JUDGMENT Nesargi, J.- The appellant has challenged the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1978, convicting him for having committed the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant (to be hereinafter referred to as the accused) was the owner of the premises wherein Halamma the deceased was residing in Nittuvalli which is almost a suburb of Davangere City near P.J. Extension wherein Chigateri General Hospital called as C.J. Hospital is situated. The rent of the premises was Rs.10 per month. She was to pay arrears of rent for one year to the accused. There had been quarrels between them in regard to the same. The accused wanted to increase the rent, but that was being resisted by the deceased. P.W. 12 Basamma is the mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, she was residing with the deceased and her children. P.W. 13 Malleshi is the brother of the deceased. It is the prosecution case itself that P.W. 13 was residing elsewhere but near about the same locality. At about 7-45 p.m. on 10th March, 1978 Halamma was somewhere in front of her house and P.W. 12 had just then gone to a neighbouring shop situated about 10 to 12 houses away, to purchase arecanuts. The accused went there and stabbed Halamma on her cheek, chest, stomach and other parts of the body by means of knife M.O. 1. She fell down having sustained bleeding injuries. P.W. 12 heard the bawling and ran there. Halamma told her that Thippeshi had stabbed her. Thippeshi is the accused. P.W. 13 also went there on learning about the stabbing on Halamma and she told him also that the accused had stabbed her. P.W. 14 Rajashekharappa also went there. P.Ws. 13 and 14 removed Halamma to the C.J. Hospital reaching there by 9-45 p.m. P.W. 2 Dr. R. Nanjundappa was the casualty duty doctor and he examined Halamma. While he examined Halamma he asked her about the history of the incident and Halamma told him that this accused (naming him fully) had stabbed her and caused the injuries. He examined the injuries and noted the history of the assault and the injuries in the accident register Ex.P-4 at Exhibit P-4(a). While he examined Halamma he asked her about the history of the incident and Halamma told him that this accused (naming him fully) had stabbed her and caused the injuries. He examined the injuries and noted the history of the assault and the injuries in the accident register Ex.P-4 at Exhibit P-4(a). He treated the injuries and then went out and found that P.W. 19 B.T. Mandappa, Sub-Inspector of Police of the Davangere rural police station, was present there. In regard to how P.W. 19 happened to go there, it is the say of the prosecution that one Basavarajappa had gone to the said police station and given information as per Exhibit P-19, giving almost an eye-witness account of the incident, and on that basis P.W. 19 had registered Crime No. 29 of 1978 and issued F. I. R. as per Exhibit P-20 for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. This Basavarajappa, according to the learned Government Pleader Sri. A.S. Patil, is P.W. 7. But P.W. 7 has not stated anything about Exhibit P-19 or he having gone to the police station and lodged information. It is doubtful whether the complainant in Exhibit P-19 is P.W. 7 or not. Then P. W. 19 who was accompanied by P.W. 8 Uttamarama Shetty, head constable No. 86, entered the minor O.T. P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and others were outside the minor O.T.P.W. 19 gave a requisition to P.W. 2 to inform him whether Halamma was in a fit condition to make a statement. P.W. 2 opined in writing that she was in a fit condition to make a statement. P.W. 19 asked Halamma how she had sustained the injuries and she told him as per Exhibit P-6. P.W. 2 endorsed on it to the effect that the same was recorded by about 10-20 p.m. on that day and that Halamma was in a fit condition to make that statement. P.W. 19 recorded the statement of P.W. 12 under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, proceeded to the spot, returned to the police station, and proceeded with the investigation. On 11th March, 1978, also P.W. 19 went to the village Nittuvalli, exemined P.W. 16 Bhagyamma, and by 10-15 a.m. P.W. 18 Chandre Gowda, Sub-Inspector of Police, took over investigation from him. On 11th March, 1978, also P.W. 19 went to the village Nittuvalli, exemined P.W. 16 Bhagyamma, and by 10-15 a.m. P.W. 18 Chandre Gowda, Sub-Inspector of Police, took over investigation from him. He held inquest over the dead body of Halamma because Halamma had died at about 9-40 a.m. on 11th March, 1978 and the same was intimated by P.W. 3 Dr. D. Rajasekharappa as per Exhibit P-21 and the section in the F.I.R. had been changed to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and a fresh F.I.R. as per Exhibit P-22 had been issued. During the inquest, he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 12,13 and 14. He visited the village and secured some persons and recorded their statements. He examined P.W. 15 Hanumanthappa and others. He found the accused absconding. He detailed his staff to trace the accused. It is nextly the prosecution case that the accused had left Davangere the same night or so and reached Bangalore and had gone to the Praavani newspaper office by 12-45 p.m. on 18th March, 1978. When P.W. 20 D.P. Parameshwara, an accredited newspaper reporter belonging to the establishment of Prajavani newspaper, entered his office, the receptionist told him that someone had gone there to tell the fact of a murder. The accused went to him on being sent for. It took about more than two hours for P.W. 20 to collect what the accused wanted to impart to P.W. 20. On the information being collected by P.W. 20, he noted down the points which he thought were required for reporting in the news-item. He not only gave coffee to the accused but also provided meals for him at 2.30 p.m. The accused produced inland letters Exhibits P-2 and P-3 which were looked into by P.W. 20 and the contents noted down by him. Then he informed the Editor about the matter and the Editor told him to contact the Commissioner of Police P.W. 17. He contacted P.W. 17 and P.W. 17 sent P.W. 1 H. K. Veeranna, Circle Inspector of Police. The accused gave Exhibit P-18 also to P.W. 20 and P.W. 20 looked into it and returned it to the accused. The accused then gave another letter Exhibit P-23 to P.W. 20 and he looked into it. P.W. 1 took away the accused and produced him before P.W. 17. The accused gave Exhibit P-18 also to P.W. 20 and P.W. 20 looked into it and returned it to the accused. The accused then gave another letter Exhibit P-23 to P.W. 20 and he looked into it. P.W. 1 took away the accused and produced him before P.W. 17. The accused gave information as found in Exhibit P-1 before P.W. 17, P.W. 17 directed P.W. 1 to contact the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga, and arrange to produce the accused in some police station there so that he could be produced in the rural police station at Davangere. That was accordingly done by P.W. 1. Nothing much turns on anything that has transpired later on. News-item in Prajavani was published on 19th March, 1978 at Exhibit P-24 (a) Exhibit P-24. P.W. 2’ G. Basavaraj, Circle Inspector of Police, had taken over investigation from P.W. 18 on 14th March, 1978, itself. He completed the investigation and placed charge-sheet against the accused. 3. Total denial is the main defence of the accused. He has also stated in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had not absconded from Davangere, that he had been taken to the police station in the morning on 11th March, 1978, itself, and that the evidence in regard to his visit to Bangalore, Tumkur etc. put forth by the prosecution is false and concocted. 4. The prosecution examined P.W. 16 Bhagyamma only as an eve-witness to the assault on Halamma by the accused. She has not supported the prosecution and has been cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The cross-examination has produced only contradictory statements available in her statement recorded during the investigation. The Sessions Judge has not relied on her evidence. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 in regard to the oral dying declarations said to have been made by Halamma to them while she. was lying injured on the spot, and the evidence of P.Ws. 2. 8 and 19 in regard to the written dying declaration said to have been made by Halamma to P.W. 19 and written by P.W. 8 in the presence of P.W. 2 in the G.J. Hospital at Davangere at about 10. p.m. or 10.20 p.m. on 10th March, 1978. was lying injured on the spot, and the evidence of P.Ws. 2. 8 and 19 in regard to the written dying declaration said to have been made by Halamma to P.W. 19 and written by P.W. 8 in the presence of P.W. 2 in the G.J. Hospital at Davangere at about 10. p.m. or 10.20 p.m. on 10th March, 1978. It has also relied on the evidence of P.W. 20 to establish that the accused had gone to the Prajavani newspaper office on 18th March, 1978 and has produced Exhibits P-18, P-23, P-2 and P-3 before him. It has examined P.Ws. 1 and 17 to establish the fact that P.W. 1 had, as directed by P.W. 17, taken the accused from Prajavani newspaper office to the office of P.W. 17 where Exhibit P-1 was recorded on the information furnished by the accused. The Sessions Judge has not at all relied on any portion of this evidence. It may be stated here that Exhibits P-2 and P-3 are the two inland letters addressed to one B. Shankar working in New Shanthi lodging and boarding, Regulated Market, II Main Road, Tumkur. In this connection the prosecution has examined P.W. 21 T.H. Mahadevappa, the proprietor of the said hotel, to establish that the accused had got himself employed in that establishment as a server and had worked for five days. The Sessions Judge has rejected Exhibit P-1 mainly on the ground that it is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. 