JUDGMENT J.A. Patil, J. - This appeal by original accused Nos. 1 to 3 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 78/93 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The learned Judge convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved thereby the accused have preferred this appeal. 2. Deceased Mankarna was a widow and she was residing with her three children in hutment at village Kinkhed. The eldest of her children is a daughter by name Rekha, aged 10 years, the second is a son by name Ganesh aged 3 years and the third is also a son by name Dinesh aged 4 months. Mankarna lost her husband about three years prior to the incident and her second son Dinesh was begotten by her out of illicit relationship with accused No.3 Sunil. All the three accused are residents of the same village and at the relevant time they were residing just opposite the house of Mankarna. Accused No.1 Anil and No.3 Sunil are brothers while accused No.2 Yamunabai is their mother. 3. After the birth of her third child, namely, Dinesh, Mankarnagotan entry made- in the register of birth maintained by the Gram Panchayat to the effect that accused No.3 Sunil was the father of the child. This was obviously not liked -by the accused as a result of which there used to be frequent quarrels between them and Mankarna. The accused used to ask Mankarna as to why she had got the entry made in the name of accused No.3 Sunil. According to the prosecution, accused had also given threats to Mankarria. About three months prior to the incident the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution dated 23-10-1992 Exh. 30 and cancelled the entry in the register of birth showing the name of accused No. 3 Sunil as being the father of the newly born child of Mankarna. 4. The incident in question took place on 28-1-1993 at about 10 A.M. It is alleged that all the three accused went in front of the house of Mankarna and started giving her abuses and threats. Accused No.2 Yamunabai and No.3 Sunil caught hold of Mankarna while accused No.1 Anil poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. 4. The incident in question took place on 28-1-1993 at about 10 A.M. It is alleged that all the three accused went in front of the house of Mankarna and started giving her abuses and threats. Accused No.2 Yamunabai and No.3 Sunil caught hold of Mankarna while accused No.1 Anil poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. As a result of this, Mankarna caught fire and she started rolling on the ground by giving shouts. It appears that all the three accused then withdrew from the place. The neighbouring people on hearing the shouts rushed to the spot and they put out the fire on the person of Mankarna and brought her inside her hut. In the meantime, her daughter Rekha P.W. 11 who had gone to school, returned home. She made enquiry with her mother who deposed to her that the accused had set her on fire. It appears that Mankama's son Ganesh was sent to inform the Police Patil Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1. Immediately thereafter Pandurang Ingle visited the hut of Mankarna and found that she was lying in with burn injuries on her person. He made enquiry with her as to how she had received the burns. According to the prosecution, Mankarna disclosed to him that there was a quarrel between her and the three accused and that in that quarrel the accused had set her on fire. Pandurang Ingle then left the house of Mankarna. It appears that after sometimes he happened to meet P.S.I. Ghurde P.W. 14 who had come to Dairyphata in connection with some bandobast duty. On being informed by the Police Patil, P.S.I. Ghurde along with him Niranjan Onkar P.W. 5 and Dr. Prabhakar Shelke P.W 4 visited the house of Mankarna at about 4 P.M. and recorded her dying declaration Exh. 28. The same was duly attested by Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 and Niranjan Onkar P.W. 5. In that statement also Mankarna stated that the accused had picked up a quarrel with her and in that quarrel accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of her while accused No.1 set her on fire after pouring kerosene. 5. After recording the statement Exh. 28 of Mankarna. P.S.I. Ghurde P.W. f4 returned to Dahihanda Police Station and registered the case against the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 and 3 caught hold of her while accused No.1 set her on fire after pouring kerosene. 5. After recording the statement Exh. 28 of Mankarna. P.S.I. Ghurde P.W. f4 returned to Dahihanda Police Station and registered the case against the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime arrangements were made to remove Mankarna to the main hospital at Akola. However, she could not survive for much time and breathed her last on the same night at about 8 P.M. The post-mortem examination of her dead-body was carried by Medical Officer Dr. Umesh Agrawal PW. 8 on 30-1-1993. He found that Mankarna had received 93% of burn injuries. Accordingly, Dr. Aggrawal prepared the postmortem report Exh. 18 and opined the probable cause of her death as 93% burns with shock. After the death of Mankarna the case was re-registered for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 28-1-1993 while accused No. 3 came to be arrested on 1-2-1993. The investigation of the case was carried by P.S.I. Ghurde who after completing the same filed chargesheet against the accused on 31-3-1993 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Akot. The learned Magistrate later on committed the case to the Sessions Court. Akola for trial. 