Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Hanuman, Dev Lal, Raghuveer Mandawra and Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sharma, the appellants herein, and one Ummed were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 71/2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi. Learned trial Judge vide Judgment dated 14.01.2002 convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000/-in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment 2. It is the prosecution case that on 010.1999 at 11.30 PM when Constable Hansraj of Police Station, Talera went out of police station to drink water he saw a person drenched in the blood falling down near the water hut. On being enquired as to what had happened, the person informed that his name was Badri Lal and he resided in Kota. Raghuveer, Shyam, Deva and Hanuman Meena after picking up quarrel with him inflicted knife blows on his person. No sooner did Hansraj come into action and called Ram Karan ASI, the person succumbed to the injuries. A written report (Exhibit-P-3) was lodged by Hansraj on the basis of which case under Section 302/34, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and the accused were arrested. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi. Charge under Section 302 read with 149, IPC was framed against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 33 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, CrPC, the appellants claimed innocence and three witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance weighted the material on record. .4. Death of Badri Lal was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Exhibit-P-37) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Stab wound 2 cm x 0.7 cm x deep? Clotted blood present on front of Rt. side of chest in IIIrd ICS (Inter costal space) in mid clavicular line margins of wound are clean cut regular and everted. 2. As per post mortem report (Exhibit-P-37) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Stab wound 2 cm x 0.7 cm x deep? Clotted blood present on front of Rt. side of chest in IIIrd ICS (Inter costal space) in mid clavicular line margins of wound are clean cut regular and everted. 2. Stab wound 1/1/2 cm x 0.5 cm x deep? On front of left side of chest in IIIrd inter costal space in the mid clavicular line. Margins of wound are regular. Clean cut, clotted blood present. 3. Stabwound 2 cm x 0.7 cm x bone deep on front of Rt. side of chest anteriorly just near to sternum in 5th inter costal space. Margins are regular clean cut everted. Clotted blood present. 4. Stab wound 2 cm x 1cm x deep? In the lower part of chest in 9th inter costal space in position axillary fold line on Rt. side margins are regular. Clean cut, everted. 5.Stab wound 2 cm x 1cm x Deep? Margins are everted, clean cut regular clotted blood present on the middle of left flank of abdomen. 6. Stab wound 2 cm x 0.7 cm x deep? On Rt. 8th inder costal space posteriorly. Margins are regular clean cut regular clotted. 7. Stab wound 2 cm x 1cm x deep? With clotted blood margins are regular clean cut, in middle of left side of chest in between anterior and posterior axillary line. 8. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left lateral lower 1/3 of thigh margins regular blood clot. 9. Incised wound 1.5 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on upper most part of Rt. legjust below the Rt. knee joint. In the opinion of Dr. G.C. Jain (PW. 15), who conducted autopsy on the dead body, the cause of death was shock due to antemortem external and internal injuries to vital organs which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the cross examination Dr. G.C. Jain deposed thus:- 5. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case if founded on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased. Informant Hansraj (PW. In the cross examination Dr. G.C. Jain deposed thus:- 5. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case if founded on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased. Informant Hansraj (PW. 3), in his deposition stated that on 010.1999 he was on duty at Police Station Talera, around 11.30 PM when he went out of police station to drink water at water hut, he saw a person falling down near the water hut. He was Badri Lal of Kota and in the chowk of a school Hanuman, Deva, Raghuveer and Shyam inflicted knife blows on his person. As soon as Hansraj called Ramkaran ASI, the injured succumbed to his injuries. In his cross-examination he however stated thus:- 6. Suraj Mal (PW. 10). however deposed that on 010.1999 he was posted as constable at Police Station Talera on that day Ramkaran ASI was incharge of police station. Around 11 PM Hansraj rushed to the police station and shouted that one person was lying on the road side. Suraj Mal and ASI Ramkaran then went out and found a person lying in a pool of blood. In the cross-examination he however admitted that water pots were available at the police station. 7. Naveen Kumar Photographer (PW. 26) in his deposition stated that around 4 AM the police came to call him for photography of dead body lying in front of police station Talera. In his cross-examination he however deposed as under:- 8. Samiullah Khan, Investigation Officer (PW. 31) in his cross-examination stated thus:- 9. Factual situation emerges from the material on record may be summarised thus:- .(i) No eye witness had witnessed the incident. .(ii) Despite drinking water was available in the police station, informant Hansraj had gone out to drink water. (iii) Accordingto informant Hansraj he came to know about the name of deceased and the assailants at 11.30 PM, whereas Samiullah Khan IO could know the name of the deceased at 12 Oclock from one passenger Krishna. .