5. So far as Exhibit P-1 is concerned, it is clear that the same has been made to the Commissioner of Police P.W. 17 by the accused, who was already an accused in Crime No. 29 of 1978 and the investigation in that crime was going on, and that the information pertains to the incident involved in the said crime. Hence the contents of Exhibit P-1 fall clearly within the ambit of section 25 of the Evidence Act as the narration in Exhibit P-1 amounts to confession by the accused to the police officer viz., the Commissioner of Police P.W. 17 and that too in the presence of P.W. 1 Circle Inspector of Police. We have no hesitation in agreeing with this view expressed by the Sessions Judge. 6. We have no hesitation in agreeing with this view expressed by the Sessions Judge. 6. The Government Pleader argued that the Sessions Judge was not right in not acting on Exhibits P-18 and P-23, which are under the signatures of the accused and which have been spoken to by P.W. 20 an independent person working as a reporter in Prajavani newspaper office. He further argued that Exhibits P-18 and P-23 make out clearly that the accused was responsible for assaulting Halamma with Knife M.O. 1, and amount to extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 20. We have scrutinised the evidence of P.W. 20 carefully. P.W. 20 has nowhere stated that the accused had told him that he had written Exhibits P-18 and P-23 or he had signed Exhibits P-18 and P-23. In the result, there is no positive evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish that the signatures below Exhibits P-18 and P-23 are that of the accused. Sri A.B. Patil urged that the Court can, in view of section 7 of the Evidence Act, compare the signatures below Exhibits P-18 and P-23 with the undeniable signatures of the accused made by him in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge, and conclude that the signatures appearing in Exhibits P-18 and P-23 are that of the accused and hold that the narration in Exhibits P-18 and P-23 amounts to extra-judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 20. Section 73 of the Evidence Act no doubt permits such a course being followed by the Court. But the question is what ought to be the evidentiary value attached to such an opinion formed by a Court in exercise of its power under section 73 of the Evidence Act, even if the opinion is in favour of holding that the signatures are by one and the same person. But the question is what ought to be the evidentiary value attached to such an opinion formed by a Court in exercise of its power under section 73 of the Evidence Act, even if the opinion is in favour of holding that the signatures are by one and the same person. In the decision in Kessar Bai v. Jelhabhai Jivan1it is laid down as follows: “It is unsatisfactory and dangerous to stake a decision, in a case where there is direct conflict of testimony between parties as to general character of a signature, on the correct determination of the genuineness of the signature by mere comparison with the admitted signatures, especially without the aid in evidence of microscopic enlargements or any expert advice.” We have already pointed out that there is absence of positive evidence, either for or against, on this aspect of the case. It is for the first time that an opinion has to be formed by the Court by virtue of section 73 of the Evidence Act, that the signatures on Exhibits P-18 and P-23 are that of the accused on comparing the same with the signatures of the accused found in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the decision in Kishore Chandra v. Ganesh Prasad1it is laid down that conclusions based on mere comparison of handwriting must, at best, be indecisive and yield to positive evidence. This Court has, in the decision in Nagappa Chendappa Kolli v. Nannibu2held as follows: “Courts have power to compare the disputed signature with the admittedly genuine signature to come to a conclusion from it. But a comparison of signatures by Courts as a mode of ascertaining the truth, should be used with great care and caution.” The decisions in Madhanayya v. Achamma3 and in Manindra v. Mahaluxmi Bank4, and also of other High Courts, have been cited with approval. In view of this position in law, we are clearly of opinion that even if we compare the signatures on Exhibits P-18 and P-23 with the signatures of the accused found in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the opinion that we form would remain an indecisive one and there is no other material to inspire confidence in our mind that the opinion that we form is the correct opinion. It cannot be forgotten that the consequences of forming the opinion and acting on it, go a very long way in establishing the charge against the accused-the charge is for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, the contention of A.B. Patil, fails. 