Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This application for leave to appeal arises out a judgment dated 19.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 11.2.2005 (Sessions Case No. 3 of 2005), recording acquittal of the accused in respect of offences of bride burning and cruelty punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 2. The prosecution case is based on an application (Ex.P1) dated 22.10.2004 made by one Ajit Kumar, brother of deceased Kiran, stating therein that the deceased was married to accused Anil son of Tulsi Ram, resident of Chaudhriyan Mohalla, Diamond Chowk, Jhajjar, on 13.4.2003. The deceased was turned out of her matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry earlier also. Just two months prior to the occurrence, she had been forced to leave the matrimonial home on that count. On 21.10.2004, accused Anil along with his brother-in-law (sisters husband), Ashok Batra, came to the parental house of the deceased and asked her parents etc. to send her back to her matrimonial home, which was refused. There was also an altercation for that. However, on an assurance, the deceased was again sent back to the matrimonial home. A day thereafter on 22.10.2004, at about 9.00 AM, the complainant received a telephonic message from a neighbourer of the deceased that she had been burnt. He also came to know that she had been taken to the PGIMS, Rohtak for treatment. When the complainant and other members of family reached the hospital, the deceased was conscious and was talking. She told the complainant that she was set ablaze by her husband Anil, brother-in-law Ashok Kumar, and the elder brother-in-law (jeth) for demand of dowry. Thereafter, she became unconscious. According to the complainant, the ladies of the house were also involved in the incident. On his application (Ex.P1), an endorsement (Ex.P1/A) was made and it was sent to the Police Station through Constable Rajesh Kumar for registration of the case. A fonnal FIR No. 356 dated 22.10.2004 was registered under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. During the investigations, the statements of witnesses were recorded. On 23.10.2004, a V.T. Message was received by the Police Station, Jhajjar, that the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries. Thereafter the offence of Section 304-B IPC was added in the FIR. A copy of the FIR was sent to the PGIMS, Rohtak. During the investigations, the statements of witnesses were recorded. On 23.10.2004, a V.T. Message was received by the Police Station, Jhajjar, that the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries. Thereafter the offence of Section 304-B IPC was added in the FIR. A copy of the FIR was sent to the PGIMS, Rohtak. ASI Bijender Singh conducted the inquest of dead body, whereas further investigation was done by SI Rajender Singh. SI Rajender Singh visited the spot and on his directions, photographs of the scene of occurrence were also taken. He drew a correct site plan and seized a half burnt salwar, jumpher, a plastic container and match box which were lifted from the scene of occurrence. They were made into a parcel and taken in possession vide the memo (Ex.Pl7). The case property was finally deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable and the statements of witnesses were also recorded. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted on 23.10.2004. On 24.10.2004, the I.O. again visited the spot and arrested accused Anil and Ashok Kumar who suffered disclosure statements (Ex.P22 and Ex.P23). The police sought their remand. Anil made a further disclosure statement (Ex.P24) and got recovered some dowry articles on 25.10.2004, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P25). Statements of other witnesses were also recorded. A challan was laid after completion of the investigation against accused Anil and Ashok Kumar and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accused Anil and Ashok Kumar were charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304 read with Section 34 IPC and the trial proceeded. During the course of trial, after 7 witnesses had been examined, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 16.3.2005. Learned trial Court vide the order dated 2.6.2005, thus summoned accused Neelam wife of Gulshan and accused Gulshan, for the same offence and they were put on trial on the same charges. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, Ajit Kumar (PW 1), HC Vijay kumar (PW 2), HC Surender Kumar (PW 3), Dr. S.P. Chugh (PW 4), Constable Jai Chand (PW 5) , HC Vikram Singh (PW 6), Constable Ram Kumar (PW 7), ASI Mahipal (PW8), Dr. Ravi Kanta (PW9), Dr. Asha Sehrawat (PW 10), Dr. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, Ajit Kumar (PW 1), HC Vijay kumar (PW 2), HC Surender Kumar (PW 3), Dr. S.P. Chugh (PW 4), Constable Jai Chand (PW 5) , HC Vikram Singh (PW 6), Constable Ram Kumar (PW 7), ASI Mahipal (PW8), Dr. Ravi Kanta (PW9), Dr. Asha Sehrawat (PW 10), Dr. Ashish Jain (.PW 11), SI/SHO Rajender Singh (PW 12), EHC Hem Chander (PW 13), Submit Kumar (PW 14), and ASI Bijender Singh (PW 15). However, some of the witnesses were given up as won over. The prosecution also placed reliance on the application (Ex.P1) given by the complainant and the endorsement (Ex.P1/A) thereon for recording-an FIR. Affidavit of one Vijay Singh, ASI, was also taken as evidence on record vide Ex.P2. Photographs (Ex.P3 to Ex.P5) and their negatives (Ex.P6 to Ex.P8), and the dying declaration (Ex.P9) were placed on record. The prosecution also pressed into service other materials like scaled site plan (Ex.P10), affidavit of Constable Ram Kumar (Ex.P11), FIR (Ex.P12), postmortem report (Ex.P13), application for postmortem (Ex.P13/A), inquest report (Ex.Pl3/B), MLR (Ex.P14), medical qua (Ex.P14/A), FSL report (Ex.P15), site plan (Ex.P16), and recovery Memos (Ex.P17 to Ex.P21) of half burnt clothes, plastic container, match box etc. etc. Disclosure statement (Ex.P22) suffered by accused Ashok Kumar, and that of accused Anil being (Ex.P23) and (Ex.P24), and recovery pursuant thereto vide recovery memo (Ex.P25), were also placed towards evidence by the prosecution. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded innocent. They examined one defence witness Tek Chand Sahrma and also placed reliance on application (Ex.D1.). opinion of the doctor (Ex.D1/A), and affidavits of Smt. Shano Devi (Chanderkala (Ex.D2) and of one Ajit Kumar (Ex.D3) and then closed the defence evidence. During the course of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge came across a dying declaration and noticed certain serious defects therein. Besides. the complainant (PW1) and his brother Satish Kumar (PW4) turned hostile. The trial Court did not find any cogent material to accept the prosecution case, and hence, by the impugned judgment, recorded the order of acquittal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Crl. Misc. and the grounds of appeal as also the documents submitted during the course of hearing. 5. The trial Court did not find any cogent material to accept the prosecution case, and hence, by the impugned judgment, recorded the order of acquittal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Crl. Misc. and the grounds of appeal as also the documents submitted during the course of hearing. 5. Learned counsel for the State while assailing the impugned judgment submitted that there was motive for commission of offence, inasmuch as, on earlier occasions also, the deceased had been turned out from matrimonial home for demand of dowry. This is also her submission that in the dying declaration recorded by a Board of three Doctors, names of all the accused with their respective roles were mentioned. She further submitted that when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she was conscious and had given a complete statement. Learned counsel also referred to two judgments of Honble the Apex Court in support of her contention that the dying declaration recorded by the Board of Doctors did not suffer from any defect. They are reported in (i) 2006(6) SCC 710 (Laxman v. State of Maharashtra) (five Judge Bench), and (ii) AIR 2008 SC 10 (State of Rajasthan v. Parthu.) In the first judgment of a five Judge Bench, it has been noticed that mere absence of doctors certification as to the fitness of the declararts state of mind, would not ipso facto render the dying declaration unacceptable, if recorded by a Magistrate. In the second judgment also, the Honble Court has field that it is too technical a view to refuse reliance on a dying declaration on the ground that there was no attention of such statement by a doctor, although the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of a doctor. 6. In the second judgment also, the Honble Court has field that it is too technical a view to refuse reliance on a dying declaration on the ground that there was no attention of such statement by a doctor, although the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of a doctor. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that at 1.00 PM, the police moved an application to the doctor to find out as to whether the patient was fit to make a statement and the opinion was given in negative and in the bed head ticket of the patient also, it has come in writing that the said condition continued till 4.00 PM, but strangely enough at 2.10 PM, a Board of three Doctors claimed to have recorded the statement even though no request was made by the police which was present in the hospital to constitute a Board of Doctors for recording the dying declaration. Curiously enough, the Director of the Institute has been mentioned to have given an oral instruction to constitute the Board of Doctors for that purpose. 7. On due consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any valid reason to agree with the submissions of learned State counsel. The author of the FIR Ajit Kumar (PW 1) as also his brother Satish Kumar (PW 4) have turned hostile and have resiled from their police statements. The dying declaration recorded under circumstances shrouded with mystery in the absence of any ocular evidence of the complainant and/or his brother cannot be placed reliance for recording conviction. The way, the Board of Doctors has recorded the dying declaration and the place where they have taken the thumb impression of the deceased rather suggest that the thumb impression was taken on a blank paper which was subsequently misused. When at 1.00 PM, on a written request by the police, it was noted that the patient was not fit to make a statement and that condition continued upto 4.00 PM, without a request by the police present on the spot, there was no justification for constituting a Board of Doctors without anything in writing, by the Director of the Institute. The only explanation now being given is that the Board of Doctors was constituted on the oral instructions of the Director. The only explanation now being given is that the Board of Doctors was constituted on the oral instructions of the Director. In this background, we may observe that such conduct on the part of the doctors was unethical and showed a complete lack of medico-legal knowledge. Recording of the dying declaration was not an exception to their day to day duties and rather they may be doing it in routine every day. Thus, the Board of Doctors appears to have intentionally recorded the dying declaration in question. While discussing about the settled principles of law on interference with the judgments of acquittal by the High Courts, Honble the Apex Court in the judgments reported in (i) 2002(3) RCR (Crl.) 861 (Harijana Thirupala and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P Hyderabad); (ii) 2004(2) RCR (Crl.) 940 (Shingara Singh v State of Haryana and another, and (iii) AIR 2005 SC 2439 (State of U.P. v. Gambhir Single and others), has held that even if another view is possible, that itself would be no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal unless it was shown that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court was either perverse, or untenable and that in ordering acquittal, the trial Court either ignored material evidence or that the view taken by it was patently untenable. The Honble Court has reiterated its view time and again that if two views are reasonably possible on the basis of evidence, the view of acquittal taken by the trial Court would be a possible reasonable view and in such cases, the High Courts need not interfere. 8. Hence, Crl. Misc. No. 360-MA of 2007 (application for leave to appeal) is, hereby, dismissed. Resultantly, criminal appeal also fails and is dismissed.