B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH three persons were prosecuted for causing the murder of one Kursam Masa, only the appellant has been convicted. His conviction is based solely up in the dying declarations said to have been made by the deceased soon after the assault. The prosecution came forward with the aid that while the deceased was sleeping in his house with his wife and children, the appellant went over there and shot an arrow at the deceased which arrow fell upon his stomach. It pierced in. The deceased was sleeping. The appellant fled away. However; the deceased woke up the neighbours also and told his wife and neighbours that it is the appellalt who shot arrow at him. ( 2 ) LATER, when the appellant was Sapprehended, a panchayat was convinced next day where also the deceased told the panchas that the appellant bad shot arrows at him and according to the prosecution, the appellant also confessed his guilt before the panchas. The deceased also reported the matter to the police station vide report (Ex. P-7 ). He was removed to the hospital. He died the next day. ( 3 ) AFTER the death post-mortem examination was performed upon the body of the deceased Kursam Masa and Dr. Jena (P. W. 9) found a penetrated wound into the stomach. This injury could be caused by the arrow which the deceased himself produced before the police and which was seized. The injury, according to Dr. Jena (P. W. 9) was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He opined that the death was homicidal. The lower court concluded that Kursam Masa died a homicidal death as a result of the injury in his abdomen which could be caused by arrow. These find logs were not challenged before us. ( 4 ) THE evidence of dying declarations was, however, critisized and it was submitted that it should not be accepted and in any case the conviction should not be based upon their testimony alone. Looking to the circumstances of the case we find ourselves unable to accept this contention. Dying declarations appear to have been made qute naturally. First, the deceased told his wife who was the first poison near him. His wife Kursam Burandos (P. W. 1) testimony could not be shaken on this count. Looking to the circumstances of the case we find ourselves unable to accept this contention. Dying declarations appear to have been made qute naturally. First, the deceased told his wife who was the first poison near him. His wife Kursam Burandos (P. W. 1) testimony could not be shaken on this count. Later, the similar dying declaration was made to neighbour Beko Kamlu (P. W. 2 ). That also is very natural. When the Panchayat was convinced the next day, similar statement was made to the panchas and where the arrow was also produced. We do not see why the panchas would come and make any false statement against the appellant. The evidence of such a declaration being made in the Panchayat has to be accepted. The testimony of Telam Masa (P. W. 3) and Kudiam Hidiya (P. W. 4) establishes this fact. Last is the First Information Report (Ex. P-7) lodged by the deceased himself. That report also contains the similar facts. It is clearly stated therein that it is the appellant who shot the arrow at him. We do not see any reason to discard this evidence also. Thus, we find that the evidence this dying declaration is of an unimpeachable character and is duly corroborated by medical evidence. We, therefore, conclude that the lower Court cannot be said to be in error in holding the appellant guilty of causing murder of one Kursam Masa. His conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is well merited and must uphold. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .