JUDGMENT : 1. The judgment dated 3.12.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta in S.C. No. 377/2013, is under challenge in this appeal. As per the above judgment, the appellant, who is the 1st accused in the case, was charged along with two others for having committed offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 302 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant was found guilty and was convicted for the commission of offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.1,00,000/- with a default clause. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges. The Prosecution case: 2. “Kachanathu Kotta” is a Dravidian temple situated at Pathanamthitta. The temple festivities are usually held in the month of February. The accused is the relative of the wife of the deceased and their residences are situated in close proximity. There was an earlier incident between the accused and the deceased which led to the registration of a crime at the instance of the accused against the deceased, his son, and others. The relationship between the two persons was therefore in a strained state. The prosecution case is that, due to prior enmity harbored by the 1st accused against Mr. Karunakaran Nair, the deceased in the instant case, on February 6, 2009, at approximately 9:30 p.m. while Mr. Karunakaran Nair was reciting Bhajans at the Valiakotta Temple in Kachanathu along with one Sivan Kutty (CW2), Ravi (CW3) and others, the 1st accused came to the temple armed with a chopper. An altercation broke out as regards the singing of Bhajans and consequent to the same, the 3rd accused allegedly incited the 1st accused to attack him. In response, the 2nd accused kicked CW4 from behind, causing him to fall and sustain injuries to his right hand and back. Immediately thereafter, the 3rd accused struck Mr. Karunakaran Nair on the nape of his neck and then inflicted a cut injury on the back of Mr. Karunakaran Nair’s head with the chopper. When Mr. Karunakaran Nair collapsed, the 1st accused proceeded to inflict additional cut injuries on various parts of his body, including his right chest, right elbow, right thigh, right leg below the knee, nape, shoulder, and right armpit. Though Mr. Karunakaran Nair’s head with the chopper. When Mr. Karunakaran Nair collapsed, the 1st accused proceeded to inflict additional cut injuries on various parts of his body, including his right chest, right elbow, right thigh, right leg below the knee, nape, shoulder, and right armpit. Though Mr. Karunakaran Nair was rushed to the B.C.M.C. Hospital, Konni and then to Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry, and Pushpagiri Hospital, and finally to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he succumbed to the injuries on February 7, 2009, at 3:55 a.m. Registration of the Crime and investigation: 3. Ayyappan Nair, a relative of the deceased, received information about the incident from one Ramesh. He approached the police and lodged Ext.P1 statement based on which Ext.P8 FIR was registered by PW18, the Sub Inspector of Police, Konni. PW20, the Circle Inspector of Police, Konni Police Station took over the investigation on February 7, 2009. He conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P4 inquest report. He prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar. He arrested the 1st accused on February 9, 2009, as per Ext.P16 series arrest memo. Based on the disclosure statement furnished by the 1st accused, MO1 chopper was recovered. He seized the clothes worn by the accused as per Ext.P13 Mahazar. He forwarded the properties seized for forensic analysis and obtained Ext.P27 report. After completing the necessary formalities, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Committal of the case and trial before the court of session: 4. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Session after complying with the necessary formalities. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta before whom the case was made over after committal, proceeded with the trial with the framing of charges under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC against the appellant and others. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. Twenty witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PWs1 to 20 and through them, Exts.P1 to P28 were exhibited and marked. MO1 to MO3 were produced and identified. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the defence. After the close of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The appellant formally denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that he was innocent. MO1 to MO3 were produced and identified. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the defence. After the close of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The appellant formally denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that he was innocent. Finding that there was no scope for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. the learned Additional Sessions Judge afforded an opportunity to the appellant to adduce defence evidence. The appellant did not choose to adduce any evidence. After evaluating the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. To arrive at the finding of guilt, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the independent ocular witnesses, PW5, the witness to whom the deceased had given his dying declaration, the seizure of weapons and clothes of the accused and the detection of the presence of blood on the same, and the medical evidence. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant is here before this Court with this appeal. Submissions of the Appellant: 6. Sri. Philip Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the conviction was arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge without properly evaluating the evidence let in by the prosecution and the contentions raised by the appellant. It is urged by the learned counsel that serious prejudice has been caused as certain leading questions were put by the Prosecutor and answers were procured. This procedure offends the right of the accused to a fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the observations made by the Apex Court in Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 745. It is further submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in recording the 164 statement of the witnesses was irregular. He would then contend that the learned Sessions Judge erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of PW2, the witness portrayed as an eyewitness by the prosecution. However, the said witness only stated before the Court that while fleeing from the spot he had occasion to witness one injury being inflicted by the accused. He would then contend that the learned Sessions Judge erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of PW2, the witness portrayed as an eyewitness by the prosecution. However, the said witness only stated before the Court that while fleeing from the spot he had occasion to witness one injury being inflicted by the accused. However, the postmortem report reveals that numerous cut injuries were found on the body of the deceased. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution as to how those injuries were sustained by the deceased. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that PW11, the Doctor who attended to the injured, stated that in view of the nature of injuries sustained, the injured could have only spoken one or two words. However, the prosecution has attempted to bring on record a dying declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to PW5, a near relative. According to the learned counsel, no reliance ought to have been placed as there is no material to conclude that the deceased was in a fit mental and physical state to give a dying declaration to the witness. The learned counsel would then point out that the evaluation of the evidence let in by PW12 would reveal that injury No. 4 noted in Ext.P10 postmortem certificate could not be caused by MO1 chopper alleged to have been used by the accused. The said injury could be inflicted only with the sharp pointed object and not with MO1 chopper. He would urge that the prosecution witnesses had spoken about the presence of a tall and sturdy man at the place of occurrence. However, there is no explanation as to his involvement and presence. Finally, it is submitted that the prosecution has proven that only a single cut injury was inflicted by the accused, and if that be the case, the authorship of the other injuries noted in the postmortem certificate could not have been placed on the shoulders of the accused. At any rate, even if the accused is held to be the perpetrator of the single-cut injury, the offence under Section 300 of the IPC punishable under Section 302 will not be attracted. Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor: 7. In response, Smt. Neema. T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution successfully proved that the appellant had inflicted cut injuries on the deceased using MO1 weapon. Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor: 7. In response, Smt. Neema. T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution successfully proved that the appellant had inflicted cut injuries on the deceased using MO1 weapon. The evidence let in by PWs 2 and 3, the ocular witnesses, and PW5, the witness to whom the deceased had given a dying declaration is unshaken. The recovery of MO1 chopper at the instance of the accused and the detection of Group ‘AB’ blood belonging to the deceased in the clothes of the accused would corroborate the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the brutal nature of the injuries inflicted would be clearly evident from the injuries noted by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire records. Whether the death of Karunakaran Nair is a case of homicide? 9. The prosecution has examined PW11, the Senior Lecturer, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who stated before the court that he had seen the injured after being referred from Pushpagiri Hospital. Through the said witness, Ext.P9 treatment certificate was marked. PW12 is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who conducted the autopsy. PW12 noted the following injuries in Ext.P10 postmortem certificate: 1. Shaped surgical stapled wound 10 c.m. long on the right side of back of head, its lower outer end 2 c.m. behind pinna of ear and 7 c.m. above root of neck. Corresponding to it. Scalp tissue showed contusion 8 x 4 x 0.5 c.m. Skull dura and brain were intact. 2. Multiple small abrasions over an area 2x1 c.m. on the right side of forehead 1.5 c.m. outer to midline and 4 c.m. above eyebrow. 3. Abrasion 0.5 x 0.2 c.m. on the right side of forehead 2.5 c.m. outer to midline and 2 c.m. above eyebrow. 4. Curved sutured incised wound 14 c.m. long with its convexity upwards, on the right side of front of chest, its inner end 9 c.m. outlet to midline and 19 c.m. below collar bone. Cutting through the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs and it corresponding intercostal muscles wound entered the right chest cavity, and transfixed the back aspect of lower lobe of right lung 3 x 2 x 1 c.m. The lower lobe was collapsed. Chest cavity contained 300ml of blood stained fluid. 5. Cutting through the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs and it corresponding intercostal muscles wound entered the right chest cavity, and transfixed the back aspect of lower lobe of right lung 3 x 2 x 1 c.m. The lower lobe was collapsed. Chest cavity contained 300ml of blood stained fluid. 5. Surgical thoracostomy wound 2 c.m. long on the outer aspect of right side of chest 8 c.m. below armpit. 6. Linear abrasion 4 x 0.2 c.m. horizontal on the left side of front of chest, 14 c.m. outer to midline and 15 c.m. below armpit. 7. Incised wound 4 x 1.5 c.m. muscle deep horizontal across the back of chest (with tailing on either side) its mid point 7.5 c.m. below root of neck. 8. Incised wound 4 x 0.5 c.m. muscle deep on the left side of back of chest 8.5 c.m. below top of shoulder and 5 c.m. outer to midline. 