The Supreme Court observed that it was not an absolute rule of law that other evidence must corroborate a dying declaration. A dying declaration even if uncorroborated can form the sole basis of conviction. But each case must be determined on its own facts; keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to principles governing the weighing of evidence; a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and as far as practicable in the words of the maker of the declaration stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character. In order to test the reliability of a dying declaration the court has  to keep in view the circumstances like the opportunity of dying man for observation, whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control, that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.