JUDGMENT Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2001 by the learned Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval dated 17.02.2005 recording acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 304, 506(2), 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds stated in the judgment. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follow: "2.1 As it transpires from the material and evidence on record, the accused is said to have committed offence when the complainant victim (wife) was assaulted and thereafter set ablaze. The complainant wife was married to the respondent before 3 years and had one son out of the wedlock aged about 2 years. However, the harassment started after six months and he used to beat her and thereafter the complainant had returned to her parental house. Thereafter, on assurance, she was again came to the matrimonial home. The respondent-accused (husband) is said to have abused on 30.01.2000 casting aspersion for the character and also insulting her and beating her. Thereafter, as per the version of the complainant victim, the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with the matchstick. Thereafter, as she shouted the mother-in-law and brother-in-law and others took her to private hospital, where she was treated and thereafter she was brought by her father at her village Chuldi. Therefore, the complaint was filed by the complainant, which has been registered as FIR being C.R. No. II-3155 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506(2), 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the offence under Section 307 was also added. 2.2 After investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed and as the offence was triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, learned Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval framed the charges for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 498(A) and also 307 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded with the trial. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the respondent-accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the complainant victim and also produced documentary evidence which shall be referred to in the judgment hereinafter. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the respondent-accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the complainant victim and also produced documentary evidence which shall be referred to in the judgment hereinafter. 2.3 After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval recorded the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.4 After hearing the learned Advocate APP as well as the learned Advocate for the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval recorded the acquittal of the accused." 3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed on the grounds stated in detail in the memo of appeal, inter alia, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval has not properly appreciated the evidence of the complainant victim and the order of the acquittal passed by the Court below is passed on inferences not warranted by the facts of the case. It is also stated that the evidence of the complainant victim has not been properly appreciated that when it is clearly established that the respondent accused has sprinkled the kerosene on her body and set her ablaze, which is disbelieved. It is contended that an error has committed in holding that the deposition and the complainant are not corroborated by the medical evidence. 4. Heard learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the appellant-State and learned Advocate Shri P.V. Patadiya for the Respondent-accused. 5. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the appellant-State referred to the testimony of the complainant victim P.W. 1 at Exh. 6 and submitted that the complaint given by her at Exh. 7 is fully corroborated with regard to the incident and the manner in which the incident occurred. He emphasized that she has clearly stated that she was set ablaze by the respondent after pouring kerosene, which has not been appreciated. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that presence of the accused is not in dispute. The extent and the injuries caused to the complainant victim is also established by the medical evidence. He referred to the testimony of the complainant P.W. No. 1 at Exh. 6 and submitted that it has also been stated in the cross-examination and she has denied the suggestion that the respondent- husband has not poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The extent and the injuries caused to the complainant victim is also established by the medical evidence. He referred to the testimony of the complainant P.W. No. 1 at Exh. 6 and submitted that it has also been stated in the cross-examination and she has denied the suggestion that the respondent- husband has not poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Learned APP Shri Jani also referred to the testimony of other witnesses including the testimony of Dr. Hariyani P.W. No. 3 at Exh. 10 and submitted that as stated by this witness while recording the history given to him by the victim, it is clearly stated that she was set ablaze by the husband. He submitted that he has also stated that patient was in a state of condition to make such statement. He has also referred to Exh. 11, which is a medical certificate of the general hospital at Veraval, wherein also it is clearly stated that the victim was set ablaze by pouring kerosene by the husband. Learned APP has also stated that in the impugned judgment no reference is made to the FSL report, which is also produced at Exh. 22 and 23, which confirms the presence of kerosene in the clothes. He has also referred to the dying declaration produced at Exh. 25 and submitted that it may not be treated as dying declaration, it could be treated as statement given by the complainant victim, which is corroborated by her own testimony and in the said statement she has narrated about the incident how it occurred. Learned APP therefore submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence with care and has casually looked into the material and evidence, which were placed before it and thereby committed error recording the acquittal and therefore the present appeal may be allowed. 6. Learned Advocate Shri P.V. Patadiya for the respondent-accused has submitted that acquittal has been recorded, the Appellate Court would be slow in disturbing the acquittal recorded. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1816 of 2005, which in turn has quoted the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1816 of 2005, which in turn has quoted the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has tried to submit that if the two views are possible, merely because the other view is also possible, it would not justify the interference in the appeal. 7. Learned Advocate Shri Patadiya referred to the evidence at length and submitted that there are discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant victim at Exh. 6 and her complaint at Exh. 7. He also submitted that the testimony of the complainant victim is not corroborated with her complaint and therefore as there is difference in the versions stated in the complaint and her testimony, it may not be accepted as gospel truth. He submitted that in her cross-examination, it has been admitted by her that she has not stated about the fact that the respondent has doubted about her character or that she was confined to house only. Similarly, he submitted that she was taken to the hospital of Dr. Vora. He referred to the case papers produced at Exh. 26 and 27 and submitted that Dr. Vora in his letter at Exh. 27 informed the Investigating Officer that victim had approached him stating that she had received burn injuries due to fire of lamp and thereafter he had made the dressing and no other treatment was given by him. Therefore, learned Advocate Shri Patadiya submitted that statement made in the form of dying declaration at Exh. 25 would not be relevant, as she has survived and it would be only as statement made before the police. He has also submitted that the muddamal was not produced during the trial and therefore if the muddamal is not produced then it would vitiate the trial. In support of this submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2004 (10) SCC 562 in the case of Jitendra and another v. State of M.P. Learned Advocate Shri Patadiya submitted that as it is acquittal appeal, the Court may not disturb the findings recorded by the trial Court, merely because two views are possible. It was submitted that the judgment and order recording acquittal on appreciation of evidence by the trial Court may not be disturbed even if, on appreciation of evidence the Appellate Court is inclined to give a different conclusion. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (3) SCC 75 in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Another and also a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 in the case of Mookiiah and Anr. v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu. 8. Learned APP Shri Jani in rejoinder, submitted that there are no discrepancies in the versions of the complainant-victim as she has fully corroborated her complaint. She has clearly stated in detail in complaint at Exh. 7 past compromise and she has also stated that she was taken to Dr. Vora's private clinic. She has also stated that when somebody from the village informed her father, he had come to Govindpara. However, she was threaten that if she tells her father, she would face consequences and therefore, initially she has not stated to her father that she received the burn injuries while preparing food. Thereafter, when she was taken to her parental home, she disclosed about the incident and she was taken to the government hospital for the treatment. Learned APP Shri Jani therefore submitted that though dying declaration may be treated as statement but it would be corroborative piece of evidence and there is no inconsistency in her complaint, her testimony as well as in the dying declaration. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that muddamal was produced and thereafter it could have been referred to the FSL, which has not been considered by the Court below and therefore such a submission is misconceived. He submitted that reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2004 (10) SCC 562 has no relevance, as it was NDPS case, wherein the muddamal was not produced and therefore these observations have been made and therefore it has no application. 9. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration or not. 10. 9. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration or not. 10. First point with regard to the aspect of appreciation of the evidence of the complainant victim with closer scrutiny revealed that the Court below has failed to consider her testimony. The complainant victim in her testimony at Exh. 6 has clearly stated the manner in which the incident occurred that the Respondent husband has poured the kerosene and set her ablaze. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was denied that she was not set ablaze. In her complaint at Exh. 7, she has stated in the same manner, not only that thereafter what has transpired was also explained by her. Therefore, there is delay in filing the complaint or the FIR. It is required to be mentioned that the medical certificate of the government hospital, Veraval produced at Exh. 11 clearly reveals that she has stated even before the Doctor that respondent husband has poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Therefore, this incident and the presence of the respondent accused is not in dispute. Thus, the manner in which it would have occurred and the injuries sustained to the complainant are required to be examined. As stated above, she has narrated in her complaint as well as in her testimony a specific case that her husband poured kerosene and set her ablaze and her husband is sole responsible for such act. She does not try to implicate others in the family. Further, in the cross-examination, as she has candidly stated that in her complaint she has not stated about the fact that she was abused about her character, therefore, a close scrutiny of testimony corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of the medical certificate at Exh. 11 as well as the testimony of the Dr. Hariyani P.W. No. 3 at Exh. 10 corroborated by her version as well as the injuries. The P.W. No. 3 has also confirmed that the victim had stated while giving history that her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. He has also stated that there was burn injuries for which the treatment was given initially by Dr. Vora and thereafter she was brought to the government hospital. He has also stated about her condition that she was able to give her history. He has also stated that there was burn injuries for which the treatment was given initially by Dr. Vora and thereafter she was brought to the government hospital. He has also stated about her condition that she was able to give her history. This aspect has not been appreciated and dealt with in the judgment by the Court below and has tried to adopt the casual approach in appreciation of this relevant evidence while appreciation this evidence the Court below has not considered this specific evidence of the complainant victim corroborated by the medical evidence. 11. In this background, the Court is required to consider the broad guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to approach while dealing with such acquittal appeals. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 in the case of Chandrappa and Ors., v. State of Karnataka has made observations relying upon the earlier judgment emphasizing that, "It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong". Thus, while considering the concept of substantial and compelling reasons for interfering, the Court is required to consider the basic principle that there must not be any miscarriage of justice. In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has also quoted from the earlier judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793 in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, that, "In law there are no fetters on the plenary power of the appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed, it has a duty to scrutinize the probative material de novo, informed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttable innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into an acquittal the homage our jurisprudence owes to individual liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the holding without very convincing reasons and comprehensive considerations." Again it has been further observed that, "....... The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned author (Glanville Williams : 'Proof of Guilt') has saliently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned author (Glanville Williams : 'Proof of Guilt') has saliently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that 'a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from, the conviction of innocent........ ' In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents". Further, it has been observed and quoted from the earlier judgment reported in (2003) 12 SCC 606 in the case of Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors. that, "21. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not." 12. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not." 12. Further, the reliance placed by learned Advocate Shri Patadiya referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1816 of 2005 and other judgments quoted therein including the judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , on the contrary this judgment supports the submissions made by the learned APP. In this judgment, it has been clearly observed that the High Court is obliged to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere, it will find an assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take different view. Again in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (7) SCC 681 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madandal, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to this very aspect has observed and quoted from the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (6) SCC 158 in the case of K. Anbazhangan v. State of Karnataka that, "39. ..... The appellate court has a duty to make a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case. The evidence brought on record in entirety has to be scrutinized with care and caution. It is the duty of the Judge to see that justice is appropriately administered, for that is the paramount consideration of a Judge. The said responsibility cannot be abdicated or abandoned or ostracized, even remotely, solely because there might not have been proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the parties. The appellate court is required to weigh the materials, ascribe concrete reasons and the filament of reasoning must logically flow from the requisite analysis of the material on record. The approach cannot be cryptic. It cannot be perverse. The duty of the Judge is to consider the evidence objectively and dispassionately. The reasonings in appeal are to be well deliberated. They are to be resolutely expressed. An objective judgment of the evidence reflects the greatness of mind- sans passion and sans prejudice. The approach cannot be cryptic. It cannot be perverse. The duty of the Judge is to consider the evidence objectively and dispassionately. The reasonings in appeal are to be well deliberated. They are to be resolutely expressed. An objective judgment of the evidence reflects the greatness of mind- sans passion and sans prejudice. The reflective attitude of the Judge must be demonstrable from the judgment itself. A judge must avoid all kind of weakness and vacillation. That is the sole test. That is the litmus test." 13. Thus, what is required to be considered is the appreciation of evidence with the reasoning to arrive at the findings by the Court below and all vital features of the case require closer scrutiny of the evidence. As stated above, while recording reasons for the findings and conclusion of the acquittal, the Court below has failed to consider the relevant aspect as stated above and appreciation of evidence is rather casual then specific, which needed a closer scrutiny. Again on closer scrutiny and appreciation of evidence which this Court is also entitled and obliged to undertake has clearly found that the judgment and order recording acquittal cannot be sustained. 14. Therefore, the present appeal recording acquittal of the accused for the charges for the offences under Section 323, 304, 506(2), 498(A) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. The Respondent accused is held guilty for the offences 323, 304, 506(2), 498(A) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate Shri Patadiya is also heard on this aspect of sentence and has submitted that considering the lapse of time and family circumstances, he may be given sentence of only two years for all the offences. Learned APP Shri Jani however, submitted that considering the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, a separate sentence may be awarded. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed in the Sessions Case No. 8 of 2001 passed by the learned Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval dated 17.02.2005, is set aside. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed in the Sessions Case No. 8 of 2001 passed by the learned Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval dated 17.02.2005, is set aside. The respondent accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 304, 506(2), 498(A), 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo: (i) Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307; (ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section498-A Indian Penal Code; (iii) The respondent-accused is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) for each offence and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. Further, the respondent-accused is ordered to undergo: (i) Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323; (ii) Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) The Respondent-accused is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) for each offence and in default to undergo Simple Impressionist for one month. Bail bonds stand cancelled. All these sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The Respondent-accused shall surrender himself before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to serve the sentence. 16. Learned Advocate Shri Patadiya shall intimate the respondent-accused regarding surrender to comply with the order. Record and proceedings, be sent to the Court below forthwith.