JUDGMENT 1. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the accused appellant, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 27.3.1984 in Sessions Case No. 147/82. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur tried the accused respondent for offences under Sections 376 read with Sections 511 and 302 I.P.C. The allegation against the respondent accused was that he had assaulted the deceased Ansuya wife of his younger brother with the intention to outrage her modesty and on her resistance he burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her. This allegation was levelled against the accused respondent in a statement recorded by the learned Magistrate which has been treated as the dying declaration of the deceased Ansuya and was produced as Ex.P 6. This statement was recorded on 3.11.1982. The incident of burning had occurred on 31.10.1982 at about 7 P.M. and the death of Ansuya had occurred on 9.11.1982. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after trial considered the prosecution evidence and came to the conclusion that the dying declaration Ex.P 6 is not a statement which can be relied. This statement was recorded on 3.11.1982 i.e., after 4 days of the occurrence. Prior to this two other statements of the deceased were recorded. Ex.D. 2 was a statement recorded by a police official on 3.11.1982 at about 12.15 A.M. in the presence of doctor after seeking certification that she was fit to give the statement and this statement runs contrary to the statement Ex.P. 6. There was another statement recorded of the deceased by the Doctor and was produced on record as Ex.D. 4. This statement was recorded on 31.10.1982 at 8.40. P.M. It was recorded by the Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Asop, where the deceased was taken soon after the occurrence. In the two earlier statements of the deceased the story given by the deceased was of an accident. According to this story the deceased told the police official and, the doctor attending on her that while she was lighting the lamp before the deity. She sustained the fire from the lamp. At that time her mother-in-law was preparing meals. She started shouting and on her shouts her mother-in-law and the accused came and attempted to save her. According to these two statements it was a mere accident. She sustained the fire from the lamp. At that time her mother-in-law was preparing meals. She started shouting and on her shouts her mother-in-law and the accused came and attempted to save her. According to these two statements it was a mere accident. The learned Sessions judge was of the opinion that the statements recorded by the doctor and the police official were anterior to statement Ex.P 6. The witnesses Durgesh and Jagdish had met Ansuya before Ex.P 6 was recorded. There v/as a possibility of tutoring the deceased and any statement recorded on the advise and saying of P.W. 2 Jagdish cannot be made the basis of conviction of the accused respondent. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the case against the accused. 4. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent and have also perused the record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has urged that in the face of the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions judge has gone wrong in acquitting the accused respondent. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate in the light of two earlier recorded dying declarations. One of them was recorded by the doctor immediately after the occurrence. This statement was recorded in the language of the deceased herself. That speaks of an accident. Further before the dying declaration Ex.P. 6 was recorded by the learned Magistrate, there was a definite scope of tutoring the deceased. In this back-ground the dying declaration Ex.P 6 recorded by the learned Magistrate was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. We don't think that any illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in discarding the dying declaration which was with the possibility of tutoring. If a possible view has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge then in an appeal against acquittal this Court would be slow in interfering. For interference in appeal against acquittal what is required is that the judgment under appeal should be perverse and unsustainable, which is not the case here. Since the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for discarding the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal against acquittal. For interference in appeal against acquittal what is required is that the judgment under appeal should be perverse and unsustainable, which is not the case here. Since the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for discarding the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal against acquittal. In that view of the matter, the appeal against acquittal is not liable to succeed and the same fails. The acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is maintained. 6. In the result, there is no force in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******