JUDGMENT Ghodeswar, J. - The appellant State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Buldana, in Sessions Case No. 30/1985 decided on 15-7-1985. 2. The facts in brief of the prosecution story are as under: Gyanu Dagadu Katare - deceased was residing in village Sonati with his wife and sons. The said Gyanu owned three acres of land at v judge Sonati and he was cultivating the same personally. Besides his own land, he also used to cultivate the land locally known as 'Pandhari' of the same village on batai basis. The field 'Pandhari' is situated at the outskirts of the village and just adjacent to the residential house of Gyanu. That in the year 1985, Gyanu had sown wheat karad crops in his own field and cotton crop in the field Pandhari. Gyanu used to sleep in the field known as Pandhari along with his son Bhimrao to guard the crops. The incident in this case took place at about Sun-rise time on 16-2-1985 in the field survey No. 91/2-B of village Sonati. In between the night of 15th and 16th of February, 1985, Gyanu and his son Bhimrao had slept in the field 'Pandhari'. As usual both got up early in the morning. Gyanu went towards his own field in order to drive the birds as wheat and karad crops were standing there, and his son Bhimrao returned to the house. After some time P.W. 2 Baburao went to the house of Gyanu and informed his wife Dwarkabai and son Bhimrao that respondents-accused had assaulted Gyanu. Immediately Umaji and Sarawan brothers of Gyanu; Bhimrao and Dynanba sons and Dwarkabai wife of Gyanu and others rushed to the place of incident. Injured" Gyanu was lying in a pool of blood in the field of one Pandurang Fuke. There were number of injure is on the person of Gyanu. Bhimrao brought a bullock cart and took Gyanu to the State Transport Stand of village Sonati. In the meanwhile Narhari P.W. 9 Police Patil of village Sonati was informed of the incident. He met injured Gyanu at the S.T. Stand and asked him as to how he sustained injuries. Injured Gyanu told him that respondent No.2 Vaijnath and his sons assaulted him by means of an axe and sticks. In the meanwhile Narhari P.W. 9 Police Patil of village Sonati was informed of the incident. He met injured Gyanu at the S.T. Stand and asked him as to how he sustained injuries. Injured Gyanu told him that respondent No.2 Vaijnath and his sons assaulted him by means of an axe and sticks. From the S.T. Stand Gyanu was taken to the Municipal Hospital, Mehkar, in a S.T. Bus. 3. Injured Gyanu was admitted in Municipal Hospital, Mehkar, where he was examined and treated by the Medical Officer P.W. 10 Dr. Zanwar. As the general condition of the injured was deteriorating Dr. Zanwar intimated the police to get his dying declaration recorded. P.S.I. Galkar recorded the dying declaration of Gyanu. The Executive Magistrate P.W. 12 Kharohe visited the hospital. who recorded the dying declaration of injured Gyanu also. P.S.I. Galkar the registered the offence vide crime No. 37/1985 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured Gyanu was then referred to the Civil Hospital, Bulclana, for further treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. 4. P.S.I.Galkar visited the spot drew spot panchanama Ex. 36 and seized blood stained earth from the place of incident. On memorandum of respondent No.1 the axe was seized. After completing the necessary investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar, on 30-4-1985, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Buldana, for trial. 5. To the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the respondents-accused is of total denial and false implication. 6. During the trial prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses and after hearing both the sides the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri S.D. Gundewar) acquitted all the respondents accused. Hence this appeal by the State of Maharashtra. With the assistance of Shri Patil, Assistant Government Pleader and Shri R.S. Padhye, Advocate for respondents, we have gone through the entire record of the case. 7. It is contended by the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao, P.W. 3 Samadhan and P.W. 5 Bhimrao as it was discrepant and contradictory to each other. 7. It is contended by the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao, P.W. 3 Samadhan and P.W. 5 Bhimrao as it was discrepant and contradictory to each other. It is further contended that finding of discarding the evidence of consistent three dying declaration is unreasonable and perverse. Shri Padhye the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, has argued that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution and the view taken by the learned Trial Court is not unreasonable and perverse. 8. This case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the evidence of dying declaration. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao, P.W. 3 Samadban and P.W. 5 Bhimrao. P.W. 2 Baburao is a child witness, aged about 12 years. The Trial Court was satisfied that this witness understands the sanctity of oath and hence he administered an oath to this witness. P.W. 2 Baburao is a resident of the same village Sonati. He knows all respondents and deceased Gyanu. He has deposed that on the night in question he was sleeping in the field of Digambar Katade as his goats were in that field for the purposes of manuring. The field of deceased Gyanu is situated at the distance of about 300 ft. away from the field of Digambar Katade. He woke up early in the morning and at that time he heard the shouts as "Melore Bapa" from the side of the field of Pandurang Fuke. He further deposed that on hearing shouts he went towards the field of Pandurang Puke and saw respondents-accused 1 to 4 running away towards their own field and also saw the decease Gyanu lying in the field of Pandurang Fuke on a cart track. He states that he has witnessed this from a distance of about 150 paces. He then went in the village and informed Umaji, brother of deceased and wife of deceased about the incident. Thereafter he along with Bhimrao, Dnyanba, Umaji, Dwarkabai and others want to the spot where deceased Gyanu was lying. According to him, deceased Gyanu had sustained bleeding injuries on his head right hand, right low and the calf of the left leg. He further deposed that Bhimrao went to the village and brought a bullock-cart and deceased Gyanu was taken to the village in the bullock-Cart. According to him, deceased Gyanu had sustained bleeding injuries on his head right hand, right low and the calf of the left leg. He further deposed that Bhimrao went to the village and brought a bullock-cart and deceased Gyanu was taken to the village in the bullock-Cart. During cross-examination this witness stated that he woke up early in the morning as he was to draw milk of she goats. One omission in respect of his police statement that he witnessed the accused persons running away towards their field from a distance of about 150 ft. is brought on record There is one suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the ill instance of Bhimrao, Umaji and others. 9. The learned Trial Court has rejected the evidence of this witness and his reasoning is as under: "From the evidence of P.S.I. P.W. 13 Manikrao Galkar, it is clear that this witness had not stated before him that on that day he got up early in the morning in order to draw the milk of goats, nor he stated before him that he witnessed the above said fact from a distance of about 150 ft. P.W. 2 Baburao was unable to state as to why he did not state about these facts before the police. In the absence of any such explanation, I find that his evidence is not convincing and it does not in spirte much confidence. Further, it is very important to note that the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao has not at all been confirmed by other witness i.e. P.W. 3 Samadhan. He gave altogether different version. This witness is asked in cross-examination why he woke up early in the morning to which he answered that he woke up early in the morning in order to draw milk of she goats. This is not omission at all. Much emphasis is laid by Mr. Padhye, the learned advocate for the respondents. On the omission that this witness witnessed the respondents accused persons running away towards their field from a distance of about 150 ft. It is argued by Mr. Padhy that because of this omission this witness has not seen respondents accused persons running from the spot at the relevant time. Padhye, the learned advocate for the respondents. On the omission that this witness witnessed the respondents accused persons running away towards their field from a distance of about 150 ft. It is argued by Mr. Padhy that because of this omission this witness has not seen respondents accused persons running from the spot at the relevant time. This witness is asked in his examination in-chief about approximate distance from where he saw respondents accused persons running away and he answered that he witnessed the facts from about 150 paces. The real omission is in respect of only "distance of 150 paces or feets" It will be seen that there is no omission of the fact that he has seen respondents accused 1 to 4 running away from the field. The learned Trial Court should not have allowed the omission of the sentence as under: "I had witnessed the accused persons running away towards their field from a distance of about 150 ft." 10. There is no challenge to the claim of the evidence of this witness that he saw accused persons running away towards their field. In fact, there is no cross-examination to this witness on this point. This witness is not at all shaken in the cross-examination. The Trial Court has rejected the evidence of this witness, as according to him, P.W. 3 Samadhan has given altogether a different version and the evidence is contradictory. We will presently show that the evidence of P.W. 3 Samadhan cannot be said to be contradictory with the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao. 11. P.W. 3 Samadhan has deposed that in the night of the incident he was sleeping in the field. He woke up at day-break time and heard shouts run - run thief - thief from the side of the field of Pandurang Fuke. He and one Vishambar then went towards the said direction. He further stated that he saw deceased Gyanu lying on the dhura of one land. Some persons were gathered there. A quilt was placed on the body of Gyanu. The women who were gathered there were weeping. The learned cross examiner declined to cross-examine this witness. 12. He and one Vishambar then went towards the said direction. He further stated that he saw deceased Gyanu lying on the dhura of one land. Some persons were gathered there. A quilt was placed on the body of Gyanu. The women who were gathered there were weeping. The learned cross examiner declined to cross-examine this witness. 