Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, J. First accused (A-1) In S.C. 98 of 1987 of the III Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam is the appellant in Q1.A355 of 1988. Crl. A. 247 of 1989 is filed by the State against the acquittal of-the second accused (A-2) by the Sessions Judge. 2. Prosecution case is that A-1 to A-2 in furtherance of their common intention made entry into the but where Avarachan alias Thankappan (deceased) was sleeping and caused his death on 26-4-1981 at about 2 p.m. According to the prosecution, A-1 stabbed Thankappan twice with M.O.1 knife and A-2 gagged Thankappan's mouth and nose. Motive for the crime is stated to be on account of the hostility entertained by A-1 and A-2 towards Thankappan as he had assaulted their father Paily. Thankappan was first taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbalangi in an autorikshaw by P.W.1 and others. On the advice of Dr. Varghese the injured was taken to the Government Hospital. Palluruthy. P.W.12, doctor examined Thankappan and pronounced him dead. That was at about 3.3Q p.m. P. W.1 lodged Ext. P-1 first information statement at Kannamaly Police station. P.W.11 Sub Inspector recorded Ext. P-1. P. W13. doctor conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P-10. postmortem certificate. P.W.14. Circle Inspector investigated the case and laid the charge before the court. 3. Prosecution mainly relies upon the dying declaration as spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also their evidence that they saw A-1 and A-2 running away from the scene. A-1 carrying M.O.1 blood stained knife. P.W-3, brother-in-law of A-2 who was cited to prove the extra judicial confession of A-2 did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile to the prosecution. Learned sessions judge found A-1 guilty and convicted and sentenced him. A-2 was found not guilty and he was acquitted. 4. P.W.1, brother of the deceased resides very close to the place of occurrence. Thankappan and his wife. P.W. 2 were residing in the same house along with their children. P.W.1 heard the cry of his brother from inside the house. He saw A-1 and A-2 running away from the scene. A-1 carrying M.O. 1 bloodstained knife. P.W.1 deposed that he went to the house of Kocherry Antony to attend his daughter's marriage. Thankappan and his wife. P.W. 2 were residing in the same house along with their children. P.W.1 heard the cry of his brother from inside the house. He saw A-1 and A-2 running away from the scene. A-1 carrying M.O. 1 bloodstained knife. P.W.1 deposed that he went to the house of Kocherry Antony to attend his daughter's marriage. that while he was returning to his house some persons told him about the quarrel between Paily and Thankappan, that when he reached near his house he saw A-1 and A-2 running away and that when he reached near Thankappan, he divulged to him that A-1 stabbed him (Thankappan) and A-2 gagged his mouth and nose. It is also stated by P.W.1 that by that time P.W.2 and his mother and neighbours came there. P.W.1 and others bandaged the injuries of Thankappan and brought him towards the road side. In an autorikshaw Thankappan was removed to the Government Hospital. Kumbalangi. Doctor Varghese advised them to rush Thankappan to the Government Hospital. Palluruthy. In a car he was taken to the Government Hospital. Palluruthy. P.W. 12. doctor examined him and pronounced him dead. 5. P.W.2 wife of the deceased stated that when she went out to take water along with her mother-in-law. her husband was sleeping in a mat and that when she returned with water she saw A-1 and A-2 running away from the court-yard of her house. A-1 wielding M.O.1 knife with him. She found blood stains on the shirt and cloth of A-1. P.W.1's presence is also spoken to by P.W.2. She has corroborated the evidence of P. W.1 regarding the dying declaration spoken to by her husband. 6. P.W.5 deposed that while she was on her way to her house from the house of her daughter she came to know about the quarrel between Paily, father of A-1 and A- 2 and Thankappan and that she informed A-1 who was playing cards in her house along with Bhaskaran and 2 others about it. P.W.6 has corroborated the above testimony of P.W.5. P.W.6 stated that immediately after hearing it A-1 got up and left briskly towards the north and he called him back. P.W.6 also saw A-1's mother coming from behind and she wanted him to call back A-1. Though P.W.6 proceeded towards east upto main road he did not see A-1 and so he returned. P.W.6 stated that immediately after hearing it A-1 got up and left briskly towards the north and he called him back. P.W.6 also saw A-1's mother coming from behind and she wanted him to call back A-1. Though P.W.6 proceeded towards east upto main road he did not see A-1 and so he returned. Later P.W.6 learnt that A-1 and A-2 had caused the death of Thankappan. 7. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that P.W.5 has no direct knowledge about the quarrel between Thankappan and Paily and so no reliance can be placed on her testimony and if that be so it is a motiveless crime and hence on that sole score the prosecution case will have to be rejected. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that evidence of P. Ws. Sand 6 clearly shows that A-1 on being informed about the quarrel abruptly stopped playing cards and left there. Though the prosecution could not adduce any direct evidence with regard to the quarrel between Thankappan and Paily the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 reveals that A-1 on getting information about it left P.W.5's house. Evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 shows that they saw A-1 going away from the house of Thakappan with M.O.1 blood stained knife. As P.Ws.1 and 2 are natural and probable witnesses their testimony cannot be rejected. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to hold that they have any axe to grind against the accused. 8. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that evidence of P.W.1 would show that Paily (P. W.7) and George (not examined) who came along with P. W.2 heard the dying declaration and as P.W.7 did not say anything about it much reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. land 2 with regard to the dying declaration. P. W.7 stated that on hearing the loud cry he woke up and found persons going to the house of the deceased. P.W.7 rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Thankappan lying injured. Presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the place of occurrence is spoken to by P. W.7. As the evidence of P. W.7 shows that he rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the loud cry and as that cry was that of P.Ws.1 and 2 it would not have been possible for P.W.7 to have heard the dying declaration. Presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the place of occurrence is spoken to by P. W.7. As the evidence of P. W.7 shows that he rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the loud cry and as that cry was that of P.Ws.1 and 2 it would not have been possible for P.W.7 to have heard the dying declaration. P. W.Ps evidence that P. W.7 might have heard the dying declaration is only an inference and therefore much weight cannot be attached to the non-mentioning of the dying declaration by P.W.7. 