In which one among the following cases the Supreme Court of India said that 'it is not an absolute rule of law that dying declaration must be corroborated by other evidence before it can be acted upon'?

Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra case becomes the Landmark Judgement of Evidence Law which always helps in the interpretation of Circumstantial Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Dying Declaration and Relevancy of the Evidences. SC introduced one Panchsheel Test for the Relevancy of the Evidences which will be applied in such type of cases where Direct Evidences are not available. Pakala Narayan Swami v. King Emperor case clarifies the principles for identifying a confession and a dying declaration. The Privy Council expressed the opinion that the statement of the accused was partly confession and partly explanation for his innocence. By giving the benefit of doubt, the Privy Council set aside the conviction of the accused Supreme Court in the decision of Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22, held that the dying declaration of a person by itself, may be sufficient to find the accused guilty and if the statement is reliable and credible, it does not even need corroboration. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab: The reasons given by the trial Court and the High Court for not considering the first Dying Declaration as voluntary and true are quite convincing and we see no reason to differ from them. Therefore, the second Dying Declaration cannot be regarded as untrue merely because it is contrary to her statement made earlier.