12. The learned Trial Court has compared the evidence of this witness with the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao and from the shouts “run-run, thief-thief” coming from the side of the field of Pandurang Fuke this witness has not stated that he witnessed the respondents 1 to 4 running away towards their own field, as stated in the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao. It will be seen that P.W. 2 Baburao has stated that he woke up early in the morning while P.W. 3 Samadhan states that he woke up at the time of day break. P.W. 2 Baburao does not depose to the presence of other persons except deceased Gyanu and respondents accused in the field of Pandurang Fuke at the relevant time, while P.W. 3 Samadhan has deposed that many persons including women had gathered on the spot. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao that after witnessing the incident he went in the village to inform about the same. It is pertinent to note that the distance of village Sonati is one mile from the place of incident. It is, therefore, clear that P.W. 3 Samadhan reached the spot much later than P.W. 2 Baburao. As the people from the village had come to the spot, P.W. 3 Samadhan went there. Shri Padhye has argued that shouts “run - run thief - thief” were given only by the deceased. P.W. 3 Samadhan has not stated that these shouts were given by deceased. Thus the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao cannot be said to be contrary with the evidence of P.W. 3. The whole approach of the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence appears to be wrong. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao P.W.5 Bhimrao is not at all clear and convincing to prove the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 on the spot at the relevant time is not correct. 13. The whole approach of the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence appears to be wrong. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that the evidence of P.W. 2 Baburao P.W.5 Bhimrao is not at all clear and convincing to prove the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 on the spot at the relevant time is not correct. 13. The learned Trial Court also dis-believe the testimony of P.W. 5 Bhimrao as it is inconsistent with the evidence P.W. 2 Baburao. Baburao has deposed that he saw respondents Nos. 1 to 4 running away at the relevant time. P.W. 5 Bhimrao deposed that P.W. 2 Baburao informed him that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were assaulting his father. P.W. 2 Baburao, is a child Witness aged about 12 years. He has seen respondents running away at the relevant time from the field after the assault on deceased, and therefore this was the only inference drawn by P.W. 5 Bhimrao and others. In fact there is no contradiction as such in the evidence of Baburao and Bhimrao on this point. His presence at the relevant time in the field of Digamber Katade which is adjacent to the field of Pandurang Fuke is not disputed Secondly he went to inform in the village about the incident to the family members and relatives of deceased and after informing also returned along with the in on the spot. Thus this witrress has shown exemplary courage and thus he is a truthful and reliable witness. In our view the evidence of Baburao and P.W.5 Bhimrao is consistent. The prosecution has satisfactorily established the presence of respondents accused 1 to 4 on the spot at the relevant time. 14. Not much reliance is placed on the evidence of discovery of an axe and recovery of sticks from the respondents-accused as these weapons were not stained with blood. 15. There is evidence of dying declaration of deceased. The first dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W. 9 Narhari, Police Patil, is oral. This witness has deposed that on the day of the incident at about 7.00 a.m. Bwarkabai wife of deceased came to his house. She told him that respondent No. 2 Baijnath and his sons assaulted her husband in the field deceased Gyanu was taken to the S.T. Stand of the village and hence he went there to see him. This witness has deposed that on the day of the incident at about 7.00 a.m. Bwarkabai wife of deceased came to his house. She told him that respondent No. 2 Baijnath and his sons assaulted her husband in the field deceased Gyanu was taken to the S.T. Stand of the village and hence he went there to see him. Deceased Gyanu bad sustained bleeding injuries on his bands and legs. He asked him about the incident and Gyanu told him that Baijnath and his sons assaulted him by means of axe and sticks. Thereafter deceased Gyanu was taken to Mehkar by his relatives in the S.T. Bus. The evidence of this witness is criticised that he did not care to reduce the oral dying declaration into writing and he did not bother to report the matter to police and he was on inimical terms with the respondents accused. The learned Trial Court disbelieved this witness as the fact of oral dying declaration as deposed by him does not and support from the evidence of any other witnesses though near at relatives of deceased were collected and were present at the S.T. Stand. The prosecution has examined P.W. 5 Bhimrao son of deceased. P.W. 9 Narhari, Police Patil is cross-examined at length, but he has not deposed about the presence of P.W. 5 Bhimrao when the alleged dying declaration by deceased is made to him at the bus stand it is