CHELAMESWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE sole appellant is one of the four accused in Sessions Case No. 344 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, hindupur, who was tried along with the other accused for the offences punishable under sections 452 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 450 of the Indian penal Code and acquitted the other accused. Hence, the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE substance of the case against the appellant is that he along with other accused trespassed into the house of the deceased harijana Aswarthamma on 5-8-1999, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. According to the prosecution, the deceased ran out of the house P. Ws. 4 to 6 - the neighbours of the deceased put off the flames. On the information given by P. W. 3 the husband of the deceased, P. W. 1-Village administrative Officer picked up P. W. 2-the sarpanch of the village went to the injured, recorded her statement under Ex. P-1, and the same was sent to the Station House officer, Parigi, Police Station, Ananthapur district. On the basis of which, P. W. 12the assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No, 35 of 1999 initiall under sections 448 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, hindupur. P. W. 15-th duty Medical Officer sent a requisition to P. W. 14-the learned judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur, who proceeded to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the injured under ex. P-21. After the dying declaration was recorded by P. W. 14 the injured died on 6-8-1999 at 9. 15 a. m. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Of whom, the first 10 witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Of these ten witnesses p. Ws. 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the husband, mother, father and brothers respectively of the deceased. It is their case that they were never examined by the police during the course of investigation. They also stated in their evidence that the deceased was suffering from some mental imbalance from her childhood and she also attempted to commit suicide on one occasion earlier. It is their case that they were never examined by the police during the course of investigation. They also stated in their evidence that the deceased was suffering from some mental imbalance from her childhood and she also attempted to commit suicide on one occasion earlier. ( 4 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dandu lakshmi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh #1 and in view of the evidence of the above mentioned five witnesses that the deceased was mentally imbalanced, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the appellant as the only material legally available on record for convicting the accused is the dying declaration made by the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that in view of the settled position of law dying declarations are required to be scruitinized carefully before basing a conviction on them as the makers of those statements are not available for cross- examination. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor relied upon a judgment of the supreme Court reported in Parveen v. State of Haryana #2 wherein it was held that the evidence of hostile witnesses could not be relied upon by the defence for raising a doubt in the mind of the Court. The learned public Prosecutor also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in state of U. P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra #3 wherein it was held as follows:"it is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. " ( 6 ) FROM the above the learned Public prosecutor submitted that any statement favourable to the defence and made by a witness, who is declared hostile could only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence if there is a specific defence taken by the accused, but it cannot be used by the defense in any other way. " ( 6 ) FROM the above the learned Public prosecutor submitted that any statement favourable to the defence and made by a witness, who is declared hostile could only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence if there is a specific defence taken by the accused, but it cannot be used by the defense in any other way. ( 7 ) IN view of the apparently conflicting statements of law made by the Supreme court in the above mentioned two judgments, we deem it appropriate that it is a matter to be heard by a Bench of appropriate strength regarding the issue whether the defence could rely upon any statement made by a witness, who is declared hostile by the prosecution in the absence of any specific definite line of defence. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Honourable the Chief justice for posting this case before a Bench of appropriate strength.