JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the three appellants, namely; Siya, Baney Singh and Ram Kishan @ Baney Singh @ Leelya who have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th September, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 4/1989. Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned trial judge has convicted all the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that on 16th September, 1988, complainant Kanchan (PW.4) submitted oral information at police station Bandikui to the effect that he is resident of Dhani Veerpada, Tan Sabdawali. On 15th September, 1988 at about 10.00, in the night, Kajod S/o Gyarsa by caste Gurjar, resident of Kukarwadi, Ramji Lal s/o Mallaram Gurjar resident of Deopada, Chotya S/o Sharvan Gurjar, resident of Padla and Jai Singh S/o Mangya Gurjar, resident of Kukarwadi came to him and told that his son was lying in the way to Kukarwadi with chopped off hands and legs. He accompanied them and reached at the place where his son was lying. At that time his son was alive. He shook his son Ganga Sahai then his son told that Siya S/o Sultan Meena, Baney Singh S/o Moolya Meena, resident of Dhani Veerpada, Sabdawali and Baney Singh, brother-in-law (Jija) of Siya resident of Kerwada beat him by Barchies and then the injured told to the complainant to lift him as he was to urinate. When he was trying to lift him, the injured died. Both the hands and right leg of Ganga Sahai were chopped of and the same were smeared with blood. Baney Singh and his father Sultan had encroached upon his land. Earlier also, quarrel had taken place. All the three accused killed his son due to land dispute. On the basis of this oral information, FIR No. 154/1988 (Ex.P.6) was registered at Police Station Bandikui for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. After registering the FIR, investigation was started by the police. Site Plan (Ex.R7) and necessary memos were prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem. On the basis of this oral information, FIR No. 154/1988 (Ex.P.6) was registered at Police Station Bandikui for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. After registering the FIR, investigation was started by the police. Site Plan (Ex.R7) and necessary memos were prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem. The accused were arrested and recoveries of the weapons allegedly used in the crime were made at their instance. After necessary investigation, police filed challan against all the three accused for offence under Section 302/34 IPC in the court of the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, who in turn committed the case to the trial court for trial. 3. Learned trial court framed charge against all the three accused persons for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Accused appellants denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited various documents. 5. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC. accused appellants stated the evidence of the prosecution 'false' and that the clothes allegedly recovered in the case do not belong to them. However, no witness was examined in defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court holding the accused appellants guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, sentenced all the three accused as mentioned herein above, vide judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 12th September, 1989. 6. Hence, the present appeal by the three appellants. 7. It is not out of place to mention here that as per the report dated 19th March, 2010 sent by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bandikui, District Dausa, accused Ram Kishan @ Baney Singh @ Leelya, appellant No. 3 expired four years back. No application under proviso to Section 394 Cr.PC. has been filed by any of his near relatives within thirty days of the death of the appellant, for leave to continue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed on his behalf stands abated. 8. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants Shri Deepak Soni that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution hinges only on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the appeal filed on his behalf stands abated. 8. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants Shri Deepak Soni that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution hinges only on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances brought on record by the prosecution cannot be taken to be sufficient for holding the appellants guilty of the offence and for convicting them for the alleged murder of deceased Ganga Sahai as the circumstances brought on record do not form a complete chain of circumstances to lead the inference that the appellants have committed the crime. It is further contended that in the trial court, the witnesses of the prosecution have come out with inconsistent version and as such, they cannot be taken to be reliable witnesses and conviction of the appellants on the basis of such evidence is bad in law. The evidence of dying declaration cannot inspire confidence in view of the medical evidence available on record which goes to show that the deceased could not have made a dying declaration. 10. Regarding recovery of the weapon of offence and clothes at the instance of the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the information allegedly given by the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not supported by independent witness. Therefore, the information as well as recovery of weapon of offence and clothes of the accused is bad in law and no conviction can be sustained on the basis of such evidence. 11. It is further submitted by Shri Soni that no human blood was detected on the clothes allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant no. 2 Baney Singh. Therefore, no sufficient evidence is available on record to connect appellant no. 2 Baney Singh with the crime and his conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for acquittal of the appellants. To contend that before convicting the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, certain conditions must be fulfilled. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Miss Sonia Shandilya has supported the impugned judgment of the learned trial court by submitting that the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. To contend that before convicting the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, certain conditions must be fulfilled. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Miss Sonia Shandilya has supported the impugned judgment of the learned trial court by submitting that the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Learned PP further submitted that there is vital difference between an incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance which, after the chain is complete, is added to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the court. 14. To contend that where the main evidence consists of statement of the deceased which is directed connected with or related to the death of deceased, the said statement would clearly fall within the four corners of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, therefore, is admissible in evidence, learned public prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . Before, we proceed to consider the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned PP, we deem it appropriate to discuss the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in the instant case. 15. Dr. BS Thakuriya (PW.1) on 16.9.1989 conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and as per the post mortem report (Ex.R1) noted the following five injuries on the person of deceased:- 1. Amputation in 2 pieces completely proximal and distal ends are cut incised 3" x 3" x 2" on the left fore arm middle 1/3 part margins of both the ends cuts sharply and obliquely; 2. Incised wound with cutting fracture 3" x 2-1/2 x 11/2" on the left fore arm upper 1/3 part distal bone is cut sharply margins were sharp cut. 3. Amputation completely incised cut 3-1/2 3" x 2" on the right fore arm middle 1/2 part bone is cut sharply in 2 pieces margins were sharp cut. 4. Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1" x 1/6" on the right foot dorsal ante-mortem side, margins are sharp cut lies transversely; 5. Amputation with the incised wound in 2 pieces except skin is attached 3-1/2 x 3x3 on the left leg at the junction of 1/3rd and 2/3rd part. Margins 5 are cut sharply. 16. 4. Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1" x 1/6" on the right foot dorsal ante-mortem side, margins are sharp cut lies transversely; 5. Amputation with the incised wound in 2 pieces except skin is attached 3-1/2 x 3x3 on the left leg at the junction of 1/3rd and 2/3rd part. Margins 5 are cut sharply. 16. As per the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Blood was clotted at the wound. Injury Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually and collectively. The cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage from the amputations and multiple injuries. In his cross examination the witness stated that the death was caused between 12-18 hours of post mortem and the injuries could be within 24 hours, it is not possible to say after sustaining these injuries, for what time the deceased could have remained alive and that he conducted post mortem on the place of occurrence which was a field. From the evidence of Dr. BS Thakuriya (PW.1) and the post mortem report (Ex.P1) it is revealed that the death of deceased Ganga Sahai was due to ante mortem injuries caused on his person by sharp edged weapon. 17. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that for convicting the accused appellants, learned trial court has placed reliance on the following circumstances : 1. Dying declaration made by the deceased to Kanchan (PW.4), Jai Singh (PW.5), Khairati Lal (PW.6), Ramji Lal (PW.7), Kishan Singh (PW.8), Chotya (PW.9) and Shanti (PW.12); 2. Recovery of Barchi and blood stained clothes at the instance of the appellants; and 3. Motive of offence. 18. Kanchan (PW.1) has deposed that on the day of occurrence, he was at his home. In the night (after sun set), Kajod, Suja, Ramji Lal and Jai Singh along with Chotya came to his house to call him. They told him that his son was chopped off between Dewada and Kukarwadi. He along with his wife went at the place where his son was chopped and found Ganga Sahai (son) lying there who at that time was alive. He asked him as to who chopped him, then he gave out that Baney Singh, Siya and Brother-in-law (sister's husband) of Sita resident of Kerwada chopped him by barchies. He along with his wife went at the place where his son was chopped and found Ganga Sahai (son) lying there who at that time was alive. He asked him as to who chopped him, then he gave out that Baney Singh, Siya and Brother-in-law (sister's husband) of Sita resident of Kerwada chopped him by barchies. Ganga Sahai told him to urinate and when he picked up of him, Ganga Sahai died. Both the hands of Ganga Sahai were amputated between knee joint and palm. Both the legs were also amputated. One leg was completely cut while another leg was having some skin. Where Ganga Sahai was lying, blood was spreading there. The witness further deposed that his father got registry of five bigha land in the name of wife of Ganga Sahai which the accuse claimed their own and wanted to take the some. Before this incident, the accused belaboured him and Ganga Sahai regarding which complaint (Ex.P.5) was made at the police station. After earlier incident, Ganga Sahai started living in his father-in-laws village Prithvipura as his life was in danger at the hands of the accused as an scuffle ensued with him while he was going to attend the date in the Court. The witness then deposed that regarding the present occurrence he made the complaint (Ex.P6) and Police had arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex.P7) and inquest report (Ex.P8). The dead body was handed over to him vide receipt (Ex.P.9). 