JUDGMENT : J.C. Upadhyaya, J. This appeal under section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara [for short 'Ld. Judge'] on 30/6/2005 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2000. The Ld. Judge , by virtue of the impugned judgment, acquitted both the respondents herein, who were original accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] as well as punishable under sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. 2. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is as under : 2.1. Complainant Maganbhai Fulabhai Desai was serving in Plastic Surgery Department of S S G Hospital, Vadodara and was residing with his family members in the area called Indirabaug in the city of Vadodara. He has two daughters named Hansaben and Anjuben. His daughter Hansaben had been married at village Fartikui and younger daughter named Anjuben married Ashwin Ashokbhai Solanki on 16/5/1997. Respondent - accused no. 1 - Ashokbhai Kuberbhai and respondent accused no. 2 - Minaben Ashokbhai are parents of Ashwinbhai and fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of Anjuben. It is the case of the prosecution that after the marriage of Anjuben, Anjuben started residing with her husband - Ashiwnbhai and the family was joint family. Their residence was also in Vadodara. It is the case of prosecution that after the marriage of Anjuben, both the accused persons were physically and mentally harassing her regarding household work and they were insisting her to bring money from her parental house. Anjuben's husband Ashwinbhai was jobless and Anjuben was blamed by the accused that Ashwin was not doing any work because of Anjuben. Whenever Anjuben was visiting her parental house, she was complaining regarding illtreatment from both the accused. However, at that time the complainant Maganbhai did not take any step with bona fide object that there may not be any matrimonial problem between his daughter and her husband even during the initial period of their marriage. It is a specific case of the prosecution that Anjuben's husband Ashwin was not harassing Anjuben. However, at that time the complainant Maganbhai did not take any step with bona fide object that there may not be any matrimonial problem between his daughter and her husband even during the initial period of their marriage. It is a specific case of the prosecution that Anjuben's husband Ashwin was not harassing Anjuben. About the incident, it is the case of the prosecution that on 25/11/1997 right from the morning, both the accused persons started harassing Anjuben. When the complainant Maganbhai received the information about the quarrel, on the same day he reached near the house of the accused at about 5.30 p.m. Anjuben went outside her house and met her father, complainant - Maganbhai and informed her father about the illtreatment caused to her by the accused persons and stated that she [Anjuben] and her husband Ashwinbhai have decided to reside separately from both the accused, which did not like to the accused and that is why on said day she was harassed and illtreated by the accused persons. Thereupon, complainant Maganbhai told his daughter to come with him along with her luggage. Anjuben went inside the house to collect her luggage and complainant Maganbhai waited for her outside the house. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time at about 6.00 p.m., there was a shout from the house and complainant Maganbhai immediately rushed inside the house and saw that his daughter Anjuben had received burn injuries. At that time, both the accused persons left the house. It is further case of the prosecution that Anjuben had sustained serious burn injuries. Initially she was taken to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for treatment and thereafter she was shifted for further and better treatment to Mahi Hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that victim Anjuben was set on fire by both the respondents accused. Complainant Maganbhai lodged FIR in Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara. After receiving the FIR, police commenced investigation and recorded statements of witnesses and in presence of panchas, drew required panchnamas; medical evidence was collected from the hospital, muddamal articles - empty tin and burn particles of saree worn by Anjuben at the time of incident were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory [for short 'FSL'] for investigation and the report was received. The particles of petroleum hydro carbons [kerosene residue] were detected in both muddamal articles. The particles of petroleum hydro carbons [kerosene residue] were detected in both muddamal articles. After the completion of the investigation, police filed chargesheet in the Court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara against both the accused. Since the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 2.2. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara framed charge at exh. 8 against both the accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as punishable under sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. As the accused did not plead guilty, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined complainant Maganbhai Fulabhai and his deposition was recorded at 12. The testimony of victim Anjuben Ashwinbhai was recorded at exh. 14. The prosecution examined witnesses Madhuben Maganbhai at exh. 16, Kanchanbhai Chhaganbhai at exh. 17, Shankarbhai Ramchandra at exh. 20, Kantibhai Fulabhai at exh. 21, Vikrambhai Maganbhai at exh. 22, Ishvarbhai Fulabhai at exh. 23, Chandubhai Hirabhai at exh. 24, Narsinhbhai Dhulabhai at exh. 26, Dr. Sherbanu Pathan at exh. 28, Shaheraben Husenbhai at exh. 34, Niranjan Kantilal at exh.35, Ramanbhai Chimanbhai at exh. 40 and Investigating Officer, P.I. Mr. G K Solanki at exh. 44. No more witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The prosecution produced relevant documentary evidence in this case. After the prosecution completed its evidence, Ld. Judge recorded further statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In their further statements, accused generally denied all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution witnesses. They stated that they are innocent and no cruelty or illtreatment was caused by them to Anjuben and that Anjuben sustained burn injuries while preparing tea. 2.3. The Ld. Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides, delivered impugned judgment, whereby he was pleased to acquit both the accused persons for the offences charged against them. 3. On behalf of the appellant - State, learned A.P.P. Mr. Desai submitted that the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that the Ld. 3. On behalf of the appellant - State, learned A.P.P. Mr. Desai submitted that the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that the Ld. Judge erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of victim Anjuben, which is supported by the deposition of her father - complainant Maganbhai in connection with the offence of attempt of murder, punishable u/s.307 of IPC. That even the testimony of victim Anjuben in connection with the cruelty and illtreatment caused to her by both the accused gets support not only by the testimonies of complainant - Maganbhai, but testimonies of her mother, brother and uncles. That the untoward incident occurred just within a short span of marriage life of Anjuben. That the root cause of the illtreatment, as per the prosecution case was that husband of Anjuben named Ashwinbhai was jobless, and therefore the accused caused mental torture to Anjuben stating that because of her, Ashwinbhai was not inclined to do any job. That therefore, even financial demands were also made to Anjuben. That Anjuben used to get financial help from her parents. That because of such continuous torture by both the accused, both the spouses Anjuben and Ashwinbhai decided to reside separately from the accused. That therefore, on 25/11/1997, the day on which the incidence occurred, right from the morning, both the accused started causing mental torture to Anjuben. That the torturing continued practically for the whole day and Anjuben's father - complainant Maganbhai received information about the mental torture to his daughter from none other than Navnitbhai, who is son of the accused and younger brother of Anjuben's husband Ashwinbhai. That thereupon Maganbhai immediately rushed to the house of the accused. However, he remained outside the house, and Anjuben came out of her house and informed her father about the torturing and illtreatment caused to her by the accused. That thereupon, her father Maganbhai decided that Anjuben should come to his house, and for that purpose told Anjuben to carry her belongings. Anjuben went inside the house to carry her belongings, and her father Maganbhai stayed outside the house. That it has come in evidence of the victim Anjuben herself that as soon as she went inside the house to collect her belongings, at that time, both the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Anjuben went inside the house to carry her belongings, and her father Maganbhai stayed outside the house. That it has come in evidence of the victim Anjuben herself that as soon as she went inside the house to collect her belongings, at that time, both the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Listening the noise of quarrel coming from the house, her father - Maganbhai who was outside the house immediately came inside the house and saw her daughter sustaining burn injuries, on account of fire. That the Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the deposition of Anjuben in true perspective and erred in coming to the conclusion that what the victim Anjuben narrated before the Court was an afterthought. It is submitted that when Anjuben was under treatment in hospital, Executive Magistrate recorded her dyingdeclaration. Of course, fortunately Anjuben survived, and therefore, the true value of her dying declaration would be only her previous statement, as contemplated u/s.157 of the Evidence Act. However, the Ld. Judge committed serious error in not properly reproducing in his judgment, the relevant part of said dying declaration. That even Anjuben in her proposed dying declaration clearly stated that her motherinlaw, accused No.2 set her on fire. Despite this, Ld. Judge in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment twisted the content of the proposed dying declaration, in the manner as if Anjuben accidentally caught fire. That the Ld. Judge unnecessareely placed reliance upon history of injury given by Anjuben to Medical Officer-Dr. Sherbanu Pathan. It is true that as per the testimony of Dr. Sherbhanu Pathan, Anjuben stated that she herself poured kerosene on her body and got herself ablazed. Therefore, Ld. Judge, erroneously observed that Anjuben attempted to commit suicide. However, it is not even the defence of the accused that Anjuben attempted to commit suicide. That in the crossexamination in the deposition of Anjuben on behalf of the accused, not a single question, much less a suggestion was placed on behalf of the accused that she attempted to commit suicide. That the only defence of the accused is that Anjuben accidentally caught fire and was not ablazed by the accused. There is nothing on record that Anjuben sustained burn injuries due to accident. And even during the course of investigation, no material was collected, which may lead the Court to raise such presumption. That the Ld. That the only defence of the accused is that Anjuben accidentally caught fire and was not ablazed by the accused. There is nothing on record that Anjuben sustained burn injuries due to accident. And even during the course of investigation, no material was collected, which may lead the Court to raise such presumption. That the Ld. Judge should have considered one important aspect of the matter that if at all the father of the victim Anjuben namely Maganbhai wanted to file false complaint and wanted to involve falsely the family of the accused, then, he would have stated that even husband of victim Anjuben namely Ashwinbhai as well as her brotherinlaw were also torturing and causing cruelty to Anjuben. On the contrary, right from the beginning, it is the prosecution case that only both the accused, who are fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of Anjuben, caused cruelty to Anjuben and ultimately they set her on fire. Thus, in short, it is the argument of Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Desai for the appellant - State that considering the deposition of victim Anjuben herself, which is supported by other evidence, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against both the accused. That even considering the panchnama of scene of occurrence, it becomes clear that tin, which is used for storing kerosene (Khadiyo), a stove and a suitcase were found lying near the place of the offence. That there was patch of dried kerosene on the floor of the kitchen. That even burnt pieces of saree, worn by Anjuben at the time of incident were analysed by FSL and marks of kerosene were detected. That therefore, even by circumstantial evidence, it cannot be said that Anjuben accidentally caught fire. On the contrary, prosecution, beyond any reasonable doubt, established its case that both the accused poured kerosene on the body of Anjuben and set her on fire. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Judge be setaside, and both the accused be appropriately convicted and sentenced for the offences charged against them in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Ghotra for the respondents herein, who were original accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case, during his argument fully supported the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Judge. Judge be setaside, and both the accused be appropriately convicted and sentenced for the offences charged against them in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Ghotra for the respondents herein, who were original accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case, during his argument fully supported the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Judge. It was submitted that the judgment delivered by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or contrary to the evidence on record. That in fact, prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case. That evaluating the entire evidence on record, it becomes crystal clear that no case of either causing cruelty to victim Anjuben by the accused or the case for attempting to commit her murder by the accused or the socalled demand of dowry has been established by the prosecution. But on the contrary, the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly suggests that Anjuben sustained accidental burns while preparing tea. Whatever victim Anjuben in her testimony before the Court and whatever her father complainant-Maganbhai in his testimony before the Court stated, is nothing but afterthought and improvements. That victim Anjuben when she was under treatment in hospital , did not state before Executive Magistrate and even before doctor who treated her, that she was set on fire by the accused. Only during the course of recording of evidence, by way of afterthought and improvement, a false testimony is given before the Trial Court, that Anjuben was set on fire by accused. That even such facts stated by Anjuben and her father during the course of evidence, before the Trial Court, did not get support of circumstantial evidence like the panchnama of scene of offence. That considering the panchnama of scene of offence, it becomes clear that there was a vessel (Tapeli) on one of the stoves in the kitchen, and said Tapeli contained some liquid, like tea. That therefore, it becomes clear that the theory of accidental burn can be said to have been established on record. Learned counsel Mr. Ghotra took us through the evidence of witnesses and stated that there are major contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, and they are interested witnesses. No independent witness like any neighbour of the house of the accused is examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel Mr. Ghotra took us through the evidence of witnesses and stated that there are major contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, and they are interested witnesses. No independent witness like any neighbour of the house of the accused is examined by the prosecution. That there is nothing on record that there was any enmity between the two families i.e. the family of the parents of Anjuben and the family of the inlaws of Anjuben. That the prosecution examined complainant-Maganbhai as witness in this case at exh.12 in capacity as socalled eye witness. But in his crossexamination, he clearly admitted that he has not seen the offence being committed. Therefore, it is submitted that this being acquittal appeal, the powers vested in this Court u/s.378 of the Code can be exercised only if this Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal delivered by the Trial Court is perverse, illegal, wrong or contrary to evidence on record. That even two views are possible, one leading to the acquittal of the accused and another leading to guilt of the accused, the view leading to the acquittal of the accused should be accepted by this Court, while exercising powers u/s.378 of the Code. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 5. Now, perusing the impugned judgment delivered by the Trial Court, along with evidence on record, oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution in this case, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed serious error in not properly appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. Perusing the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Judge placed much emphasis upon the statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate of Anjuben when she was under treatment in hospital. However, at the time when the statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, it was recorded with the purpose of using the same as dying declaration, if unfortunately Anjuben had succumbed to the burn injuries. However, fortunately, Anjuben survived, and therefore, the evidential value of her statement before the Executive Magistrate would be like a previous statement of a witness as laid down u/s.157 of the Evidence Act. Now, this statement cannot be used, as contemplated u/s.32 of the Evidence Act. 6. However, fortunately, Anjuben survived, and therefore, the evidential value of her statement before the Executive Magistrate would be like a previous statement of a witness as laid down u/s.157 of the Evidence Act. Now, this statement cannot be used, as contemplated u/s.32 of the Evidence Act. 6. In connection with the said proposed dying declaration, which is now relevant only as a previous statement of Anjuben, which is produced in this case at exh.38, and in connection with said statement, the prosecution examined Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi as witness at exh.35. According to his testimony, after receiving a report from police, he went to SSG Hospital, Vadodara at about 21.55 hours on 25.11.1997. That he was required to record statement of Anju Ashwinbhai Solanki. According to his testimony, he went to ward No. E, room No.4, bed No.6 A, where Anjuben was taking treatment, and he requested the relatives who were there in the room to go out. He stated that Anjuben was conscious, and he asked questions pertaining to the incidence, and Anjuben gave replies. Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi stated that about the pointed question, as to what had happened to her, Anjuben stated that she was set on fire. Then Mr. Joshi in his testimony narrated the facts stated in the statement exh.38. Perusing her statement, exh.38 recorded by Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi, Anjuben clearly stated about cruelty caused to her by her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. It is further stated in it that Anjuben and her husband wanted to reside separately from the accused, and on that count, on dated 25.11.1997, from the morning itself both the accused started quarelling with Anjuben. She narrated that cruelty practically continued for the whole day. That during evening hours, her fatherinlaw sent somebody to call her father Maganbhai. That her father Maganbhai did not directly come to the house of the accused, but, her father was in the house of brother of accused named Rameshbhai, whose house was just adjacent to the house of the accused. She stated that her motherinlaw, accused No.2 Minaben Ashokbhai asked her to prepare tea. Thereupon, she started preparing tea on stove, and at that time also the accused was quarreling with her. That at that time her motherinlaw caught hold of the stove and moved it towards the saree of Anjuben, and her saree was set on fire and consequently she sustained burn injuries. Thereupon, she started preparing tea on stove, and at that time also the accused was quarreling with her. That at that time her motherinlaw caught hold of the stove and moved it towards the saree of Anjuben, and her saree was set on fire and consequently she sustained burn injuries. Now, the Ld. Judge, in the impugned judgment, in paragraph 15, discussed testimony of Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi and the statement exh.38 recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Ld. Judge, in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment while reproducing some of the portions of the statement exh.38, recorded that Anjuben while preparing tea, moved the burning stove, and at that time she was going to standup, and in said process, the loose end of her saree caught fire from the burning stove. In fact, at the cost of repetition, if Anjuben's statement, exh.38 is considered, the fact is otherwise. She clearly stated in her statement, exh.38 that at the time when she was preparing tea, her mother-in-law, accused No.2, Minaben caught hold of the stove and moved it, and the loose end of her saree was set on fire, and consequently, she sustained burn injuries. Whereas, the learned Judge treated her statement exh.38 as if nobody set her on fire, but Anjuben herself moved the stove and loose end of her saree had accidentally caught fire. Under such circumstances, it appears that misinterpreting the true facts, narrated in the statement, exh.38, and even misnarrating the same in the impugned judgment, the learned Judge held that this statement, exh.38 is more useful to the defence than to the prosecution. The learned Judge observed that considering this statement, there is nothing that any of the accused set Anjuben on fire. Thereupon, the learned Judge observed that Anjuben accidentally sustained burn injuries. 7. The next point which according to the Ld. Judge was helpful to defence rather than the prosecution, is a history of injury given to the medical officer when Anjuben was first admitted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara. The prosecution examined Dr. Sherbanu Pathan at exh. 28 and according to her deposition, at about 6.00 p.m., on 25/11/1997 when she was on duty as Medical Officer, SSG Hospital, Vadodara, Anjuben was brought with police Yadi. That upon inquiry to Anjuben about history of her injury, Anjuben stated that on 25/11/1997 she herself poured kerosene on her body and ablazed. Sherbanu Pathan at exh. 28 and according to her deposition, at about 6.00 p.m., on 25/11/1997 when she was on duty as Medical Officer, SSG Hospital, Vadodara, Anjuben was brought with police Yadi. That upon inquiry to Anjuben about history of her injury, Anjuben stated that on 25/11/1997 she herself poured kerosene on her body and ablazed. Considering the medical certificate exh. 29, it is stated therein that “a suicidal burn by kerosene”. However, further considering the testimony of Dr. Sherbanu, she stated that the said injury certificate exh. 29 bears handwriting of Dr. Gupta and bears his signature. Ld. Judge further relied upon a Police Vordhy exh. 42. In connection with Police Vordhy exh. 42, the prosecution examined witness Ramanbhai Chimanbhai at exh. 40. According to his deposition, on 25/11/1997 at about 1910 hours he was on duty as P.S.O in Sayajiganj Police Station. That at that time he telephonically received one message from hospital duty Head Constable Raman Natha. He noted down the message [Vordhy] in station diary. The message noted down by him is produced at exh. 42 and the relevant entry of the message from the station diary is produced at exh. 41. Now considering the message [Vordhy] exh. 42, in short, it is stated that Anjuben was brought to the hospital and a message was received from Dr. Pathan that on 25/11/1997 at 1800 hours because of cruelty and illtreatment by fatherinlaw and motherinlaw, Anjuben lighted a lamp and set her on fire by herself. 8. From the above evidence, the Ld. Judge observed in the impugned judgment that Anjuben accidentally sustained burn injuries. It is clear that the case of the prosecution is that Anjuben was set on fire by both the accused persons. Therefore, heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. It is equally true that in a criminal case, the accused is not supposed to establish any defence. The accused is required to show that primafacie its defence emerges from the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself. Primafacie, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself, if there is a reasonable ground to believe that Anjuben sustained accidental burn, then it can be said that this becomes a second view leading to the acquittal of the accused. The accused is required to show that primafacie its defence emerges from the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself. Primafacie, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself, if there is a reasonable ground to believe that Anjuben sustained accidental burn, then it can be said that