground to spot out the evil design of police officials who were bent upon to cause mischief to this case only for the benefit of constable Tewari. In this case the prosecution has examined P.W.13 Ram Sakal who has corroborated the first information report and the dying declaration. He has also stated that he went there on the day of the occurrence carrying meal of the Principal in a tiffin carrier at about 1.30 A.M. He took the meal and lied down on a cot at the office room. The door was closed but not bolted and he lied down on the verandah in front of room No. 14 of the floor, spreading out his Gamchha. On that verandah Subhash master, P.N. Singh and Ravindra Nath Verma were sitting on a bench and were talking amongst themselves. At that time Rana Partap Singh appeared there and asked P.N. Singh to help Nasir Ahmad to adopt unfair means which he declined. Thereafter he asked about the whereabouts of the Principal and P.N. Singh replied that he was lying at the office room and he may come at 2.30 P.M. to talk with him. At about 1.30 P.M. he heard the voice of the Principal stating that DAURO YEH MERI JAAN MAAR RAHA HAI. All four of them woke up and ran. When he reached near the door of the office room he saw Rana Pratap with a blood stained knife ran towards the west. All of them chased him. P.N. Singh was ahead. The Principal came out of that room and fell down towards the west of the door and he stopped. The others could not catch the miscreant for the reason that Rana Pratap Singh threatened them to assault. They raised an alarm and 2 or 3 persons reached there. He saw the injury on the left side of the chest and on the arm. They took him to the Hospital nearby. The Doctor advised them to take him to Ballia Hospital as his condition was serious. Before starting to the Hospital, Subhash wrote one report and made over to him to take it to Reoti Chowki. He took the report and made it over to the person in-charge of that Chowki. When they were proceeding to Ballia Hospital the Principal told him that Rana Pratap assaulted him with a knife and constable Tewari (with moustches) got him assaulted. In the cross examination has stated that he went to the college on that day at about 11 A.M. with one tiffin carrier. The principal used to take meal from the tiffin carrier and he used to carry it after the meal was taken by him without cleaning the same. On the date of the occurrence the said tiffin carrier was lying in the office room in un-cleaned condition. The occurrence took place where the Principal was lying on a cot. He took the meal sitting on the cot. There were chairs in that room on which papers were kept. In that room there was no body at that time. One verandah was running in front of the office room and the room of the Principal which was from East to West. It was four steps in width. The Principal was taking rest in the South East corner of the room at a distance of 20, 25 feet towards the south. Ravindra Verma, Parmatma Nand and others were on the bench towards the north of the said verandah. There were three benches. He knew Rana Pratap from before. When Rana Pratap case for the second time, all the teachers were sleeping. He woke up hearing alarm of the Principal. At that time there was no chaukidar or chaprasi in the vicinity. When he reached the western door, he saw Rana Pratap already out of the said room. By that time his cot was situated at a distance of 50-60 steps from the office room. Beside himself and three teachers none chased the accused. He did not tell to Daroga that Chaukidar Bilari and Chaprasi Anand also chased. He ran 5, 7 steps only and then stopped. The Principal fell down 2, 3 steps towards the west of the western door. The door of the Principal's room was under lock and key. The learned counsel has submitted that presence of this witness was not possible as he brought meal of the Principal in a tiffin carrier but no tiffin carrier has been seized in this case. The presence of this witness also becomes doubtful. The witness has stated in the cross examination that the tiffin carrier in uncleaned conditioned was left in that room. It might be that the investigating officer concentrated himself for the seizure of blood stained earth and for the preparation of the sketch map of the place of the occurrence and did not think it necessary to trace out the tiffin carrier which was lying there. That does not by itself make this witness unreliable. It is in his statement that he carried the first information report to the Police Station. That fact has not been challenged by the defence. The occurrence took place at 1.30 P.M. and the first information report was reported at 2.35 P.M. and when if has been proved that he carried the first information report from the place of the occurrence to the police station at the instance of P.W.2 Subhash Chandra, there was no occasion to dis-believe that he was not present at the time of the occurrence when other witnesses also corroborated the same. He has stated that the Principal told him name of the assailant and the role played by constable Tiwari in the occurrence. The learned counsel has stated that since this fact was not mentioned by any outer witness who were in that vehicle at the time of the going to the Hospital, this witness should not be believed. It is in evidence that P.W. 13 was the brother of the Principal. So it was not un-becoming if he told his brother about the name of the assailant in the vehicle. Curiously we find that no cross examination has been made on this point. So we do not find any material to scrap this part of the evidence of P.W.13. Thus we find that the dying declaration is true and voluntary. The injured made his statement while he was fit to make such a statement. The injured had an opportunity to see the assailant and he named the accused in the dying declaration as his assailant. While the dying declaration is relied upon it is sufficient to base the conviction of the accused. Moreover, we find that the dying declaration was corroborated by the circumstances narrated in the deposition of prosecution witnesses no. 2, 3 and 13. None of the witnesses has seen the assault but all of them saw the accused to come out from the office room with a blood stained knife, following an alarm raised by he injured. The accused was chased but the could not be apprehended. P.W. 2's statement in this regard was corroborated by P.Ws. 3 and 13. The first information report was lodged about one hour after the incident where the prosecution case was narrated in material particulars. The blood stained brick-bat was seized from the verandah where the injured fell down after coming out of the office room. The blood stained Baniyan, which was on the person of the injured with cut marks, was seized. The injured expired at 11.25 P.M. on the same day. The post mortem examination discloses that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage of the injury caused at the left side of the chest. So we find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Rana Pratap Singh stabbed Ram Chandra Prasad, Principal, Reoti Inter College on 16.4.1977 at 1.30 P.M. with an intention to cause his death and Ram Chandra Prasad died on the same day due to the injuries inflicted on him. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge is proper and there is nothing to interfere. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence dated 19.2.1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge is confirmed. The bail bond of the accused is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court within a month from this date. Appeal Dismissed.;