19. In cross examination, the witness deposed that two years earlier to the occurrence the accused quarrelled with them and lodged report against them earlier to their report upon which a case under Section 307 IPC was pending against them. Deceased was also one of the accused in that case. Prithvipura is at a distance of 10 Kms. from Sabdawali. All the three accused are living in Sabdawali. Sultan and Moolya are real brothers. Case regarding partition of the land is pending. One year earlier to the death of Ganga Sahai, the accused cut the crop of Ganga Sahai regarding which he made a complaint to the police. During these 12 months no other quarrel took place. His house and the houses of the accused are in one Guwadi. The place of occurrence is at a distance of about half kilometer from Sabdawali. During these 12 months no other quarrel took place. His house and the houses of the accused are in one Guwadi. The place of occurrence is at a distance of about half kilometer from Sabdawali. Kajod, Suwa, Ramji Lal are not related to him. Kajod and Jai Singh are the residents of Kukarwadi, Ramjilal and Suwa are residents of Dewada. These persons came to him around 8.00 PM and might have been between 8-9 PM. In the report the time of occurrence was given out about 10.00 PM. As he was under shock, the time was given out as 10.00 PM. Police recorded his statement at about 3.00 in the night. Police had arrived at the place of 15 occurrence after 3.00 in the night. In his police statement the time of occurrence might have been given at 10.00 PM. Ramji Lal, Suwa, Kajod and Jai Singh came to him and told him regarding chopping of his son only. Chotya also did not tell anything than chopping of his son. It took half and hour to reach at the place of occurrence after he received information from the other witnesses. Ganga Sahai talked to him and told him to get him sit. After talks Ganga Sahai was alive for about two minutes and told him that ^^eq>s fl;k] cus flag ,oa [ksjokM+k ds yhyk us cjNh ls dkV fn;kA** Except this, Ganga Sahai did not give out any thing. The witness stated it to be incorrect that at the time, he reached at the place of occurrence, Ganga Sahai was not alive and was not in a position to speak. 20. Jai Singh (PW.5) in his court statement started that 8-9 months ago at about 8-9 PM he went near the field of Khairati Pujari and found Ganga Sahai there in injured condition. His both the hands and legs were chopped off. Ganga Sahai was telling that three persons namely, Siya, Bane Singh and one another person, whose name he was not remembering at that time, chopped him and ran away. Ganga Sahai disclosed the name of third person but today he did not remember. Thereafter they went to call the father and mother of Ganga Sahai who arrived at the spot then also, Ganga Sahai told about the incident. So many persons collected there. Khairati Pujari was one of them. Ganga Sahai disclosed the name of third person but today he did not remember. Thereafter they went to call the father and mother of Ganga Sahai who arrived at the spot then also, Ganga Sahai told about the incident. So many persons collected there. Khairati Pujari was one of them. When Kanchan and his wife went to the place of occurrence, he did not accompany them and stayed at the village. The witness has denied certain portions of his police statement saying that he did not tell such things. 21. In cross-examination, the witness has stated that the persons accompanied him told to Kanchan to look after his son who was injured. Except this, nothing was told by them. When they reached to Ganga Sahai, he was like unconscious and asked them to call his mother-father. 22. Khairati (PW.6) stated that 8 months ago at about 7-8 PM he saw Ganga Sahai in his field whose hands and legs were chopped off. After hearing noise, he went there and found various persons there. Ganga Sahai was saying that he was chopped by barchies by Siya, Baney Singh and one another person (whose name he did not remember today). Mother and father of Ganga Sahai arrived at the place of occurrence. Father of Ganga Sahai asked from Ganga Sahai as to who had done it, Ganga Sahai told about the three persons. After a short time talking to his father, Ganga Sahai died. 23. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he reached to Ganga Sahai at about 8.00 PM. At that time, Ramji Lal, Kishan, Suwa, Damodar of Kukarwadi, Kajod and Chhotya of Padla were present there. Many other persons also gathered there. After worshiping (Pooja) he returned to his house. His house is situated about 200 footsteps from the place of occurrence. The witness stated it to be incorrect that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Ganga Sahai was dead. 24. Ramji Lal (PW.7) stated that 8 months ago, at about 8.00 PM, he was returning towards village after harvesting bajra crop, he heard noise and he went at the place from noise was coming and found Ganga Sahai lying in the way near to the field of a Brahmin with both the hands and one leg chopped off. 24. Ramji Lal (PW.7) stated that 8 months ago, at about 8.00 PM, he was returning towards village after harvesting bajra crop, he heard noise and he went at the place from noise was coming and found Ganga Sahai lying in the way near to the field of a Brahmin with both the hands and one leg chopped off. He asked Ganga Sahai as to who chopped him, he replied that Siya son of Sultan, Baney Singh son of Moolya and one person of Kewarda chopped him by barchhi and told to call his mother-father and brother. He along with Kajod, Jai Singh and Chhotya went to call the father of Ganga Sahai and told him that hands and leg of Ganga Sahai were chopped and Kanchan and his wife accompanied him up to place where Ganga Sahai was lying injured. Kanchan and his wife gave shaking to Ganga Sahai and Kanchan asked as to who chopped him then Ganga Sahai told that Siya son of Sultan Singh, Baney Singh son of Moolya one person of Kerwada, related to Sultan had chopped of his hands and leg by barchhi. After that he asked Kanchan to help for urination and died. He, Kanchan and Suwa went to the police station to report the matter where Kanchan lodged the report. Site map (Ex.P.7) and inquest report (Ex.P.8) was prepared by the police in his presence and both the memos bear his thumb impression. Sample of soil was also taken and memo (Ex.P.11) was prepared by the police. Clothes and shoes were recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P12.). Similarly, papers and purse from the pocket of deceased Ganga Sahai were also recovered vide (Ex.P13) which bear his thumb impression. 25. In cross-examination, the witness stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Khairati was present there. He did not disclose entire facts, to Kanchan which, Ganga Sahai told him. He told Kanchan that Ganga Sahai was cut and did not tell the names of the assailants, he himself asked from Ganga Sahai, the names of the assailants. At that time Damodar and Kajod were present. He went at the place of occurrence twice. Firstly, he went alone and after that he went along with Kanchan and wife of Kanchan. Kajod and Jai Singh had gone to their village. The witness, Kanchan and his wife arrived afterwards. At that time Damodar and Kajod were present. He went at the place of occurrence twice. Firstly, he went alone and after that he went along with Kanchan and wife of Kanchan. Kajod and Jai Singh had gone to their village. The witness, Kanchan and his wife arrived afterwards. Kajod and Jai Singh returned to their village from the way. When Kanchan and his wife reached at the place of occurrence, Ganga Sahai did not breath last. Ganga Sahai gave out the names of his assailants while lying and died while urinating. Ganga Sahai died while lifting it took a short time for these things. At the time, Ganga Sahai gave out to Kanchan, the names of his assailants, 10-11 persons were present there. Gyarsa Balai of Dewada, Heera Lal Brahmin, Rameshwar Brahmin and Moti were present and did not remember the names of other persons but they all were residents of Dewada. The witness stated it to be incorrect that he did not see Ganga Sahai alive and used to go at the house of Kanchan. 26. Kishan Singh (PW.8) stated that about eight months ago at about 81/2 in the night, he was sitting at his house. Suwa Lal, Moti Lal and Damodar came to his house to call him and disclosed that somebody had chopped Ganga Sahai. He reached at the place of occurrence where Ganga Sahai was lying in injured condition. Both his hands were amputated, left leg was also amputated and right leg was cut on thigh. Some persons from village Dewada and Kukarwadi had colleged there. When Ganga Sahai was asked about the persons who cut him, he told that Siya S/o Sultan, Baney Singh S/o Moolya and Baney Singh Kherwada cut him by barchhi. The injured further told that Baney Singh Kherwada made him to lay and Siya and Baney Singh cut his hands and legs. Ganga Sahai told to call his mother, father and brother. Jai Singh, Kajod, Chotey Lal and Ramji Lal went to call his mother and father who arrived at the place of occurrence and in their presence, Ganga Sahai disclosed the names of his assailants as Siya S/o Sultan Baney Singh S/o Moolya and Baney Singh Kherwada. Thereafter, Ganga Sahai died. 27. In his cross-examination the witness stated that police recorded his statement and he gave out the names of the assailants as disclosed by Ganga Sahai. Thereafter, Ganga Sahai died. 27. In his cross-examination the witness stated that police recorded his statement and he gave out the names of the assailants as disclosed by Ganga Sahai. He had no knowledge whether the police had written the names of the assailants or not. His house is situated at a distance of 2-3 furlongs from the place of occurrence. He did not go to call Kanchan and remained present at the place of occurrence till arrival of Kanchan and his wife. 100-50 persons had colleged at the place of occurrence. When he arrived at the place of occurrence, Durga Prasad, Mool Chand, Moti Lal, Kalu Ram were residents of Kukarwadi. Birbal Gujar, Meetha Lal Gujar, Ramhet Gujar, Teja Gujar, Kailash Gujar, Ram Prasad, Ram Swaroop Gujar, Mool Chand, Moti Lal, Radheyshyam etc. were present there. Chhaju Ram Gujar was also present there. In his presence, the deceased twice disclosed the names of his assailants. Firstly, before arrival of Kanchan and secondly after arrival of Kanchan. Along with Kanchan, Ramji Lal, Chotey Lal, Jai Singh and Kajod returned to the place of occurrence. He cannot say as to at what time these persons arrived at the place of occurrence as he did not have a watch, it may be about quarter before ten PM. 28. To the similar effect is the statement of Chhotya (PW.9) who stated that about 8 months ago at about 8.00 PM he went to Dewada to purchase Bidi where he had some noise and went at the place (field of Khairati Pujari) from where noise was coming and found that Ganga Sahai was lying there in injured condition whose both the hands and one leg were chopped of. Ganga Sahai asked to call his parents. He also told that Siya son of Sultan, Baney Singh son of Moolya and brother-in-law of Siya Lilya had cut him by Barchi. The witness further deposed that he, Ramji Lal, Kajod and Jai Singh went to call the mother and father of Ganga Sahai who arrived at the place of occurrence and Ganga Sahai disclosed the names of his assailants as Siya S/o Sultan, Baney Singh S/o Moola and Leelya, brother-in-law of Siya. Ganga Sahai told for urination and then died. 29. In his cross examination the witness deposed that he went to the shop of Ramotar Baniya to purchase Bidi where he heard the noise. Ganga Sahai told for urination and then died. 29. In his cross examination the witness deposed that he went to the shop of Ramotar Baniya to purchase Bidi where he heard the noise. Blood was spreading at the place of occurrence. Ganga Sahai was in sense but did not tell as to who made him lay on the ground. The witness told that he is unable to say as to at what time Kanchan took to reach at the place of occurrence as he had no watch. It may be 9-10 PM. 30. Shanti (PW.12) is the mother of deceased Ganga Sahai. She has stated that she went at the place of occurrence with her husband where Ganga Sahai was lying in injured condition. At that time he was alive. His so hands and legs were chopped of. When her husband asked from Ganga Sahai, he told that Baney Singh, Siya and Lilya cut him by Barchi and thereafter told to urinate but died. 31. In her cross examination the witness stated that in the way the persons who came to call them told that her son was cut. Kajod and Jai Singh stayed in the way. Ramji Lal and Suwa were with them. 32. Suwa Lal (PW.17) has stated that 10 months ago at about 8.00 PM he was at his home. He heard noise from the field of Khairati Pujari and went there. Where Ganga Sahai was lying in injured condition. Both of his hands and leg were chopped of. On their asking, Ganga Sahai replied that Siya, Baney Singh and Baney Singh @ Leelya had done it with Barchhi and asked to call his mother and father. 33. The law is well settled that a singular dying declaration not suffering from any infirmity and found worthy of being relied on may form the basis of conviction. 34. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Laxmi v. Om Prakash and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2383 , have held that the Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in the fit state of mind and capable of making a statement at the point of time when the dying declaration purports to have been made and/or recorded. Their lordships have further held that it is not the number of dying declarations which will weigh with the Court. Their lordships have further held that it is not the number of dying declarations which will weigh with the Court. A singular dying declaration not suffering from any infirmity and found worthy of being relied on may form the basis of conviction. On the other hand if every individual dying declaration consisting in a plurality is found to be infirm, the Court would not be persuaded to act thereon merely because the dying declarations are more than one and apparently consistent. It has been held as follows :- "1. Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire - No one at the point of death is presumed to lie. A man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth-is the philosophy in law underlying admittance in evidence of dying declaration. A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the Courts, it becomes a very important and reliable piece of evidence and if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. The Court added - such a statement, called the dying declaration, is relevant and admissible in evidence provided it has been made by the deceased while in a fit mental condition. The above statement of law, by way of preamble to this judgment, has been necessitated as this appeal, putting in issue acquittal of the accused respondents from a charge under Section 302/34 IPC, seeks reversal of the impugned judgment and so invites this court to record a finding of guilty based on the singular evidence of dying declaration made by the victim. The law is well settled : dying declaration is admissible in evidence. The admissibility is founded on principle of necessity. The law is well settled : dying declaration is admissible in evidence. The admissibility is founded on principle of necessity. A dying declaration, if found reliable, can form the basis of conviction. A court of facts is not excluded from acting upon an uncorroborated dying declaration for finding conviction. A dying declaration, as a piece of evidence, stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence. It has to be judged and appreciated in the light of the surrounding circumstances and its weight determined by reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. It is, as if the maker of the dying declaration was present in the court, making a statement, stating the facts contained in the declaration, with the difference that the declaration is not a statement on oath and the maker thereof cannot be subjected to cross-examination, if in a given case a particular dying declaration suffers from any infirmities, either of its own or as disclosed by other evidence adduced in the case or circumstances coming to its notice, the court may as a rule of prudence look for corroboration and if the infirmities be such as render the dying declaration so infirm as to prick the conscience of the court, the same may be refused to be accepted as forming safe basis for conviction. In the case at hand, the dying declarations are five. However, it is not the number of dying declarations which will weigh with the court. A singular dying declaration not suffering from any infirmity and found worthy of being relied on may form the basis of conviction. On the other hand if every individual dying declaration consisting in a plurality is found to be infirm, the court would not be persuaded to act thereon merely because the dying declarations are more than one and apparently consistent." 35. As has been discussed herein above, the prosecution witnesses have specifically proved the fact that when they reached at the place of occurrence, deceased Ganga Sahai was alive and was in a position to make statement. He has stated the names of the appellants as his assailants. Therefore, conviction of the appellants on the basis of the oral dying declaration is sufficient to make conviction of the appellants. He has stated the names of the appellants as his assailants. Therefore, conviction of the appellants on the basis of the oral dying declaration is sufficient to make conviction of the appellants. So far as second and third circumstances i.e. recovery of weapons of offence and the clothes of the accused are concerned, to prove these circumstance, the prosecution placed reliance on the testimony of Kishan (PW.10), Vishnu Sharma (PW.13), Mohan Lal (PW.16) and Jali (PW.18) and the recoveries memos. Regarding recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused and clothes of the accused witness Kishan (PW.10) stated that while in custody, accused Siya got recovered one Barchhi, one tericot Shirt of cream colour and one Dhoti vide recovery memo (Ex.R17). There were blood stains on the Barchhi, Shirt and Dhoti which were sealed at the place of recovery. These articles were got recovered by Siya from his house. Accused Baney Singh, from his house, vide recovery memo (Ex.P18) got recovered one Barchhi, one Bushshirt and one pant. There were blood stains on all these articles which were also sealed. Accused Baney Singh son of Mool Chand, vide recovery memo (Ex. P. 19) got recovered one pant and one shirt from his house which were sealed at the place of the recovery. 36. In cross-examination the witness has admitted that he is the real brother of deceased Ganga Sahai. The house of Baney Singh S/o Surjan Singh is situated in village Kelada which is in Alwar District. Baney Singh S/o Surjan Singh got recovered the articles from the house of his father-in-law Sultan. Farshi was recovered from a tinposh room. The police party reached at the place of recovery at about 3.00 PM. Recovery Memos were prepared at the place of recovery. The Barchhi was about 9 Inches long. 37. Vishnu Sharma (PW.13) deposed that he handed over the recovered articles in the office of FSL in sealed condition. Surjit Singh (PW.14) stated that the recovered articles remained in his custody in the police station in sealed condition and were sent to FSL in the same condition through Vishnu Sharma (PW.13). 38. Mohan Lal (PW.16) stated that on 16.9.1988 he was posted at Police Station Bandikui as Station House Officer. On that day, Kanchan Meena furnished an oral report upon which FIR (Ex.P.6) was registered. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex.P.7). 38. Mohan Lal (PW.16) stated that on 16.9.1988 he was posted at Police Station Bandikui as Station House Officer. On that day, Kanchan Meena furnished an oral report upon which FIR (Ex.P.6) was registered. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex.P.7). Panchayatnama of dead body of Ganga Sahai (Ex.P.8) was prepared. Sample soil and controlled soil was taken from the place of occurrence through (Ex.P11). Clothes of deceased sustained with blood were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P.12). Purse and papers found in the pocket of Shirt of Ganga Sahai were seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P13). Accused Ram Kishan @ Baney Singh was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P.14), accused Baney Singh son of Mool Chand was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P.15) and accused Siya was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P.16). While in custody, on 26.9.1988, accused Siya voluntarily furnished information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.21) regarding hiding of Barchhi and blood stained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence. Similar information was furnished by accused Ram Kishan @ Lilya which was also rescued in writing as (Ex.P.22). Baney Singh S/o Mool Chand also furnished information regarding hiding of clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence which was reduced in writing as (Ex.P.23). The witness further stated that pursuant to the information furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, accused Baney Singh S/o Mool Chand got recovered one open shirt, one pant which were stained with blood and recovery memo (Ex.P. 19) was prepared. Accused Siya pursuant to his information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, got recovered one blood stained Barchhi, one Shirt and one Dhoti and recovery memo (Ex.P.17) was prepared. Pursuant to the information furnished by accused Ram Kishan @ Lilya, from the house of his father-in-law Sultan Singh Meena, got recovered one blood stained Barchhi, one open Shirt and one Dhoti of which recovery memo (Ex.P.18) was prepared. The recovered articles were seized and sealed at the place of recovery. The witness also identified the recovered articles in the court. 