Short Note : 1. The facts of the case, in short, are that Jhuru (since dead) had illicit relations with the first wife of the accused respondent Prahlad with the result that Prahlad had to abandon her. Even with the respondent Prahlad's second wife, the deceased used to cut jokes. The accused-respondent Ramsingh is the brother-in-law of the accused respondent Prahlad and the accused respondents Dulari and Juthal are his cousins. It was in this background that in the evening on September 8, 1971 in furtherance of a common plan of all the accused-respondents, the respondent Dulari persuaded the deceased Jhuru to accompany him to the publican Jatashanker (P. W. 3) where the two drank liquor. Thereafter, the two went to the resturant of Keshavprasad (PW 10) where they took Bhajjias. Thereafter, at about 8 p. m., instead of going towards the inhabited part of the village Kui, the respondent Dulari instigated, the deceased to accompany him to a lonely place where underneath a Pipal tree the three co-respondents had lain in wait for the deceased Jhuru. No sooner had Jhuru arrived there than the four respondents started brutally assaulting him with lathis. Leaving the seriously injured Jhuru behind, the four respondents took to meals. Jhuru staggering managed to walk upto Ramadhin Kotwar PW 8's house and call for him. Ramadhin Kotwar (PW 8) in turn cried out attracting to the scene Kewalsingh (PW 9), Kaweribai (PW 15) the wife of the deceased and Shyambai (PW 12) the daughter of the deceased. Kewalsingh (PW 9) took the deceased on his back to his house (Jhuru's house). Jhuru's clothes which were soled with mud were removed from his body. To the persons assembled Jhuru related that it was the respondents who had beaten him with lathis. 2. The constable Rangdutt (PW 27), though was available in the village and the matter was reported to him, he because of his illness, did not take any action. Jhuru's brother Ramlal (PW I), therefore, was summoned from village Mahidabra who in the morning on September 9, 1971 on a cot started taking Jhuru to Pandaria but Jhuru in the way at Ramankapa breathed his last. Ran1lal (PW 1) lodged the first information report. 3. Held: The case for the prosecution mainly depends upon the oral statement of Jhuru as to the cause of his death, loosely called as "dying declaration". Ran1lal (PW 1) lodged the first information report. 3. Held: The case for the prosecution mainly depends upon the oral statement of Jhuru as to the cause of his death, loosely called as "dying declaration". Such a statement, provided it be made by a person either immediately before or during the course of it, or immediately after the transaction in question, apart from being admissible under section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act as a statement as to the cause of death or any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, is admissible also under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Two questions however, arise; (i) whether the alleged statement was made by the deceased and (ii) if made were its contents true. After all the sort of statement receivable in evidence under section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule which means a statement made by a person not called as a witness and thereby affording no opportunity to the person complained against of cross-examining the maker of the statement. Naturally, therefore, strict proof both of the statement having been made and truth of the contents of it is needed. 4. From the evidence of Jatashankar (PW 3), the publican, it is clear that on the fateful evening both Jhuru (the deceased) and the respondent Dulari had drunk liquor at his public house. This fact is corroborated by Keshav Prasad (PW 10) at whose shop immediately thereafter they had Bhajjias. From the evidence of Bisahu (PW 13) and Mahida (PW 22) it appears that not much after Jhuru, having been in a drunken state, had been assaulted by persons whom they had been unable to identify. Then follows the evidence of Ramadhin (PW 8), Kewalsingh (PW 9), Shyambai (PW 12), Bisahu (PW 13), Kuwariabai (PW 14) and Kabari (PW IS). Of them Kabari PW 15's evidence is to the effect that Jhuru was hardly conscious. According to Kabari (PW IS) the condition of Jhuru was so bad that he could not even take medicine and he was hardly conscious, According to Kabari (PW IS) Jhuru was not in a position to even open his mouth because he would frequently become unconscious. Jhuru could not take even rice water when given to him. According to Kabari (PW IS) the condition of Jhuru was so bad that he could not even take medicine and he was hardly conscious, According to Kabari (PW IS) Jhuru was not in a position to even open his mouth because he would frequently become unconscious. Jhuru could not take even rice water when given to him. If it was so, Jhuru was apparently not in a fit condition to have made any statement regarding his death and less so that whatever he had stated was true. 5. It is no doubt true that legally speaking a conviction could be based only on a dying declaration provided always that it be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a statement about the cause of death of the person making the statement was in fact made and secondly, but more importantly, that whatever was stated was true. In this case, considering that Jhuru, the maker of the statement was certainly drunken and that looking to the gravity of his injuries he could never have been fully conscious, it is doubtful as found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he had made the statement. The question of whatever he had stated was true in the face of conflicting evidence of the concerned witnesses becomes even more doubtful. There is no corroborative evidence connecting either of the accused persons with the deceased with the exception of the respondent Dulari who was merely seen with the deceased upto the restaurant of Keshav Prasad (PW 10) according to whom the two (the decased and Dulari) had gone towards 'Baser which is not in the direction of the Pipal tree where the alleged incident had taken place. In the foregoing circumstances, it being doubtful that Jhuru had made any dying declaration, it being more doubtful that whatever he had stated was true and there being no corroborative evidence to connect either of the respondents with the death of Jhuru, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right and well justified in acquitting the respondents. Appeal dismissed.