4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, appellant preferred appeal before the High Court. By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010, the High Court relied upon the written dying declaration of the deceased Ex. 59 recorded by PW-6 and also the oral dying declarations of the deceased made before PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 and thereafter upheld the judgment of conviction of the trial court. Holding that the trial court judgment warranted no interference, the appeal was dismissed. 5. This Court by order dated 16.08.2011 had issued notice. Thereafter vide order dated 02.10.2011, leave was granted. However, prayer for bail was rejected at that stage. 6. By order dated 30.06.2016, this Court noted that appellant had already undergone about nine years of sentence.6 Therefore, the sentence was suspended and bail was granted to the appellant. 7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the