time that P.W. 5 Bhimrao bas carried deceased in a bullock-cart to the S.T. Stand of the village P.W. 5 Bhimrao also has not mentioned about this oral dying declaration as P.W. 5 Bhimrao does not depose about this. It is contended by shri Padhye learned Counsel for the respondents accused that P.W. 9 Narhari is deposing falsely about dying declaration. P.W. 9 Narhari has stated that when he went to the S.T. Stand in order to see Gyanu. There Umaji, Shrawan, Kantabai, Dwarkabai and others were present. He states that deceased Gyanu was serious. It is contended on behalf of the state that the evidence of this witness is trustworthy. The deceased was being taken in a S.T. bus Mehkar, the town of police station and hospital, and P.W. 9 Narhari did not think it necessary to forward his written report to the police station. He states that deceased Gyanu was serious. It is contended on behalf of the state that the evidence of this witness is trustworthy. The deceased was being taken in a S.T. bus Mehkar, the town of police station and hospital, and P.W. 9 Narhari did not think it necessary to forward his written report to the police station. As already pointed out P.W. 5 Bhimrao son and other relatives of deceased, had come to know that respondents accused were the assailants of deceased and therefore P.W. 5 Bhimrao did not ask the deceased about the incident. As the fact was known to all there was no question of any disclosure being made by deceased to the witnesses. Only because P.W. 9 Narhari has not referred to the presence of P.W. 5 Bhimrao and he has not referred about the oral dying declaration before P.W. 9 Narhari, it cannot be said that deceased has not made a dying declaration before P.W. 9 Narhari. The evidence of P.W. 9 Narahari is reliable. 16. There are two more dying declarations of deceased Gyanu recorded by P.W. 13 P.S.I. Galkar and P.W. 12 Narayan Kharche, Executive Magistrate in the municipal hospital at Mehkar. P.W. 13 P.S.I. Galkar has deposed that on receiving information that injured Gyanu was admitted in the hospital and was serious he went to the hospital. There he asked the Medical Officer as to whether the patient was in a position to make statement. The Medical Officer Dr. Zanwar informed that patient was conscious and was in a position to make statement. Accordingly Dr. Zanwar (P.W. 10) certified and put his endorsement on the paper on which this witness recorded dying declaration as per the say of deceased and obtained his thumb impression thereon. It is at Ex. 54. Dr. Zanwar again put his endorsement on the said dying declaration to the effect that patient was conscious at the time of recording dying declaration. The dying declaration is as under: "My name is Gyanu. My father's name is Dagadu and my surname is Katare. I reside at Sonati. Vaijnath Gajoba Sontakke, Digamber Vaijnath Sontakke, Prakash Vaijnath Sontakke and Baban Vaijnath Sontakke have assaulted me. Out of them Digamber asssulted me with an axe at three places on and of right hand and on both legs. And other three person have assaulted me with sticks. My father's name is Dagadu and my surname is Katare. I reside at Sonati. Vaijnath Gajoba Sontakke, Digamber Vaijnath Sontakke, Prakash Vaijnath Sontakke and Baban Vaijnath Sontakke have assaulted me. Out of them Digamber asssulted me with an axe at three places on and of right hand and on both legs. And other three person have assaulted me with sticks. This day in the morning, I had gone to the field in order to drive away the birds. Seeing me alone in the field the aforesaid persons have assaulted me. They assaulted me on account of quarrel which took place last year and since then they have enmity with me. When they assaulted me I shouted. Then Samadhan Lande and his brother came running. Then person beating me ran away. There after my brother Shrawan Umaji came to the field and he removed me to the hospital. The aforesaid persons have also assaulted me on my back and head. T.I. Thumb - impression of Gyanu Dagadu Katare." 17. After recording the dying declaration P.W. 13 P.S.I. Galkar went to the Police Station and registered offence on the basis of dying declaration at 9.55 a.m. on 16-2-85. In the mean while P.W.12 Narayan Kharche, Executive Magistrate went to the municipal hospital to record the dying declaration. He asked the Medical Officer Dr. Zanwar as to whether the patient was in a position to make the dying declaration. Dr. Zanwar, medical officer, Mehkar, informed him that the patient was in a position to make the dying declaration and then he recorded the dying declaration in question and answers form, obtained the thumb impression of deceased. This dying declaration is at Ex. 52. This witness has denied the suggestion that he - recorded dying declaration at the instance of P.S.I. Jadhao. The dying declaration reads as under: "What is your name? My name is Gyanu Dagadu Katare. I am resident of Sonati. What happended to you? This day, at the dawn J was going to field. Wheat and Karad are sown in the field and hence J was to guard the same. Digamber, Vaijnath, Prakash and Baban these four persons residing at Sonati obstructed me on the road. Digambar was armed with an axe while the other three were armed with sticks. They suddenly rushed on my person and assault me with an axe and sticks. I was alone. Digamber, Vaijnath, Prakash and Baban these four persons residing at Sonati obstructed me on the road. Digambar was armed with an axe while the other three were armed with sticks. They suddenly rushed on my person and assault me with an axe and sticks. I was alone. No one was with me. The aforesaid four have enmity with me over the issue of field which I took 12 months back. These four together assaulted and injured me seriously for taking revenge. I shouted loudly. Then three boys from Mahagaon came running. I was not in sense. I know them. The name of the boy was Samadhan Lande and his brothers were with him. They saw me in an injured condition. They immediately went to the village and informed family members of my house. Digambar had enmity with me and hence this day in the morning he opportunity and assaulted me severally. At the down. I do not want to say anything more. At what time? Have you got to say anything more in this connection? T.I. Thumb impression of Gyanu Dagadu." 18. The learned Trial Court found these two dying declarations Exs. 52 and 54 inconsistent with each other on material point i.e. about the place of incident. It is correct that deceased Gyanu stated in Ex. 52 that accused persons obstructed him on his way to his field. The learned Trial Court further observed that in. Ex. 54 it is said by deceased that accused persons assulted him in his field on seeing him there alone. And therefore, according to the learned Trial Court this is material discrepancy in the two dying declarations which is not explained by the prosecution. We have seen original dying declaration Ex. 54 which is written in vernacular language i.e. Marathi. The deceased has nowhere stated Ex. 54 that accused persons assaulted him in his field on seeing him there alone. It is true that deceased has said that he had gone to his field and seeing him alone accused persons assaulted him and therefore the learned Trial Court arrived at the inference that deceased was assaulted in his own field, which is without any basis. Both these dying declarations Exs. 52 and 54 are consistent. It is true that deceased has said that he had gone to his field and seeing him alone accused persons assaulted him and therefore the learned Trial Court arrived at the inference that deceased was assaulted in his own field, which is without any basis. Both these dying declarations Exs. 52 and 54 are consistent. The names of all the accused are mentioned the weapons with which they assaulted and the parts of the body on which injuries were inflicted and also about motive. Thus all the crucial details are mentioned. 19. It is true that the relatives of the deceased had taken him to the municipal hospital, Mehkar, where his dying declaration Exs. 52 and 54 were recorded. The deceased and accused were admittedly on inimical terms. Hence, it is observed by the Trial Court that the possibility of tutoring deceased in view of enmity was not ruled out. In view of the evidence of P.W. 3 Samadhan who heard the shouts as 'run run, thief - thief’ Shri Padhye submitted that deceased had not identified assailants and there was no sufficient light at the time of commission of offence. It is common knowledge that the villagers are not conscious about the exact time. The deceased has is left the field 'Pandhari' to go his field at about 5.30 a.m. and the distance is about one mile. It ii will not be proper to observed that there was no sufficient light at the time of commission of offence. Merely because some relatives happened to be with the deceased before the statement was recorded it cannot be thrown out as tutored. 20. P.W. 10 Dr. Zanwar has deposed that he examined deceased and found 14 injuries on his person. They are as under: Incised wound on right arm of 6 to 8 cms. in length having regular margins. There was bleeding from the injury. Muscle was protruding out the injury. There were signs of fracture underlying humerous bone. Incised wound on extenser aspect of right forearm of 8 to 10 cms in length. It was muscle deep. Incised wound on extenser aspect of right forearm at the juncture of upper and middle third. It was 5 c.m. in length and was muscle deep. Incised wound on flexer aspect of right forearm of 5 to 6 cms in length. There was fresh bleeding from the injury and it was muscle deep. It was muscle deep. Incised wound on extenser aspect of right forearm at the juncture of upper and middle third. It was 5 c.m. in length and was muscle deep. Incised wound on flexer aspect of right forearm of 5 to 6 cms in length. There was fresh bleeding from the injury and it was muscle deep. Incised wound on right extenser aspect of forearm on middle third of 6 to 7 cms. muscle deep. Incised wound on right lower-leg just above the ankle joint on it's extenser aspect extending lateral 6 to 7 cms. It was bone deep. There were also signs of fracture of that bone. Incised wound on left Calf of 6 to 7 cms. in length and was muscle deep. Lacerated wound on left temproel region of 5 to 6 cms. The layers of scalp involved and periosteum was exposed. Abrasions on right posterior aspect of temporal region of 2 cms. x 3 cms. clotted with blood. Contusion on right scapular region of 6 to 7 cms. x 2 cms. dark red in colour. There was swelling arround it. Contusion on left scapular region of 5 cms. x 2 cms. It was dark red in colour. Contusion on right infra scapular region of 5 to 6 cms. x 2 cms. Dark red in colour. Contusions on lumber region of 6 cms.x 2 cms dark red in colour. Abrasion on lower thorasic spine of 2 cms. x 2 cms. clotted blood over it having irregular margine. The Doctor has stated that the injuries 1 to 7 were caused by sharp edged weapon while rest of the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The Medical Officer referred the injured for treatment in Civil Hospital, Buldana, as the general condition of the injured was unsatisfactory. 