DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–This appeal was originally filed by 17 persons, who had been convicted of committing the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and after being heard on sentence on the same date, i.e., 24.02.1990 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial Nos. 61/1987 and 143/1987, each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Some of the appellants were convicted under Section 147 IPC and some set of appellants, like, appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 had been convicted also under Section 148 of the I.P.C. Those who had been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; while the others, who had been held guilty of having committed the offence of rioting after being armed with deadly weapons, were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. A couple of them, out of 17 appellants, had also been convicted under Section 325/326 IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and seven years respectively. 2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant nos. 4, 7, 8 and 17 died and the appeal, on their behalf, stood abated as appears from the order passed by the Court on 01.02.2013, leaving 13 appellants on the array of the appellants. 3. The occurrence was dated 13.12.1986 and the prosecution story was that the informant Ganga Mahto (PW5) with his brother Yamuna Mahto and other family members, like, his son Ram Jiwan Mahto (PW3), Sita Paswan (PW1) and Ram Tahal Sahni (PW4) had gone to bring bundles of thatch from the field of one Sukhari Singh. They had loaded, as may appear from the evidence led by the prosecution, 32 bundles of thatch over a tyre-cart and as soon as they had started and had reached the field of the said Sukhari Singh, the accused persons came there variously armed and surrounded the informant and others as also the cart. Amongst the appellants, Satrughan Jha and Nand Kishore Jha were armed with gun and pistol respectively, whereas Sri Narain Jha was carrying a Farsa. Appellant Dukhit Jha @ Mahesh Jha was armed with a Bhala. The remaining appellants were carrying Lathis. It was stated that appellants Sri Narayan Jha, Nand Kishore Jha and Satrughan Jha caught the deceased Yamuna Mahto, the brother of the informant (P.W.5) and his son Ram Jiwan Mahto (P.W.3). Appellant Dukhit Jha @ Mahesh Jha was armed with a Bhala. The remaining appellants were carrying Lathis. It was stated that appellants Sri Narayan Jha, Nand Kishore Jha and Satrughan Jha caught the deceased Yamuna Mahto, the brother of the informant (P.W.5) and his son Ram Jiwan Mahto (P.W.3). Appellants Satrughan Jha put his gun on the person of P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto, whereas appellant Nand Kishore Jha put his pistol on the person of the deceased Yamuna Mahto. It was appellant Ravindra Jha who remonstrated the accused persons, who were carrying firearms, as to why they were waiting; they should shoot the two persons dead. However, it was appellant Sri Narayan Jha, as per allegation, who gave a Farsa blow on the head of the deceased Yamuna Mahto in order to killing him and the said Yamuna Mahto fell on the ground. Appellant Mahesh Jha wielded a Bhala blow on P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto, which hit him on his right hand. The remaining accused persons started assaulting the deceased Yamuna Mahto and injured Ram Jiwan Mahto with Lathi. When the informant and Sita Paswan (PW1) intervened to save them, the two were assaulted by Shambhu Jha and Laxman Thakur with Lathi, each having given 2-3 blows to them. The informant stated that he was frightened and he ran for his life raising alarms, but in the meantime, appellants Kaushal Jha, deceased accused Rudal Jha and appellants Naresh Jha and Ramchandra Jha drove away the tyre-cart with the loaded bundles of thatch. Appellants Satrughna Jha, Nand Kishore Jha, Sri Narayan Jha and Mahesh Jha picked up the two injured and started dragging them towards west, stating that the two had to be killed and their dead bodies buried in the riverbeds. While they were dragging the two injured, the other accused persons were giving blows with Lathi and Farsa to each of them. 4. The alarm, which was raised by the informant, attracted P.W.13 Ram Jinis Singh, P.W.7 Ramchandra Mahto, P.W.2 Kishori Mahto, P.W.8 Chandeshwar Mahto, P.W.9 Nandu Mahto and others; seeing whom, the accused persons ran away from there. The informant stated that he went to the two injured and found that they were unconscious and, as such, brought them to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi for treatment. The informant further stated that the criminals committed theft of the bullock cart along with the oxen, which worth Rs. 8000/-. 5. The informant stated that he went to the two injured and found that they were unconscious and, as such, brought them to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi for treatment. The informant further stated that the criminals committed theft of the bullock cart along with the oxen, which worth Rs. 8000/-. 5. As regards the reason for commission of the offence, the informant stated that the accused persons had cut sugarcane plants of the deceased Yamuna Mahto and had also snatched his wrist watch, for which, the deceased had lodged a criminal case at Basbitta Outpost and, being annoyed on that account, the accused persons had committed the offence. 6. It appears that the deceased, who was hospitalized in Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi on 13.12.1986, ultimately died on 16.12.1986 and the case, which was initially registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, was converted into one also under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; the investigation of which was taken up by A.S.I. Sushil Singh (P.W. 19), who was posted at Basbitta Outpost. 7. In fact, the evidence of P.W.19 Sushil Singh could indicate that he had learnt about the incident from some rumours and had subsequently received the Fardbeyan (Ext.1). After having picked up the rumours, P.W.19 went to Village - Rasulpur where he met the informant Ganga Mahto (P.W.5) in the field of Dhanuk Singh and recorded his statement there and took up the investigation. He examined the body of deceased Yamuna Mahto and noted down the injuries, which were present on his person, and issued a requisition for obtaining injury certificate while forwarding him to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi. He inspected the place of occurrence and found blood stains on grass as also on soil and seized the blood stained earth by preparing a seizure memo (Ext.8). He inspected surrounding fields and orchards and also attempted to trace out any mark of trampling, which could have been created on account of dragging of the two injured persons, but it does not appear from his evidence in paragraph 5 that he had indeed found any dragging mark anywhere around the place of occurrence. He inspected surrounding fields and orchards and also attempted to trace out any mark of trampling, which could have been created on account of dragging of the two injured persons, but it does not appear from his evidence in paragraph 5 that he had indeed found any dragging mark anywhere around the place of occurrence. He came to the hospital and recorded the statement of both Yamuna Mahto and Ram Jiwan Mahto (P.W.3) and, as per the evidence of P.W.19, the deceased Yamuna Mahto was found conscious and walking. P.W.19 reproduced each and every word, which was stated to him by the deceased Yamuna Mahto on 15.12.1986 and, as per his evidence, the same was recorded in paragraph 37 of the case diary. The statement in its complete details was reproduced by P.W.19 in paragraph 7 of his deposition and it remains a question to be decided as to whether the dying declaration could be relied upon by this Court. The deceased Yamuna Mahto died subsequently and after having come to know about it, P.W.19 went to the hospital, held inquest upon his dead body and prepared the Inquest Report and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. After completing the investigation, P.W.19 sent up the accused persons for their trial. 8. The defence of the appellants was of innocence and non-participation. They had committed no offence and for this reason as suggested by the prosecution and it was further suggested that probably the deceased and P.W.3 were smugglers, who had been accosted while they were crossing the Indo-Nepalese border and were beaten up by some unknown persons and it was due to such beating that Yamuna Mahto died subsequently. 9. Twenty four witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the charges; out of whom, P.W.4 Ram Tahal Sahni, P.W.7 Ram Chandar Mahto, P.W.8 Chandeshwar Mahto, P.W.9 Nandu Mahto, P.W.14 Mudrika Singh, P.W.15 Harish Chandra Singh, P.W.16 Shiv Shankar Singh and P.W.17 Ram Swaroop Singh were tendered. P.W. 12 Sukhari Singh and P.W.13 Ram Jinis Singh did not support the prosecution charges and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 12 Sukhari Singh and P.W.13 Ram Jinis Singh did not support the prosecution charges and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. The eye witness support to the prosecution case came from P.W.1 Sita Paswan, P.W.2 Kishori Mahto, P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto (who was injured also), P.W.5 Ganga Mahto, P.W.6 Ram Pratap Mahto and P.W.10 Raghunath Mahto; out of whom, P.W.6 Ram Pratap Mahto and P.W.10 Raghunath Mahto had given evidence generally on the assault which was given by the accused persons to the two – the deceased Yamuna Mahto and Ram Jiwan Mahto, as also as to how they had been dragged across the river into the Nepalese territory and were abandoned there. P.W.11 Dr. Dharamdeo was posted on the relevant date in the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi and he had not only held postmortem examination on the dead body of Yamuna Mahto (deceased), but appears also to have initially admitted him into the hospital for treatment and further appears to have treated both the deceased and P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto and had issued the