Judgment : A. R. Joshi, J. 1. Present appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra-original complainant through Police Station Officer, Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur against judgment and order of acquittal dated 04/02/1997 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1996 in which both the accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The original accused were acquitted from all the charges. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, original accused No. 1 Smt. Jubedabee died and as such the present appeal abated against her leaving present respondent-original accused No. 2 to face the appeal. 3. Heard rival submissions at length. Perused the evidence recorded before the trial Court and impugned judgment. 4. The case of prosecution in nutshell is as follows:- (a) The family of the deceased girl and both the accused were residing in the same locality at Motibagh, Nagpur. On the fateful day i.e. on 09/3/1996 there was some incident of quarrel at the common water tap in the said locality when there was some altercation between the deceased girl Ku. Ruksana and original accused No. 1. Said quarrel happened at about 10.00 a.m. (b) After such quarrel, one Smt. Shehnaz, mother of Ku. Ruksana slapped her daughter on account of said quarrel on the water tap. Thereafter said Shehnaz was washing utensils at the water tap and victim girl Ruksana was at her house doing some work. At that time, both the accused entered her house and poured kerosene over her person and set her ablaze by igniting match stick. Clothes of Ruksana caught fire. She raised shouts. Both the accused left the spot and ran away. (c) Ruksana came out of her house and fell in front of house of one Smt. Lilabai. Various persons from nearby locality gathered. Information reached to Shehnaz and she rushed to her house and saw her daughter lying on the ground outside and having sustained severe burn injuries. The victim was shifted to Mayo Hospital. 5. While under treatment, police officials from concerned Panchpaoli police station reached the hospital. After sending requisition to the Medical Officer and after obtaining the report as to state of health of the victim, her statements were recorded. Apparently, three statements of victim girl were recorded. The victim was shifted to Mayo Hospital. 5. While under treatment, police officials from concerned Panchpaoli police station reached the hospital. After sending requisition to the Medical Officer and after obtaining the report as to state of health of the victim, her statements were recorded. Apparently, three statements of victim girl were recorded. Exh.35 recorded by P.W.-9 Vitthal, Station House Officer, another one Exh.41 recorded by P.W.-10 Ashok Bhagat, the Investigating Officer and third one Exh.-49 recorded by Special Executive Magistrate-P.W.-11 Vasant Parate. 6. Last statement Exh.49 is in the question and answer form. It is mentioned therein that incident of setting the victim on fire occurred in the house of the victim and that time sister of the victim one Rizwana aged about 10 years was also at the house. In all these statements, the victim has implicated both the accused and virtually indicates the incident of pouring kerosene and setting the victim on fire. 7. While under treatment in the Mayo Hospital for 93% burn injuries, victim succumbed to such injuries and died at about 4.20 p.m. on the same day i.e. 09/3/1996. 8. Soon after recording of the statement of the victim the offence was registered against both the accused under Sections 448, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 160 of 1996. After the death of the victim, offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was inserted. 9. During investigation, spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were conducted, postmortem report was obtained and statements of various witnesses were recorded. Both the accused were arrested. Their clothes were seized and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 10. During the trial eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Out of these witnesses, important witnesses are P.W.-2 Smt. Shehnaz - mother of the victim, P.W.-3 Imran Qureshi “a boy of tender age of 7 years, brother of the victim and P.W.-6” Ms Rizawana, again a girl of tender age of 10 years, sister of the victim. 11. One defence witness Smt. Lilabai was examined on behalf of the accused. 12. We have gone through the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge, who scrutinized the evidence of these three witnesses with care and caution. 11. One defence witness Smt. Lilabai was examined on behalf of the accused. 12. We have gone through the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge, who scrutinized the evidence of these three witnesses with care and caution. Considering the substantive evidence of P.W.-3 Imran as to his school hours from 8.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and on the day of the incident he had gone to the school, it can be said that the trial Court had rightly doubted presence of the said witness at the house during the incident. So far as the evidence of P.W.-3 Miss Rizawana is concerned, according to this witness, she was in the courtyard and saw both the accused running from the lane. She did not mention that accused persons were in the house and that she saw the incident of accused setting the victim on fire. As against this, according to dying declaration (Exh.49) statement of the victim recorded by P.W.-11, P.W.-3 was at home. 13. So far as P.W.-2 Smt. Shehnaz, mother of the victim is concerned, though, in her examination-in-chief she narrated as to both the accused setting her daughter on fire, definitely she was not the eye witness and during her cross-examination she had answered that both the accused followed her to the spot from the common water tap when she learnt regarding burning of her daughter. Even similar such evidence is given by P.W.-4 Puniyabee, a nearby resident. Said P.W.-4 and another witness P.W.-5 Abdul did not support the case of the prosecution and denied having witnessed the incident of burning and denied having involvement of the accused in the incident. P.W.-2 Smt. Shehnaz and also P.W.-4 Puniyabee had deposed that Shehnaz beat the victim severely due to the quarrel on the water tap, the victim had with accused No.1. Similar is the evidence of defence witness D.W.-1 Lilabai as to both the accused remained at the water tap till P.W.-2 Shehnaz hearing about the incident of burning of her daughter. 14. In view of substantive evidence as discussed, the learned trial Judge had held that both the accused were at the common water tap and followed P.W.-2 Smt. Shehnaz to the spot and this was corroborated by D.W.-1 Puniyabee. 15. 14. In view of substantive evidence as discussed, the learned trial Judge had held that both the accused were at the common water tap and followed P.W.-2 Smt. Shehnaz to the spot and this was corroborated by D.W.-1 Puniyabee. 15. In view of the above discussion, now it remains to be analyzed whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of dying declarations recorded by three different officers. It is an accepted position that said evidence of dying declarations is not corroborated by any other evidence much less the evidence of P.W.-6 Miss Rizwana. 16. It is observed from the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge that a reasonable doubt is entertained by him whether the death of Ruksana was homicidal or suicidal and in that event benefit of doubt was given in favour of both the accused. 17. In the impugned judgment and order one circumstance is discussed by the learned Sessions Judge as to finding of diesel in the can recovered from the house of the victim and case of the prosecution as to pouring of kerosene over the person of the victim by the accused. This difference in the material used to set the victim on fire led the learned Additional Sessions Judge to further doubt the case of the prosecution. In our view, mere finding of diesel in the can allegedly recovered from the house of the victim may not be of much significance though according to the prosecution, the case is of pouring of kerosene as according to the dying declarations of the victim, the material used to set the deceased on fire was “kerosene”. 18. Though it was so mentioned in the dying declarations as to use of kerosene, allowance is required to be given for such wrong description of the material when hardly a common man can identify subtle distinction between “kerosene” and the “diesel” by smelling the liquids. On this count, though we do not approve the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, still on the other counts as to doubting the case of the prosecution mainly because of effect of the substantive evidence of the witnesses, a reasonable doubt must be entertained so far as involvement of the accused persons. 19. In dealing with the appeal against acquittal, circumstances must be so overwhelming so as to point out to the perverse finding in the impugned judgment and order. 19. In dealing with the appeal against acquittal, circumstances must be so overwhelming so as to point out to the perverse finding in the impugned judgment and order. In other words, there must be evidence of such a standard so as to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused persons for the offences charged. On this point following authority is cited on behalf of the respondent. [2006(1)B Cr C 671] State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Kisan Mane - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal-Interference by High Court-If view taken by Trial Court is reasonably possible, Appellate Court even though having power to reappreciate evidence, should not disturb in acquittal, merely because another better or more preferable view is possible-Findings arrived since not perverse, interference in acquittal declined. 20. We are in agreement with reasons recorded by Sessions Court as well with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent. In our opinion, considering the material which was available before the Additional Sessions Judge, there is nothing to alter the judgment and finding of acquittal and now to convict present respondent No. 2 for the offences of house tress-pass and murder. 21. In the result, the present appeal must fail and same is accordingly dismissed.