Judgment : ( 1 ) BOTH the appellants on being tried, have been found and held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the indian Penal Code by common judgment dated 30. 8. 2000 passed by the Sessions judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1999 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to their conviction are that in the afternoon of 14. 3. 1998, informant Kayum Sah of village Naya Bazar was passing through Bazar and the appellants wanted to put colour on him to which he protested then appellant Mahendra Thakur asked appellant Radhey Sham Prasad to pour petrol on him. Further stated that appellant Radhey Shyam prasad brought petrol kept in a container from his shop and threw it on his back, after which appellant mahendra Thakur set him on fire with a match. The informant receiving burn injuries raised alarms and fell down. Many persons after which arrived at and got the fire extinguished. The informant received burn injuries on his chest, back, face and arms etc. He was shifted to Sadar Hospital, daltonganj for treatment, where his fardbeyan was recorded by one A. S. I. Rameshwar Singh of Town Police Station at about 8. 00 p. m. in presence of Minhaj sah, the son of the informant. ( 3 ) THIS fardbeyan was forwarded to O. C. Bishrampur Police Station, on the basis of which Bishrampur Police Station Case No. 24 of 1998 dated 15. 3. 1998 was registered under Sections 341/324/307/34 of the Indian penal Code. In spite of treatment, informant kayum Sah succumbed to these burns injuries on 22. 4. 1998. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. Their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Court, Sessions Judge, palamau framed charge against both the appellants under Sections 341 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. 4. 1998. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. Their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Court, Sessions Judge, palamau framed charge against both the appellants under Sections 341 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. However, after examining the witnesses, the learned trial Court found and held both of them guilty under Section 302/34 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above. ( 4 ) THE present appeals have been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court has relied upon the fardbeyan treating it as dying declaration against the law. It is further asserted that all witnesses produced by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution version. It is also submitted that in the circumstances where death has occurred after five weeks and the police had all opportunities to collect evidence, none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that even the son of the deceased (PW 4) Minhaj Sah did not support prosecution case. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned trial Court on uncorroborated single statement of fardbeyan recorded by pw 16 on 14. 3. 1998 should not have been accepted to base the conviction against the appellants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellants is not justified and deserves to be set aside. ( 5 ) LEARNED APP for the State opposed these contentions and submits that in such cases, the single statement of the deceased deserves respect and acceptance. ( 6 ) WE have anxiously considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is admitted fact on record that the last statement recorded by PW 16 on 14. 3. 1998 has been accepted and relied upon by the learned trial Court. The point, however, remains that if the conviction based upon the fardbeyan, treated later on as the last statement of the deceased, can be accepted in the facts of this case. The prosecution has examined altogether sixteen witnesses, out of which PW 13 Dr. Mithilesh prasad Singh has treated the deceased on 14. 3. 1998 and found 60% burn injuries on the informant supporting that the injuries may be possible by burning with petrol. PW 14 Dr. The prosecution has examined altogether sixteen witnesses, out of which PW 13 Dr. Mithilesh prasad Singh has treated the deceased on 14. 3. 1998 and found 60% burn injuries on the informant supporting that the injuries may be possible by burning with petrol. PW 14 Dr. G. P. Singh conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of kayum Sah on 22. 4. 1998 and opined that death was caused due to septicemic shocks as a result of infected ulcers present over the body. PW 15 Arvind Kumar Sharma, who is Inspector, has registered Bishrampur police Station Case No. 24 of 1998 on the basis of the fardbeyan received by him recorded by PW 16 ASI rameswar Singh on 14. 3. 1998. He has admitted in cross-examination that the fardbeyan was recorded without any certificate from the doctor regarding the condition of patient. ( 7 ) ALL the other twelve witnesses were declared hostile, except PW 8. All of them, however, asserted that they did not know about the incident and unwilling to say anything in support of the fardbeyan of the informant. PW 4 Minhaj Sah, who has signed over the fardbeyan, also did not mention anything supporting the prosecution case. Therefore, the fact remains that all the probable and eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution case before the trial Court. The trial Court has considered all these facts on record vide paragraphs 8 to 16. However, it found that in absence of any supporting evidence on record, the fardbeyan recorded by PW 16 may be treated as the dying declaration. It has further held that the said statement was made voluntarily and recorded correctly by PW 16 when the informant was in fit condition of mind to give correct description of the incident. ( 8 ) MR. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the appellants strongly stressed that this view of the learned Court below is erroneous. Mr. Roy, relied upon a decision reported in the case of The Public Prosecutor, H. C. of A. P. v. Pothula narsimha Rao and submitted that in the facts of this case where this statement has not been corroborated by any evidence on record, particularly, when the death occurred after five weeks, the fardbeyan cannot be treated as the last statement disclosing the circumstances in which the death took place. It is also averted that the son of the informant deceased. PW 4 has failed to support the said statement and in absence of any supporting circumstances, this statement should not have been accepted as the statement disclosing the circumstances resulting in his death. ( 9 ) WE have gone through the reasons given by the learned trial Court vide paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment at pages 5 and 6. The learned trial Court has found that the fardbeyan was recorded by PW 16 whether the informant was in fit condition to give correct statement. However, this fact has not been supported by any certificate of the doctor PW 13 treating him in the evening of 14. 3. 1998. This statement is not supported by any of the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. We find that even the son of the informant has failed to support the statement of the deceased. Thus, the fardbeyan Ext. 4 and 4/2 relied upon by the trial Court remain proved only by single witness PW 16 who has admitted that he did not record this statement in presence of doctor nor got any such certificate from the attending doctor that he was capable of giving statement. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the reliance placed upon this statement; fardbeyan of the deceased has not been corroborated by any of the probable and named eyewitnesses in the Court during trial. It is also found and held that the investigating Officer has not supported the statement of the deceased, having recorded it after 14. 3. 1998 though he remained alive for next five weeks. The guilt of the appellants, therefore, cannot be inferred safely on the basis of sole statement of the deceased, which has not been corroborated by any subsequent probable evidence brought on record. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we find that the present appeals have got merit in it and deserve to be allowed. ( 11 ) IN the result, the present appeals have got merit and are allowed. The judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside. Appellant Radhasao @ Radhey Shyam prasad in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2000 (R) is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. ( 11 ) IN the result, the present appeals have got merit and are allowed. The judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside. Appellant Radhasao @ Radhey Shyam prasad in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2000 (R) is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appellant Mahendra Thakur in criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2000 (R) is directed to set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .