JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.01.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in ST. Case No. 10/73 of 1998 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence u/s 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution, as revealed from the FIR, is that on 06.11.1997 at about 9.00 A.M. while the informant (P.W.1) was in his house, he was informed by P.W.10 that while his younger sister Mecha Purty (deceased) was going to the land, the Appellant assaulted her by means of a crow bar on her back and waist, for which she sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was brought by her brother to his house and the deceased disclosed that while she was going to her cultivable land, the Appellant suddenly came and assaulted her on her back and waist by means of a crowbar. After making such disclosure she became senseless. On these allegations the FIR having been lodged, investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence u/s 302, IPC. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses. P.W.1, Chaitan Bari, is the informant in the case. P.W.2 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.3 is a co-villager, who turned hostile. P.W.4 is a witness to the seizure of articles under Ext.5. P.W.5 is a constable in whose presence seizure of articles under Exts.5 and 6 was made. P.W.6 is a co-villager, who was declared hostile. However, he admitted to be a signatory to the seizure lists (Exts.7 and 8). P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 are also the co-villagers who turned hostile. P.W.10 is the brother of the deceased who speaks about the dying declaration and P.W.11 is the witness before whom an extrajudicial confession is alleged to have been made. P.W.12 is the brother of the deceased before whom the dying declaration was made. P.W.13 is a witness to the seizure of articles under Exts.7 and 8, but turned hostile. P.W.14 is the I.Q. 4. The plea of the defence is one of denial and the Appellant complained of false implication. The trial Court relying on the dying declaration coupled with the medical evidence found the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted htm thereunder. 5. P.W.14 is the I.Q. 4. The plea of the defence is one of denial and the Appellant complained of false implication. The trial Court relying on the dying declaration coupled with the medical evidence found the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted htm thereunder. 5. Shri Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the dying declaration stated to have been made before P.Ws. 10 and 12 cannot be accepted considering the evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased had suffered rupture of the heart and the spleen. According to the learned Counsel, the deceased having suffered rupture of the heart and the spleen must have met an instantaneous death and, therefore, could not be in a position to make a dying declaration. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that the dying declaration should not be made the sole basis for conviction and corroboration from independent source is necessary. So far as extrajudicial confession is concerned, learned Counsel challenges the same on the ground that there is nothing on record to show as to why the Appellant would repose confidence in P.W.11 for making such an extrajudicial confession. According to the learned Counsel, since these two are the factors on the basis of which the conviction is made and neither the dying declaration nor the extrajudicial confession is acceptable in law, the impugned order convicting the Appellant for commission of offence u/s 302, IPC is unsustainable. Learned Counsel for the State defending the impugned judgment submitted that the dying declaration has been made before the brothers of the deceased and there being nothing in cross-examination of these two witnesses to discredit their evidence, the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on such dying declaration, which gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. Learned Counsel for the State also relied on the evidence of P.W.12 and stated that immediately after the incident the Appellant was seen being taken away by his wife and mother from the spot of occurrence and, therefore, it is the Appellant who could have assaulted the deceased. 6. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is a member of the Village Panchayat and is the informant in the case. 6. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is a member of the Village Panchayat and is the informant in the case. He in his deposition has stated that he was informed by P.W.10 that the Appellant assaulted his sister. Thereafter, he and P.W.7 went to the house of P.W.10 and found the deceased lying on a cot in front of the house with bleeding injuries. On their query, the deceased could not speak and could not name the assailant. Then they went to consult a doctor and on return found her dead. In his presence inquest was held, This witness has been declared hostile having not said anything about the dying declaration. P.W.2 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and found one abrasion situated over back across obliquely bifurcated towards the right scapula. Two more abrasions were also found near about the aforesaid injury and one brownish/blackish abrasion was also found on the left side of back lumber region. On dissection, it was found that the spleen wound was enlarged and ruptured. A lacerated wound was present over the outer surface of the spleen. The heart was ruptured at left ventricle. P.W.2 was of the opinion that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to rupture of heart and spleen. P.W.3 was declared hostile and P.W.4 is a witness to seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the small bottle containing sample blood. P.W.5 is a constable, who is also a witness to the seizure of articles under Ext.5. P.W.6 turned hostile but admitted to have signed the seizure lists (Exts.7 and 8). P.W.7 turned hostile and so also P.Ws. 8 and 9. P.Ws. 10 and 12 are the witnesses before whom dying declaration had been made. P.W.10 is the brother of the deceased and he has stated in his deposition that on being asked the deceased disclosed that while she was going to cut paddy, near Kendu tree the Appellant assaulted her by means of a spade. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the local Ward Member (P.W.1) and then to the Grama Rakhi and Ors. . Thereafter, he reported the matter to the local Ward Member (P.W.1) and then to the Grama Rakhi and Ors. . P.W.12 is the other brother of the deceased who in his deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence hearing the sound of assault and cry of the deceased he rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying there with injuries, and the Appellant being taken away by his wife and mother. A spade was lying there. The deceased told him that the Appellant assaulted her by means of a spade. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to his house and P.W.10 arrived. The deceased also narrated about the incident before P.W.10. P.W.13 was declared hostile, though he admitted his signatures in Exts.7 and 8. P.W.14 is the I.O. 7. On analysis of the evidence it is found that dying declaration was made before P.Ws. 10 and 12 and an extrajudicial confession was made before P.W. 11. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Though P.W.12 claimed to have seen the Appellant being taken away by his wife and mother from the place of occurrence, it appears from the evidence of P.W.14, the I.O., that P.W.12 had not stated so before him in course of investigation. In view of the above, this part of the story has been developed by P.W.12 in Court. So far as dying declaration is concerned, both P.Ws. 10 and 12 claimed that the deceased disclosed before them that while she was going to cut paddy, near Kendu tree the Appellant assaulted her by means of a spade. P.W.2, who conducted the postmortem examination, found four abrasions on the body of the deceased and all the injuries were on the backside of the deceased. The cause of death was rupture of the spleen and the heart. P.W.2 has not given any opinion as to whether the injuries caused on the backside of the deceased could cause rupture of the spleen or the heart. The relationship between the injuries sustained by the deceased and the rupture of the heart and spleen is not established from the evidence of P.W.2. There is no material also on record to show that the deceased had sustained any injury on the front part of her body. The relationship between the injuries sustained by the deceased and the rupture of the heart and spleen is not established from the evidence of P.W.2. There is no material also on record to show that the deceased had sustained any injury on the front part of her body. Since the doctor has nowhere given an opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be the cause for rupture of the heart and the spleen, it becomes doubtful as to whether the deceased died because of the injuries sustained by her. Apart from the above, the evidence of P.W.2 is clear to the effect that the cause of death was due to rupture of the heart and the spleen. If this part of evidence of P.W.2 is accepted, the oral dying declaration stated to have been made before P.Ws. 10 and 12 cannot be believed. Rupture of the heart and the spleen is likely to cause instantaneous death and the injured can never be in a position to make a disclosure. This reason is supported by the evidence of P.W.1, who had gone to the house of P.W.10 immediately after the occurrence and on his query the deceased could not speak and also could not name the assailant. We, therefore, find considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the so-called dying declaration made before P.Ws. 10 and 12 is not free from doubt. 8. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khushal Rao Vs. The State of Bombay. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision referring to dying declaration observed that a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in absence of the accused, who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But at the same time, the Supreme Court also held that if a dying declaration is found to be truthful as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, the Court may not look for corroboration from other source. This law is well settled and has been followed in several later decisions of the Supreme Court as well as different High Courts. 9. This law is well settled and has been followed in several later decisions of the Supreme Court as well as different High Courts. 9. Having entertained a doubt about the veracity of the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 12 in relation to the dying declaration, the only other point to be considered is, whether the extra judicial confession made before P.W.11 can form the sole basis for conviction. Though P.W.11 claims that an extrajudicial confession was made before him by the Appellant, there is nothing on record to show as to why the Appellant would repose confidence in P. W.11 to take such an extrajudicial confession. Law is well settled that extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and though a conviction can lie solely on the extrajudicial confession, if found to be trustworthy, as a matter of prudence the Courts always look for corroboration from independent source. As stated earlier, no reason has been assigned by the prosecution as to why the Appellant would repose confidence in P.W.11 to make a disclosure and the so-called extrajudicial confession is also not corroborated by evidence from independent source. Having entertained a doubt with regard to claim of P.Ws. 10 and 12 so far as dying declaration is concerned and having found that the extrajudicial confession made before P.W.11 is not corroborated by any other evidence, in absence of any other material the impugned judgment becomes unsustainable. 10. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. It is stated that the Appellant is in custody. If that be so, he be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case. 11. Before parting with the case, we must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri S. Mohanty in not only preparing the case but also presenting the same effectively in Court. Pradip Mohanty, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Allowed