JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-9-1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S. T. Case No. 21/366 of 1995 acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Sections 302/34, IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial is that on 9-11-1990 the deceased had gone to Jatni fish market to purchase fish and vegetables. At that time, the respondent Ganesh Reddy and co-accused Sk. Hanif appeared and dealt blows on the chest, abdomen and other vital parts of the body of the deceased by means of knife and bhujali and fled away. The deceased fell down with several bleeding injuries on his person. Immediately he was removed to Jatni P. H. C. and the doctor (P.W.10), who was on duty, examined the deceased, recorded his dying declaration and informed the OIC, Jatni police station in writing. On receipt of the written information from the doctor, IIC, Jatni police station (P.W.9) treated the same as F. I. R., registered a case under Section 307 of the IPC and took up investigation. As the condition of the deceased became serious, he was shifted to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where he succumbed to the injuries on the dame day. Coming to know about the death of the deceased, P. W. 9 proceeded to Capital Hospital, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, despatched the same for post-mortem, examined the witnesses and turned the case to one under Section 302/34 of the IPC. On 30-11-1990, co-accused Sk. Hanif surrendered before the learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar. On the prayer of the I. O., he was remanded to police custody. While in police he made disclosure statement, led the police as well as the witnesses to the place of concealment and gave discovery of weapons of offence, i.e., bhujali and knife. Ultimately, charge-sheet was submitted as against said Sk. Hanif and the present respondent showing him as absconder under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Co-accused Sk. Hanif faced trial in S. T. Case No. 27/325 of 1992 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and was convicted thereunder and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated 5-8-1995. The present accused respondent was subsequently apprehended and stood his trial on commitment of the case to the Court of Session. 3. The present accused respondent was subsequently apprehended and stood his trial on commitment of the case to the Court of Session. 3. During trial accused-respondent took the plea of complete denial of the charges levelled against him. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses including the two doctors and the I. O. and exhibited thirteen documents. The defence examined none but proved one document, i.e., certified copy of deposition of P. W. 6 marked Ext. A in S. T. Case No. 27/325 of 1992. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the present accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him disbeliving the dying declaration Ext. 12 in view of the infirmities and improbabilities appearing in it and the circumstances under which it was recorded. 4. Mr. Zafuralla, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence available on record. The trial Court has committed grave illegality in discarding the evidence of P. W. 3, the grand father of the deceased, who specifically implicated the present accused-respondent and co-accused Hanif as the assailants of the deceased. It has also committed grave error in disbelieving the dying declaration Ext. 12 under wrong premises. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1995, he further submitted that since relying upon the selfsame dying declaration this Court has upheld conviction of the co-accused, the trial Court has utterly fallen into error by disbelieving the dying declaration (Ext. 12). He also submitted that the charges against the accused respondent have been fully established by the prosecution through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3, but the trial Court without appreciating their evidence in proper perspective has illegally recorded an order of acquittal. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal requires interference by this Court. 5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the accused-respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. He submitted that there is no material on record to alter the finding recorded by the trial Court and convict accused-respondent. Evidence of P. W. 3, who is said to be an eye-witness, is full of contradictions and exaggeration. His evidence is not even supported by P.W.4, the mother of the deceased. He submitted that there is no material on record to alter the finding recorded by the trial Court and convict accused-respondent. Evidence of P. W. 3, who is said to be an eye-witness, is full of contradictions and exaggeration. His evidence is not even supported by P.W.4, the mother of the deceased. Furthermore, his admission in the earlier case (S.T. Case No. 27/325 of 1992) that none except Sk. Hanif assaulted the deceased makes his evidence, that the accused-respondent also dealt blows on the deceased by means of a knife, unreliable. So, the trial Court has rightly excluded the evidence of P.W. 3 out of consideration. The dying declaration Ext. 12 recorded by the doctor P. W. 10 was very suspicious and doubtful and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly declined to place any reliance on the same. He further submits that the judgment in CRA No. 252 of 1995 cannot be relied upon since it is a split up case. He further submits that the occurrence took place in the year 1990 and in the meantime 22 years have elapsed and, therefore, in view of the decision rendered in State of Orissa v. Subash Chandra Rath 2006 (II) OLR-831 the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not call for interference by this Court. 