7. Sri A.B. Patil argued that P.W. 21 has sworn that the accused had worked in his lodging establishment for five days under the name of B. Shankar and the address on Exhibits P-2 and P-3 found in the possession of the accused, is the same and as such Exhibits P-2 and P-3 constitute evidence against the accused in this case. We find no reasons to disbelieve P.W. 21. Similarly there are no reasons to disbelieve P.W. 20 in regard to the accused having appeared in the Prajavani newspaper office on 18th March, 1978. These facts establish that the version of the prosecution that the accused had absconded from Davangere from the night of 10th March, 1978, and was available only when P.W. 1, produced him in the police station in Chitradurga, is sound. But, perusal of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 does not make out anything amounting to confession on some such thing made by the accused to any one in particular. It is made to appear in them that they are written by the brother of B. Shankar viz., the accused. That brother has not been examined. Therefore, authorship of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 is not established in the case. Hence, we hold that no evidentiary value can be attached to Exhibits P-2 and P-3. This is the very conclusion that is reached by the Sessions Judge and we approve the same. 8. In view of the foregoing, what remains in favour of the prosecution is the evidence of P.Ws. 12, 13, 2, 8 and 19 and the circumstances that the accused had absconded. 9. Reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 to establish that Halamma was lying injured on the road in front of her house and she made oral dying declarations to P.W. 12 and 13 in no time after the commission of the offence. P.W. 19 has sworn that he recorded the statement of P.W. 12 in the hospital in the night of 10th March, 1978. 12 and 13 to establish that Halamma was lying injured on the road in front of her house and she made oral dying declarations to P.W. 12 and 13 in no time after the commission of the offence. P.W. 19 has sworn that he recorded the statement of P.W. 12 in the hospital in the night of 10th March, 1978. It is the claim of P.W. 12 that she had told P.W. 19 at that time that Halamma had told her while she was lying injured on the road that this accused had stabbed her. P.W. 19 has stated in his cross-examination that P.W. 12 had not made such a statement before him. We have already narrated that the statement of P.W. 13 was recorded by P.W. 18 after 10-15 A.m. on 11th March, 1978, when he held inquest proceedings over the dead body of Halamma in the Hospital. He has in his cross-examination stated that P.W. 13 had not stated before him at that time that Halamma had made any such oral dying declaration before him (P.W. 13). If in fact Halamma had made such dying declarations to P.Ws. 12 and 13 at chat point of time, P.Ws. 12 and 13 would not have failed to narrate the same to P.Ws. 19 and 18 respectively when their statements were recorded by them, in the night of 10th March, 1978 and in the morning of 11th March, 1978 respectively. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 in this behalf, is very suspicious and it is not safe to rely upon the same. 10. The Sessions Judge has placed absolute reliance on what is contained in Exhibit P-6 particularly in view of the evidence of P.W. 2, who is an independent respectable Government Officer working as an Assistant Surgeon in the C.J. Hospital, Davangere. B.V. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, argued and the same appears to be the argument advanced before the Sessions Judge, that P.Ws. 12 and 13 have stated that Halamma was not in a position to speak at that time but she was only able to say in a very low tone ‘Thippeshi, Thippeshi’ while the narration in Exhibit P-6 contains much more than the words ‘Thippeshi, Thippeshi’. 12 and 13 have stated that Halamma was not in a position to speak at that time but she was only able to say in a very low tone ‘Thippeshi, Thippeshi’ while the narration in Exhibit P-6 contains much more than the words ‘Thippeshi, Thippeshi’. He strengthened this argument by pointing out that the word (Kannada matter omitted) in Exhibit P-6 is in different ink and that P.W. 12 Basamma is made to appear as an eye-witness to the incident while according to P.W. 12 she had not witnessed the incident as she had gone to purchase arecanuts from a nearby shop. He argued that even if it is for the sake of arguments assumed that Exhibit P-6 contains the narration as given by Halamma, Halamma is guilty of putting forth a lie in making P.W. 12 an eye-witness while in fact P.W. 12 is not an eye-witness even according to the prosecution and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed by the Sessions Judge on the narration contained in Exhibit P-6 despite the evidence of P.W. 2. A.B. Patil argued that the evidence of P.W. 2 to the effect that he was present when Halamma narrated as per ‘the contents of Exhibit P-6 and Halamma was in a position to narrate that statement, cannot at all be challenged despite the fact that P.Ws. 12 and 13 have stated that Halamma could speak only in low tone. There is much force in this contention. The evidence of P.W. 2 is supported by his certificate or endorsement made on Exhibit P-6 at Exhibit P-6 (a) at 10-20 p.m. on 10th March, 1978, immediately when Exhibit P-6 was written by P.W. 8 head constable when the same was made by Halamma to P.W. 19. But, that establishes that Halamma had narrated as per Exhibit P-6. It does not take us even a step further in showing that the narration depicts the truth in regard to the incident. But, that establishes that Halamma had narrated as per Exhibit P-6. It does not take us even a step further in showing that the narration depicts the truth in regard to the incident. A.B. Patil pointed out from the evidence of P.W. 2 that even prior to the recording of Exhibit P-6, Halamma had given the history of assault to P.W. 2 before P.W. 2 commenced his treatment and that too before P.W. 2 contacted P.W. 19, and that narration has been recorded by P.W. 2 in the accident register Exhibit P-4 at Exhibit P-4 ( a), and that amounts to a dying declaration made by Halamma to P.W. 2. He argued that the entry at Exhibit P-4 ( a) in this behalf, is entitled to full evidentiary value against the accused. Here again we find that the evidence of P.W. 2 in this behalf establishes that Halamma had made a statement in regard to the history of the assault, as noted by P.W. 2 in Exhibit P-4 ( a). It does not take us even a little further in showing that what she had narrated at that time is the truth in regard to the incident. Nor it is to be seen whether what was narrated by Halamma either to P.W. 2 before he treated her or to P.W. 19 in the presence of P.W. 2 as per the narration contained in Exhibit P-6 written by P.W. 8, is in fact the truth about the incident. It becomes all the more necessary to come to a definite conclusion on this aspect as the said narration would form the sole basis for the conviction, and in fact that has been used as such by the Sessions Judge. The leading case on this point is Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay.1 The Supreme Court had laid down that a dying declaration can in law be made the sole basis of conviction provided it passes certain tests so as to make the Courts confidently conclude that that is the true version of the incident. The tests are not exhaustive. The leading case on this point is Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay.1 The Supreme Court had laid down that a dying declaration can in law be made the sole basis of conviction provided it passes certain tests so as to make the Courts confidently conclude that that is the true version of the incident. The tests are not exhaustive. What is laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows: “The Court has to keep in view, circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control, that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.” 11. It is the prosecution case itself that there used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased in regard to arrears of rent and quantum of rent being raised. P.W. 12 is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 13 is the brother of the deceased. That shows that they are interested parties. They are not only interested in the deceased but also have some sort of ill will against the accused. The attempt of the prosecution to establish that Halamma the deceased had made oral dying declarations to P.Ws. 12 and 13 almost immediately after the assault on her, had failed miserably. But the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13, and that of P.W. 14 also shows that if Halamma had the capacity to make a dying declaration, she had opportunity to make one or many before P.W. 12, before P.W. 13, before P.W. 14 and others till she was reached to the hospital at 9-45 p.m. i.e. about two hours or more after the assault on her. But there is no evidence to show that she had made such dying declarations while on the other hand the attempt of the prosecution to prove such a fact through the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 has failed miserably. Then the question is why did not Halamma make any dying declaration to any of these persons though she had all the opportunity to do so. 12 and 13 has failed miserably. Then the question is why did not Halamma make any dying declaration to any of these persons though she had all the opportunity to do so. The only inference possible is that she was not aware of or she was not able to identify the assailant. There is no evidence showing that there was any such light in that area so as to enable Halamma identify her assailant. Sri A.B. Patil pointed out from the panchanama Ex. P-10 viz., the mahazar of the spot, that an electric pole fitted with a bulb which was shedding light, was there about 41 feet away from the spot where the earth on the