Short Note : 1. On 11-12-1975 at about 11:00 a.m. in the morning when Ram Swaroop (PW 1) husband of Sheela was on his Pan-bidi stall near Dinara bus stand, Ramesh Kumar alias Gullu (PW 10) informed Ram Swaroop to the affect that the accused has set fire to Sheela. Therefore, he immediately left for his home. 2. Thereupon Ram Swaroop rushed to his home and found that Sheela was lying burnt and was crying badly. At that time, Hiralal Soni (PW 2), his wife Kishoribai (PW 5), Kanhaiyalal (PW 3), Bhajanlal (PW 9) Ramesh Kumar alias Gullu (PW 10). Shivlal Khatik and other persons of the village had gathered in the courtyard of his house. At that time Sheela told the complainant Ram Swaroop that Dayaram had set fire to her. Thereafter Ram Swaroop went to the police station Dinara and lodged F.I.R. (Ex. P.3) at 11-10 a.m. on 11-12-1975. When Ram Swaroop had left for police station the neigbhours put Sheela on four-wheeled Thela and took her to the police station in the burnt condition. Seventy per cent of her skin had been burnt. Wherefrom Sheela was sent to Hospital where her dying declaration was recorded. She ultimately died. 3. The Sessions Judge, Shivpuri charged the accused for having committed murder of Sheela wife of Ram Swaroop on 11-12-1975 in the village Dinara by intentionally causing her death by setting fire to her body and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. 4. After trial the accused has been convicted for having committed offence under section 302 and has been sentenced for life imprisonment. Held: Oral dying declarations are, no doubt, relevant under section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. But oral dying declarations cease to have that sanctity which is attached to them by law if the exact words said to have been uttered are not proved by reliable evidence as held in AIR 1953 SC 420 (Ram Nath Madhoprasad and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh). 5. According to the statements of the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, the exact words uttered by Sheela are not proved. Therefore, we are not certain about the exact words uttered by her. 6. 5. According to the statements of the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, the exact words uttered by Sheela are not proved. Therefore, we are not certain about the exact words uttered by her. 6. The present case falls within that type of cases where the Court would not normally act upon a part of dying declaration, the other part of which has not been found to be true unless the part relied upon is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence on record. In the present case instead of being corroborated the dying declaration Ex. P.15 is contradicted on all material points by the prosecution witnesses as stated by us earlier. 7. It is, no doubt, true that if a dying declaration is found to be truthful, it can be the sole basis of conviction. But in the present case neither the oral dying declarations nor the dying declaration reduced into writing are worthy of any reliance. Consequently the learned Sessions Judge erred in basing the conviction on them. 8. The prosecution case suffers from an infirmity on account of non-examination of Kiran who could be the sole eye-witness to the actual scene of setting fire to Sheela by the accused. The nature of the testimony which she could have afforded is clear from the facts mentioned at serial No.5 of the spot map Ex. P-12. Therefore, Kiran was a material witness to unfold the prosecution story. Non-examination of Kiran by the prosecution gives rise to adverse presumption against veracity of the prosecution case. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the learned Sessions Judge. AIR 1953 SC 420 and AIR 1974 SC 2188 relied on. Appeal allowed.