6. Perused the L. C. R. and minutely gone through the oral and documentary evidence available in it. Out of total 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P. W. 1 is a Pharmacist, who at the relevant time was working in Jatni PHC. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on 9-11-1990 at about 12.00 noon the deceased was brought to Jatni PHC in a serious condition. The deceased was treated by Dr. Bhaskar Chandra Kar and he assisted Dr. Kar. In his presence Dr. Kar asked the deceased as to who caused the injuries and the latter stated the names of Hanif and Ganesh. He could not say if the doctor reduced the said statement of the deceased to writing. In cross-examination he admitted that the deceased was in semi-conscious stage and that he gave reply on repeated asking and that after uttering the names of Hanif and Ganesh he became fully unconscious. P. W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. She stated that on the date and time of occurrence she was in her house,. In cross-examination he admitted that the deceased was in semi-conscious stage and that he gave reply on repeated asking and that after uttering the names of Hanif and Ganesh he became fully unconscious. P. W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. She stated that on the date and time of occurrence she was in her house,. On getting information that her husband had sustained injuries by assault in the fish market, she went to the spot and came to know that he was shifted to Capital Hospital, Bhubanewar for treatment having sustained bleeding injuries on his back, chest, abdomen and hand. Her husband succumbed to his injuries at about 3.00 p.m. in the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. On her identification police held inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report on which she put her L.T.I. P.W. 3 is the grandfather of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on 9-11-1990 at 10.00 a.m. at Jatni Fish Market accused respondent Ganesh Reddy and co-accused Hanif stabbed his grandson (deceased) by means of knife on his chest and abdomen, as a result of which the deceased receiving bleeding injury fell down on the ground and the accused person fled away from the spot. The deceased was taken to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment and expired on the same day. In cross-examination he admitted that on the date of occurrence he along with the deceased and his mother came to the fish market at Jatni to purchase fish. The deceased became unconscious immediately after he fell down with bleeding injuries on his chest and abdomen. He admitted to have deposed in S. T. Case No. 27/325 of 1992 (split up case) but to the defence suggestion denied to have stated in his deposition in the said case that accused Hanif assaulted his grandson (deceased) and no other person had assaulted to him (deceased) on that day. P. W. 4 is the mother of the deceased. In her examination in chief she deposed that at the time of occurrence she was in her house. She came to the fish market along with other family members and found her son lying with bleeding injuries on his chest, belly and back. She asked her son as to who caused the said injuries and the deceased told that accused Hanif caused such injuries by stabbing him with a knife. She came to the fish market along with other family members and found her son lying with bleeding injuries on his chest, belly and back. She asked her son as to who caused the said injuries and the deceased told that accused Hanif caused such injuries by stabbing him with a knife. For treatment the deceased was first removed to Sandhapur PHC and from there to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar where he succumbed to the injuries. In her cross-examination she admitted that both P. W. 3 N. Bangara Sethi and P. W. 5 B. Basudev were in her house when she received information about the stabbing of her son. P. W. 5 is the uncle of the deceased. He did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. P. Ws. 6 and 8, who are witnesses to seizure, also not supported the prosecution case. P. W. 7 is a Scientific Officer. In her examination-in-chief she stated that on police requisition she examined the sample earth, knives, blood stained earth, etc. She specifically stated that no blood was found on the knives and lungi. P. W. 9 is the I. O. He stated that on 9-11-1990 at 12.45 p.m. he received intimation (Ext. 4) from the Medical Officer, Jatni PHC regarding admission of the deceased as an indoor patient with multiple injuries. As it revealed a cognizable case under Section 307, IPC, he registered the case treating Ext. 4 as formal FIR and took up investigation. During investigation he visited Jatni PHC and found the deceased with multiple bleeding injuries. He received the dying declaration, which was recorded by the doctor by that time. He visited the spot, prepared spot map and examined the witnesses. On the same day at 6.10 p.m. from the Capital Hospital. Bhubaneswar, to which the deceased was shifted for better treatment, he received information about the death of the deceased and converted the case to one under Section 302/34, IPC. On the next day he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased the inquest report in presence of the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He searched for the accused persons but could not trace them out. Ultimately, on 28-11-1990 co-accused Hanif surrendered in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar. On his prayer, the learned S. D. J. M. on 30-11-1990 remanded the co-accused Hanif to police custody. He searched for the accused persons but could not trace them out. Ultimately, on 28-11-1990 co-accused Hanif surrendered in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar. On his prayer, the learned S. D. J. M. on 30-11-1990 remanded the co-accused Hanif to police custody. On 3-12-1990 while in police custody co-accused Hanif gave recovery of one ?lungi™, one ?bhujali™ and one knife from his house. He seized the same under Ext. 3/1 and also seized bloodstained earth and sample earth from the spot under Ext. 1/1. Through the S. D. J. M. he sent requisition for examination and opinion by the doctor on the weapons of offence and subsequently sent the weapons of offence and the seized incriminating materials for chemical examination. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against co-accused Sk. Hanif as well the present accused respondent Ganesh Reddy, showing him as an absconder, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC. In cross-examination, he admitted that on 9-11-1990 he searched the house of the accused respondent Ganesh Reddy and nothing incriminating was recovered. He also admitted that P. W. 3-B. Bangara Sethi during examination had not stated before him that accused Ganesh Reddy stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest and abdomen. P.W.10 is the doctor who examined the injured first and found the following injuries. (1) A sharp cutting injury over right side of the back 3 x 1\" x ?½ on the right side of the middle of the back. (2) An eve cut wound over right forearm of size 3\" x 1\" x 1\". (3) A sharp cutting wound over left forearm 3\" x 1\" x 1\". (4) A stab injury of size 2\" x 1\" over left side of the abdomen. (5) A stab injury of size 2\" x 1\" over lower part of the right side of the chest. He deposed that, as the condition of the patient was serious and he was sinking, he referred him to Capital Hospital and recorded his dying declaration under Ext. 12 in presence of his pharmacist and the wife of the patient. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not remember the name of the person who identified the injured to him. He had not asked the injured about his father’s name and address of Ganesh as mentioned in the dying declaration Ext. 12. 12 in presence of his pharmacist and the wife of the patient. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not remember the name of the person who identified the injured to him. He had not asked the injured about his father’s name and address of Ganesh as mentioned in the dying declaration Ext. 12. The injured was unable to talk fluently and he guessed from his talk that he named Ganesh. Neither the injured nor the Pharmacist signed on Ext. 12. He further admitted that blood transfusion was not made in Jatni hospital as there was no facility for the same. P.W. 11 is the doctor of Capital Hospital, Bhubanewar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the following external injuries :” (i) A incised and punctured wound of size ?½ x 1\" x 3\" situated over the back of chest in between the two scapula. (ii) An incised and punctured wound of size 3\" x 2\" x 1\" situated over the back of right chest one inch below the right scapula. (iii) An incised and punctured wound of size 2\" x 1\" x ?¼ situated over the right front chest. (iv) An incised and punchtured wound of size 2\" x 1\" x 5\" situated over the right front abdomen penetrating inside the abdomen. (v) Two incised wounds each 2\" x 1\" x 2?½ at the middle of left fore arm. (vi) An incised wound with old and clotted blood inside it and it was stitched having size of 2\" x 4\" x 5\" situated over the back of right wrist. On dissection he found the following internal injuries:” (i) The scalp, skull and vertebra were intact and were soiled with blood. (ii) The membrane was intact. (iii) The brain and spinal cord were intact and pale. (iv) The right plura was torn and lacerated. (v) The larens trachea contained frothy blood and blood stained mucus. (vi) The right lung was collapsed and right thorax was full of clotted blood. (vii) The heart was intact but it was empty. (viii) All the external injuries as mentioned above were found inside the abdomen and the omentum was torn. He opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and might have been caused by sharp and pointed instrument. He proved the post-mortem report Ext. 13. (viii) All the external injuries as mentioned above were found inside the abdomen and the omentum was torn. He opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and might have been caused by sharp and pointed instrument. He proved the post-mortem report Ext. 13. In cross-examination he admitted that with the kind of injuries sustained the injured was likely to be unconscious within 5 to 10 minutes of infliction of those injuries and that his sense could not have revived unless blood transfusion was made. He once again specifically admitted that the vital organs of the deceased were smashed and in view of his injuries his sense could not have been revived after he became senseless. 7. On careful appraisal of the entire evidence, this Court finds that P. W. 3, who claims to be an eye-witness, has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court because P. W. 4, the mother of the deceased, in the cross-examination has specifically admitted that P. W. 3 was present in her house when she received information about the stabbing of her son. This evidence of P. W. 4 also belies the statement of P. W. 3 in cross-examination that he along with the deceased and his mother (P.W.4) went to the fish market on the date of occurrence to purchase fish. Furthermore, this P. W. 3 was examined as P. W. 6 in S. T. Case No. 27/325 of 1992, which ended in conviction of co-accused Sk. Hanif, and specifically stated in cross-examination at paragraph 6 that accused Hanif assaulted his grandson and no other person assaulted him on that date. His deposition in S. T. Case No.27/325 of 1992 has been proved and marked Ext. A in this case. Even though P.W. 3 asserted in his evidence to have stated before the I. O. that both Hanif and the present appellant assaulted the deceased, the I. O. (P.W.9) has contradicted such statement of P. W. 3 and stated that P. W. 3 had not stated so before him. Therefore, as already stated, under no stretch of imagination P.W. 3 can be considered as a witness to the occurrence and his evidence cannot be relied upon for any purpose. Therefore, as already stated, under no stretch of imagination P.W. 3 can be considered as a witness to the occurrence and his evidence cannot be relied upon for any purpose. Similarly, the prosecution has failed to establish the oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before P. Ws. 2, 4 and 5, as because all of them went back upon their previous statements made before the I. O. (P.W.9) in that regard. Therefore, no fault can be found with the trial Court for not placing any reliance on the so called oral dying declaration. Now, it is to be seen whether Ext. 12, the recording dying declaration, is worthy of credence or not. Ext. 12 was recorded by P. W. 10, Dr. B. C. Kar, Medical Officer, Jatni PHC. In cross-examination he specifically admitted that the injured was not able to talk fluently and he guessed from his talk that he named Ganesh. Neither the injured nor the Pharmasist signed on Ext. 12. He further stated that when the dying declaration was recorded blood transfusion was not made, as there was no facility for the same in Jatni hospital. P. W. 11, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, admitted in cross-examination that with the kind of injuries sustained by the deceased, he was likely to be unconscious within 5 to 10 minutes of infliction of those injuries and sense could not have revived unless blood transfusion was made. His specific admission is that in view of the injuries sustained by the deceased, his sense could not have been revived after he became senseless, as the vital organs of the deceased were smashed. P. W. 1, the Pharmacist also admitted that the injured was in semi-conscious stage. As it appears from Ext. 12, the doctor (P.W.10) has only signed on it. Neither the pharmacist (P.W.1) nor the wife of the deceased (P.W.2) has signed on it. P. W. 2, the wife of the deceased, did not whisper a single word about the dying declaration. Ext. 12 also does not contain the surname of Ganesh, his father’s name and address. So, the identity of Ganesh, as one of the assailants of the deceased as mentioned in Ext. 12, is not established to connect accused respondent Ganesh Reddy. The cumulative factors and surrounding circumstances make it impossible to rely upon the dying declaration. Ext. 12 also does not contain the surname of Ganesh, his father’s name and address. So, the identity of Ganesh, as one of the assailants of the deceased as mentioned in Ext. 12, is not established to connect accused respondent Ganesh Reddy. The cumulative factors and surrounding circumstances make it impossible to rely upon the dying declaration. For all these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the dying declaration recorded under Ext. 12 suffers from infirmities and improbabilities and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered it as unworthy of credence. An argument was advanced by Mr. Zafuralla, learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1995 in respect of co-accused Sk. Hanif is applicable to this case and since in that case their Lordships have upheld conviction of co-accused Sk. Hanif accepting the dying declaration, there is no reason to disbelieve the selfsame dying declaration in this case. This Court is unable to accept such argument advanced by the learned Additional Standing Counsel as because in that case the trial was conducted only in respect of co-accused Sk. Hanif and this appellant Ganesh Reddy having been absconded was not present at that time and on his behalf no question was put to the witnesses examined in the said context. 8. Before parting with the case, it is of relevance to note that this is an appeal against acquittal and generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court holds that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is accordingly upheld. The Government Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.