6. In the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses including Rekha P.W. 11 and the two attesting witnesses to the dying declaration, i.e. Police Patil Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 and Niranjan Onkar P.W. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the death of Mankarna was homicidal. She further held that there was a motive for the accused to cause the death of Mankarna as she had attributed the paternity of her third child to accused No.3 Sunil. The learned Judge held that the dying declaration Exh. 28 was duly proved and acting upon the same, held all the three accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Shri M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused contended before us that the trial Judge was in error in holding that there was a motive for the accused to set Mankarna on fire. 7. Shri M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused contended before us that the trial Judge was in error in holding that there was a motive for the accused to set Mankarna on fire. Shri Daga pointed out that about three months before the incident the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution and cancelled the entry in the register of birth showing accused No.3 Sunil as the father on the nearly born child of Mankarna. Shri Daga further submitted that the learned Judge had erred in placing reliance upon the dying declaration Exh. 28. He pointed out that Mankarna had sustained 93% burn in juries and she was not in a fit condition to make a statement. He further pointed out that the dying declaration Exh. 28 does not bear any certificate of Dr. Shelke P.W. 4 even though he was present when the same was recorded. Shri K.S. Dhote, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state supported the order of conviction and sentence. 8. Shri Daga has taken us through the evidence on record. It is seen from the evidence of Anusuyabai P.W. 2 and Baby P.W. 3 who were residing near the house of Mankarna that on the relevant morning, they visited the house of Mankarna and found that she had received burn injuries. It is further seen that Mankarna was removed to the Main Hospital at Akola on the same evening but she could not survive. The evidence of Dr. Umesh Aggrawal P.W. 8 shows that he carried the post mortem examination on 30-1-1993 and found on the person of Mankarna 93% burn injuries. According to him, the cause of death was 93% burns with shock. There is no dispute about this evidence and as such it is obvious that Mankarna died unnatural death. It may, however, be noted that unnatural death maybe either accidental or suicidal or homicidal. In the instant case, the prosecution has alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention set Mankarna on fire by pouring kerosene on her. There is no evidence of any eye-witness even though the incident took place at about 10 A.M. infront of the house of Mankarna in a hutment area. The evidence of Police Patil Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 shows that there are about 40 huts in that locality and that about 300 to 400 people reside therein. There is no evidence of any eye-witness even though the incident took place at about 10 A.M. infront of the house of Mankarna in a hutment area. The evidence of Police Patil Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 shows that there are about 40 huts in that locality and that about 300 to 400 people reside therein. The road leading to village Dharel passes by the side of the house of Mankarna. He further stated that the road is always busy with traffic. Despite this position, it is surprising that there was no eye-witness to the incident. Anusuya P.W. 2 and Baby P.W. 3 reside in the neighbourhood but they have not seen the actual incident of burning. According to them, they came later on. Baby P.W. 3 has stated in her cross-examination that on hearing the noise she went to the spot and found that Mankarna was burning and lying on the ground and that she was trying to extinguish fire with her hands. Baby has further stated that she and her mother put out the fire on the burning quilt which was in the hut. It will thus be seen that none of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the accused actually setting Mankarna on fire. On the contrary, Baby P.W. 3 has stated in her cross-examination that she made enquiry with Mankarna about the cause of her burning and according to her, Mankarna told her that due to Leprosy she had got tired and she got herself burnt. Baby was treated. as a hostile witness. Therefore, the admission which she has given in the cross-examination suggesting the suicidal death of Mankarna need not be attached much importance. 9. In this case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the dying declarations of Mankarna. In all there are three dying declarations out of which two are oral and one is reduced to writing i.e. Exh. 28. It is well-settled that there can be a conviction only on the basis of dying declaration and it is not at all necessary to have a corroboration provided the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is a truthful dying declaration and not vitiated in any other manner Vide State of Assam v. Mafizuddin1. The first dying declaration is said to have been made to Rekha P.W. 11. The first dying declaration is said to have been made to Rekha P.W. 11. The evidence of Rekha is to the effect that she was in the school when her mother was burnt. She further stated that before going to the school she was in house and at that time all the three accused had come to her house and threatened to kill her mother. Rekha further stated that after sometime she returned home to answer nature's call and at that time she learnt that her mother was burnt. She stated that she went near her mother and made enquiry. According to her, the mother told her that accused No.1 Anil and his mother had set her on fire. So far as the alleged threat given by the accused is concerned. Rekha does not appear to have stated so before the police when her statement was recorded two days thereafter. Apart from this omission on her part, her version about the disclosure made by her mother to her does not inspire confidence. She stated in the cross-examination that her mother was groaning due to burn injuries and demanding water. She further stated that the another was unable to talk and she was shouting only. If that is true, then it is difficult to believe that Mankarna was at the relevant time in a condition to make a statement as to how she received burn injuries. It may be noted that Rekha is a child witness, who was at the relevant time about 9 years old. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts, it will not be safe to place reliance upon her evidence. The trial Judge has considered her evidence and found the same not reliable. We do not see any error on the part of the trial Judge in this respect. 10. The second dying declaration of Mankarna is said to have been made to the Police Patil Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1, His evidence is to the effect that at about 1 P.M. he was present at his house, when Ganesh the son of Mankarna came to his house and informed that his mother was burnt. Pandurang Ingle has stated that Ganesh was crying at that time and, therefore, he immediately went to the house of Mankarna and found her in burnt condition. According to him, he made enquiry with her as to how she was burnt. Pandurang Ingle has stated that Ganesh was crying at that time and, therefore, he immediately went to the house of Mankarna and found her in burnt condition. According to him, he made enquiry with her as to how she was burnt. He stated that Mankarna told him that in the morning she had a quarrel with accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that accused No.2 Yamunabai and No. 3 Sunil caught hold of her while accused No.1 Anil poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The evidence of Pandurang Ingle does not show that anybody had accompanied him when he made enquiry with Mankarna as to how she received burn injuries. Pandurang Ingle further stated that Mankarna was in a position to understand his questions and her talk was clear. In the cross-examination he stated that Mankarna was lying on the cot and murmuring due to burning when he went to her house. He further stated that he was talking with her in a loud tone and was required to put the same question once or twice as she was not understanding the question immediately. According to him, she was talking in low tone with murmuring and that her first reply was not understandable to him. He further stated that at that time Mankarna's two small children were present. It may be pointed out here that Pandurang Ingle was treated as a hostile witness because according to the prosecution, he made certain favourable statements to the accused with regard to the third dying declaration Exh. 28 which he attested. 11. Be that as it may, his evidence shows that after making enquiry with Mankarna he went to the land of one Lande where a Police, Jamadar of Oahihanda Police Station had come in connection with investigation of a case. According to him thereafter he along with the police Jamadar was returning to the house of Mankarna and on the way he met Police Sub-Inspector (P.S.I.) Ghurde P.W. 14 was coming from Chouhatta, Pandurang Ingle claims to have narrated to PSI Ghurde the incident which was disclosed to him by Mankarna, It is however, significant to note that PSI Ghurde does not say that the Police Patil Pandurang Ingle told him about the disclosure made by Mankarna. The relevant part of the evidence of PSI Ghurde reads as under: "Police Patil told me that resident of their village Mankarnabai was burnt and she is in her house. I asked her why they were not sifted to her to the hospital. He told me that she received homicidal burns and therefore, they were waiting for me……" We have checked the vernacular version of PSI Ghurde and we find that he does not refer to the homicidal death. The marathi version reads: (Matter in other language) Then he stated that she accidently got burnt and. therefore they waited for the police. If Pandurang Ingle had really told PSI Ghurde about the disclosure made to him by a Mankarna then in all probabilities PSI Ghurde would have stated about the same in his evidence. The fact that PSI Ghurde did not state anything about the same suggests that Pandurang Ingle had not told him about any such disclosure made to him by Mankarna. For the aforesaid reasons it will therefore, not be proper to place reliance upon the second dying declaration. 12. The prosecution has then heavily relied upon the third dying declaration which was recorded by PSI Ghurde P.W. 14 at Exh. 28. In fact the trial Judge has also relied upon the same to hold all the three accused guilty of the charge of committing murder of Mankarna. It is therefore, becomes necessary to carefully scrutinise the said dying declaration. The evidence of Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 and PSI Ghurde P.W. 14 shows that after the former informed the latter about the burning of Mankarna both of them along with others visited the house of Mankarna. They were accompanied by Niranjan Onkar P.W. 5. Dr. Prabhakar Shelke P.W. 4 and others, PSI Ghurde has stated that Mankarna was lying on a cot and she was groaning as she had severe burn injuries. According to, him, he Police Patil Pandurang Ingle and Niranjan Onkar entered the house and that he asked Mankarna as to how she had received the burns. PSI Ghurde has stated that Mankarna could speak and understand what he was asking her. According to him she disclosed that Sunil and his mother had caught hold of her and Anil poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by means of a matchstick. PSI Ghurde has stated that Mankarna could speak and understand what he was asking her. According to him she disclosed that Sunil and his mother had caught hold of her and Anil poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by means of a matchstick. PSI Ghurde further stated that he then recorded the narration made by Mankarna as per her say and obtained her thumb impression thereon. He also stated that after recording this statement the contents were read over to her and thereafter the thumb impression was obtained. PSI Ghurde stated that the panch witnesses in whose presence the statement was recorded also signed it. He also signed the statement Exh. 28. 13. It may be pointed out that in the statement Exh. 28 Mankarna has referred to her love affair with accused No.3 Sunil and to the fact that a child is born to her from him. She has stated about the quarrel which took place at about 10 A.M. between her and the three accused and added that accused No.1 Anil said at that time that as she had become the wife of Sunil nobody could raise objection if any harm was caused to her. The statement further refers to the actual incident of burning by the three accused. It further states that the neighbours and villagers rushed to the spot and extinguished the fire when she was rolling on the ground. The statement refers to the presence of Baby P.W. 3 who gave water to Mankarna. In short the statement Exh. 28 incriminates all the three accused. 14. PSI Ghurde has stated that after recording the statement Exh. 28 he also made enquiry with Mankarna about the place of incident where she was burnt and she then pointed out the courtyard. The cross-examination of PSI Ghurde shown that he received information about the incident at about 4 P.M. and that he recorded the statement Exh. 28 at 4.15 P.M. He denied the suggestion that Mankarna was not in a condition to understand his questions and that she was unable to understand the answers given by him. He also denied the suggestion that no such statement was given by Mankarna. 15. The prosecution has examined both the attesting witnesses in whose presence the statement Exh. 28 was recorded. However. Niranjan Onkar P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution. He also denied the suggestion that no such statement was given by Mankarna. 15. The prosecution has examined both the attesting witnesses in whose presence the statement Exh. 28 was recorded. However. Niranjan Onkar P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution. He admitted to have accompanied the police to the house of Mankarna but stated that he did not enter inside the house. He admitted his signature on Exh. 28 but pleaded ignorance as to what talk took place between Mankarna and PSI Ghurde. Niranjan Onkar was, therefore, treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. Be that as it may the result is that the evidence of Niranjan Onkar is of no use to the prosecution. 16. The second attesting witness is Police Patil Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 who has stated that he accompanied PSI Ghurde to the house of Mankarna. According to him. PSI Ghurde went inside the house while he stood near the door. Pandurang Ingle stated that Niranjan Onkar and Dr. Shelke were present there when PSI Ghurde made enquiry with Mankarna. According to him. Mankarna told that accused No.2 Yamunabai and No.3 Sunil had caught hold of her and that accused No.1 Anil poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. He also stated that the said statement was read over to Mankarna who admitted the same to be correct and thereafter she put her thumb impression on it. 17. The cross-examination of Pandurang Ingle shows that he has made material improvements in his original version. Two material omissions amounting to contradictions in his evidence have been brought op record and got proved through the investigating officer. Pandurang Ingle did not state before the police that when he had gone to the house of Mankarna with PSI Ghurde she told that she was caught by Yamunabai and Sunil and that Anil poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Similarly he also did not state before the police that the statement was read over to Mankarna and that she admitted the same to be correct. In fact, on his own admissions it is clear that Pandurang Ingle could not have heard the actual statement made by Mankarna at that time. He has stated that he was standing at a distance of about 6 or 7 feet from Mankarna when PSI Ghurde was recording her statement. In fact, on his own admissions it is clear that Pandurang Ingle could not have heard the actual statement made by Mankarna at that time. He has stated that he was standing at a distance of about 6 or 7 feet from Mankarna when PSI Ghurde was recording her statement. He further admitted that he did not hear the conversation between Mankarna and PSI Ghurde as he was standing away from her. Subsequently when he was recalled and further cross-examined, he stated that he could hear the talk between Mankarna and PSI Ghurde. This is quite contrary to what he admitted in his earlier cross-examination. It will thus be seen that Pandurang Ingle has made contradictory statement on a material point and thereby rendered his version doubtful. The learned trial Judge has, however, failed to consider this material aspect and proceeded to accept the evidence of Pandurang Ingle. 18. Shri M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, pointed out that the evidence about Mankarna being in a fit condition to make a statement is of doubtful nature. He pointed out that although Dr. Shelke P.W. 5 had accompanied PSI Ghurde at the relevant time, no steps were taken to get her examined from Dr. Shelke and obtain his signature on Exh. 28 to the effect that she was in a fit condition to make a statement. The prosecution has examined Dr. Prabhakar Shelke P.W. 4 who stated that at the relevant time he had gone to the house of Mankarna to see what had happened. He was, however, declared as a hostile witness, probably because he pleaded his ignorance about the relations between Mankarna and the accused. However, he stated that in his presence PSI Ghurde had asked Mankarna as to how she was burnt and that he recorded her statement. He denied the suggestion that Mankarna told PSI Gurde that accused had burnt her. Dr. Shelke has nowhere stated that he was asked by 19 PSI Ghurde to examine Mankarna and certify whether or not she was in a condition to make a statement. In fact, PSI Ghurde himself has admitted in paragraph 5 of his deposition that he did not request Dr. Shelke to examine Mankarna and verify whether she was in a condition to make a statement. Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 has also said the something. In fact, PSI Ghurde himself has admitted in paragraph 5 of his deposition that he did not request Dr. Shelke to examine Mankarna and verify whether she was in a condition to make a statement. Pandurang Ingle P.W. 1 has also said the something. Then is absolutely no explanation given by the prosecution as to why the opinion of Dr. Shelke regarding the fitness of Mankarna to make a statement was not obtained when he was very much present at her house. It must be stated that it was not merely a failure but negligence on the part PSI Ghurde to get Mankarna examined by Dr. Shelke before recording her statement. As seen above, Mankarna had sustained 93% burn injuries and it is in the evidence of all the witnesses that she was groaJ.1ing under pains. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary for PSI Ghurde to have Mankarna examined by Dr. Shelke. However, he failed to do so with the result that the authority to evidence about the physical condition of Mankarna at the relevant time is lost. The only inference which can, therefore, be drawn is that no certificate of Dr. Shelke regarding the fitness of Mankarna to make a f3tatement was obtained since she was not in a fit condition to make the statement. Shri Daga relied upon the decision in Rajendrasingh v. State of Punjab2, wherein the dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate him self by preparing a memorandum and noting therein that the Medical Officer had certified about the fitness of the deceased to make a statement but he did not obtain any such certificate or even signature of the Medical Officer on the memorandum. It was held that the dying declaration was not reliable. In this connection, it may be pointed out that Dr. Shelke P.W. 4 stated that due to burn injuries Mankarna was semi-conscious and was murmuring. 19. The learned trial Judge has observed that the very fact that Mankarna herself showed the place of incident by coming outside her hut shows that she was in a position to speak and walk. It is not known on what basis the trial Judge has made this observation because none of the witnesses particularly Pandurang Ingle and PSI Ghurde have stated that Mankarna came out of the hut by walking and showed the actual spot where she was burnt. It is not known on what basis the trial Judge has made this observation because none of the witnesses particularly Pandurang Ingle and PSI Ghurde have stated that Mankarna came out of the hut by walking and showed the actual spot where she was burnt. The evidence of PSI Ghurde is to the effect that he made enquiry with Mankarna about the place of incident and she showed the place in the courtyard. He nowhere stated that Mankarna got up from the cot, walked outside and showed the actual spot. It is, therefore, obvious that the inference drawn by the trial Judge is not based on the evidence on record. 20. The net result of the above discussion is that there is no satisfactory evidence to indicate that Mankarna was in a fit condition to make a statement when her dying declaration Exh. 28 was recorded. The evidence in this respect is of doubtful nature. The trial Judge was, therefore, not right in placing reliance upon the same. 21. The evidence on record shows that Mankarna was removed to the hospital at Akola on the same evening. It appears that she breathed her last on the same night. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the investigating her did not take steps to get her dying declaration recorded through an Executive Magistrate. We can understand that it might not have been possible to procure the presence of Executive Magistrate at Kinkhed to record her dying declaration. However, we do not see any difficulty in doing so after she was brought to Akola and admitted in the hospital. Shri Daga referred to the decision in Dalipsingh v. State of Punjab3, wherein Their Lordship held that dying declaration recorded by a police officer during the course of investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act in view of the exception provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was, however, observed: "…….. It is better to leave such dying declaration out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the Court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a doctor. It was, however, observed: "…….. It is better to leave such dying declaration out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the Court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a doctor. The practice of the investigating officer himself recording a dying dec1aration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged.…." In the instant case, it was quite possible for PSI Ghurde to get the dying declaration of Mankarna recorded through Dr. Shelke P.W. 4 However, as pointed out above, he did not even bother to get Mankarna examined by Dr. Shelke, leave alone the fact that he did not obtain his certificate about her condition to make a statement. The trial Judge has not made proper scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration of Mankarna. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain her finding that Mankarna was in the fit condition to make a statement. Consequently no reliance can be placed upon the dying declaration Exh. 28. 22. Shri K.S. Dhote, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the accused had strong motive to do away with Mankarna since she got an entry made in the register of births to sow that accused No.3 Sunil was the father of her third child. Shri Daga, however, pointed out that the accused had got the said entry cancelled about three months before the incident in question and as such, there was no reason for them to set Mankarna on fire. The submission of Shri Daga is not altogether without any force. Even assuming that the accused had a motive still that cannot be by itself sufficient to hold them guilty in the absence of other satisfactory evidence. After a careful reappraisal of the evidence on record, we have come to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on any of the three dying declarations of Mankarna and in the absence of any other satisfactory evidence the conviction of the accused cannot be upheld. 23. In the result, we allow this appeal by setting aside the order or conviction and sentence passed against all the three appellants/accused and acquit them of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants/accused be released forthwith if they are not required for the purpose of any other offence. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 274. 2. The appellants/accused be released forthwith if they are not required for the purpose of any other offence. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 274. 2. 1993 S.C.C. (Cri) 135. 3. 1979 Cri. L.J. 700.