39. In cross-examination, regarding the marked portion of (Ex.D.1), (Ex.D.2), (Ex.D.3) and (Ex.D.4), the witness stated that the same were written as per the statements of the witnesses. No separate seal was put on the recovered clothes as there was no such practice. The witness also identified the recovered articles in the court. 39. In cross-examination, regarding the marked portion of (Ex.D.1), (Ex.D.2), (Ex.D.3) and (Ex.D.4), the witness stated that the same were written as per the statements of the witnesses. No separate seal was put on the recovered clothes as there was no such practice. The clothes, which he recovered at the instance of accused, who told that the same belonged to them and produced by themselves. He did not make any inquiry from other persons regarding the clothes. Mool Chand, the father of accused Baney Singh was residing in the house from where the articles were recovered. Family of Sultan was residing in the house from where Ram Kishan got so recovered the clothes. Police party along with the witnesses went inside of the house with the accused. Witnesses took the search of the police personnel and the police personnel took search of the witnesses which fact did not find place in the seizure memo. 40. Jali (PW.18) stated that in his presence accused Siya got recovered one Barchhi, Dhoti and one Shirt stained with blood and recovery memo (Ex.R17) was prepared. Baney Singh @ Lilya got recovered one Farshi, one pant and one bushshirt regarding which recovery memo (Ex.P.18) was prepared. These articles were stained by blood and the police sealed the same at the place of recovery. Baney Singh got recovered one Dhoti and one Shirt, regarding which recovery memo (Ex.P.19) was prepared. 41. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that the Barchhi recovered at the instance of Siya was having handle of black coloured bamboo. Sultan was living in the house of Siya. How many other persons are living in that house, he do not know. He went first time in the house. Neither police constable took his search nor the Thanedar gave his own search. When they reached at the house of Siya, the doors of the house were found open. Siya was known to him for a long time. Other clothes were also lying out which the police took some clothes. 42. Arrest memo (Ex.R14) reveals that accused Ram Kishan @ Baney Singh @ Lilya was arrested on 24.9.1988 at 3.30 PM in the presence of motbir Radha Kishan and Ramji Lai. Similarly, accused Baney Singh S/o Mool Chand was arrested on the same day and time in presence of Radha Kishan and Ramji Lal. 42. Arrest memo (Ex.R14) reveals that accused Ram Kishan @ Baney Singh @ Lilya was arrested on 24.9.1988 at 3.30 PM in the presence of motbir Radha Kishan and Ramji Lai. Similarly, accused Baney Singh S/o Mool Chand was arrested on the same day and time in presence of Radha Kishan and Ramji Lal. Accused Siya was arrested on the same day and same time in presence of the same motbirs vide arrest memo (Ex.P.16). 43. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.21) allegedly furnished by appellant Siya regarding recovery of Barchhi (Farsi) used for committing the crime and the clothes which the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence was reduced in writing on 26.9.1988 at 7.15 AM. Similar information allegedly furnished by appellant Ram Kishan @ Lilya regarding recovery of a Barchhi (Farsi) and the clothes which the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence was reduced in writing on 26.9.1988 at 7.30 AM. Information (Ex.P.23) was allegedly furnished by appellant Baney Singh son of Mool Chand on 26.9.1988 at 7.50 AM. 44. From the FSL Report (Ex.P.24) it is revealed that human blood was found on the Farsi, Dhoti and Shirt (Articles 10, 11 and 12) recovered at the instance of appellant Siya and on Farsi, Dhoti and Open Shirt (Articles 13, 14 and 15) respectively. Then human blood was detected from Bush-shirt (Article 16) recovered at the instance of appellant Baney Singh son of Moolya. However, no blood was detected from the Pant (Article 17) recovered at the instance of this accused. 45. Thus, from the evidence of the above witnesses and the FSL Report it is revealed that the prosecution has been able to prove recovery of the articles at the instance of the appellants and its relation with commission of offence. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. offered no explanation as to how blood was found on the clothes recovered at their instance. 46. So far as the motive of crime is concerned it is well settled that every criminal act is done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. 46. So far as the motive of crime is concerned it is well settled that every criminal act is done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. 47. In the instant case, to establish motive of the crime the prosecution has examined Kanchan (PW.4) who has stated that 5 bighas of land was given to Ganga Sahai and his wife by Balya, father of the witness and because of his the accused were annoyed with Ganga Sahai and they wanted to snatch the land. For this, earlier also, accused had beaten Ganga Sahai regarding which report (Ex.P.5) was lodged at the Police Station and Ganga Sahai started to live at Prithvipura. Bhagwan (PW.11), brother-in-law (Sala) of deceased Ganga Sahai has corroborated the statement of Kanchan and started that Balya, grand father of Ganga Sahai gave 5 bighas land to Ganga Sahai and after the death of Balya, the accused with intention to take possession of the same started quarrelling with Ganga Sahai. Sultan fired on Ganga Sahai due to which he started to live in village Prithvipura. 48. Kesar (PW.15) started that Balya, her grand-father-in-law gave her five bigha land on account of which Sultan and Moolya were annoyed. Because of this, earlier also, a quarrel ensued and they left the village and started living at village Prithvipura. Ramgopal (PW.2) and Bhagwan (PW.3) have also proved that the land was entered in the name of Keshar. Therefore, it is clear that due to land dispute, the family members of Sultan and Moolya were annoyed with the deceased. 49. Now, we have to consider whether the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court can be sustained in law. Ramgopal (PW.2) and Bhagwan (PW.3) have also proved that the land was entered in the name of Keshar. Therefore, it is clear that due to land dispute, the family members of Sultan and Moolya were annoyed with the deceased. 49. Now, we have to consider whether the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court can be sustained in law. As noticed above, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the accused committing murder of the deceased. It is settled that while dealing with the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused, which would mean that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court. 50. In the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 530 : 2010 (8) SCC 593 , the Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the subject and held as under: "23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. 24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of the conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the fact must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court." From the evidence available on record we found that the prosecution has been able to prove the fact of dying declaration made by the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and named the accused as the persons who committed the crime. The witnesses regarding the oral dying declaration made by the deceased are the independent witnesses and had neither any enmity with the accused nor they had relation with complainant party. The witnesses regarding the oral dying declaration made by the deceased are the independent witnesses and had neither any enmity with the accused nor they had relation with complainant party. The accused also failed to establish the reason as to why the witnesses would implicate them in the case. No question was put to the witnesses of dying declaration as to why they falsely roped them in the case. Therefore, no doubt can be raised on the testimony of the witnesses of dying declaration. 51. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-attestation of the disclosure statements made by the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by independent witnesses is, concerned, the Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mangal Singh & Anr. (DB Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 94/2017, decided on 1st March, 2017) has held that in the entire scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act, there is no requirement that the information given by an accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no requirement that the information given by an accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the discovery of a relevant fact should bear attestation by Independent witnesses. While considering D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 94/2017, the Division Bench of this Court was persuaded to refer the following question for consideration by a Larger Bench :- "Whether during interrogation of the accused at the time of recording information from him/her with regard to effecting recovery of fact, articles and weapon, the presence of two independent witnesses is necessary or not ?" 52. Considering the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and various pronouncements of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Larger Bench held as under:- 53. Considering the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and various pronouncements of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Larger Bench held as under:- 53. In view of the discussion made herein above, we answer the reference in the following terms : "In the entire scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act, there is no requirement that the information given by an accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the discovery of a relevant fact should bear attestation by independent witnesses and the Division Bench Judgments in the cases of Rameshwar and Surjeet (supra) do not lay down correct proposition of law on this aspect." 54. In view of the law laid by the Larger Bench, we find no substance in the argument made by the counsel for the appellants that in absence of attesting witnesses of the information given by the appellants under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the case of the prosecution is vitiated. 55. On the basis of the above discussions, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and as such, no interference is called for in the same. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and the appeal on behalf of appellants Siya S/o Sultan and Baney Singh S/o Moolya deserves to be dismissed. 56. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed. Conviction of appellants Siya and Baney Singh S/o Moolya for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentence imposed thereupon are maintained. 57. The appellants namely, Siya S/o Sultan and Baney Singh S/o Moolya are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the trial court within a period of two months from today to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. In case of their failure to surrender within the stipulated period, the trial court is directed to take necessary steps in this regard. The office is directed to return the record of the case to the trial court forthwith.