road was stained with blood. But what is contained in the panchanama is not substantive evidence, and the panch P.W. 7 Basavarajappa has not sworn to such a fact. Even P.W. 19, who is said to have got that panchanama recorded, has not sworn to such a fact. The time of assault was 7.45 p.m. It must have been necessarily dark. Judicial notice of that fact can be taken as per the requirerements of law. When there is no evidence to show that there was sufficient light for Halamma to identify her assailant, it is difficult to hold that Halamma had an opportunity to observe who had assaulted her and make out his identity. In fact that must be the reasons why Halamma had not at all involved the accused in the assault on her when P.Ws. 12, 13 and 14 went to her immediately after the incident and P.W. 13 conveyed her to C.J. Hospital. If P.W. 13 had such material in his possession during the night between 10th March, 1978, and 11th March, 1978, his statement would have been recorded by P.W. 19 who has claimed that he did record the statement of P.W. 12 in the hospital during that night. But, on the other hand, we find that P.W. 13 has come out with his version during the inquest proceedings conducted over the dead body of Halamma after 10-15 a.m. on 11th March, 1978. This is another suspicious circumstance going against the prosecution. It is hence clear that for about two hours prior to P.W. 2 examining Halamma, Halamma was surrounded by interested parties having P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and others. This is another suspicious circumstance going against the prosecution. It is hence clear that for about two hours prior to P.W. 2 examining Halamma, Halamma was surrounded by interested parties having P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and others. Therefore the possibility of the interested parties having tutored Halamma and, hence, Halamma having spontaneously come forward with the version as sworn to by P.W. 2 and then as sworn to by P.Ws. 2, 8 and 19 (vide Exhibit P-6) cannot be surprise. This aspect has been totally overlooked by the Sessions Judge. Therefore, even if the evidence of P.W. 2 is accepted in regard to Exhibit P-4 ( a) and the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 8 and 19 is accepted in regard to Exhibit P-6, it does not advance the case of the prosecution any further in showing that what is narrated therein depicts the truth about the incident. P.W.8 has admitted in his cross-examination that the word (Kannada matter omitted) appearing in Exhibit P-6 is in different ink. But he has explained that he had written it when he wrote Exhibit P-6 itself. That is no explanation in our opinion because it does not explain why it is in different ink. Hence, the inference that it might have been added later on, though it does not make the narration in Exhibit P-6, any more stronger against the accused, does follow. P.W. 12 Basamma is made to appear as an eye-witness as per the narration of Halamma in Exhibit P-6. That is neither the claim of P.W. 12 nor of the prosecution. Sri A.B.Patil argued that perhaps Halamma was under the impression that P.W. 12 Basamma was still in front of her house while Basamma had in fact gone to purchase arecanuts and, hence, she had narrated in Exhibit P-6, that Basamma had witnessed the incident. Perusal of Exhibit P-9 the inquest proceedings wherein the statements of P.Ws. 12 and 13 have been recorded by P.W. 18, shows that this argument is fallacious. We do not wish to advert in detail to what is contained in the statement of P.W. 12 as it appears in column No. 10 of Exhibit P-9 because that column, strictly, speaking, is not legally admissible in evidence, and the omission has not been put to P.W. 12 in her cross-examination and got proved in the evidence of P.W. 18. But, as we thought it necessary to look into it in order to test the argument advanced by Sri A.B Patil, we have looked into it and, therefore, have made our observations as above. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, we disagree with the Sessions Judge that what is sworn to P.W. 2 in regard to the dying declaration entered by him at Exhibit P-4 ( a) and what is contained in Exhibit P-6 is sufficient to base a conviction under the facts and circumstances, as there is no material to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court in believing that the narration in Exhibit P-4 ( a) and in Exhibit P-6 represents the truth in regard to the incident. Hence this appeal deserves to succeed. It is well settled by now that only the circumstance of abscondance by an accused, by itself, does not lead to an inference that the accused is guilty. 13. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant-accused Bandola Thippeswamy alias Thippeshi, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1978, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, and acquit him. We direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed.