R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- This is an appeal by the State taking exception to acquittal of respondents recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim of the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code. 2. The facts which led to prosecution of the respondents are as under: One Pundlik Gyanba Mopkar alongwith his son, brother and nephew was accused in the case of murder of Rambhau Sampat Davhale. They came to be acquitted in that case. Accused No.1 Bharat is brother and Accused No.3 Chintamani is uncle of said Rambhau Davhale, and accused No.2 is friend of accused No.1 Bharat. After acquittal of Pundlik and others accused persons had threatened them and had also beaten up Pundlik on 04-10-1995. On 13-07-1995 Pundlik had been to Washim for attending market but did not return home that night. At 8.00 a.m. next 'morning Pundlik was spotted in a stream by one Mildhao Wakulkar who informed Pundlik's son Vitthal. Vitthal went to the spot and carried his father in a bullock cart. His father disclosed that three accused persons had trampled upon his body causing injuries to him Pundlik was taken to Dr. Wankhade's Hospital at Washim where he was pronounced, dead. Pundlik's son Vitthal reported the matter to the police, who registered an offence and commenced investigation. 3. In course of the investigation police seized incriminating articles, recorded statements of witnesses and caused post-mortem to be conducted on the dead body of the victim and on completion of the investigation sent charge-sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged the three accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 simplicitor or 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence, were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of denial taken, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit all the three accused. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Adv. Yengal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Adv. Tathod, learned counsel for respondents/original accused. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of denial taken, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit all the three accused. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Adv. Yengal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Adv. Tathod, learned counsel for respondents/original accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, apart from the dying declaration orally made by the victim to his son P.W. 1 Vitthal, the prosecution had tendered evidence of eyewitness P.W. 5 Maroti. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this evidence was sufficient to establish guilt of the respondents and should not have been discarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. With the help of both the learned counsel, therefore, we have undertaken to evaluate the entire evidence in order to find out whether the learned trial Judge was in error in holding that the prosecution failed to prove respondent's guilt. 5. P.W. 2 Dr. Wankhade stated that at about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. Pundlik was brought to his hospital and upon examination he found Pundlik to be dead. He accordingly informed the Police Station, Washim. P.W. 4 Dr. Ghunage conducted post-mortem on the body of Pundlik after receiving requisition Exh.22 from the police. He found that ribs on the right side of the chest were fractured and there was also an injury on the forehead. Dr. Ghunage proved his notes of post-mortem examination at Exh.23 and stated that the injuries observed by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. He also stated that the injuries were possible if some one trampled over the chest and abdomen. He admitted in the cross-examination that there was no injury to the back of the victim. He denied that the injuries were not ante-mortem. The evidence of Dr. Ghunage would show that the victim had met with death on account of homicidal injuries inflicted upon him. The question is, whether the respondents-accused are proved to be the authors of those injuries. 6. P.W. 6 Bandu had proved panchnama of spot. Inquest panchnama Exh.28 was conducted before P.W. 7 Daulat. P.W. 8 Pralhad carried the property to the Forensic Science Laboratory P.W. 9 P.S.I. Deshmukh conducted investigation and sent charge-sheet. The question is, whether the respondents-accused are proved to be the authors of those injuries. 6. P.W. 6 Bandu had proved panchnama of spot. Inquest panchnama Exh.28 was conducted before P.W. 7 Daulat. P.W. 8 Pralhad carried the property to the Forensic Science Laboratory P.W. 9 P.S.I. Deshmukh conducted investigation and sent charge-sheet. The evidence of these witnesses is of a formal nature and does not provide any live link to connect the accused to the crime. 7. According to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor the incident was seen by P.W. 5 Maroti. Maroti stated that he left village Dodki .1 at about 8.00 a.m. for returning to Washim. In a steam between villages Wangi and Walki he heard cries of victim Pundlik Saokar. Three accused persons were trampling on the persons of Pundlik and so Pundlik was shouting. He claimed to have asked the accused as to why they were trampling on the person of the victim, upon which accused Chintaman threatened to murder him if he did not leave the spot. Therefore, Maroti, who hand watched the incident from the distance of three cubits, was frightened and went to Wangi Fata and from there reached Washim by a jeep. The witness claimed that he was ill at his house for about 56 days. Therefore, could not narrate the incident to anyone. After 5-6 days at the instance of one Kashiba he narrated the incident to the police. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was able to walk and talk during all those 5-6 days but did not send any message to victim's son. He had travelled by a jeep up to Washim with 5-6 fellow passengers but did not narrate the incident to them. 8. P.W. 5 Maroti admitted that his brother Baban was in jail due to report of one Ramdas and Ramdas had instituted a case against him. He denied that he believe that accused had helped Ramdas in filing that case. Since he did not have any torch with him at the time of incident he stated that he identified three accused by their voices. In cross-examination he stated that he was frightened after seeking the incident he stated that he identified three accused by their voices. In cross-examination he stated that he was frightened after seeking the incident and due to fear he started running. In cross-examination he stated that he was frightened after seeking the incident he stated that he identified three accused by their voices. In cross-examination he stated that he was frightened after seeking the incident and due to fear he started running. Thus, in the cross he does not state that he was frightened by the threats of accused Chintaman. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that his account of the witness, who disclosed about the incident after 5-6 days was rightly discarded by the learned trial Judge as unworthy of belief. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that this account of Maroti ought to have been relied on inspite of delay of 5-6 days, because the delay has been explained and the account of the incident given by the witness receives corroboration from the oral dying declaration made by the victim to P.W. 1 Vitthal. 9. P.W. 1 Vitthal, victim's son, states that on 13-07-1995 his father had been to Washim but did not return back. On the next morning at about 8.00 a.m. morning at about 8.00 a.m. Madhao informed him that his father was lying in a stream between villages Wangi and Walki. This Madhao has been examined as P.W.3. He stated that at about 8.30 a.m. on 14-07-1995 he reached Wangi Fata and saw Pundlik lying in the stream about 150 ft. from Wangi Fata. He states that he did not have any talk with Pundlik and that he merely went to the village and informed Pundlik's family members. Thus, after about 8.30 a.m. Madhao thereafter reached village Walki and informed P.W. 1 Vitthal. P.W. 1 Vitthal then states that he went to the spot on incident by a bullock cart. He and his brother lifted his father and placed him in the bullock-cart. He and his brother lifted his father and place him in the bullock-cart. Before that his father had informed him that when his father was returning home on the previous night accused persons fell his father down trampled upon his father's chest and stomach. He states that he his brother and others took his father by bullock cart to their home at village Walki. While at home since his father made a sign indicating that there was pain in his stomach. His father was taken to Hospital of Dr. Wankhade at Washim, where Dr. He states that he his brother and others took his father by bullock cart to their home at village Walki. While at home since his father made a sign indicating that there was pain in his stomach. His father was taken to Hospital of Dr. Wankhade at Washim, where Dr. Wankhade pronounced his father dead. 10. The witness has stated that village Walki is at about one km. from the stream, far road itself is one furlong, away from the steam. He stated that Washim is about 5-6 kms. away from the steam. According to P.W. 3 Madhao he had spotted the victim at 8.30 a.m. and then proceeded to P.W. 1 Vitthal to inform him of the fact that Pundlik was lying in the steam. He must have taken 10-15 minutes to reach the village. Equal amount of time should have been taken by P.W. 1 Vitthal and others to reach the spot. Thus, ordinarily Vitthal would have met his father by 9.00 a.m. According to Vitthal, his father was then taken to the village again by travelling a distance of about one km. and then his father was taken to Dr. Wahkhade at Washim about 5-6 kms. away. The fact that at about 10.00 a.m. the victim was dead, and also that before being. taken to Washim the victim signaled (not spoke) that he has pain in his stomach, would be indicative victim's being in a serious condition. This creates doubt if the victim could have conveyed anything to his son Vitthal. Therefore, the oral dying declaration, allegedly made to Vitthal, is not beyond the pale of suspicion. If this be so, it can not lend credibility to the account of P.W.5 Maroti who disclosed about the incident after about 5-6 days. 11. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge erred in concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove that three accused or any of them were authors of injuries which led to death of Pundlik. Consequently the appeal preferred by the State fails and is dismissed. Bail Bonds, if any furnished by the respondents shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.