(iv) Navin Kumar Photographer, who was called at 4 AM, deposed that till 4 AM the IO and Hansraj did not know the names of the deceased and the assailants. .(v) The deceased had sustained as many as nine injuries and the nature of injuries was such that he was not in a position to speak. 10. .(iv) Navin Kumar Photographer, who was called at 4 AM, deposed that till 4 AM the IO and Hansraj did not know the names of the deceased and the assailants. .(v) The deceased had sustained as many as nine injuries and the nature of injuries was such that he was not in a position to speak. 10. In Ramsai vs. State of M.P., 1994 CrLJ 138 on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the appellants, the Apex Court noticed serious infirmities in the testimony of witnesses and observed as under:-[4 Para ] “There are all serious infirmities which we find in the evidence regarding the oral dying declaration. The medical evidence also shows that it is highly doubtful whether the deceased could not have made any such statement. The oral dying declaration is no doubt an important piece of evidence, but it should be free from all infirmities. There is no other corroboration worth mentioning. Further as mentioned above the conduct of PWs. 18 and 20 is highly unnatural and they say that for three days they did not inform anybody about the oral dying declaration. We find that it is highly unsafe to base the conviction on the oral dying declaration because of the many infirmities pointed out. 11. In Mohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (IV) Apex Decision (SC) 333 the Supreme Court indicated as under:-[4 Para ]“As regards the dying declaration stated to have been made by the deceased to his wife, it appears that the deceased could not have made such a dying declaration in view of the number of injuries received by him. The evidence of Gomti (PW. 7) is that when she reached the place of incident, her husband Dhuni Ram was in a position to speak and when she enquired, he gave the names of the assailants. However, she admitted that immediately after saying so, her husband had became unconscious. No other witness had spoken about this dying declaration. The High Court was, therefore, right in not placing reliance upon the dying declaration.” 12. However, she admitted that immediately after saying so, her husband had became unconscious. No other witness had spoken about this dying declaration. The High Court was, therefore, right in not placing reliance upon the dying declaration.” 12. Before analysing the submissions advanced before us it will be apt to recapitulate the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act which provide that “facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” The principles of law embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of RES GESTAE recognised in English Law. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of same transaction” becomes relevant by itself . This rule is roughly speaking an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement on fact admissible under Section 6 is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But, it is necessary that such fact or statement must be part of the same transaction. If there was an interval, however slight it may be which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement is not part of res gestae. In Sukhar vs. State of U.P., 1999 (9) SCC 507 where a person cried out on receiving gun-shot injuries and two persons, who immediately reached the spot, were told by the victim that his nephew had fired at him, the Court allowed this evidence as part of res gestae being spontaneously connected with the transaction. 13. In order to examine whether the statement of Hansraj is the part of res gestae, when we look into the material on record we find that there are certain broad incongruities staring at the prosecution version against the appellants. On examining the statement of Hansraj from the point of view of trustworthiness we find him wholly unreliable. It is highly unsafe to convict the appellants only on the testimony of Hansraj without strong corroboration, which is not there. On examining the statement of Hansraj from the point of view of trustworthiness we find him wholly unreliable. It is highly unsafe to convict the appellants only on the testimony of Hansraj without strong corroboration, which is not there. The origin of FIR it shrouded in mystry and the prosecution in our opinion has failed to establish charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. It is well settled proposition that the graver the offence, the greater should be the care taken to see that neither an innocent persons is convicted nor a guilty allowed to escape. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case we have no option but to give benefit of doubt to appellants. Learned trial Judge in our opinion did not properly peep into the holes noticed by us in the prosecution evidence and thus committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 14. For these reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi in Sessions Case No. 71/2001. We acquit the appellants Hanuman, Dev Lal, Raghuveer Mandawara and Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sharma of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Appellants Hanuman, Dev Lal, Raghuveer Mandawara and Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sharma, who are in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.