21. P.W. 11 Dr. Vijayakumar Kulkarni has performed post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased. He stated that the cause of the death was due to shock and haemorrhage. He also stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. From this evidence it is clear that the deceased died homicidal death. 22. Now, there is no dispute about the legal position that the dying declaration recorded by the police officer can be relied upon for conviction if it inspires the confidence of the Court. From this evidence it is clear that the deceased died homicidal death. 22. Now, there is no dispute about the legal position that the dying declaration recorded by the police officer can be relied upon for conviction if it inspires the confidence of the Court. Shri Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon the decision in the matter of SomNath v. State of Haryana.1 The relevant portion is as under: "The three dying declarations corroborated by other circumstances are sufficient in our view to bring home the offence. Counsel has sought to discredit these declarations relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act forgetting that they are the groaning utterances of a dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony which cannot be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars which witnesses may give in other situations. To discredit such dying declarations for shortfalls here or there or even in many places is unrealistic, unnatural and unconscionable if basically there is credibility." 23. Shri Padhye, the learned Counsel for the respondents accused has relied upon the decisions in the matter of Balak Ram anr. v. Slate of U.P.2 and K. Ramchandra Reddy anr. v. The Public Prosecutor3 in support of his contentions that recorded dying declaration can have hardly the evidentiary value when the declarant was in the midst of friends, admirers and on admissibility of dying declarations. We have given our anxious consideration to all the three dying declarations and the circumstances appearing in the case. It is but natural for the relatives to accompany the injured person and taking him to the hospital. But from these facts it is not possible to hold that relatives had tutored the declarant deceased to falsely implicate the respondent - accused. The circumstances appearing in this case undoubtedly point to the fact that the respondents - accused were the assailants of deceased. There is nothing to doubt these dying declarations. There are no discrepancies, no variance and they are non consistent. 24. While appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Trial Court has found fault with each and every piece of evidence in order to show contradictions and discrepancies without any basis and not on existing material. As already pointed out there are no contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence. 24. While appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Trial Court has found fault with each and every piece of evidence in order to show contradictions and discrepancies without any basis and not on existing material. As already pointed out there are no contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence. Even Shri Padhye, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has fairly conceded that there are no discrepancies in the evidence. We have already pointed out that there is no discrepancy inter se between three dying declarations. He has also relied on the decision in the matter of Awadhesh anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh4 and contended that the acquittal in this case should not be disturbed. The findings of the Trial Court are not perverse. We are aware of the principles in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses as laid down in A.I.R.1988 S.C.1l58). 25. Shri Padhye has argued in this appeal against acquittal that where two views are reasonably possible the order of acquittal should not be disturbed In this case the findings of the learned Trial Court are based upon wrong assumption. And accused earlier, there is cogent and reliable evidence of three dying declarations and of strong circumstances for conviction of the respondents accused. This is not a fit case where two views are reasonably possible. From the apprisal of the entire evidence on record there is only one reasonable view of conviction of respondents. The judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous and therefore this is a fit case for interference. 26. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, is quashed and set aside. The respondents accused 1 to 4 are convicted of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in defalt of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. There bail bonds stands cancelled A request is made by Shri Padhye that time for one month be given to his clients to surrender. Request is granted Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1226. 2. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2165. 3. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1994. 4. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1158.