injury certificates at the request of the police. P.W.18 Dr. Mahabir Thakur was the medical practitioner in Sitamarhi and as per the evidence of P.W.5 as also his evidence, he had examined the informant for his injuries which he had received after being assaulted by the accused persons. P.W.20 Md. Moinuddin Khan had produced the blood stained clothes, etc. from the Malkhana at the time of trial before the trial court and P.W.21 Chulhai Singh, P.W.22 Laxmi Mahto and P.W.23 Jitendra Jha were all formal witnesses, who had tendered evidence right from the stage of drafting of the protest petition and typing of the same, besides the same being signed by the informant, P.W.5 Ganga Mahto, which was ultimately filed by an advocate in the appropriate court. P.W.24 Shiv Chandar Singh was also a witness, who deposed on one stage of preparing the protest petition, that’s, the typing of the protest petition at the instruction of P.W.5 and at the dictation of a counsel. 10. The defence has examined D.W.1 Chhote Lal Mishra, who had also tendered in evidence the typed copy of a report submitted by one of the officers of Balra Police Station within the District of Sarlahi, Nepal, which report had been translated into Hindi and as per the evidence, had been typed by a particular typist. 11. 10. The defence has examined D.W.1 Chhote Lal Mishra, who had also tendered in evidence the typed copy of a report submitted by one of the officers of Balra Police Station within the District of Sarlahi, Nepal, which report had been translated into Hindi and as per the evidence, had been typed by a particular typist. 11. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence were passed. 12. We were taken through the evidence of the witnesses by Sri Amish Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, who submitted that the manner of occurrence, which was initially stated in the FIR, was purposely changed by the prosecution when the witnesses were consistently stating before the trial court that the appellant Sri Narayan Jha had reversed his Farsa to give a blow on the head of the deceased Yamuna Mahto, while accused Mahesh Jha had also used his Bhala as a Lathi to give a blow to P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto. It was submitted that this improvisation during the trial was purposeful because after the prosecution had perused the postmortem examination report to find that the doctor had not found either a sharp cutting wound or a piercing wound, either on the dead body or on the person of P.W.3, it changed the manner of using the two weapons. It was contended that attention of the witnesses were drawn to this improvised statement made by them for the first time in the trial court and the investigating officer P.W.19 Sushil Singh stated that the witnesses had never made such statements before him as regards the reversal of Farsa or Bhala. It was next contended that the accused Satrughan Jha and Nand Kishore Jha were allegedly armed with firearms, like, a gun and a pistol and they had also put their weapons on the persons of the deceased and P.W.3., but in spite of being instigated to shoot down the two, they had not fired a shot which clearly indicated that they were not acting in prosecution of the common object and, may be, that they were not knowing the very common object of the unlawful assembly. In the above context, it was contended that the admitted position of not firing a shot by the two above-named accused also indicated that there was a complete lack of intention or knowledge on the part of the accused persons to commit murder. Submission was that the witnesses were inimical, as had been admitted by P.W.6 in paragraph 7 of his evidence, and it further appears that some of the witnesses, like, P.W.5, the informant himself along with other witnesses who were cited in the FIR, were bearing several criminal antecedents. The possibility may be that the two, i.e., Yamuna Mahto and Ram Jiwan Mahto had been waylaid by some unknown persons for any particular reason and, not finding any proof, the witnesses had come together to rope in the appellants falsely. 13. Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in the case, was attempting to distinguish Hallu & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1936 , by submitting that in that case there could have been some improvisation by the witnesses, but here in the present case, the witnesses were consistent in stating that the blow with Farsa was given by its blunt part and lathi part of Bhala had been used for giving blow to the deceased and P.W.3 respectively. Dr. Jha also stated that indeed murder was there and P.W.3 was bearing injuries undisputedly on his person and his version could not be rejected. Submission was that it was a valid conviction and the accused persons had been rightly sentenced. 14. Sri Anjani Kumar Jha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the informant, has reiterated the same submissions, which were forwarded by Dr. Jha before us. 15. As may appear from the evidence of PW 6 in para 7, there appears enmity between the parties and the enmity was not ancient. It appears it was as nascent as could be fresh in the memories of the parties, so much so, that PW 6 has admitted in para 7 that he had lodged a case a few days prior to the present incident against accused Shri Narain Jha, Mahesh Jha and Jatin Jha for theft of his standing paddy crop and, in that case, Nandu Mahto, one of the witnesses cited in the present case, was cited as a witness for PW 6. The said Nandu Mahto had also filed a criminal case of crop cutting against the above named accused Shri Narain Jha, Mahesh Jha and others. So far as other witnesses are concerned, PW 5, the informant of the case, has admitted in para 17 of his evidence that he had contested the election for Sarpanchship of his Panchayat against accused Ravindra Jha and the deceased accused Rudal Jha had fought a litigation against him under Section 48E of the B.T. Act. His evidence further indicates that one Gagan Deo was a notorious dacoit of the locality and that PW5 had recently visited jail with the said Gagan Deo in connection with a dacoity case. Not only that Nandu Mahto, a witness cited in the FIR along with his son Pati Ram Mahto, Ramchandra Mahto and Rajdeo Mahto were also remanded to custody in connection with that dacoity case and they were still lodged in custody; while P.W.5 had come out of custody, probably on bail. P.W.5 admitted that Nandu Mahto, a witness in the present case, was still lodged there. The very motive, which was alleged for commission of offence, was also an incident of cutting sugarcane plants and snatching the wrist watch of the deceased Yamuna Mahto a few days prior to the incident. In this background of admitted enmity, we have to appreciate the evidence of witnesses, like, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 so as to judging the facts of the case and thereby judging ultimately the appropriateness of the findings recorded by the learned trial judge. 16. Before we embark upon the appreciation of evidence in its right perspective, we want to remind ourselves that merely because a witness is inimically disposed towards the accused persons, his evidence could not be thrown out overboard; rather the Court has to appreciate the evidence with great care and caution. What is meant by the above principle is that the evidence of a witness must not only be above board so as to inspiring the confidence of the Court, but there should also not be any snag or defect in it so as to rendering his evidence unacceptable. It is somewhere like applying the principle in appreciating the evidence of a witness, who is projected as a trustworthy witness. 17. It is somewhere like applying the principle in appreciating the evidence of a witness, who is projected as a trustworthy witness. 17. Keeping the above principle in our view, we have proceeded to consider the evidence of the above noted eye witnesses. There is a uniform statement emanating from each and every prosecution witness, like, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 that the accused persons came and surrounded the informant and his companions. Out of the accused persons, Satrughan Jha and Nand Kishore Jha were carrying firearms, like, gun or pistol, while the accused Sri Narayan Jha and Mahesh Jha were armed with a Farsa and a Bhala respectively. The other accused persons were carrying Lathis. After they had surrounded the informant and his companions including the deceased and P.W.3, it was stated that Satrughan Jha and Nand Kishore Jha abruptly put their arms on the persons of the deceased Yamuna Mahto and injured Ram Jiwan Mahto, but in spite of being instigated to shoot them dead by accused Rabindra Jha, they did not fire any shot. It was appellant Narayan Jha, who dealt the first blow with his Farsa, which struck the head of the deceased and, while dealing the blow, the witnesses (except P.Ws. 6 and 10) have uniformly stated that accused Sri Narayan Jha had reversed his weapon so as to giving the blow with its blunt part. As regards the assault given by appellant Mahesh Jha on P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto with Bhala, the witnesses again stated that he used the Bhala as if it were a Lathi. In other words, the witnesses pointed out to the trial court that the witnesses had not struck P.W.3 with sharp pointed or piercing portion of the weapon; rather the weapon had been used as a hard and blunt object. We simply want to recall that this evidence of the witnesses was not only contrary to its basic prosecution case, which was contained in the Fardbeyan (Ext.1), but was also contrary to their own statement made before P.W.19, the investigating officer, during the investigation of the case. The basic prosecution story, as per Exhibit-1 the Fardbeyan, was that Sri Narayan Jha and Mahesh Jha had given blows on the deceased Yamuna Mahto and P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto respectively with their respective weapons – Farsa and Bhala. 18. The basic prosecution story, as per Exhibit-1 the Fardbeyan, was that Sri Narayan Jha and Mahesh Jha had given blows on the deceased Yamuna Mahto and P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto respectively with their respective weapons – Farsa and Bhala. 