10. Be that as it may, whatever the nature of offence may have been committed, but the evidence on record does not reveal of any material to arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused alone who had committed the offence. We have also taken note that learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia had wholly believed the evidence of PW-5 & PW-7, as regards the dying declaration being made by the deceased before death. But because of the evidence of PW-5 in his crossexamination, the evidence of PW-14 the I/O and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of PW-5 and PW-7, we are disinclined to believe the oral dying declaration of the deceased as relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge based upon the depositionin-chief of the PW-5 and PW-7. Accordingly, we are of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellant who had committed the offence of inflicting injuries on the deceased Bhupen. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.82(T)/2015 dated 09.12.2016 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default thereof to rigorous imprisonment for further 6 (six) months is set-aside.
