R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Udayakar Sahu, his father and uncle viz. Sanatan Sahu and Sukuta alias Sukadeb Sahu were placed on trial is the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak. The appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder by intentionally causing the death of Balaram Sahu. Sanatan Sahu (appellant's father, and Sukuta alias Sukadeb Sahu (brother of Sanatan Sahu) were charged under Section 323/34 IPC for having voluntarily caused hurt to Suma Sewa. The learned trial Judge acquitted Sanatam and Sukuta alias Sukadeb of the charge. He, however, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The said conviction and sentences are the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that deceased Balaram Sahu was the brother of the informant Katnakar Sahu, P. W. 1. The appellant and the co-accused persons are the collaterals of the deceased Balaram Sahu. By the time of occurrence there was long standing litigation between the deceased on one side and the appellant and the co-accused persons on the other. On 11-7-1991 at about 8 a. m. the deceased Balaram, his brother P. W. 1 and their mother were fencing the bari of their land. At that moment the appellant and the co-accused persons came to the spot being armed with spears. Seeing this P. W. 1 raised hullah in response to which P. W. 3 and one Suresh Behera reached at the spot. Then ensued the quarrel and the appellant stabbed on the right side belly of Balaram Sahu who after sustaining injury fell down and later succumbed to the injury in the hospital. The co-accused persons were alleged to have assaulted the mother of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant was that the deceased was forbidden by him and the co-accused persons from fencing the bari. He instead of desisting from fencing, approached the appellant with a 'kata' in his hand. The appellant then caught hold of a spear which was lying nearby. There was tussle between them and the spear held by the appellant accidentally slipped from his hand and pierced in the belly of the deceased. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined six witnesses on its behalf out of whom P. Ws. The appellant then caught hold of a spear which was lying nearby. There was tussle between them and the spear held by the appellant accidentally slipped from his hand and pierced in the belly of the deceased. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined six witnesses on its behalf out of whom P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 did not support the prosecution. P. W. 4 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 6 is the investigating officer. As P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 turned hostile to the prosecution, the learned trial Judge rejected their evidence. On the basis of the dying declaration Ext. 8 recorded by the doctor P. W. 4 he held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC. ( 5 ) P. W. 4, the doctor, held autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries :"1. One stitched wound of 7-1/2" long on the right side of abdomen 1-1/2" lateral to the midline 2" below the right costal margin to 1" below the umblious with 14 silk stitches. 2. One stitched wound of 21/2" anteriorly on the greater curvature of stomach and another 2" long posteriorly obliquely on the greater curvature of the stomach with omental patches. 3. Stomach was perforated through and through both anteriorly and posteriorly in an axis anterior being the point of entrance and the posterior being the point of exit. "according to him the cause of the death was due to profuse haemorrhage and shock following internal haemorrhage as a result of abdominal injury and stomach injury. The doctor opined that the stab injury would cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 6 ) IT is not disputed before us that the deceased had homicidal death on account of the injury sustained by him. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of the dying declaration, Ext. 2. ( 7 ) LAW with regard to dying declaration is well settled. Dying declaration is a statement by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. 2. ( 7 ) LAW with regard to dying declaration is well settled. Dying declaration is a statement by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. It becomes relevant under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act in a case in which the cause of the declarant's death comes up for consideration. It is admitted into evidence by way of exception to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence on the principle of necessity. The dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction and it is not necessary to have corroboration provided the Court is satisfied that it is true and reliable. Reliability of the declaration should be subjected to close scrutiny in view of the fact that it was made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity to test its veracity by cross-examination. Each case has to be decided on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying, declaration was made (see Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 : (1958 Cri LJ 106), Thurkanni Pempish v. State of Mysore, AIR 1945 SC 939 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 31) and lallubhai Devchand Shah v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1776 : (1972 Cri LJ 828 ).) ( 8 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid, let us now proceed to examine the evidence relating to the dying declaration. As already indicated, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 392 IPC solely on the basis of the dying declaration which was reduced into writing by the doctor (P. W. 4) and admitted into evidence as Ext. 2. It was recorded is Oriya in "question and answer form". We may extract its relevant portion (English rendering) which reads as follows : "xx xx xxv) Who assaulted you ?. . Udiya Sahu, son of Sanatan Sahu of village Pursottanpurvi) At what time assaulted At about 8 A. M. VII) With which weapon assaulted. . . By a Ballamviii) In which part of body assaulted. We may extract its relevant portion (English rendering) which reads as follows : "xx xx xxv) Who assaulted you ?. . Udiya Sahu, son of Sanatan Sahu of village Pursottanpurvi) At what time assaulted At about 8 A. M. VII) With which weapon assaulted. . . By a Ballamviii) In which part of body assaulted. To my abdomenix) Who more with them Father and two sons, namely Sanatan Sahu (father), Udiya Sahu and Sukuta (sons)X) Which was the place of occurrence Near the house of Sanatan Sahuxi) What you were doing, at the time of occurrence I myself, my brother Ratnakar Sahu and my mother were closing the fence. Thereafter quarrel started. Father and sons attacked. Udiya Sahu stabbed on my belly by a Ballamxii) Who extracted Ballam from your belly. The same Udiya Sahu extracted Ballamxiii) Who brought you from that place My brother Ratnakar Sahu, Khuma Behera brought to the hospital. THE doctor (P. W. 4) stated in his evidence that on 11-7-1991 he was attached to the Sub-divisional Hospital, Bhadrak as Surgery Specialist and the deceased was an indoor patient in the hospital in his ward and he was the treating surgeon. On that day, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the operation theatre of the hospital at about 8 p. m. . He further testified that as the condition of the patient was not satisfactory he felt it necessary to record his declaration. According to him, the patient was conscious both mentally and physically at the time of recording the statement. He read over all the questions and answers to the patient who put his left thumb impression after understanding the contents. The doctor clarified in his evidence by stating that due to inadvertence he mentioned the time of declaration as 8 a. m. ' instead of 8 p. m. '. The patient died on 12-7-1991. In the cross-examination the doctor was specific that the speech of the patient was very clear when he recorded Ext. 2. The patient was under pain and was given pain killer in the form of injection at the time of his admission in the hospital and no sedative was given to the patient prior to recording of Ext. 2. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) stated that after visiting the spot on 11-7-1991 at about 11. 2. The patient was under pain and was given pain killer in the form of injection at the time of his admission in the hospital and no sedative was given to the patient prior to recording of Ext. 2. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) stated that after visiting the spot on 11-7-1991 at about 11. 30 a. m. , he sent the injured (deceased) to Naikanidihi hospital whereafter he was referred to Bhadrak hospital by the Medical Officer of Naikanidihi. He came to Bhadrak hospital and examined the injured and gave requisition to the doctor for recording his dying declaration. Let us now test whether the declaration is truthful. The doctor conducting autopsy found one stitched wound of 71/2" on the right side of the abdomen. The deceased stated in his dying declaration Ext. 2 that the appellant with a 'ballam' assaulted on his abdomen which corroborates the injury found by the doctor. On careful consideration of the dying declaration an the circumstances in which it was made, we are satisfied that it is true. There is nothing on record to hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to dying declaration is untrustworthy. In the circumstances, no illegality was committed by the learned trial judge in recording the finding of guilt on the basis of the dying declaration. ( 9 ) IN the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( 10 ) C. R. PAL, J. , I agree. Appeal dismissed. .