18. The defence has cross-examined some of the witnesses as regards the appearance or look of the weapon and we have to traverse not much than to consider the very evidence of the informant when he was asked by the defence, as may appear from paragraph 19 of the evidence of P.W.5, that the Farsa, which was used, had sharp cutting edges. Likewise, the injured P.W.3 Ram Jiwan Mahto had also stated in paragraph 9 of his evidence, at page 30 of the paper book, that the Farsa, which was in the hands of Sri Narayan Jha, was sharp and shining. The Bhala which was carried by Mahesh Jha (who is also nicknamed Dukhit Jha) was equally sharp pointed and shining. The shift, made by the prosecution in its case while leading the evidence through witnesses in support of the charges, could not be appreciated unless we have had a glance of the medical evidence, which came from P.W.11 Dr. Dharamdeo. 19. P.W.11 Dr. Dharmdeo was posted in Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 13.12.1986 and he had the opportunity of examining Jamuna Prasad Singh, i.e., the deceased on that date at 3:45 P.M. P.W.11 stated that Jamuna Prasad Singh was found bearing the following injures on his person:— (i) Multiple bruises both in front and back of the left arm, forearm and hand with massive swelling around them, with suspected fracture of bones of left forearm and hand. Bruises were of varying length and breadth ranging from 1/3” to 3” in length and ¾” x 1” in breadth. (ii) Multiple bruises of varying sizes both in front and back of right arm, forearm and hand with massive swelling around them, with suspected fracture of bones of right forearm and hand. (iii) Multiple abrasions on dorsum of right hand. (iv) Lacerated wound 1/4” x 1/8” x deep upto subcutaneous tissue on dorsum of left hand with blood clot around it. (v) Lacerated wound 1” x 1/4" deep upto subcutaneous tissue on the lateral side of left eyebrow. (vi) Lacerated wound 1½” x ¼” x scalp deep on the anterior part of the top of the head in the mid-line. (iv) Lacerated wound 1/4” x 1/8” x deep upto subcutaneous tissue on dorsum of left hand with blood clot around it. (v) Lacerated wound 1” x 1/4" deep upto subcutaneous tissue on the lateral side of left eyebrow. (vi) Lacerated wound 1½” x ¼” x scalp deep on the anterior part of the top of the head in the mid-line. (vii) Abrasion 6” x 6” on the back of the thorax. (viii) Multiple bruises on right thigh with swelling around it. (ix) Multiple bruises on left thigh with swelling around it. (x) Abrasion 1” x ¼” on front of lower third of left leg. (xi) Abrasion 1½” x ¾” on the middle of lower end of left leg with swelling around the left ankle with suspected fracture of bones of left ankle – joint. (xii) Abrasion 1” x ¼” on front of lower third of right leg. (xiii) Multiple bruises of varying sizes on right leg. (xiv) Multiple bruises of varying sizes on left leg. In the opinion of P.W.11, the injuries had been caused to Jamuna Prasad Singh within 12 hours of his examination by P.W.11 and the opinion in respect of injury nos. (i), (ii) and (xi) was reserved till receipt of the X-ray report. As regards injury nos. (v) and (vi), the opinion was again deferred as the patient was kept under observation. The rest injures, as per P.W.11, were simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance. 20. It appears that the report of X-ray of injury nos. (i), (ii) and (xi) was perused by P.W.11 and he opined that those injuries were grievous in nature, but all the injuries had been caused by hard and blunt substance. 21. Thus, what we find from perusal of the evidence of P.W.11 is that he had not found any incised or sharp cutting injury on the head of Jamuna Prasad Singh or Yamuna Mahto, rather the solitary wound, which was found on the head of the deceased, was injury no. (vi), a lacerated wound, and if we had considered further the evidence of P.W.11, who had also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jamuna Prasad Singh or Yamuna Mahto also, we may find that that particular injury on dissection was found having a heamatoma on the scalp and the skull bone was found intact, but the brain tissues were found congested and lacerated. The prosecution, after being confronted with this situation that the doctor had not found any injury, which could be caused by Farsa or any other sharp cutting weapon, probably felt the necessity of improvising upon its case by leading evidence by letting the witnesses tell the court that while giving the blow with Farsa, appellant Sri Narayan Jha had reversed his weapon so as to striking the head of the deceased with its blunt part. The defence has drawn the attention of each and every witness to the above fact and has suggested to them that they had not made this statement of reversing the Farsa by Sri Narayan Jha while giving the blow with the weapon and the witnesses have categorically refuted such suggestion and they shrugged it off that they had made such statements before the police during the investigation. However, what we find from the evidence of P.W. 19, the Investigating Officer of the case, in different paragraphs is that the witnesses had never made statements before the investigating officer that Shri Narain Jha had reversed his weapon Farsa while giving the blow so as to striking the head of the deceased with its hard and blunt part. Likewise, the witnesses were also found contradicted by P.W. 19, when he stated that none of the witnesses had stated that appellant Mahesh Jha had used his Bhala as a lathi for giving a blow to P.W. 3 Ram Jiwan Mahto. We are hardly required to point out that as in the case of Shri Narain Jha so in the case of the appellant Mahesh Jha, the reason was same what was foreseen by the prosecution to improvise upon its case by getting statements from witnesses that Shri Narain Jha had used his weapon Bhala as a lathi only because no such injury could be caused by a sharp pointed weapon, like, Bhala as was found by PW 11 on the person of PW 3 and as may appear from para 5 of the evidence of PW 11 at pages 66 & 67 of the paper book as per which PW3 Ram Jiwan Mahto was bearing as many as eight injuries; out of which, there were two multiple bruises with one bruise measuring 1½” x ¾” with one laceration and four abrasions; all caused by hard and blunt substances. Thus, what we find is that the witnesses had improvised upon the prosecution case with a specific purpose and that purpose was to bring their evidence in consonance with the medical opinion as regards the manner of occurrence. 22. In Hallu & Ors. (supra), a similar situation was obtained under which the prosecution had changed the evidence by letting the witnesses tell the Court that the blunt part of a sharp cutting weapon had been used in giving the blow. The Apex Court noted that the prosecution was alleging the use of a sharp cutting weapon, the presumption has to be that the sharp cutting part of the weapon had struck the part of the body and further presumption would be that the corresponding injury resulting from such a blow would be an incised wound or a piercing wound, could be caused as in the case of the appellants. If the medical evidence was regarding the non-finding either of a sharp cutting injury or a piercing injury and the injuries, which had resulted from the blows, appeared to be lacerated wounds, then it was a case of doubt and the accused persons were entitled to acquittal. We do not have any reason not to follow the above principles laid down by the Apex Court in Hallu & Ors. (supra) and applying that principle, what we get is that the evidence of witnesses could not be relied upon as they do not appear trustworthy witnesses. The witnesses had purposely varied their statement from the one they had made during the investigation with the solitary purpose of bringing themselves in consonance with the medical opinion and considering that improvisation made by the witnesses, we find it unsafe to place reliance upon them. 23. Having observed as above, we find that the learned trial judge ought to have considered that aspect of the evidence and ought to have rejected the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its entirety. 24. The other part of the finding, which was recorded by the learned trial judge, was placing reliance upon the statement of the deceased Yamuna Mahto, which was allegedly recorded by PW 19 on 15.12.1986 in the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi. 24. The other part of the finding, which was recorded by the learned trial judge, was placing reliance upon the statement of the deceased Yamuna Mahto, which was allegedly recorded by PW 19 on 15.12.1986 in the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi. PW 19 has stated in para 7 of his deposition that he went to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi on 15.12.1986 and found that the deceased Yamuna Mahto was walking on the verandah of the hospital and was in a fit state of making a statement, as such, he recorded the statement of said Yamuna Mahto as also that of PW 3 and noted it down in para 37 of the case diary. If we consider the evidence of PW 19 in para 7, then we do not have any doubt that he has reproduced each and every word spoken to him by the deceased Yamuna Mahto and, thus, what we further find is that he has given his evidence as per requirement of law when it comes to proving a dying declaration recorded by a person. 25. We have a decision of this Court, reported in AIR 1938 Patna 52 (Emperor vs. Somra Bhuian) which directs that in order to proving a dying declaration, what is required is that not only the person, who had recorded that dying declaration by writing it down, is examined, but that he should also speak that he had heard each and every word which was spoken to him by the dying man and had recorded it. Thus, the evidence of PW 19 in para 7 appears, as we have already noted, in complete consonance with the said principles of law or procedure which was laid down by this Court. But then, there is a serious challenge which was set up by the defence in the court below as also before us as regards the veracity of that statement as also the veracity of the evidence of PW 19 that the deceased was in a fit state of health so as to making the statement as regards the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction which had resulted in his death. 26. 26. For finding out as to whether the deceased was in a fit state of health so as to be able in making the detailed statement, which appears from the evidence of PW 19 in para 7, we again fall upon the evidence of PW 11 Dr. Dharamdeo. PW 11 Dr. Dharamdeo also stated as did PW 19 the Investigating Officer of the case that the deceased Yamuna Mahto had regained his consciousness and was in a state of health fit enough to make a statement on 15.12.1986. This statement was given by PW 11 after he was recalled for further examination on 25.08.1988 as may appear in para 9 of his deposition at page 69 of the paper book. However, what we find from the cross-examination part of his evidence is that Yamuna Mahto could never have been in a position of making a statement as he had never regained his consciousness. The relevant part of the evidence of PW 11 comes in para 11, at page 70 of the paper book. PW 11 stated that the condition of the deceased Jamuna Prasad Singh (Yamuna Mahto) was very serious at the time of his admission in the hospital. His condition was deteriorating. He was not passing urine on 14.12.1986 at 2:00 P.M. necessitating administration of glucose saline drippings. At the time of first examination of Jamuna Prasad Singh, PW 11 could not find out any medical remedy so as to ensuring the recovery of the patient and, as such, he had consulted Dr. L. Jha, a Consultant Surgeon of the hospital, and had discussed with him the treatment of the injured Jamuna Prasad Singh and, at that time also, the patient Jamuna Prasad Singh was unconscious and his pulse rate was 120 per minute. Thus, while PW 11 in his examination-in-chief on recall had stated that Jamuna Prasad Singh might have been conscious on 15.12.1986, we have his own evidence in cross-examination to contradict his evidence that there could be a probability strongly emerging from the medical treatment chart that Jamuna Prasad Singh had never regained consciousness and his condition had gone from bad to worse so much so that the Consultant Surgeon had also to be called for consultation. PW 19, in his cross-examination on recording the statement of Jamuna Prasad Singh, had stated that he did not deem it necessary to meet the doctor and to solicit his views as to whether Jamuna Prasad Singh had been fit on that particular date for giving his statement and neither did he obtain any certificate to that effect from anyone. 27. For testing the truthfulness of a dying declaration, the law requires that the court should first satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of health and mental consciousness and that his capacity to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control. The next fact, about which the court has to be satisfied, is as to whether there was sufficient light at the time of commission of the offence so as to facilitating the identification of the culprits by the dead man and, thirdly, while the deceased was making his statement, was there anyone of his relatives around or near him so as to tutoring him. If the deceased had the opportunity making several statements, there should be a consistency in those statements. [Please see AIR 1976 SC 1994 , K. Ramchandra Reddy and others Vs. The P.P.] In view of the any of the above conditions, regarding the trustworthiness of the dying declaration, if a court finds the dying declaration doubtful then it has to reject the declaration in its entirety. 28. We have already referred to the evidence of the doctor, as per which, there was a serious doubt regarding the deceased Jamuna Prasad Singh having regained his consciousness so as to be able to make the statement which was recorded by PW 19. He was unconscious and, as we have already noted from the evidence of PW 11, his condition had deteriorated further from day one to other days and ultimately he died. If this was the state of health of Jamuna Prasad Singh (Yamuna Mahto) then we have serious reservations in accepting the statement, which was recorded by PW 19 in para 37 of the case diary as the dying declaration of Jamuna Prasad Singh. As such, in our opinion, using that particular piece of evidence by the trial court to reinforce its findings as regards the complicity of the appellants appears perverse. 29. As such, in our opinion, using that particular piece of evidence by the trial court to reinforce its findings as regards the complicity of the appellants appears perverse. 29. In view of the discussions of evidence, made by us just now, we find that there is merit in the appeal as, in our opinion, the appellants deserved to be acquitted after being extended the benefit of doubt. We, accordingly, acquit them after giving the benefit of doubt to them. We allow the appeal in the above terms by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liability of their respective bonds. ?