JUDGMENT Respondents were acquitted vide Judgment dated 4.7.1984, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1982, of Damoh Sessions Division of charges for rioting, robbery and committing of murder of Ravishankar alias Tulsi on 5.4.1982 between Neemi and Fatehpur villages which is under challenge in this appeal filed by the State. Two of the respondents, namely, Munna alias Krishankumar son of Kaniya Garg respondent No.5 and Gulabsingh son of Lakhansingh Thakur respondent No. 10 died during the pendency of this appeal and the appeal abated against them. The story is that on 2.4.1982 Ravishankar had gone to village Soti with money to solemnize the function of fall an of his sister. It appears that the ceremony did not take place for some reason. On 5.4.1982 he was returning with money to his village Neemi. He alighted from the bus at Fatehpur bus stand and was proceeding to his village on foot. When he was in the vicinity of village Kheri near the field of Gulabsingh he sighted the respondents standing in a group armed with various weapons like ballam, lathi, etc. He did not suspect any foul play. No sooner he reached near them he was assaulted by Ramkumar, Ramgopal, Suraj and Sunder with ballams. The rest of the respondents dealt blows with lath is. An amount of Rs. 1,135/- which he was keeping in his pocket was forcibly taken away by Ramgopal. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Munnu (P.W. 1), Purushottam (P.W. 2), Ramadhar (P.W. 3) and Chandrashekhar (P.W. 4). P.W. 1 immediately went to the village and informed Ravishankar's father of this incident. Thereafter injured person was removed to nearby Chowki of Fatehpur where he lodged the First Information Report Ex. P. 1. Crime was registered. His statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded which is Ex. P. 25. He was sent for medical examination but in the meantime he died. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. V.S. Yadu (P.W. 11) who view his report Ex. P. 11 found 26 injuries including three incised wounds. The rest were contusions and abrasions on various parts of the body. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from rupture of liver. During trial, aforesaid four eye-witnesses were examined. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. V.S. Yadu (P.W. 11) who view his report Ex. P. 11 found 26 injuries including three incised wounds. The rest were contusions and abrasions on various parts of the body. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from rupture of liver. During trial, aforesaid four eye-witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court felt that in view of the extensive damage to the liver the possibility of the patient surviving and loding the F.I.R. and giving statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. were faint. These statements were therefore. viewed with suspicion. In result the impugned finding of acquittal was recorded. The submission is that Ex. P. 1 and P.25 are dying declarations as after the recording of these statements the patient died. In view of Munna Raja v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1976 SC 2199 ), these documents ought to have been considered sufficient to base the conviction on. Though the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses was rejected on the ground that no one of them claimed to be eye-witness in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, yet from their evidence the dying declaration got partial corroboration. Even if such corroboration is to be excluded the respondents were liable to be convicted on the basis of the dying declarations alone. In reply, our attention was drawn to the evidence of Dr. Yadu to the effect that normally in case of such extensive damage to liver patient is likely to die instantaneously of shock and haemorrhage. True it is that the doctor did not say with certainty that Ravishankar must have died instantaneously due to extensive damage to his liver, yet learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in refusing to accept the credit worthiness of the aforesaid dying declarations. On giving our anxious consideration, we are in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge. As such no interference in this appeal is warranted which is, accordingly, dismissed.