this becomes a second view leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, in the instant case, to properly appreciate the above controversy, it is necessary to consider the panchnama of the scene of occurrence. The prosecution examined panch witness Chandubhai Hirabhai at exh. 24 and second panch witness Narsinhbhai Dhulabhai at exh. 26. According to them, they were called by the police for drawing panchnama of the place of offence and such panchnama was drawn. They have stated that panchnama was prepared in their presence and panchnama bears their signatures, which is produced at exh. 25. Considering the panchnama exh. 25, it transpires that the house of the accused, wherein the incident occurred, consists of one room and one kitchen and towards the front side of the room, there is a gallery. In the panchnama it is stated that in the gallery, there was one empty tin of Bagon Spray, which was converted into a lamp [Khadiyo]. Upon smelling said lamp, ordure of kerosene was found by the panchas. Leaving the gallary, there is a room admeasuring 10 x 8 ft. Thereafter, there was a kitchen of the same measurement. It is important to note that in the kitchen, one suitcase was lying, two stoves were there and on one stove there was a vessel [Tapeli] and in it a liquid like tea was there. Important aspect is that on the floor of the kitchen there was a semidried patch of kerosene admeasuring 1½ x 1 ft. 9. Now as per the defence, considering the medical evidence, attempt to commit suicide has emerged on record. Police Vordhy is in tune with the medical evidence. However, it is important to note that neither in the statement of Anjuben recorded by the Executive Magistrate nor in Police Vordhy nor in medical evidence it has even primafacie come on record that Anjuben accidentally sustained burn injuries. Needless to say that, as discussed above, in her statement before the Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi, Anjuben categorically stated that she was set on fire by the accused. Needless to say that, as discussed above, in her statement before the Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi, Anjuben categorically stated that she was set on fire by the accused. It is pertinent to note that it is not the defence of the accused that Anjuben attempted to commit suicide and thereby sustained burn injuries. Ofcourse, as stated above, accused is not supposed to establish its defence, but heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Now if the panchnama of the scene of occurrence is considered, can it be said that there was accidental burn sustained by Anjuben? The Ld. Judge has considered defence of the accused that Anjuben while preparing tea, sustained burn injuries. It is true that at the time of panchnama, on one of the stoves there was a vessel and in it liquid like tea was found. But the important aspect is that there was a semidried patch of kerosene on the floor of the kitchen. If accidentally, loose end of saree of Anjuben caught fire from the flame of the stove, then there would not have been a patch of semidried kerosene on the floor of the kitchen. Moreover, it has come in evidence that after sustaining burn injuries, Anjuben ran out of the kitchen and practically came out of the house and immediately fire was extinguished. Despite this, as per the medical evidence on record, she sustained 1st degree and 2nd degree burns on face, chest, both upper limbs and both thighs. Burnt pieces of saree were recovered by the police and even as per report of FSL exh. 48, analysing the burnt pieces of saree as well as the lamp [Khadiyo], particles of petroleum hydro carbons [kerosene residue] were found. Moreover, the testimony of victim Anjuben can be discussed in this judgment at appropriate time, but in context with this discussion, suffice it to say that during the cross-examination of victim Anjuben by the defence, nowhere a question was asked to her that in the hospital she narrated history of her burn injuries that she herself attempted to commit suicide. Only suggestion was put to her that she sustained burn injuries while preparing tea and she categorically denied this suggestion. 10. In para. 17 of the impugned judgment the Ld. Judge very casually discussed very important evidence like panchnama of the scene of occurrence. Only suggestion was put to her that she sustained burn injuries while preparing tea and she categorically denied this suggestion. 10. In para. 17 of the impugned judgment the Ld. Judge very casually discussed very important evidence like panchnama of the scene of occurrence. While discussing the panchnama in para. 17 of the impugned judgment, the Ld. Judge placed much emphasis on the fact that both the panchas stated that no ordure of kerosene was found by them. Ld. Judge further observed that on one of the stoves, there was a vessel and in it a liquid like tea was found. However, Ld. Judge not at all considered the important aspect mentioned in the panchnama regarding a suitcase found in the kitchen as well as a semidried patch of kerosene found on the floor of the kitchen and a tin containing name of Bagon Spray, which was converted into lamp found in the gallery and from the patch of kerosene as well as from the lamp, heavy ordure of kerosene was felt by the panchas. Further more, the Ld. Judge erred in not considering the FSL report, as discussed in our judgment. 11. Considering the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution examined complainant Maganbhai Desai at exh. 12. According to his deposition, in connection with this incident he lodged FIR before police, which is produced at exh. 13. According to his deposition and the wedding card produced at exh. 49, there is no dispute that his daughter Anjuben married Ashwin, son of the accused, on 16/5/1997. The incident occurred on 25/11/1997. Thus the incident occurred within the span of about 6 months from the date of marriage of his daughter. According to his deposition, after the marriage, his daughter went to reside with her husband and in her husband's house, her fatherin-law and motherinlaw, who are accused in this case, were residing jointly. He stated that after the marriage his daughter went to reside at her husband's house, both the accused physically and mentally tortured her and caused cruelty. According to him, the reason for causing cruelty to his daughter was that Ashwin was jobless. He further stated that money was also demanded from his daughter. He stated that after the marriage his daughter went to reside at her husband's house, both the accused physically and mentally tortured her and caused cruelty. According to him, the reason for causing cruelty to his daughter was that Ashwin was jobless. He further stated that money was also demanded from his daughter. According to him, since the matrimonial home of his daughter was in Vadodara itself, she used to come to her parents' house and whenever she was coming to her parents' house, she used to tell about the illtreatment and cruelty caused to her by the accused. He stated that n the day of incident, at about 5.30 p.m Navnitbhai, who is brother of Ashwin, came to his house and stated that he was called by both the accused. That thereupon, complainant Maganbhai went to the house of the accused. However, according to him, he did not go inside the house but his daughter Anjuben met him outside her house and told him that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused. That thereupon, he decided that Anju should immediately come with him at his house and, therefore, asked her to collect her belongings in a suitcase. That Anjuben went inside the house and he was waiting for Anjuben outside the house and at that time, he heard loud noise. That at that time both the accused were inside the house. That his daughter Anjuben came outside the house and she sustained burn injuries due to fire. He and neighbours immediately extinguished fire and he took her to the hospital for treatment. However, it is true that in his crossexamination on behalf of the defence, he admitted that he did not see the exact incident i.e., both or any of the accused persons setting his daughter Anjuben on fire. On this ground alone the Ld. Judge discarded his entire deposition holding that he was not eye witness and his deposition is of no use to the prosecution. However, his deposition is not required to be appreciated in isolation. His deposition is required to be considered in light of the deposition of victim Anjuben. Coming to the deposition of victim Anjuben recorded at exh. 14, she narrated the illtreatment and cruelty caused to her by her father-inlaw and motherinlaw. However, his deposition is not required to be appreciated in isolation. His deposition is required to be considered in light of the deposition of victim Anjuben. Coming to the deposition of victim Anjuben recorded at exh. 14, she narrated the illtreatment and cruelty caused to her by her father-inlaw and motherinlaw. According to her version, since her husband Ashwin was jobless, the accused blamed her that because of her, Ashwin was not doing any job. She further stated that when the illtreatment caused to her became unbearable, both her husband and herself decided to reside separately from the accused. That provided a ground to cause further illtreatment and torturing by accused on 25/11/1997. She also stated that her husband's brother Navnitbhai was sent by the accused to call her father. That thereafter she was driven away by both the accused and at about 600 p.m., her father complainant Maganbhai came there and she narrated the facts regarding the cruelty and illtreatment caused to her by the accused. That thereupon, she was told by her father to collect her belongings in a suitcase and come with him. That at that time both the accused were in the house. That she went inside the house to collect her belongings. About the incident she stated that as soon as she went inside the house to carry her suitcase, both the accused persons i.e., her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. That, therefore, in a burning position she went outside the house and fire on her body was extinguished and she was removed to hospital. Considering her crossexamination on behalf of the accused about her statement in her examinationinchief that accused had demanded money from her father and that once or twice money was paid to the accused, she stated tat whatever amount she brought from her father was paid to the accused and at the time when the amount was paid by her to the accused, her husband was not present and subsequently she did not tell her husband that money collected from her father was paid to the accused. In her crossexamination she denied the suggestion that at the time when her father had come to her house, she was preparing tea in the kitchen. In her crossexamination she denied the suggestion that at the time when her father had come to her house, she was preparing tea in the kitchen. She even denied the suggestion that in her police statement she had stated that when her father had come to her house, she was preparing tea. As stated earlier, she even denied the suggestion that she accidentally caught fire and was burnt. She stated that because of burn injuries she suffered pain and she does not know as to whether anybody in SSG Hospital inquired to her about the incident. She stated that she does not know as to when she became conscious in hospital. She further sated that she neither informed police or any social organisation that accused demanded money from her parents, nor she informed about it to her relatives. 12. Now simultaneously considering the testimony of the complainant Maganbhai, it is true that about the incident, which took place at about 6.00 p.m., on 25/11/1997, Maganbhai cannot be said to be eye witness. However, his deposition is relevant so far as the case of the prosecution against the accused regarding causing cruelty to Anjuben is concerned. Anjuben herself deposed that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused. However, about demand of dowry and getting money from her father and payment thereof to accused, it can be said that no further particulars are given either by Anjuben or her father as to when the demand of money was made and pursuant thereto, howmuch money was paid by Maganbhai to his daughter so as to transmit the same to the accused. Further more, if at all any amount collected by Anjuben from her father was paid to the accused even during absence of her husband - Ashwinbhai, then it cannot be believed that subsequently even orally she did not inform her husband about the monetary transaction. However, considering the scheme of section 498A of the IPC, it is not necessary that if demand of dowry is made and subsequently on that count cruelty was caused to a married woman by her husband or any of the relatives of her husband, then only offence under section 498A of the IPC is made out. However, considering the scheme of section 498A of the IPC, it is not necessary that if demand of dowry is made and subsequently on that count cruelty was caused to a married woman by her husband or any of the relatives of her husband, then only offence under section 498A of the IPC is made out. Even without such demand of dowry, as per explanation (a) of section 498A of the IPC, any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health [whether mental or physical] of the woman can be said to be a cruelty, as contemplated under section 498A of the IPC. In the instant case, as stated above, Anjuben was blamed for inaction on the part of her husband in doing any job. Because of continuous physical and mental torture, both the spouses decided to reside separately from the accused and that added to the gravity of the ill-treatment and cruelty and the accused thought that because of Anjuben, their son Ashwin decided to reside separately from them. On 25/11/1997 right from the morning, that only was the issue for causing physical and mental illtreatment and cruelty to Anjuben. Unfortunately quarrel by accused with Anjuben ultimately resulted into setting her on fire by the accused. Therefore, evaluating the testimonies of victim Anjuben and her father Maganbhai, it becomes clear that at the time when the incident occurred inside the house, only two accused persons and victim Anjuben were present in the house. Soon before the incident, Anjuben was told by her father to come with him to his house [her father's house], she went inside the house only to collect her belongings in a suitcase. Therefore, there was no reason whatsoever for Anjuben to attempt to commit suicide. Moreover, evaluating their depositions, it becomes clear that soon after the incident, both the accused persons ran away. Neither of them tried to extinguish fire on the body of Anjuben nor they accompanied her father Maganbhai to take Anjuben to hospital. Further more, considering the panchnama of the scene of occurrence, as discussed above, it corroborates the testimony of victim that both the accused set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her body. The Ld. Neither of them tried to extinguish fire on the body of Anjuben nor they accompanied her father Maganbhai to take Anjuben to hospital. Further more, considering the panchnama of the scene of occurrence, as discussed above, it corroborates the testimony of victim that both the accused set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her body. The Ld. Judge even discarded the testimony of victim Anjuben simply on the ground that when the Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi recorded her statement, she did not state that she was set on fire by the accused. In fact that was misreading of the statement exh. 38 by the Ld. Judge. IN her statement exh. 38 she nowhere stated that she sustained burn injuries by accident. Even in cross-examination on behalf of the accused, not a single question was put to her seeking any explanation either about her statement exh. 38 recorded by the Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi or about history of injury stated by Medical Officer Dr. Sherbanu Pathan. 13. The prosecution examined other witnesses like mother of victim named Madhuben Maganbhai, her uncle Kantibhai Fulabhai, her brother Vikrambhai Maganbhai and her another uncle Ishvarbhai Fulabhai on the issue of cruelty caused to her by the accused. According to their testimonies, Anjuben was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused. However, they came to know about the cruelty to Anjuben by the accused as Anjuben whenever used to come to her father's house, used to tell about it. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, fortunately sustaining serious burn injuries Anjuben survived and Anjuben herself deposed before the Court, not only about the incident occurred on 25/11/1997, but even the nature and extent of physical and mental cruelty caused to her by her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. Under such circumstances, when there is a benefit of getting primary evidence from the mouth of the victim herself, even if the secondary evidence about cruelty by accused to Anjuben adduced by all these witnesses is not taken into consideration, yet that would not make any change so far as the case of the prosecution is concerned. 14. Much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents herein about the statement made by Investigation Officer Mr. Solanki in his crossexamination. In his testimony exh. 14. Much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents herein about the statement made by Investigation Officer Mr. Solanki in his crossexamination. In his testimony exh. 44 he admitted that during his investigation, none of the witnesses stated to him that fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of Anjuben poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. However, as stated above, about the incident, except the victim, nobody is eye witness. The incident occurred inside the house and at that time only the two accused persons and the victim were present in the house. Therefore, barring the victim Anjuben, nobody had seen the incident and, therefore, when Investigating Officer says that none of the witnesses told him that Anjuben was set on fire by accused, thereby the entire case of the prosecution does not become doubtful. No pointed question was asked to the Investigating Officer that even victim Anjuben did not tell the Investigating Officer that she was set on fire by the accused. It is well settled that the evidence as a whole is required to be appreciated. Considering the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution, the only view that can be taken is this that the prosecution successfully proved its case regarding the offence of attempt to commit murder as punishable under section 307 of the IPC and the offence of causing cruelty to the victim as punishable under section 498A of the IPC are committed by both the accused persons. In other words, the prosecution proves its case regarding commission of offences punishable under sections 307 and 498A read with section 114 of the IPC by both the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Considering the entire evidence on record, there is nothing that any second opinion can be arrived at which may lead to acquittal of the accused. The only view that can be arrived at is that both the accused are guilty of committing above offences. 15. It was lastly submitted on behalf of the respondents herein by their learned counsel that while pouring kerosene on Anjuben and while setting her on fire, no cogent evidence is adduced by the prosecution as to what exactly the overt act committed by individual accused. In other words, out of the two, which accused poured kerosene on the body of Anjuben and which accused set her on fire. In other words, out of the two, which accused poured kerosene on the body of Anjuben and which accused set her on fire. On this point, according to the learned counsel for the respondents herein, no evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Suffice it to say that considering the deposition of victim Anjuben herself, she clearly stated that both the accused persons took part in commission of the offences. The presence of both the accused was in the house when the incident occurred. Soon after the incident, both the accused ran away and did not wait just to extinguish fire on the body of Anjuben nor accompanied her father Maganbhai to carry Anjuben to hospital. In light of such cogent and clear evidence on record, we do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that merely because no individual over act is attributed to any of the accused persons during the course of evidence adduced by the prosecution, on that count alone both the accused persons deserve acquittal. 15.1. It is now well settled that if the conclusions reached by the trial Court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of law or that its decision is likely to result in grave injustice or that the trial Court acquitted accused on unreasonable grounds and arrived at such conclusion which was not reasonably possible, the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal. It is also well settled that if the trial Court arrived at a conclusion of acquittal of accused on irrational reasons, which is a grave miscarriage of justice and misdirected itself either on question of law or in appreciating evidence before it, the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal. Now in the instant case, I need not to repeat here entire above discussion, but suffice it to say that this is a fit case to interfere with the conclusion of acquittal arrived at by the Ld. Judge in the impugned judgment. As discussed herein-above, the only view that can be taken evaluating truly the evidence on record in the instant case is that the prosecution proved beyond any reasonable doubt its case against both the accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498A read with section 114 of the IPC. 16. Judge in the impugned judgment. As discussed herein-above, the only view that can be taken evaluating truly the evidence on record in the instant case is that the prosecution proved beyond any reasonable doubt its case against both the accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498A read with section 114 of the IPC. 16. Under such circumstances, the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that both the respondents herein, who are original accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case have committed offences punishable under sections 307, 498A read with section 114 of the IPC. So far as the offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is concerned, as discussed above in this judgment, we do not find that they are guilty of these offences. 17. Under such circumstances, to the aforesaid extent, the present appeal preferred by the State deserves to be allowed and both the respondents herein, who are accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case, are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498A read with section 114 of the IPC and considering subsection (a) of section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as under : 18. Learned counsel Mr. Ghotra for the respondents submitted that the respondent - accused no. 1 - Ashokbhai Kuberbhai is the sole earning member in family consisting of seven persons. It is further submitted that even Anjuben in her testimony admitted that all the seven members of the family are dependent upon the income of her fatherin-law-Ashokbhai. She further admitted that the nature of employment of Ashokbhai is of sweeper. However, at the same time, it is further required to be considered that the unfortunate incident occurred within a very short span of married life of Anjuben. As stated above, her marriage with Ashwinbhai, son of respondents, was solemnized on 16/5/1997 and on 25/11/1997 the incident occurred. Moreover, so far as the causing cruelty to Anjuben by the respondents is concerned, considering the over all evidence on record, it transpires that soon after her going to matrimonial home, she was subjected to physical and mental torturing and cruelty by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that her husband Ashwinbhai was supporting his wife Anjuben; despite this, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that her husband Ashwinbhai was supporting his wife Anjuben; despite this, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondents. Under such circumstances, considering the overall view of the matter and the nature of offences committed by the respondents and proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, we deem it proper to award appropriate sentence, as under : The respondent - accused no. 1 - Ashokbhai Kuberbhai and respondent - accused no. 2 - Minaben, W/o. Ashokbhai Kuberbhai, each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 [ten] years and fine of Rs.1,000/ [Rupees one thousand only] and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 6 [six] months for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 114 of the IPC and each of them to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 [two] years and fine of Rs.500/ [Rupees five hundred only] and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 [three] months for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 114 of the IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. Period of imprisonment undergone by them, if any, to be given set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded above. Registry to immediately communicate this order to the Ld. Sessions Judge, Vadodara for due implementation. Both the respondents - accused to surrender before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Vadodara on or before 30/6/2008, failing which the Ld. Sessions Judge will be at liberty to take coercive action to secure presence of the accused, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purpose of due compliance of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.