as AIR 1958 SC 22 [Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay], this Court has observed that the prosecution must prove two things in such a case viz. (i) the dying declaration was really made, and (ii) the dying declaration is true. It is further observed by this Court that evaluation of the dying declaration would depend upon the testimony of person before whom the dying declaration was made and the medical opinion, if any, available to show the physical and mental condition of the declarant at the material time. In the case of Khushal Rao cited supra and also in the case reported as AIR 1979 SC 190 [Jaswant Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)], the Apex Court has further laid down that if the Court is satisfied on a close scrutiny of dying declaration that it is truthful, it is open to the Court to convict the accused on its basis without any independent corroboration. There cannot be any dispute over the propositions laid down in the cases cited supra by the Apex Court. Thus, when there are multiple dying declarations and there is inconsistency on material point in the dying declaration, each dying declaration must be scrutinized independently to find out whether it was true and it was voluntarily made. When there is inconsistency, the circumstantial evidence would lend assurance to the dying declaration which can be called as true and voluntary.
