ORDER : As we have indicated in the order dated 17 th February 2025, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Gurjar the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This Acquittal Appeal is taken up for final hearing with the agreement of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3. The judgment dated 30 th November 2024 passed in Sessions Case No.120 of 2024 has been challenged by Moti Bai Meena. According to the prosecution, Pratap who tendered evidence as PW-4 is the person to whom the victim, namely, Ganesh had disclosed the name of the assailants. 4. Mr. R.K. Charan the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of PW-4 provides clinching evidence which fully supports the dying declaration of Ganesh and that was sufficient to convict the accused persons for committing murder of Ganesh. 5. On the basis of the written report of Smt. Moti Bai Meena, a crime was registered vide FIR No.97/2020 and a Final Report was submitted by the police. However, the Court concerned took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against eight persons for committing ‘Marpeet’ and they were tried for committing the offence under sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code . In the proceeding of Sessions Case No.120/2024, 24 witnesses were examined in support of the aforementioned charges framed against accused persons. 6. This is the case set up by the prosecution that Ganesh gave oral dying declaration before Pratap and disclosed the names of the respondents as the assailants who committed ‘Marpeet’ with him. 7. On the issue of dying declaration, the law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be recorded on the basis of dying declaration provided the same inspires confidence of the Court. However, at the same time, this is also a well known fact that the Courts generally seek corroboration of the dying declaration before arriving at a final conclusion as to the guilt of accused persons. The philosophy behind attaching sanctity to the dying declaration is ‘Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire’ which means a person on death bed shall not lie to his Makers. The philosophy behind attaching sanctity to the dying declaration is ‘Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire’ which means a person on death bed shall not lie to his Makers. As to the dying declaration made to Pratap, we have two considerations in mind while scrutinizing his testimony tendered as PW-4, namely, (i) whether the story narrated by him in the Court is corroborated by the First Information Report and (ii) whether there is any other corroborative material to support his statement. On both the counts, we find that the prosecution miserably failed to support its own case. The statement given by PW-4 in his examination-in- chief is a substantial improvement from the initial case of the prosecution. Secondly, PW-4 admitted in the cross-examination that he was not the first person who arrived at the place of occurrence. He further admitted that there were several persons assembled at the place of occurrence when he reached there. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that no person present at the place of occurrence informed him the name of the assailants who committed ‘Marpeet’ with Ganesh. 8. Even the father of the deceased who tendered evidence as PW-2 stated clearly in the Court that when he met with PW-4, he did not disclose the names of the persons who according to his son were his assailants. Not only that, PW-2 stated in the Court that Pratap had informed him that when he arrived at the place of the occurrence his son was injured and he was not able to speak. 9. This is also in our mind that while dealing with an acquittal appeal the Court should keep in mind that the findings recorded by the trial Judge should not be lightly interfered with. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 64 of 2025, which is accordingly dismissed.