crucial aspect of the matter which, the prosecution has not been able to explain or clarify. 42. In such circumstances referred to above, we are left with either to believe the dying declarations or the oral evidence of the two so called eyewitnesses to the incident. It is also important to note that the PW-4 Soni, in her cross-examination has stated that to the best of her knowledge, Islamuddin and Naushad had fastened the latch from inside. If the door of the room, in which the deceased persons were sleeping was closed from inside, then how did the appellant-convict manage to open the door and enter the room so as to set the room on fire as alleged? 43. The juristic theory regarding the acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason, the requirements of oath and crossexamination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of crossexamination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, should always be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. [See: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710] 22