BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant stood charged under section 302 of the India Penal Code with having committed the murder of Tikunu Bebera (to be described hereinafter as deceased) on January 14, 1980, at village Batisuan in the district of Dhenkanal. The case of the prosecution was that owing to previous enmity between the appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other-of which there was no cogent proof the appellant attacked the deceased by means of an axe (M. O. I) and caused a number of external injuries on his person which resulted in his death owing to the consequent internal injuries. It has not been disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicidal death. The order of conviction has been. based mainly on a dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased naming the appellant as his killer before P. Ws. 2 to 4, an extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before P. W. 1 while he was on his way to the police station to make a report regarding this incident and the statement of the appellant which had led to the discovery of M. O. I. ( 2 ) WE may point out at the outset that there was no evidence that M. O. I was the weapon of attack. There was no evidence either that it belonged to the appellant. It had been recovered from an open space. Regard being had to these features in the evidence, the learned Standing Counsel has not seriously pressed into service the evidence with regard to recovery of M. O. I. There thus remain for consideration the evidence of P. W. 1 with regard to an extrajudicial confession made by the appellant, as testified by him and the dying declaration of the deceased, as deposed to by P. Ws. 2 to 4. Mr. Biswal has contended that the charge had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. ( 3 ) AS regards the extrajudicial confession, it may be kept in mind that P. W. 1 was a close relation of the deceased. Evidence with regard to an extrajudicial confession needs, careful scrutiny. 2 to 4. Mr. Biswal has contended that the charge had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. ( 3 ) AS regards the extrajudicial confession, it may be kept in mind that P. W. 1 was a close relation of the deceased. Evidence with regard to an extrajudicial confession needs, careful scrutiny. There must be reproduction of exact words and there should be evidence to show as to the reason or motive for an accused to make an extrajudicial confession and as to why he would select the person in whom confidence is reposed. Heramba Prahma and another v. State of Assam1. It was highly unlikely that while P. W. 1, a close relation of the deceased, was going to the police station to lodge a report, the appellant would blurt out an extrajudicial confession. There was no evidence of any, other witness in support of this theory. In our view, it would not be safe and proper to unreservedly accept the evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard and hold that the appellant did make an extrajudicial confession before P. W. 1. ( 4 ) WE would next come to the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 regarding the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased. We are called upon to deal in this case with an oral dying declaration. The evidence must be scrutinised with great care before its acceptance. As observed by the Supreme Court in K. Ramachandra Reddy and another v. The Public Prosecutor2t, the evidence with regard to a dying declaration requires the strictest scrutiny and closest circumspection. J ridged in the light of these principles, we find, for the reasons to follow, that the evidence was far Short of the mark and could not safely be relied on. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of these three witnesses and has pointed out the discrepancies in their evidence besides the improbabilities with regard to this evidence relating to the dying declaration of the deceased. The Medical Officer (P. W. 12) who had conducted the autopsy had found as many as ten external injuries on the person of the deceased including some on vital parts. The spinal cord was found cut into two halves. There had been injuries on the neck of the deceased. The Medical Officer (P. W. 12) who had conducted the autopsy had found as many as ten external injuries on the person of the deceased including some on vital parts. The spinal cord was found cut into two halves. There had been injuries on the neck of the deceased. The prosecution had not brought out in the evidence of this doctor that with all the injuries on his person including the injury on the neck and when the spinal cord had been found cut into two halves, the deceased would be able to speak so clearly naming the appellant as the author of the crime before, so many persons and at different stages and that he could even be in a position to raise a hulla, as deposed to by one of the witnesses (P W. 4 ). Regard being had to the nature and number of injuries by a sharp cutting instrument, there must have been profuse loss of blood and haemorrhage and the deceased would not have been in a position to speak out before so many persons that the appellant had assaulted him. No doubt,. there was the evidence of the mother of the appellant (P. W. 6) that the deceased had asked her to give some water and the doctor in his cross-examination did not completely rule out that the deceased would be able to talk immediately after the occurrence, but as the prosecution evidence would show, P. W. 6 had gone to the Spot first in point of time. It could be that at that the deceased had been able to ask for some water. But P. Ws. 2 to 4 had gone subsequently after a hulla had on raised and the deceased, in our view, would not have been in a position to talk coherently and make clear statements before P. Ws. 2 to 4 and that, too, repeatedly. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 2, he and P. Ws. 3 and 4 had gone together to the spot and then the deceased made the dying declaration implicating die appellant as his assailant. P. W. 4 had spoken about the dying declaration when he was examined in-chief. 2 to 4 and that, too, repeatedly. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 2, he and P. Ws. 3 and 4 had gone together to the spot and then the deceased made the dying declaration implicating die appellant as his assailant. P. W. 4 had spoken about the dying declaration when he was examined in-chief. He bad, however, stated in his cross- examination that he did not hear from the mouth of the deceased that he had been assaulted by the appellant and had heard it from P. W. 2 in the presence of P. W. 3. This was not the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 5. If these three persons had gone together and P. W. 4 had not heard from the mouth of the deceased that the appellant was the assailant, P. Ws. 2 and 3 could not have heard any such statement. There was no evidence that after hearing the statement of the deceased, any of these witnesses had informed the villagers about such statement having been made by the deceased. ( 7 ) THERE was yet another suspicious feature of which no due notice had been taken by the trial Court. As has been submitted at the Bar, the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 4 were co-villagers. P. W. 1 had gone to lodge the First Information Report at the police station sometime after the occurrence. It would be seen from the evidence that the villagers had gathered on the spot before P. W. 1 went to lodge the First Information Report. In the normal course of human conduct and action, if P. Ws. 2 to 4 had heard from the deceased that the appellant had assaulted him, they would have informed P. W. 1 who proceeded to the police station to make a report. P. W. 1 did not say that he had been so informed. This part of the prosecution story with regard to the dying declaration was conspicuous by its absence in the First Information Report. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it would not be reasonable and proper to hold that the deceased had made a dying declaration naming the appellant as the author of the crime. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that regard-being had to the infirmities and suspicious features, the evidence of P. Ws. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it would not be reasonable and proper to hold that the deceased had made a dying declaration naming the appellant as the author of the crime. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that regard-being had to the infirmities and suspicious features, the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 in this regard could not safely be accepted. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution had not been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The charge must accordingly fail. ( 10 ) THE appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forth with. K. P. Mohopatra, J.- I agree. Appeal allowed.