9. Sutured incised wound 8 c.m. long oblique on the right side of back of chest, its upper inner end 12 c.m. below top of shoulder and 13 c.m. outer to midline. 10. Contusion 3 x 2 c.m. muscle deep on the back fold of right axilla. 11. Incised wound 4 x 1.5 c.m. bone deep oblique on the back of right arm 6 c.m. above elbow. The soft tissues, muscles and right humerus bone was cut and separated. 12. Incised wound 5.5 c.m. x 0.6 c.m. oblique on the back aspect of root of neck, its lower end 3 c.m. above inner aspect of left shoulder blade. 13. Incised wound 16 x 2.5 c.m. bone deep with levelled lower margins on the front and outer aspect of right thigh, its upper inner front end 17 c.m. below-prominence of hip bone. The soft tissues, muscles were cleanly cut. 14. Incised wound 18 x 2.5 c.m. bone deep oblique on the outer and front aspect of right leg its upper outer end 4 c.m. below lens. The soft tissues, muscles, anterior tibial artery and nerves were cut. 15. Multiple small abrasion 4.5 x 2 c.m. on the outer aspect of left knee. 16. Abrasion 2 x 0.5 c.m. on the back of left forearm 14 c.m. above wrist. When examined, the Doctor stated that the death was due to injuries sustained to the chest and right lower limb. He stated that the injury Nos. 15. Multiple small abrasion 4.5 x 2 c.m. on the outer aspect of left knee. 16. Abrasion 2 x 0.5 c.m. on the back of left forearm 14 c.m. above wrist. When examined, the Doctor stated that the death was due to injuries sustained to the chest and right lower limb. He stated that the injury Nos. 13 and 14 are bone-deep injuries and those injuries are also sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No serious challenge is mounted by the accused with regard to the death of the accused consequent to the injuries inflicted. In that view of the matter, we hold that the deceased had died of homicide. The incident and cause of death: 10. Prosecution examined PWs 2 and 3, independent ocular witnesses, to establish the incident. PW2 testified that he is a blacksmith by profession and stated that the events leading to the death of Karunakaran Nair occurred on February 6, 2009. According to him, he arrived at Kachanattu Kotta around 8:30 p.m. and met the accused on his way. Subsequently, he met Kochukuttan and Chandran, who expressed anger towards him for not starting the Bhajana on time. Upon reaching the temple premises, he noticed that CW2 (Sivan kutty) and CW4 (Ravi) were already there. The workers were dismantling the mics. While he was about to leave, he saw Karunakaran Nair, who invited him to participate in the Bhajana. PW2 joined Nair and two others in singing Bhajans. At this point, the accused entered the premises, followed by the committee members, who questioned those engaged in singing. Shortly thereafter, someone kicked Ravi from behind, causing him to fall. PW2, sensing trouble, decided to leave, but he too was kicked. He then saw the accused slap Karunakaran Nair on his left cheek. CW2 (Sivankutty) froze upon seeing this, but PW2 grabbed his hand, and they fled the scene. PW2 heard someone shout that the blacksmith should not be allowed to escape and saw the accused pursuing him. In court, he identified the accused standing in the dock. As he refused to state the entire sequence of events in tune with what he had stated in his previous statement to the police, the Prosecutor was permitted to confront him with his prior statements and the same were marked as Exts. P2, P2(a), P2(b), and P2(c). In court, he identified the accused standing in the dock. As he refused to state the entire sequence of events in tune with what he had stated in his previous statement to the police, the Prosecutor was permitted to confront him with his prior statements and the same were marked as Exts. P2, P2(a), P2(b), and P2(c). However, he denied having made such statements to the police. He, however, stated that he might have informed the Magistrate that the accused had inflicted two cut injuries on the deceased. To a specific question, he stated that he was not under duress while giving his statement to the Magistrate, though threats were made subsequently. He further noted that the temple was situated in a mountainous area. 11. PW3, another eyewitness, stated that he was a committee member of the temple. After the festival, he returned home in the evening but was later called back to dismantle the microphone setup. When he returned to the temple, he observed a gathering of people and witnessed the accused inflict a cut injury on the deceased. The crowd dispersed when the acts of violence commenced. PW3 approached Gopi, a relative of the deceased, and informed what he had seen. He then returned to the scene with Gopi and found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from multiple injuries. The deceased was transported by autorickshaw to Konni Hospital, then to Kozhencherry Hospital, and later to Pushpagiri Hospital. The injured was finally taken to Kottayam Medical College Hospital, where Mr. Karunakaran Nair was pronounced dead at 3:00 a.m. PW3 identified the accused in the dock and added that there was adequate lighting at the temple to recognize the accused. He however clarified that he had witnessed the accused inflict only one cut injury. 12. PW4 was the mic. set operator, who stated that on the date of the incident, he removed the mics as nobody was there to sing Bhajans. 13. PW5 stated that the deceased was his brother-in-law. He stated that on the date of the incident, the individual who was supposed to sing Bhajans did not come as agreed. He came down from the temple and while he was counting cash, one Harikumar informed him that the accused had inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. PW5 immediately went up and found the deceased lying on the ground. He stated that on the date of the incident, the individual who was supposed to sing Bhajans did not come as agreed. He came down from the temple and while he was counting cash, one Harikumar informed him that the accused had inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. PW5 immediately went up and found the deceased lying on the ground. He sought assistance from others present to lift the deceased and rush him to the hospital. PW5 fetched some water from a nearby house and gave it to the deceased. As he lifted the deceased, Karaunakaran Nair informed him that the injuries had been inflicted by the accused. As his last wish, he requested the witness to take care of Maniyamma and Sarath. He further stated that despite being rushed to multiple hospitals, his brother-in-law could not be saved. PW5 was also present when the inquest was prepared. During cross-examination, he confirmed that the accused was his uncle’s son and that he had previously seen the weapon used in the commission of the offence in the possession of the accused. 14. PW6 is an attestor to the inquest. PW7 is the person in whose autorickshaw the injured was shifted to the hospital. PW10 is Sarath Kumar, the son of the deceased. He stated that on the date of the incident, the accused had come to his house and drank black coffee. About 6 months prior to the incident, the accused had abused his mother and there arose an altercation between the accused and the deceased and the accused had assaulted his father. A case was instituted by the accused against the witness and his father and they were acquitted. PW13 is the JFMC, Pathanamthitta, who recorded the 164 statements of Venu, Sivankutty and Ravi. The contradictions brought out in the evidence of Sivan Kutty were proved through the learned Magistrate. 15. PW14 is the Village officer, who prepared Ext.P12 site plan. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the tube lights in and around the scene were not noted in the plan. PW19 is the attestor to Ext.P15 recovery mahazar. He stated that as led by the accused, police arrived at the spot and recovered MO1 weapon. Evaluation of the evidence: 16. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the tube lights in and around the scene were not noted in the plan. PW19 is the attestor to Ext.P15 recovery mahazar. He stated that as led by the accused, police arrived at the spot and recovered MO1 weapon. Evaluation of the evidence: 16. Before adverting to the evidence, it needs to be noted that the prime ocular witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge were Sivan Kutty (CW2) and Ravi (CW4) in addition to Venu (PW2) and Harikumar (PW3). However, CW2 and CW4 passed away before the trial commenced. As stated earlier, PW2 diluted his version before the court. However, from his evidence, what had transpired at the temple is clearly discernible. The committee members were unhappy because the persons who were supposed to sing Bhajans did not turn up. The accused was also with the committee members. The deceased took the initiative to sing Bhajans, which were not to the liking of the accused. The evidence of PW10 Sarath, the son of the deceased, reveals that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained. The accused did not like the insistence on the part of the deceased to sing bhajans and it was for the said reason that he got flared up and started attacking the deceased. PW2 stated that he had witnessed the accused beating the deceased and later inflicting a cut injury. PW3 also corroborated the version of PW2. Though in his previous statement marked as Ext.P2 series, PW2 had given a graphic version of the incident, while testifying before the court he limited it to a single-cut injury. He, however, stated that in his 164 statement before the Magistrate, he stated about the infliction of multiple cut injuries on the body of the deceased by the accused. He added that at the time of furnishing the 164 statement, he did not face any threats but thereafter, he has been subjected to constant threats. 17. The main contention of Sri. Philip Mathew is that the prime witnesses for the prosecution had spoken about the infliction of only one cut injury and, if that be the case, the authorship of the injuries noted in the postmortem certificate cannot be placed on the shoulders of the accused. 17. The main contention of Sri. Philip Mathew is that the prime witnesses for the prosecution had spoken about the infliction of only one cut injury and, if that be the case, the authorship of the injuries noted in the postmortem certificate cannot be placed on the shoulders of the accused. At this juncture, it needs to be borne in mind that the witnesses examined before the court are rustic witnesses who admitted before the court that they were under pressure to depose against the accused. Furthermore, a reading of the evidence would reveal that when the accused started attacking the deceased with the chopper, that was in his possession, the witnesses who were present at the scene fled from the place in order to save themselves. One cannot expect the witnesses to stay back and face the fury unleashed by the accused. 18. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time, or due to mental dispositions such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to material contradiction thereby creating serious doubts about the truthfulness of the witness and witnesses make material improvement while deposing in the court, the courts would be reluctant to accept such evidence. Mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars that which go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments, or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case cannot be made a ground on which the evidence of a witness can be rejected in its entirety. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But, it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. It is for the Court to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. But, it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. It is for the Court to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. [See: State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 ] 19. After having tested the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, in the light of the principles above, we are of the view that the testimony of the said witnesses does not suffer from any infirmity and can be relied upon. The Dying Declaration: 20. The central piece of evidence linking the appellant with the murder is the dying declaration of the deceased to PW5. It would be relevant to appreciate the evidence of PW5, who had gone to the rescue of the deceased while he was lying on the ground bleeding with injuries immediately after the incident. A reading of the evidence would reveal that the other persons who were at the spot had run for their lives when the incident broke out and the accused started attacking the deceased in the front of the temple with a weapon. PW5 is a near relative, and he had come to the scene after securing help from one Gopi. The said witness stated in unequivocal terms that he gave water to the deceased which was procured from the house of Prasad and when he attempted to lift the deceased, he told him that cut injury was inflicted by the accused. As his last wish, he asked the witness to take care of his near and dear ones. The evidence tendered by PW5 lends corroboration to the evidence tendered by PW2 and 3. 21. The law relating to dying declaration is now well settled. Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic and inspires the confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, the court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible, and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, the court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible, and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration. [See: Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 941] 22. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 the Apex Court examined the principles governing acceptance of dying declaration. After examining the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and various judicial pronouncements, this Court laid down the following conclusions: (i) it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. (ii) each case must be determined on its own facts, keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made. (iii) it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence. (iv) a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence. It has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing weighing of evidence. (v) a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character. (vi) in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view various circumstances including the condition of the person concerned to make such a statement; that it has been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. 23. In Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 the Apex Court has held that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. However, the court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination; the deceased should be in a fit and proper state to make the declaration. 24. However, the court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination; the deceased should be in a fit and proper state to make the declaration. 24. In Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SCC 684 it was observed that the general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible. Unless the evidence tendered is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy. However, Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to this general rule. This Court observed as under: 18.............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 a 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. 25. In Muthu Kutty v. State, (2005) 9 SCC 113 the following discussion and the ultimate conclusion are relevant which read as under: “14. This is a case where the basis of conviction of the accused is the dying declaration. The situation in which a person is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene when he is dying that the grave position in which he is placed, is the reason in law to accept veracity of his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the dying declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eyewitness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the court without a scrap of evidence. 15. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the dying declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eyewitness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the court without a scrap of evidence. 15. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.” 26. One of the arguments advanced is that the deceased would not have been in a fit state of mind and whether he had adequate time to identify the assailant. A reading of the evidence would reveal that the accused is a near relative and their relationship was strained. It was the deceased who had taken the initiative to sing Bhajans, which was not to the liking of the committee members and to the accused. Not less than 14 injuries were inflicted on the body of the deceased and some of the injuries were inflicted on the chest. The deceased had enough time to identify the accused. Defensive injuries were also noted by the Doctor. PW12, the Forensic Surgeon, had stated in his evidence that the deceased would be in a position to utter words after sustaining such injuries. The deceased had enough time to identify the accused. Defensive injuries were also noted by the Doctor. PW12, the Forensic Surgeon, had stated in his evidence that the deceased would be in a position to utter words after sustaining such injuries. In cross-examination, he stated that the injured would be able to speak one or two words and he added that the reaction may vary from person to person. A reading of the evidence of PW5 would reveal that he had attended to the deceased immediately after the incident as the accused had gone after PW2 and others. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement of the deceased was a result of tutoring, prompting, or a product of imagination. A dying declaration 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 the same passes the test of careful scrutiny, it becomes a very important and reliable piece of evidence. We are satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment. Furthermore, the evidence tendered by PWs 2 and 3 lends sufficient corroboration to the events that led to the sustaining of the injuries by the deceased. Of course, there are some omissions, inconsistencies, and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses. However, there is convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor. That being the position, the evidence on record, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Inconsistency between oral evidence and medical evidence: 27. One of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel is the inconsistency between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. It is true that the eyewitnesses stated that they had witnessed only one injury being inflicted on the deceased, but the doctor has noted about 14 injuries. We have already referred to the oral evidence tendered by the witnesses. No one had stated that the accused did not inflict more than one injury. All that they had said was that they fled from the place when they saw the accused becoming aggressive and while fleeing, they saw injury being inflicted by the accused. We have already referred to the oral evidence tendered by the witnesses. No one had stated that the accused did not inflict more than one injury. All that they had said was that they fled from the place when they saw the accused becoming aggressive and while fleeing, they saw injury being inflicted by the accused. In that view of the matter, we do not think that there is any inconsistency. A submission was also made that injury No. 4 could not be caused by MO1 chopper. All that the doctor had stated was that the said injury could be caused by a sharp pointed object. This is one among a series of injuries inflicted by the very same person. Insofar as inconsistency between oral evidence and medical evidence is concerned, the principles have been laid down by the Apex Court in Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2012 SC 5301 wherein it was held as under: “10........So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.” 28. The ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence and it is only when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved. No such contingency has arisen in the instant case. Detection of Blood in the Material Objects: 29. MO1 weapon was seized based on the disclosure statement given by the accused. No such contingency has arisen in the instant case. Detection of Blood in the Material Objects: 29. MO1 weapon was seized based on the disclosure statement given by the accused. In the course of the investigation, MO2 shirt and MO3 lungi worn by the accused at the time of occurrence were seized. On analysis, the presence of ‘AB’ group blood was detected. This corresponds to the blood group of the deceased. The presence of identical blood in the clothes and weapon is another formidable piece of evidence linking the accused with the crime. The offense made out: 30. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the act of the appellant causing the death of the victim does not come within the purview of murder envisaged under Section 300 of the I.P.C. We are not inclined to accept the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. None of the exceptions to Section 300 of the I.P.C. could come into play in the instant case. The facts and circumstances under which culpable homicide tantamounts to murder, and the principles governing the field, are dealt with exhaustively by the Apex Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, (2022) 4 SCC 227 . After referring to all the past precedents the Apex Court has laid down the following factors that are to be considered for deciding a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention to cause death: (i) Nature of the weapon used. (ii) Whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot. (iii) Whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body. (iv) The amount of force employed in causing injury. (v) Whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free-for-all fight. (vi) Whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation. (vii) Whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger. (viii) Whether there was any grave and sudden provocation and if so, the cause for such provocation. (ix) Whether it was in the heat of passion. (x) Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner. (xi) Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. There can be no doubt that MO1 is a deadly cutting weapon. (ix) Whether it was in the heat of passion. (x) Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner. (xi) Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. There can be no doubt that MO1 is a deadly cutting weapon. Multiple incised wounds were inflicted on vital parts of the body of the deceased. PW9, the Casualty Medical Officer, had stated that the right lung was visible through the chest bone. The muscles were cut and exposed in the right thigh. There were cut injuries on the back of the chest and arms. A reading of the injuries inflicted would reveal that the accused had gone into a frenzy and attacked the victim with much ferocity in a very cruel manner. The nature of the crime as well as the manner in which it was done by the appellant are indicative of the accused committing the act with the intention of causing the death of the victim, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In that view of the matter, we reject the contention of the learned counsel that the act committed by the accused will not fall into the category of murder punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The trial court rightly found that the accused committed murder punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 31. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 32. This appeal is dismissed.