9. Attack on the dying declaration spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 is that in the first information statement there is no mention about A-2 gagging the nose of the deceased. whereas P.Ws.1 and 2 stated about it in their evidence. The trial court did not accept a portion of 'he dying declaration as regard the overt acts attributed to A-2. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Sessions Judge was not justified in dissecting the dying declaration and accepting one portion while rejecting the other. Counsel submitted that in view of the acquittal of A-2 the Sessions Judge should not have relied on a portion of the dying declaration attributing overt acts to A-1. In other words. he contended that the dying declaration in its entirety alone is worthy of consideration and it would be really hazardous in accepting one portion while rejecting the other. On that reasoning counsel contends that the entire dying declaration should be eschewed from the evidence. 10. In a case where a portion of the dying declaration gets corroboration from other evidence the Court can accept it. There is cogent evidence as to A-1 leaving the house of Thankappan carrying M.O.1 blood stained knife with him as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 and this lends support to the dying declaration. With regard to the overt acts attributed to A-2 in the dying declaration there is no such corroboration. The medical evidence in the case is also found wanting in that regard. The doctor who conducted autopsy opined about the likelihood of some injuries in case of gagging of nose and mouth by force. With regard to the overt acts attributed to A-2 in the dying declaration there is no such corroboration. The medical evidence in the case is also found wanting in that regard. The doctor who conducted autopsy opined about the likelihood of some injuries in case of gagging of nose and mouth by force. As no such injury was noted in the post-mortem certificate and as there is no evidence of anyone seeing A-2 going along with A-1 to the house of Thankappan the trial court was justified in giving him the benefit of doubt. In this context it is pertinent to note from P. W.6's evidence that mother of A-land A-2 pressed P.W.6 to persuade A-1 to come back and not to proceed to the house of Thankappan. This would indicate sufficiently clearly that A-2 was not with A-1 when he was proceeding into Thankappan's house. 11. Generally a dying declaration should be considered as a whole. But there is no bar in relying on a portion of the dying declaration which is found to be true and corroborated by other evidence. In a case where a portion of the dying declaration is found acceptable in view of other corroborative evidence it cannot be rejected on the ground that the dying declaration taken as a whole does not appear to be true. In view of the fact that there is no acceptable evidence against A-2 the dying declaration that A-2 gagged the nose and mouth of Thankapan can be ignored. But the dying declaration with regard to the overt acts attributed to A-1 cannot be discarded out-right in view of other corroborative materials in the case. It cannot be held that if a part of the dying declaration is not proved the whole prosecution case has to be thrown out. The only thing is that in case of rejection of a part of the dying declaration the court must bestow its anxious consideration over the other part of if it is found corroborated in material particulars by other reliable evidence there is no rule of law that the part 'cannot be accepted. If it is not possible to sever two parts in the dying declaration the position would be different. If not. the portion of the dying declaration which finds corroboration from other evidence can really be accepted. If it is not possible to sever two parts in the dying declaration the position would be different. If not. the portion of the dying declaration which finds corroboration from other evidence can really be accepted. In this context it is useful to refer to Godhu v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1974 SC 2187 at 2191) where the Supreme Court held that if a part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct it does not mean that the whole of the dying declaration must be rejected on that ground. In paragraph 16. the Supreme Court held thus: "We are also unable to subscribe to the view that if a part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct. it must necessarily result in the rejection of the whole of the dying declaration. The rejection of a part of the dying declaration would put the court on the guard and induce it to apply a rule of caution. There may be cases wherein the part of the dying declaration' which is not found to be correct is so indissolubly linked with the other part of the dying declaration that it is not possible to sever the two parts. In such an event the court would well be justified in rejecting the whole of the dying declaration. There may. however. be other cases wherein the two parts of a dying declaration may be severable and the correctness of one part does not depend upon the correctness of the other part. In the last mentioned cases the court would not normally act upon a part of the dying declaration the other part of which has not been found to be true. unless the part relied upon is corroborated in material particulars by the other evidence on record. If such other evidence shows that part of the dying declaration relied upon is correct and trustworthy. the court can act upon that part of the dying declaration despite the fact that another part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct." Portion of dying declaration which is corroborated by other evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that another portion of the dying declaration is not proved to be correct. the court can act upon that part of the dying declaration despite the fact that another part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct." Portion of dying declaration which is corroborated by other evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that another portion of the dying declaration is not proved to be correct. In view of the evidence in the case it is not possible to reject the dying declaration against A-1 merely because A-2 has been acquitted by the trial court. As already pointed out. evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 reveals that they saw A-1 running away from the place of occurrence with blood stained M.O.1 knife. Analyst's report (Ext. P8) shows that M.0.3 Lunki worn by A-1 has blood stains. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the dying declaration has really proved the complicity of A-1 with the crime. 11. Learned Sessions Judge has given sufficient reasons to find A-2 not guilty. On going through the evidence we are unable to come to a different conclusion. On the other hand. the evidence in the case conclusively establishes the prosecution case against A-1. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered against A-1 by the Sessions Judge. In the result both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed.