that there is discrepancy in relation to injuries mentioned by the deceased in Exh. 24 and the direct evidence and also the medical evidence. But, that discrepancy cannot be called as fatal. The approach of the police officer which is already mentioned and the opportunity which the four eye witnesses could have to witness particular blow given by each accused is also mentioned. Further, a person, who sustained injuries and who is disclosing the incident to give the names of assailants, will not spare the person who had assaulted him. For the purpose of section 32 of Evidence Act, it is sufficient that in the disclosure, names of persons who inflicted the injuries are mentioned and it is not necessary that the role played by each accused need to be mentioned. In ordinary course, conviction can be based only on the basis of dying declaration and in the present matter, in addition to the evidence of dying declaration, there is direct evidence and evidence of other circumstances already quoted. In the present matter, due importance need to be given to all the circumstances and if the pieces of evidence are considered together, the evidence is more that sufficient to prove that the accused assaulted the deceased and there was common intention of the accused to make such assault. The evidence is also sufficient to prove that they used weapons like sickle, axe and stick.
