JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-Noor Mohammad was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 99/96 for having committed murder of his wife Smt. Noorjahan. Learned trial Judge found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him for the offence u/s. 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 500/-, in default further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction has been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal. 2. As per prosecution case Sumer Singh, ASI, Police Station Ganj Ajmer on 22.6.1996 at around 5.30 p.m. recorded Parcha bayan of Noorjahan (now deceased) while she was admitted in Ajmer hospital. In parcha bayan Ex.P/15, Noorjahan deposed that around 3.30/4.00 p.m. she was outside of her house and standing on the road. Her husband Noor Mohammed (appellant) was annoyed with her as she instituted a report some fifteen days ago against him with the police for his ill-treatment with her. She did not want to reside with her husband. Infuriated by this Noor Mohamad inflicted two knife-blows on her stomach, as a result of which she fell down and her Mohallewalas took her for cure. 3. The Police Station Ganj, Ajmer registered a case u/s. 307 IPC and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation police recorded the statements of witnesses, drew site plan, injuries sustained by Smt. Noorajahan were medically examined. After her death, case was converted u/s. 302 IPC and autopsy on her dead body was conducted. The appellant was arrested on 2.8.1996 and recovery of knife was made. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer. Charge u/s. 302 IPC was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. In her statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. No defence evidence however was adduced. On hearing final submissions the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as indicated herein above. 4. The only evidence against the appellant on which reliance is placed by the learned trial Judge is Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/15) of Smt. Noorjahan. Treating it as her dying declaration, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant. 5. Mr. 4. The only evidence against the appellant on which reliance is placed by the learned trial Judge is Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/15) of Smt. Noorjahan. Treating it as her dying declaration, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant. 5. Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, who appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant canvassed that the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution was wholly untrustworthy and in the facts and circumstances of this case the alleged dying declaration could not be relied upon. The nature of injuries was such that Smt. Noorjahan was in a state of shock and could not have uttered a single word from her mouth. 6. Per contra Mr. Yadav learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution had adduced reliable evidence to establish its case. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us and closely scanned the record. Fact situation that emerged may be summarised thus : (i) There is nothing on the parcha bayan Ex.P/15 to establish that Smt. Noor Jahan was in a fit condition to give statement. However, during trial an application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution along with the document Ex.P/24 which is a letter of request made by the Police and one Dr. Ajay Kabra on 22.6.1996 at 4.30 p.m. put following note over it : "Patient is fit to give statement at present time." By overwriting `4.30 p.m.' was made as `5.30 p.m.'. (ii) Dr. Ajay Kabra was not examined by the prosecution. (iii) Dr. P.K. Saraswat PW-11 examined St. Noorajahan while she was alive at 5.10 p.m. on 22.6.1996. As per injury report Ex.P/14, she sustained following two injuries : 1. Stab wound : 2 x 0.8 x ? deep on Rt. side Chest medial to breast, neuritis inner lower quandesent. 2. Stab wound : 2 x 0.8 cm x ? deep on Lt. side lower part chest in hypocendrium. (iv) Smt. Noorjahan died at 6.30 p.m. on 22.6.1996 as per post-mortem report Ex.P/3 following ante-mortem injuries were found on her body : 1. Stitched wound : 3 cm in length, 7 cm below and medial to left nipple at the level of 7th-8th intercostal space obliquely placed. 2. Stitched wound : 2 cm in length, 4 cm medial to Rt. nipple in the 5th intercostal space obliquely placed. In the opinion of Dr. Stitched wound : 3 cm in length, 7 cm below and medial to left nipple at the level of 7th-8th intercostal space obliquely placed. 2. Stitched wound : 2 cm in length, 4 cm medial to Rt. nipple in the 5th intercostal space obliquely placed. In the opinion of Dr. R.K. Mathur PW-2, Smt. Noorjahan died due to shock and hemorrhage caused by injury to both lungs and heart caused by sharp weapon stab injury having sharp-edges on both sides. (v) Sumer Singh PW-16 in his cross-examination deposed that he himself recorded Parcha bayan of Smt. Noorjahan in his hand-writing. Whereas Om Prakash PW-12 stated that Parcha Bayan Ex.P/15 was recorded by him only and it was in his hand-writing. (vi) Learned trial Judge did not place reliance on recovery of knife allegedly made at the instance of the appellant. 8. It is well settled that, as a matter of law, a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. The primarpy effort of the Court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is, no question of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear of convincing that (sic than) the Court may, for its assurance, look for corroboration to the dying declaration. 9. On a close scrutiny of material on record we do not find the alleged dying declaration Ex.P/15 as true. There are certain broad incongruities starring at the prosecution version against the appellant. They can be narrated below : (i) It is difficult to believe that when heart and lungs of Smt. Noorjahan were severely damaged around 4.00 p.m. she could be able to speak at 5.30 p.m. (ii) Prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt as to who was the author of parcha Bayan Ex.P/15. Both Sumer Singh (PW-16) and Om Prakash (PW-12) claimed to be its author. Because of this material contradiction, both these witnesses are not reliable. (iii) Dr. Ajay Kabra who could have testified the condition of Smt. Noorjahan, was not examined. (iv) Overwriting on Ex.P/24 creates doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution case. (v) Although the incident had taken place on the road, no independent witness corroborated the prosecution version. (vi) Recovery of knife could not connect the appellant with the guilt. 10. (iii) Dr. Ajay Kabra who could have testified the condition of Smt. Noorjahan, was not examined. (iv) Overwriting on Ex.P/24 creates doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution case. (v) Although the incident had taken place on the road, no independent witness corroborated the prosecution version. (vi) Recovery of knife could not connect the appellant with the guilt. 10. Learned trial Judge could not notice the aforequoted infirmities in the prosecution case and in our opinion the conviction of appellant cannot be sustained. Shri Ashwani Chobisa learned Amicus Curiae rendered valuable assistance in deciding this case and we are beholden to him. 11. In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned conviction of appellant and we acquit the appellant-Noor Mohammad from the charge u/s. 302 IPC. The appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******