JUDGMENT SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th of July, 1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 338/1996 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. By the impugned judgment, the Appellants have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :” 2.1. On 17-2-1996 at about 9.00 - 9.30 a.m., the three police personnels namely - ASI-Laxmiprasad (PW-1), Constable- Lakhanlal (PW-2) and S. I. - S. K. Shukla (PW-10) were standing on a betel shop near police Station - Old Bhilai. According to them, they were informed by an informant (Mukhveer) that in the night the two Appellants had attempted the life of Deceased - Ashok Maratha by assaulting him by a scissor and the Deceased, who according to him was alive at that time, was lying in his house. On this information, all the three police personnels went to the house of the Deceased and found him in injured condition. He had sustained multiple serious injuries. According to them, when they asked about the incident, the Deceased made oral dying declaration before them taking the names of the Appellants saying that the Appellants had assaulted him in the night by a scissor. The police personnels turned to the police station and First Information Report (Ex. P-15) was lodged by S. I. - S. K. Shukla (PW-10) at about 10:45 a.m. According to the prosecution, the Deceased was then sent for his medical examination, but Dr. P. C. Deshmukh (PW-7) endorsed in the requisition that he was brought dead in the hospital. Inquest (Ex. P-14) was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. G. S. Thakur (PW-11). He found following injuries on the dead body of the Deceased:” (i) Incised wound of 1 x ?½ inch x bone deep on the left frontal region; (ii) Incised wound of 3 inch (superficial) below the right eye; (iii) Stab wound of 2 x 1 x 3 inch on the left intra scapular region; (iv) Incised wound of 1 x ?½ x 2 inch on the left portion of the back. (v) Incised wound of 1 x ?½ x 1?½ inch on the right buttock; (vi) Incised wound of 1 x ?½ x 2?½ inch on the right portion of the back at the level of 12th vertebra; and (vii) Incised wound of ?½ x ?½ inch x Bone deep on the occipital region. On internal examination, he found that there was a cut injury of 1 x ?½ x ?½ inch on the left lung and the thoracic cavity was full of blood. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was shock and asphyxia due to injury to the lung and heavy bleeding, and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-17. 2.2. In further investigation, Appellant- Faheem was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex. P-1) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a scissor was seized at his instance vide seizure memo Ex-P-2. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. From where, a report (Ex. P-20) was received. According to the FSL report, blood stains was found on almost all the articles except on the plain soil and the two buttons seized from the place of occurrence. 2.3. The case of the prosecution was based on oral dying declaration made before ASI-Laxmiprasad (PW-1), Constable - Lakhanlal (PW-2) and S. I. - S. K. Shukla (PW-10). The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that it was proved by their evidence that the Deceased had made oral dying declaration before them that he was assaulted by the Appellants in the above manner, therefore, the Appellants were liable for punishment under Section 302, IPC. The Appellants, thus, were convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 3. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, has argued that the evidence of oral dying declaration does not appear to be reliable; looking to the injuries sustained by the Deceased it was not possible that he would have been conscious or alive for more than 12 hours; the police officers had not made any entry in the Rojnamcha about their visit to the place of Deceased; Ahmed Hussain (PW-6) has stated in para 6 of his cross examination that 3-4 more persons namely - Tuntun and Faheem were also residing in their Basti. She argued that in view of the above, the oral dying declaration becomes highly suspicious and conviction based on solitary circumstance of the oral dying declaration cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S. R. J. Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. In Darshana Devi v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases, 126, it was held that an oral dying declaration can form basis of conviction in a given case, but such a dying declaration has to be trustworthy and free from every blemish and inspire confidence. 7. In Arun Bhanudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 232 : (2008 AIR SCW 730), it was held that the oral dying declaration made by the Deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross-examination 8. In Walkhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur, (2011) 13 SCC 125 , the Supreme Court held that there can be no dispute that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, however such dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful and further that the maker thereof must be in a fit medical condition to make it. The oral dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence. 9. The principle emerging out from the above decisions of Supreme Court, therefore, is that the dying declaration can well be the basis of conviction, if it inspires the full confidence of the Court. The Court should be satisfied that the Deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. However, where the dying declaration is suspicious and there is no other evidence on record, it would be difficult to the Court to record conviction on the solitary evidence of such dying declaration. 10. In the instant case, the conviction is based on solitary evidence of oral dying declaration made before ASI-Laxmiprasad (PW-1), Constable - Lakhanlal (PW-2) and S. I. - S. K. Shukla (PW-10). According to these witnesses, at the relevant time, they were posted in Old Bhilai Police Station. 10. In the instant case, the conviction is based on solitary evidence of oral dying declaration made before ASI-Laxmiprasad (PW-1), Constable - Lakhanlal (PW-2) and S. I. - S. K. Shukla (PW-10). According to these witnesses, at the relevant time, they were posted in Old Bhilai Police Station. On 17-2-1996 in the morning, they were on duty in the police station. For some time they had gone to a betel shop, which was situated near the police station. According to S. I. - S. K. Shukla (PW-10), one informant came to him and told that the two Appellants had assaulted the Deceased by a scissor in the last night. It is on this information they went to the house of the Deceased and found him in the injured condition. All the above three witnesses have deposed that when they had asked the Deceased about the incident, the Deceased had made oral dying declaration before them, saying that he was assaulted by the two persons namely - Faheem and Tuntun. 11. These witnesses have deposed that just after replying in the above manner to them, the Deceased immediately became unconscious. According to S. K. Shukla (PW-10), thereafter, they returned to the police station and the First Information Report (Ex. P-15) was lodged. We note from the record as also from the evidence of above three witnesses that before proceeding to the house of the Deceased, as they contended, they had not made any entry in the Rojnamcha of the police... station. Mrs. Tripathi has argued that no report was made to the police station prior to the First Information Report (Ex. P-15) lodged by S. K. Shukla (PW-10). These police officer had rushed to the house of the Deceased on the information given by some informant whose name was not disclosed by S. K. Shukla (PW-10). If the three police persons were present in the betel shop, which was situated near the police station and if such an information was given to them, even one of them could have entered the information in the Rojnamcha and then they would have proceeded to the house of the Deceased. 12. The evidence of these witnesses is that when they reached to the house of the Deceased, they found him lying in a pool of blood. 12. The evidence of these witnesses is that when they reached to the house of the Deceased, they found him lying in a pool of blood. S. I. - Shukla (PW-10) had asked the Deceased as to who assaulted him, on this, the Deceased took the names of Faheem and Tuntun. He also told that they had assaulted him by a scissor. S. K. Shukla (PW-10) has deposed in clear words that after this, before he could have asked any other question, the Deceased became unconscious. it is after this, the Deceased was taken to the hospital and was shown to Dr. P. C. Deshmukh (PW-7), who simply said that he was brought dead. 13. The Deceased was tenant of father of Appellant - Faheem. The Investigating Officer has not brought on record as to whether the Deceased was residing all alone or he was residing with other family members. It also does not come in the evidence that whether the Deceased himself came to the house in the night after the incident or he was brought by any other person. If this evidence would have been brought, the person accompanying the Deceased would have disclosed the relevant facts. 14. Ahmed Hussain (PW-6) was nieghbour of the Deceased. He deposed that on the fateful day, he had seen the Deceased in injured condition on the road. He had sent a body to the police station to lodge the report. In the morning, he came to know that the Deceased was assaulted by somebody, but he could not know as to who had assaulted the Deceased. In para 3 of cross-examination, he admitted that one boy of Pathanpara was sent to the Police Station to lodge the report that a dead person was lying on the road. He had gone to the police station and after returning from the police station, he told that the Police said him that it was night and no staff was available, when the staff will come they will go there. He further deposed that he had called the Deceased 3-4 times, but the Deceased was lying in pool of blood. Ahmed Hussain (PW-6) has not been declared hostile. He further deposed that he had called the Deceased 3-4 times, but the Deceased was lying in pool of blood. Ahmed Hussain (PW-6) has not been declared hostile. According to his evidence, the police was informed in the night about the incident, but no police officer came to the place of occurrence till the morning, and as claimed by the above three police witnesses, they visited the house of the Deceased, where they found that the Deceased was alive who made oral dying declaration before them. If the Deceased was unconscious in the night and he did not respond to the calls of Ahmed Hussain (PW-6) who had seen him alive in pool of blood and had sent a boy to lodge the First Information Report in the night itself, how it can be taken that the Deceased was conscious in the morning. 15. Dr. G. S. Thakur (PW-11) found above seven incised wounds on the dead body of the Deceased. On internal examination, he also found a cut injury of 1 x ?½ x ?½ inch on the left lung. It was a big cut injury on the lung, therefore, thoracic cavity was full of blood. He opined that the cause of death was shock and asphyxia on account of the above injury of the lung. In para 5 of his cross-examination, he admitted in clear words that after receiving the above injuries, the injured could have died immediately or after 2-3 hours if no medical aid is given. Admittedly, the incident took place at about 8.00 p.m., on 16-2-1996 and the alleged oral dying declaration was made at about 9.30 - 10.00 a.m., on 17-2-1996. Thus, the dying declaration was allegedly made after more than 12 hours. In view of the injuries sustained by the Deceased, particularly the injury on the lung, and the admission of the Autopsy Surgeon G. S. Thakur (PW-11) that after receiving such injury the Deceased, in absence of medical aid, would not have survived for more than 2-3 hours, the above solitary evidence of oral dying declaration becomes suspicious. 16. Krishna Rao (PW-3) is uncle of the Deceased. He was a witness to the disclosure statement and recovery of scissor (Ex. P-1 & P-2). In examination-in-chief, he deposed in clear words that Appellant - Faheem never made any disclosure statement before the police. 16. Krishna Rao (PW-3) is uncle of the Deceased. He was a witness to the disclosure statement and recovery of scissor (Ex. P-1 & P-2). In examination-in-chief, he deposed in clear words that Appellant - Faheem never made any disclosure statement before the police. Why uncle of the Deceased will deposed against the interest of the prosecution. Even the other witness of memorandum and seizure namely - Lavlesh (PW-4) has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Both these witnesses were declared hostile, but nothing material could be elicited in their cross-examination by the public prosecutor. 17. That apart, Ahmed Hussain (PW-6) has admitted in clear words in para 6 of his cross-examination that 3-4 more persons are there in their Basti-Gandhi Nagar, whose names are Tuntun and Faheem. It is not a case in which the Deceased made oral dying declaration giving full particulars of accused persons so as to rule out any possibility of mistaken identity. On this account also, the dying declaration does not inspire our full confidence. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the Appellants on the solitary evidence of oral dying declaration before the police officers. The oral dying declaration is suspicious and there is no other evidence on record. 19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the Appellants under Section 302 IPC are set-aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appeal allowed.