JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 25th August, 1987 delivered by the Second Additional Sessions judge, Ratlam in S.T.No.68 of 85 thereby holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under S. 302 read with S.34 I.P .C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further sentencing the appellants to undergo R.I. for one year. The appellant No.3 Kaniram s/o Tekaji died during the pendency of this appeal. The prosecution case, stated in brief, was that on 25th April, 1985 around 9 p.m. the appellants took away with them deceased Ranchhod under the pretext of offering him a cup of tea to a dilapidated house. Where he was offered tea and it is alleged that it was mixed with some poison. Having offered tea the accused persons left the place leaving behind Ranchhod. He was found lying there by witness Ganpatlal (P.W.11) who informed his relations. Vishram (P.W. 10) brother of Ranchhod came there and took him home. Dr. Garg from Bilpak was called, who gave two injections to Ranchhod. Thereafter he was rushed to P.H.C.Bilpak wherefrom he was transferred to the Civil Hospital, Ratlam. It was the Medical Officer who informed the Police, Station Road Ratlam about a suspected case of poisioning. Abdul Rashid Khan (P.W.14) S.I. held a preliminary enquiry. In the meanwhile dying declaration of Ranchhod was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar Shri Jagdishchandra Joshi (P.W.4). Ranchhod succumed the poision on the 27-4-85. An inquest was prepared and his dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem report is Ex. P1. The viscera, which was preserved, was sent for chemical examination. Ex. P-14 is the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner the viscera was found to contain Organophosphorous Pesticide. On completion of investigation the accused were charged and prosecuted for the above offence. The trial Court while acquitting accused Dula s/o Balaji and Sobharam s/o Nanuram of the aforesaid charges, held the present appellants guilty of offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment as already noted above. Hence, this appeal. On completion of investigation the accused were charged and prosecuted for the above offence. The trial Court while acquitting accused Dula s/o Balaji and Sobharam s/o Nanuram of the aforesaid charges, held the present appellants guilty of offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment as already noted above. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellants, rest on quick sand and could not form the basis of conviction of such a serious offence like murder. The two circumstances on which the learned Judge of the trial Court has placed reliance are - (i) that the accused-appellants were last seen with the deceased and (ii) the dying declaration as recorded by the Naib Tahsildar Shri Jagdishchandra Joshi. Shri Chouhan, Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents-State submits that the dying declaration does not suffer from any infirmity and could well form the basis of appellants' conviction with the aid of S. 34 IPC. So far as the first circumstance of having been last seen together is concerned, the trial Court itself has rejected it as unreliable. The only piece of evidence that remains is the dying declaration is Ex. P-3 as recorded by Shri Joshi (P.W.4). Taking this document on its face value, there is an apparent infirmity. The dying declaration has not been recorded in question and answer form, which is a long narration and the same has not been attested by any independent witness. The declaration does not particularise or specify the person as to who actually mixed poison in the tea cup. Initially the prosecution has come out with six persons as accused, although two of them have been acquitted. The act of mixing poison or adding poison to the cup of tea, even if the dying declaration is taken on its face value, cannot be imputed and has not in fact been imputed to all the accused. In the circumstances, although a conviction can be based on dying declaration provided it is found to be fully reliable and without any infirmity, in the instant case Ex. P-3 the dying declaration as recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, cannot be said to be such a document on the basis of which a conviction for offence like murder could be recorded. P-3 the dying declaration as recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, cannot be said to be such a document on the basis of which a conviction for offence like murder could be recorded. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed. The conviction and sentence as recorded are liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appellants are discharged of their bail bonds. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellants.