JUDGMENT : Anjana Prakash, J. The sole Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 27 of the Arms Act vide Judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2012 and Order of sentence dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No.380 of 2009. 2. The case is instituted on the statement of the deceased Neelam Devi recorded at Sarmera Hospital on 27.05.2008 at 01.30 P.M. She stated that she was staying with her parents where her husband, the Appellant Vijay Dharhi came and in the midst of altercation, in which her father, brother Kanhaiya Ram (P.W.2), sister-in-law Ganita Devi (P.W.1) tried to intervene, the Appellant in a fit of anger fired on her right chest and ran away. He was chased by her father and brother but he could not be caught. It appears that the deceased died four days later. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses. 4. P.W.1 Ganita Devi is the cousin sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased and she stated that at about 11.00 P.M. while she was in her house, the deceased and the Appellant started to altercate with each other and, suddenly, the Appellant took out a pistol and fired at the deceased on account of which she was injured. Kanhaiya (P.W.2) and Bachchan (not examined) chased the Appellant but could not catch him. The deceased was then taken to Sarmera Hospital, from where to Biharsharif and then to P.M.C.H., where she died four days later. She stated that the deceased was the second wife of the Appellant and they had never visited his house and he was not of good character. She further stated that many attempts were made to pacify him but he was not ready and instead fired at the deceased. 5. P.W.2 Kanhaiya Ram is the brother of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was the second wife of the Appellant and they had never visited his house and he was not of good character. She further stated that many attempts were made to pacify him but he was not ready and instead fired at the deceased. 5. P.W.2 Kanhaiya Ram is the brother of the deceased. He stated that his sister Neelam Devi was staying with him on the date of occurrence and on hearing the sounds of altercation between the wife and husband, he went to the courtyard and tried to pacify both of them, however, the Appellant fired at the deceased on the chest and ran away. He was chased but could not be caught. The deceased was then removed to Sermera Hospital where she gave her statement on which he also signed which he proves as Ext.1 He stated that thereafter deceased was taken to the Sadar Hospital Biharsharif and from there to P.M.C.H. for better treatment, where she died four days later. In cross examination, he stated that there were two rooms in his house and the altercation between the husband and the wife went on for about half an hour. He stated that his sister-in-law (P.W.1) also came there. He saw the Appellant firing at the deceased. He conceded that there was one case against him in which he was on bail. 6. P.W.3 Krishna Kant Kumar is the Investigating Officer who took up the investigation after Santosh Kumar Singh and recorded the statement of the deceased on 27.05.2008 at about 01.30 P.M.. He identifies the handwriting and signature of the said officer on the Fardbeyan which is Ext.2. He stated that thereafter he went to the place of occurrence and also examined the rest of the witnesses who also narrated him the consistent prosecution story. He also inspected the place of occurrence which was the courtyard of the house and he confirms that the deceased died on 30.05.2008. We find that he was not cross examined by the defence for some reason. 7. P.W.4 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination of the deceased and found the Built average, rigor mortis present all over right chest and abdomen damaged. He found the following ante mortem and internal injury on the person of the deceased: I. One stitched wound 3” long vertical on right breast 3½” right to midline. II. 7. P.W.4 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination of the deceased and found the Built average, rigor mortis present all over right chest and abdomen damaged. He found the following ante mortem and internal injury on the person of the deceased: I. One stitched wound 3” long vertical on right breast 3½” right to midline. II. One stitched wound 1½” long vertical on right chest below breast 2½” right to midline. III. One stitched wound 6½” long in midline from exiphigpsterum to 3” above symthysis. IV. One corrugated drain stitched 3½” right to midline in lower chest. V. One infected wound 1/2” X 1/4” diameter on right lateral abdomen 6½” right to midline. VI. One single stitched wound on left lower abdomen 4½” left to midline. On dissection of Head, neck, chest and abdomen there was stitched wound on muscle and peritoneum from exphisternum to pubis. Blood stained fluid present in abdomen and pus and food particles were also present. II. Large gut was stitched on right transverse colon. There was 1/4” long stitched wound in uterus upper part. Uterus was enlarged, size (4½” X 4” X 1¾”). On cutting of uterus, there was blood clot in uterus and 1/2” X 1/4” lacerated wound underneath the stitched wound. Heart right side little blood, left empty. Stomach contained greenish paste about 100 grams. All other viscera were found pale. Bladder-empty. Opinion- Time since death 06 to 24 hours. Cause of death-Hemorrhage and shock due to abdominal injuries. Nature of violence-All wounds were stitched so opinion should be taken from the surgeon concerned. He proves the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased as Ext.4. 8. The principle of law on dying declaration is that it should be corroborated on all material particulars. However, we find in the present case that even though the consistent story of the prosecution including that of the deceased is that she was fired at once by the Appellant but the Doctor, who held the Post-Mortem Examinations of the dead body of the deceased found altogether six stitched wounds of varying lengths on the person of the deceased which is in complete contradiction to the prosecution case. We also find that the doctor, who held Post-Mortem Examination, was not in a position to give his opinion as to the nature of weapon used and so the opinion regarding the same could be obtained from the surgeon only who operated the upon the injured/deceased. However, no such report has been brought on record by the prosecution. In such circumstances, we are inclined to give the Appellant benefit of doubt on this score alone. 9. As a result, the Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed against the Appellant, above named, is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. The Appellant is in jail custody, therefore, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.