Koshy, J.

This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, Kollam. Five accused were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. It was the case of the prosecution that on 15.9.1995 at 11 p.m. near the bridge at Asramam Public road in Vadakkumbhagom in Kollam East Village, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object of committing murder of Gokul Das @ Das, son of Gopinathan armed with sword stick etc. and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly committed clothing and A1 beat Gokuldas with a stick on the head and kicked him on the abdomen and when Gokuldas fell down A2 inflicted cut injuries on the right thigh and right leg with a sword while A3 to A5 with sticks beat and kicked the victim and on 20.9.1995 at 6 a.m. Gokuldas succumbed to the injuries and thereby committed the charged offences.

2. The First Information Statement was furnished by the deceased Gokuldas himself from the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 8 were examined. Except PWs.1 and 2 all the others were official witnesses. PW3 is the Village Officer who prepared the plan. PW4 is the doctor who gave Ext.P4 wound certificate, PW5 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination and issued Ext.P5 postmortem certificate, PW6 is the Head Constable who took FIS from the deceased, PW7 is the Sub Inspector who conducted initial investigation and PW8 is the Circle Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation after death intimation was given form the hospital. PWs.1 and 2 are the occurrence witnesses. They were declared hostile. Even though Exts.P1 and P2 contradictions were marked from the police statement there was no effective cross-examination. They stated that they have not seen the incident and they are not aware of the incident. We may also mention here that PW2 is a close relative, that is the first cousine of the deceased. It is the allegation that deceased was affixing wall posters for the C.P.M. candidate. PW2 has stated that the deceased was also a party worker. The two occurrence witnesses examined by the prosecution became hostile. Therefore, there is no occurrence witness. Reliance is made only on Ext.P7 FI Statement, which according to the prosecution, can be taken as a dying declaration. It is true that it invokes confidence of the Court and it can be relied upon even without any further evidence.

3. The law relating to dying declaration is summarized by the Apex Court in Kendula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P. ((1993) 2 SCC 684) as follows:

"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."

While explaining the principle of "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," the Apex Court also reiterated that before accepting such dying declaration court should be satisfied that it has been made by the deceased while he was in a fit mental condition. It was held in Tapinder Singh v. State of Pu