JUDGMENT 1. - Through this appeal, under Section 378, Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan has called in question the acquittal of respondents Vijay and another, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide judgment dated 18.2.84. 2. The short facts of the case are these. Smt. Bhanwari Bai was married to Vijay Singh (accused respondent). They had five children. On 30.4.83, Smt. Bhanwari Bai doused herself in kerosene and lit a match, and was in flames. She was rushed to the hospital by the police. However, she could not be saved and breathed her last on 3.5.83. The prosecution case is that when police reached the house of the accused, Smt. Bhanwari Bai made dying declaration that because of the cruelty she poured Kerosene and lit herself, and that as indoor patient in the hospital, she again gave statement to Bhur Singh ASI, stating that because of the harassment and the cruelty she decided to end her life, and again on 1.5.83, her statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate wherein she stated that her mother-in-law told her that she should die and when her husband came from the office, her sister-in-law instigated him and he scolded her and therefore she put herself to flames. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against Vijay Singh (husband), Radha Devi (mother-in-law) and Leela (sister-in-law). The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Mumtaz Khan, ASI, PW 2 Bhanwarsingh, Constable, PW 3 Bhur Singh, ASI, PW 4 Dr. B.P Gupta, PW 5 Laxmidutt Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, PW 6 Narain Singh, I.O. and PW 7 Dhanraj, Motbir. In their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied accusation. Accused Vijay Singh gave his statement on oath in defence. The accused examined DW 2 Gumanilal, real uncle of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge held that charge against Vijay Singh and Leela Devi have not been proved. He, however, found the charge proved against Radha Devi (mother-in-law) and therefore, convicted her under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500. The State has challenged the acquittal of Vijay Singh and Leela. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that in all the three dying declarations, the deceased had named Vijay Singh and Leela, and therefore, the trial court has committed error in acquitting them. 4. Mr. 500. The State has challenged the acquittal of Vijay Singh and Leela. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that in all the three dying declarations, the deceased had named Vijay Singh and Leela, and therefore, the trial court has committed error in acquitting them. 4. Mr. Shishodia, on the other hand, contended that the trial court has property appreciated the evidence and this court should not interfere without adequate reasons in the order of acquittal. He pointed out that there are contradictions in the three dying declarations and that from the dying declarations it is not borne out that the two accused respondents had abetted the suicide by Bhanwari Bai. For the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, it was contended that there is no certificate of the medical officer certifying that Bhanwari Bai was in fit state of mind to give statement. It was pointed out that Bhanwari Bai was not known to the Magistrate and the medical officer in whose treatment she was there in the hospital, had not identified her before the Magistrate, and the person, who is said to have identified the lady as Bhanwari Bai, has not been examined. According to Mr. Shishodia, the condition of Bhanwari Bai was serious as her entire body had burnt and it could not be possible for her to give dying declaration either to the police officials or to the Magistrate. He submitted that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the injury report said to have been prepared on 30.4.83. His further contention was that the dying declaration recorded by Bhur Singh, ASI should not be believed in view of the facts which have appeared in the cross examination of Dr. B.P. Gupta. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. What would be the approach of the High Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal, has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal v. State JT 1996(6) SC 79 . B.P. Gupta. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. What would be the approach of the High Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal, has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal v. State JT 1996(6) SC 79 . The observations are reproduced hereunder- "This Court has repeatedly laid down that mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in delaing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answering to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in views of any of the above infirmities it can then, and then only, reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions." 6. It is manifest that a mere fact that a view, other than one taken by the trial court, can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. This Court can interfere in the order of acquittal only when first it is found that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence is patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it are wholly untenable. If it cannot be found that the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable, this Court cannot be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal even if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case. 7. The trial court has disbelieved the dying declaration which was sought to be proved through the statements of the two police officials Mumtaz Khan and Bhanwar Singh. 7. The trial court has disbelieved the dying declaration which was sought to be proved through the statements of the two police officials Mumtaz Khan and Bhanwar Singh. There are obvious contradictions in the statements of the two witnesses as regards the words spoken by Bhanwari Bai and certain facts were not stated by them in their police statements. The trial court was justified in discarding the dying declarating coming through these witnesses. 8. Coming to the dying declaration Ex.P/10, recorded by PW 5 Laxmidutt Sharma, it is noticed that the Magistrate did not obtain a certificate of the Medical Officer that the injured was in fit state of mind to give statement. Rather, the statement shows that the injured was in serious condition and she made incoherent statement. Not only this, even it is not borne out that the statement Ex.P/10 is of Bhanwari Bai deceased. The lady, whose statement was recorded, was not identified by the medical officer who was treating her or the Compounder who was looking after her. It is also not stated in the statement Ex.P/10 that the lady whose statement was recorded was lying in Ward No. 14 where according to Dr. B.P Gupta, the deceased was admitted. This statement bears the signatures of one Sohanlal and the Magistrate has recorded a note that Sohanlal, the nephew of the injured, had identified her. This Sohanlal has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Even in the endorsement, Sohanlal has not recorded that he had identified the lady as his aunt before the Magistrate. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the statement Ex.P/10 is the statement of deceased Bhanwari Bai. It is significant to point out that the lady, who was asked questions by the Judicial Magistrate, did not tell that she was the wife of accused Vijay Singh or that she was the resident of Maldas street, Udaipur or that she was of Jalesara community. It is relevant to state that according to Bhur Singh, ASI, in her statement Ex.P 1, Bhanwari Bai had disclosed the name of the accused as her husband. Thus, there could not be any difficulty for the lady to state the name of her husband. It is relevant to state that according to Bhur Singh, ASI, in her statement Ex.P 1, Bhanwari Bai had disclosed the name of the accused as her husband. Thus, there could not be any difficulty for the lady to state the name of her husband. In any case, as already stated, the Magistrate has not obtained the certificate of the medical officer as to the fit state of mind of the lady and therefore this statement cannot form the basis of conviction. 9. The dying declaration Ex.P/1 was recorded by Bhur Singh (PW 3). According to Bhur Singh, the medical officer was present at the time he had recorded the statement of Bhanwari Bai. Dr. B.P Gupta also says that Bhur Singh, ASI had recorded the statement of Bhanwari Bai in his presence. A perusal of the statement Ex.P/.l shows that the medical officer recorded the certificate after the completion of the statement of Bhanwari Bai. In the endorsement, it is stated that the mental condition of the patient remained alert throughout the statement and she remained conscious. It is obvious that Bhur Singh did not ensure before recording the statement Ex.P/1 that the mental condition of Bhanwari Bai was alright. If the medical officer had seen the mental condition of Bhanwari Bai before the recording of the statement then the certificate would have found place in the beginning of the statement. This part of the prosecution evidence cannot be believed that Dr. B.P Gupta was present when the statement was recorded in view of the facts which have appeared in his cross examination. According to Dr. Gupta, he was sitting just 4-5ft. away from the Asstt. Sub Inspector when the statement of Bhanwari Bai was recorded but he was unable to say whether Bhanwari Bai spoke Hindi or Marwari. It is surprising that Dr. Gupta claims to be sitting throughout the period the statement of Bhanwari Bai was recorded yet he did not know whether Bhanwari Bai spoke in Marwari or Hindi. This goes to show that as a matter of fact, Dr. Gupta was not there and after Bhur Singh wrote the statement Ex.P/1 he recorded the certificate 'A' to 'B'. It is significant to point out that according to Dr. Gupta, Bhanwari Bai's entire body had burnt and it was natural that she became unconscious. Dr. Gupta deposes to have prepared the injury report of Bhanwari Bai. Gupta was not there and after Bhur Singh wrote the statement Ex.P/1 he recorded the certificate 'A' to 'B'. It is significant to point out that according to Dr. Gupta, Bhanwari Bai's entire body had burnt and it was natural that she became unconscious. Dr. Gupta deposes to have prepared the injury report of Bhanwari Bai. That injury report has not been produced by the prosecution. It cannot be denied that the injury report was important piece of evidence. It might have been recorded in the injury report that what was the degree of burns on the body of Bhanwari Bai and what was her condition mental and physical. The fact that the injury report has been withheld, the defence is justified in contending that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution and it should be presumed that in the injury report it was recorded that Bhanwari Bai was unconscious and was not in a position to give statement. 10. Nodoubt, a dying declaration recorded by a police officer may be made basis of conviction but the statement of Bhur Singh cannot be believed as he did not obtain the certificate of the medical officer as to the mental condition of the injured before recording the statement and the injury report, which was prepared immediately after Bhanwari Bai was admitted in the hospital, has been withheld by the prosecution. 11. Apart from that, even if this statement Ex.P/1 is taken to be the dying declaration of Bhanwari Bai, it does not connect the two respondents with the crime. What has been stated against Vijay Singh in this statement is that when he came from the office, he scolded her. Obviously, it is not borne out that he used to ill treat the lady or she was subjected to cruelty by him. Vijay Singh might have said something to the deceased. It is the normal thing in the marital relations that at times one spouse pulls up the other spouse. By this it cannot be said that Vijay Singh had abetted the commission of the suicide. 12. Against Leela, in this statement, it has been stated that she used to tell her (Bhanwari Bai) that she should die by this statement, it is not borne out that on that particular date, Leela had told anything to Bhanwari Bai which can be said to be an act of abetment. 12. Against Leela, in this statement, it has been stated that she used to tell her (Bhanwari Bai) that she should die by this statement, it is not borne out that on that particular date, Leela had told anything to Bhanwari Bai which can be said to be an act of abetment. What was specifically stated in the statement is that the mother-in-law Radha Devi used to ill-treat her. The learned Sessions Judge, on this evidence, has convicted Radha Devi. 13. On a careful consideration of the entire material on record, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the trial court are manifestly erroneous or wholly untenable. Even two views are not possible on the evidence produced in the case. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. 14. There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******